Proposed US Defense Budget Changes

So yesterday, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates outlined his proposal for the Department of Defense's 2010 budget. His proposal contains some pretty significant changes from the DOD's budget over the last several years. Basically, it cuts funding to a bunch of high-tech, high-cost weapons systems that are oriented towards fighting conventional "symmetrical" wars, and puts a lot more funding towards manpower, surveillance/intelligence resources, special operations forces, and other stuff that will putatively help the US in it's current "asymmetrical" conflicts against unconventional guerrilla/insurgent enemies. A quick run down:

• Halt production of the F-22 at 187 units, which will mean buying 4 more (we currently have 183) and then stopping the program. Simultaneously, ramp up purchase of the cheaper F-35, and buy more F/A-18s for the Navy.

• Cancel the VH-71 program, which is aimed at procuring new Presidential helicopters for the "Marine One" fleet (thank god, this program was a total waste). Also cancel a $15 billion program to develop new search-and-rescue choppers for the Air Force.

• Reorient the ballistic missile defense program towards defending against missile launches from "rogue states", as well as battlefield systems to protect troops against tactical missile threats. In other words, less focus on shooting down ICBMs, more focus on shooting down Scuds and North Korean dong-missiles.

• Totally cancel the Transformational Satellite Communications System, which currently costs about $25 billion.

• Stop any further growth of procurement plans for the Zumwalt-class destroyer (price tag: A couple billion bucks per ship) and instead keep upgrading and procuring the existing Arleigh Burke class, which are much cheaper.

• Cut the vehicle components from the Army's Future Combat Systems program and instead stick with Abrams tanks, Bradley IFVs, and Strykers for the foreseeable future (I'm not so sure this is a good idea). The FCS program as a whole costs about $160 billion right now, this reduction will remove a good chunk of that.

• Budget another $11 billion to recruit another 65,000 personnel for the Army and another 27,000 personnel for the Marine Corps.

• Budget another $2 billion for the surveillance and intelligence-gathering systems, such as unmanned aircraft, that are proving very useful in our current conflicts (make with the spy-blimps, DARPA).

• Add another 2,800 personnel to various special operations units (Army Special Forces, Navy SEALs, etc.).

That's not all, but it's most of the major items. This is going to make a lot of people unhappy. A lot of congressmen are strong supporters of programs like the F-22, because those programs provide a lot of jobs in their home districts. They aren't going to want to see programs like that terminated. It's also going to displease people, both in the military and in the civilian government, who think the US needs to keep it's conventional warfare abilities on the cutting edge. It's also not going to go over too well with companies like Lockheed Martin, who are providing a lot of the high-tech weapon systems (especially missile systems and aviation systems) that are getting cut. For instance, anyone who reads the Washington Post may have noticed that Lockheed Martin has recently been running a bunch of full-page ads talking about how the F-22 program employs 95,000 Americans and stuff like that (talk about terminating the F-22 has been going around for a while now, this new budget proposal isn't the first time it's been suggested). Congressional reaction has been pretty subdued so far, for various reasons, but you can bet that these proposals will become an issue at some point. Congress won't be able to hammer out the 2010 budget legislation without a lot of arguing over this.

So: Thoughts? I know a lot of people have strong feelings one way or the other on the US military, the things it does, and the things it buys.

I don't know, to be honest. I find the military-industrial complex to be sickening and a huge drain on taxpayers' money.

In addition, there was talk about decommisioning 1 of the US's 11 aircraft carriers.

Well...this is a triple-edged sword of reform right here. Hurting monopsony is never a good thing, because those companies employ a bunch of people. Of course, they could always redistribute their manpower to ramp up production on what the government does want, but that is an imperfect solution. On the plus side, it is good that they are making significant defense budget cuts, as trimming the budget in a time like this is probably for the best, and it will give Obama more money to work with (I don't like what he's doing with a lot of the money he is using, but it is better for him to have enough money to actually roll things out than to have him half-ass programs that will need to be fixed later). On the in-between side, there is a danger to halting our technical defense advancement (if the shit does end up hitting the fan, we don't want to get blown away just by virtue of inferior technology).

So, overall, I suppose I would have to lean towards this being a bad plan. The jobs protected by the government defense monopsony are pretty damn important, and the people working for them aren't really going to be helped by any government jobs that the money from these cuts could potentially create. Being behind on military technology is never good. The superpowers staying about equal in technology is pretty important for global stability, and we don't want to get behind (especially considering the power of China). The benefits don't seem to justify the potential costs.

It's all just a government subsidy to continue funding otherwise uncompetitive businesses in order to maximize military capability. If we didn't have any threat of armed conflict, we wouldn't need to spend it, and these companies could try their shake in the free market.

Unfortunately, what Eisenhower didn't bother to acknowledge about the military-industrial complex is that it is also driven by external factors (namely, ones that don't mind killing us) and, more than anything, the American belief that we should never suffer under any circumstances from any war. We have never been attacked, and we have never rebuilt our lives. Americans, even the Greatest Generation, cannot fathom a 9/11 a day. If we want to break free of that (the way Europe has, in part by cutting budgeting and in part by contracting through Americans), we are going to have to prove we don't have a glass jaw, because we will certainly be tested.

Ok I'll admit that I'm not the most weapons grade savvy in the room. Even with all these cost cuts, are we sacrificing quality? I mean upgrading might be cheaper, but if we put new wheels on a Model T, it's still outdated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

On the plus side, it is good that they are making significant defense budget cuts, as trimming the budget in a time like this is probably for the best, and it will give Obama more money to work with (I don't like what he's doing with a lot of the money he is using, but it is better for him to have enough money to actually roll things out than to have him half-ass programs that will need to be fixed later).

---

Sorry, I should have made this clear in the OP: Gates' defense budget proposal for next year does NOT entail an overall reduction in the size of the DOD's budget. In fact, it's actually $20 billion larger than this year's defense budget. Money will be cut from many programs, but just as much money will be added to other programs. So we're talking about a reshuffling of money within the DOD budget, away from high-tech weapons systems and towards counterinsurgency-oriented programs, rather than an actual spending cut.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by no_brains_no_worries

Ok I'll admit that I'm not the most weapons grade savvy in the room. Even with all these cost cuts, are we sacrificing quality? I mean upgrading might be cheaper, but if we put new wheels on a Model T, it's still outdated.

---

Yeah, kind of. But it's all a very complicated game of balancing need vs. cost within programs and between programs, both in response to current needs and in response to projected future needs. Sure, a brand-new system could offer superior capability in comparison to an upgraded existing system. But is the increased capability proportionate to the increased price, or are we paying five times as much for only twice the performance? And just how important is it to have maximum capability in that mission requirement, vs. all the other mission requirements that various other systems exist to fill? The DOD's budget is large but nevertheless finite, and there isn't enough money to buy the best possible equipment for every mission requirement. So choices have to be made on the basis of prioritization of needs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

Sorry, I should have made this clear in the OP: Gates' defense budget proposal for next year does NOT entail an overall reduction in the size of the DOD's budget. In fact, it's actually $20 billion larger than this year's defense budget. Money will be cut from many programs, but just as much money will be added to other programs. So we're talking about a reshuffling of money within the DOD budget, away from high-tech weapons systems and towards counterinsurgency-oriented programs, rather than an actual spending cut.

---

Oh, well there goes that part of my statement...

In that case, I have to say this is awful, not to mention terribly pessimistic. Ideally in a few years we'll be out of those countries and won't have to deal with insurgents again for a very long time. It is poor strategy to take investments out of programs that will help us in the long term and pump those investments into solutions to a short-term problem that isn't even really that big of a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

Oh, well there goes that part of my statement...

In that case, I have to say this is awful, not to mention terribly pessimistic. Ideally in a few years we'll be out of those countries and won't have to deal with insurgents again for a very long time. It is poor strategy to take investments out of programs that will help us in the long term and pump those investments into solutions to a short-term problem that isn't even really that big of a problem.

---

Ahhhh.. the thing is, insurgency/guerrilla warfare is almost certainly not going to end once we pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, to a large degree, it is probably going to be one of the dominant modes of warfare in the 21st century. It's not like Iraq/Afghanistan are minor detours and we'll get back to fighting old-fashioned conventional wars afterwards. Iraq and Afghanistan show us what a lot of conflict is going to be like in the coming decades: Asymmetrical, non-linear, low-intensity, and fought against an unconventional or irregular enemy.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I agree that it's important to preserve a strong conventional capability. Just because unconventional conflicts are going to be common in the coming decades doesn't mean conventional wars are a thing of the past. But that conventional capability has to be balanced with unconventional capabilities; we have to be able to do both well. I think the idea behind Gates' proposal is that our current defense budget is weighted too heavily towards conventional capabilities, to the detriment of our efforts in current and future unconventional conflicts, and he wants to move it more towards a balanced mid-point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

Ahhhh.. the thing is, insurgency/guerrilla warfare is almost certainly not going to end once we pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, to a large degree, it is probably going to be one of the dominant modes of warfare in the 21st century. It's not like Iraq/Afghanistan are minor detours and we'll get back to fighting old-fashioned conventional wars afterwards. Iraq and Afghanistan show us what a lot of conflict is going to be like in the coming decades: Asymmetrical, non-linear, low-intensity, and fought against an unconventional or irregular enemy.

---

Call me an optimist, but I think so long as we don't stick our nose where it doesn't belong and don't do anything to make ourselves weaker (or look weaker) we probably won't have any more wars for a while. North Korea would be a threat, but they are too dumb to actually be legitimate, and if they keep on doing what they are doing the UN will eventually shut them down anyway. Iran would be a threat if they could possibly survive alienating themselves from the world (which they can't).

With a democrat in the White House we aren't going to be attacking anyone, and, strategically, the list of people who could legitimately attack us is a small list of people who would never do it, and China (who won't do it so long as they keep thinking our money is worth something).

EDIT: Well, that is a valid point about us being unbalanced. We proved that pretty quickly in Iraq. I can see moving some money out of combat vehicles and into personnel, but we don't want to overdo it either. I still think this move is too drastic. It would be better to make this a more gradual change if we're going to make it.

Optimism is fine, but I think history will show that most conflicts aren't seen coming even a few years before they break out. It may seem like we have a pretty clear horizon after we untangle ourselves from Iraq/Afghanistan, and I do share your hope that the US will keep it's nose out of places it doesn't need to go (e.g. Iraq), but as a realist and a history buff and a foreign policy wonk, I can't be enough of an optimist to believe that the US probably won't get involved in at least a few more conflicts over the next couple decades even if we don't see any potential wars looming right now. Even if no-one attacks us directly and we refrain from charging into pointless situations like Iraq, the chances of eventually being obligated to intervene in some situation overseas are pretty good, and that's exactly the sort of thing that can easily become a counterinsurgency scenario. For instance, I would not be surprised if US ground forces are operating in Pakistan by 2020.

Incidentally, one thing I'm really not worried about is China. It would take a series of drastic changes in Sino-American relations and the east Asian situation for the US and China to have any compelling reason to go to war. Also, I think China's military power in relation to our own is often heavily overestimated. We still have a incredibly huge lead over them, and even with the cuts Gates is proposing, we really shouldn't have any trouble maintaining that lead for a long time to come.

With specific regard to combat vehicles, I do agree that the vehicular components of FCS shouldn't be cut. It's not like armored vehicles aren't incredibly important even in counterinsurgency warfare, and current systems are all inadequate in one way or the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

EDIT: Well, that is a valid point about us being unbalanced. We proved that pretty quickly in Iraq. I can see moving some money out of combat vehicles and into personnel, but we don't want to overdo it either. I still think this move is too drastic. It would be better to make this a more gradual change if we're going to make it.

---

I don't have numbers on hand, but I'd be willing to bet that even after the changes that Gates is proposing, the DOD will probably still be putting a lot more money per year towards conventional warfare capabilities (or universally useful capabilities) than towards capabilities that are only useful for counterinsurgency operations.


EDIT: Gah, already I'm defending this budget proposal. I'm going to hold off from posting in this thread again until tomorrow evening and see what other people have to say.

Mr. E, optimism or pessimism aside, most defense analysts are in agreement that urban and guerilla engagements are going to be increasingly common (there was a blanket term for this sort of warfare which I can't remember).

Here's my take on this:

Hi-tech future weapons and equipment are great for conventional wars. That said, it is 2009. The last true conventional war was Korea. Desert Storm and the invasion of Iraq in 2003 could be considered conventional, but our vast superiority negated any chance the Iraqis had in either conflict. We spent over four decades preparing for a conventional and possible nuclear war which never came. In the meantime our unconventional forces were hampered by a doctrine and leadership fixated on fighting another WWII-esque war. We went into Vietnam in force, only to be bested by a guerrilla force armed with a belief and simple weapons, as well as a conventional force capable of adapting to counter our abilities. We improved during Grenada, Panama and other armed clashes, but never truly got a chance to test our conventional ground forces during Desert Storm due to overwhelming air superiority.

Most, if not all, of our current conventional capabilities are still among the best in the world. That, coupled with having a large and extremely experienced core of military personnel, would give us a strong advantage in any conflict with a conventional enemy. Since WWII, the US has made their best effort to appease the more technologically advanced nations in the world. Even Russia is no longer the threat we once thought they were, besides the fact that their military is a mere shadow of its Cold War predecessor. China is becoming more hospitable considering its stance during after the Korean War, and the modern-day newsmakers such as North Korea, Pakistan and Iran are flashes in the pan compared to Germany or Japan in 1942, the Soviet Union in the 1950s or the Chinese in 1950-1953.

As a ground-pounding Infantry Soldier I am still impressed by the amount of punishment the thirty-plus year old A-10 can inflict. Reading about the capabilities of the Super Hornet is impressive, and the fact that the F-14 Tomcat has been retired says a lot about our nation's reliance on new technology replacing proven, capable old warhorses. I realize that the US military must be prepared for any contingent, in large part due to our foreign policy, but I honestly feel as though cutting some of the big-ticket items from the defense budget will kill more political ambitions and contractor's dreams than it will United States citizens.

Can I just ask a question about the people makings comments about the need there is for the U.S. military "keeping it's edge"?

Exactly what planet are they living on?

The U.S. military currently outclasses every other industrial nations on Earth combined (or very nearly so).

We all know that the figures for it's military budget. How it's roughly equal the rest of the world ENTIRE defence budget. Does reducing that budget drastically, so that's it's say, only 5 times the total combined budgets of all the real world nations which pose the U.S. any realistic threat whatsoever, really present a danger of 'falling behind'?

I mean, fuck me drunk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrShrike

Can I just ask a question about the people makings comments about the need there is for the U.S. military "keeping it's edge"?

Exactly what planet are they living on?

The U.S. military currently outclasses every other industrial nations on Earth combined (or very nearly so).

We all know that the figures for it's military budget. How it's roughly equal the rest of the world ENTIRE defence budget. Does reducing that budget drastically, so that's it's say, only 5 times the total combined budgets of all the real world nations which pose the U.S. any realistic threat whatsoever, really present a danger of 'falling behind'?

I mean, fuck me drunk.

---

Where did pull those numbers from?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrShrike

Can I just ask a question about the people makings comments about the need there is for the U.S. military "keeping it's edge"?

Exactly what planet are they living on?

The U.S. military currently outclasses every other industrial nations on Earth combined (or very nearly so).

We all know that the figures for it's military budget. How it's roughly equal the rest of the world ENTIRE defence budget. Does reducing that budget drastically, so that's it's say, only 5 times the total combined budgets of all the real world nations which pose the U.S. any realistic threat whatsoever, really present a danger of 'falling behind'?

I mean, fuck me drunk.

---

Yeah, y'know, except for the Israelis, who've been fighting the same war we have for 40+ years. :rolleyes:

If the defense budget isn't cut, isn't Obama just another hypocritical politician? Good thing I didn't believe in change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrShrike

The U.S. military currently outclasses every other industrial nations on Earth combined (or very nearly so).

---

If we were in flames I would be merciless about this statement, but since we are in AI I'm just going to say: look again. China, even if their power is overestimated, is still very powerful. Them combined with pretty much any one other military of (practically) any industrialized nation would be enough to equal our strength. I know that American superiority is a pretty popular viewpoint, but I mean, that statement is ludicrous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anonymous D

Where did pull those numbers from?

---

He's just about right, actually. The US accounts for nearly half of the world's combined defense spending, meaning we spend nearly as much on our military as all other countries in the world combined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_expenditures

He is right about the spending, but he isn't right with his gross underestimation of the power of the rest of the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

He is right about the spending, but he isn't right with his gross underestimation of the power of the rest of the world.

---

Right, and Anonymous D asked where he got his numbers from, and his numbers were about spending, so I told Anonymous D that his number were actually correct.

I'd agree that the disparity between actual US military strength and actual Chinese military strength isn't as large as the disparity between defense budgets would suggest.

EDIT: And the same for various other countries, e.g. Russia and so forth.

I am just really going to throw in my 2 cents, most of what I have to say will have been said.

I think the change in focus is the right one. To put it in simple terms, yall don't need all that firepower, warfare has changed. I really do think that we have reached a point in history where the likes of WW2 will not be seen again for a very, very long time.

No country can put the US in a position where it needs all that firepower and fancy weaponry. Not because there are no countries strong enough, countries can ally with others etc. Its the simple fact that there almost certainly wouldn't be a winner, no one would be that stupid because the knock on effects would be unthinkable. Trade is what makes the world work. If you take out one of the biggest players in trade, the effects will be massive.

The US has a new enemy, one that a shitload of guns cannot beat. They don't play by conventional rules, if they did the wars in the middle east would be over. It isn't enough to carpet bomb some coordinates anymore.

Just to restate, these aren't budget cuts. It is actually going to expand the defense budget. I was confused at first too.

Isn't this a case of spending more in the short run in order to spend less in the long run?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simonj

Isn't this a case of spending more in the short run in order to spend less in the long run?

---

Eh, probably not. I imagine that the Defense budget is always going to keep spending around the same amount relative to inflation as they do now no matter what happens (barring something unpredictable). This could be viewed as a case to prepare now so that we don't have to prepare later, but I'm still iffy on it.

In my assessement, it's simply a case of taking funds away from programs that are less useful for current and future conflicts, and putting those funds towards programs that are more useful for current and future conflicts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

If we were in flames I would be merciless about this statement, but since we are in AI I'm just going to say: look again. China, even if their power is overestimated, is still very powerful. Them combined with pretty much any one other military of (practically) any industrialized nation would be enough to equal our strength. I know that American superiority is a pretty popular viewpoint, but I mean, that statement is ludicrous.

---

okay, so he was using extreme hyperbole. that doesn't make his overall point incorrect.

and i don't really expect us to be threatened by a military alliance of every other industrialized nation on earth any time soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sycld

okay, so he was using extreme hyperbole. that doesn't make his overall point incorrect.

and i don't really expect us to be threatened by a military alliance of every other industrialized nation on earth any time soon.

---

It wouldn't take that. China in conjunction with practically anyone else could beat us down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

It wouldn't take that. China in conjunction with practically anyone else could beat us down.

---

It would take a pretty extreme turn in world politics for that to happen.

China + any other nation on earth could beat just the US.

China + any other nation on earth could not beat the US and every other nation that would join them (which would at least be the UK and quite a few other European countries).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simonj

It would take a pretty extreme turn in world politics for that to happen.

China + any other nation on earth could beat just the US.

China + any other nation on earth could not beat the US and every other nation that would join them (which would at least be the UK and quite a few other European countries).

---

Well....maybe. There is no reason to think the world will rally behind us should the shit hit the fan. I'm just saying that we're not untouchable like a lot of people like to think. No bad can come from continuing to fund forward-looking technologies, but there is a danger in putting all of our eggs in the guerrilla warfare basket.

All postulation about who could or couldn't beat the US is more or less meaningless, because the outcomes of wars are decided by so many factors other than the size and sophistication of the armed forces of the belligerents. You simply can't make blanket statements about who would or wouldn't win. The outcome will vary tremendously depending on countless variables. But the US does outgun China and everyone else pretty heavily.

Edit: BUT, I'm not saying that we should put all our eggs in the guerilla-warfare basket just because we outgun everyone else. Fortunately, we're in danger of doing so. Gates' proposed budget changes still leave plenty of eggs in the conventional warfare basket.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

Well....maybe. There is no reason to think the world will rally behind us should the shit hit the fan. I'm just saying that we're not untouchable like a lot of people like to think. No bad can come from continuing to fund forward-looking technologies, but there is a danger in putting all of our eggs in the guerrilla warfare basket.

---

Lol, Mr. E...

Currently we have all our eggs in the conventional warfare basket, while our soldiers are fighting in urban warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq.

We have conventional warfare capabilities that far, far surpass those of any other country, while we are relatively ill-equipped to fight the actual conflicts that we're forced to fight and are actually fighting.

That's why so much funding is going towards urban warfare. And they're not talking about completely cutting off our conventional warfare capabilities, but rather shifting the focus heavily towards the conflicts we're fighting now and in the near future while still devoting some but less development towards our conventional warfare capabilities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sycld

Lol, Mr. E...

Currently we have all our eggs in the conventional warfare basket, while our soldiers are fighting in urban warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq.

We have conventional warfare capabilities that far, far surpass those of any other country, while we are relatively ill-equipped to fight the actual conflicts that we're forced to fight and are actually fighting.

That's why so much funding is going towards urban warfare. And they're not talking about completely cutting off our conventional warfare capabilities, but rather shifting the focus heavily towards the conflicts we're fighting now and in the near future while still devoting some but less development towards our conventional warfare capabilities.

---

The only thing though is I don't see these conflicts lasting much longer, and I am optimistic that, given the current direction of our country, we're not going to have any more conflicts for a while. Then, when we do eventually have another conflict, we're not going to have to do it all by ourselves (which has been a big part of our problem in this war). We're not as far ahead of the rest of the world as you think, and other countries could definitely catch up, if not surpass us altogether. In a perfect world that wouldn't matter (in a perfect world there wouldn't be militaries, but whatever), but, in my opinion, general military power equivocation is pretty important in maintaining peace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

The only thing though is I don't see these conflicts lasting much longer, and I am optimistic that, given the current direction of our country, we're not going to have any more conflicts for a while.

---

The DOD can't plan it's spending based on your optimism, though. It has to be prepared to fight, and like it or not, most experts agree that unconventional warfare is going to be common, if not dominant, in the coming decades. So it behooves the DOD to improve it's capabilities for that type of warfare. Besides, like I said, history shows that people rarely see wars coming even a few years in advance. Saying that you don't think we'll have any more conflicts in a while is all very good, but the reality is that neither you nor anybody else knows what kind of shit we may be involved in 2015 or 2020 or 2025. Again, we can't plan based on your optimism.

Besides, all that aside, the fact is that we are currently involved in a counterinsurgency war in Afghanistan, and it's not going to be over for a few more years even in the best-case scenario, and winning the war we're actually fighting right now is the #1 priority. So it's hardly unreasonable for the Pentagon to put more money into the programs that will help us win that war, especially since some our problems in that war have stemmed directly from our lack of the things that these programs provide. Especially if even after putting more money towards those programs, we are still also putting PLENTY of money towards conventional warfare programs, in case China wants to throw down in twenty years or whatever.

EDIT: In terms of cuts to programs like DDG-1000 and the F-22, it's not about "We don't need conventional warfare capabilities any more so we're not buying any more jet fighters or warships"; it's about "These programs are incredibly expensive and don't provide benefits commensurate to their costs".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simonj

It would take a pretty extreme turn in world politics for that to happen.

China + any other nation on earth could beat just the US.

China + any other nation on earth could not beat the US and every other nation that would join them (which would at least be the UK and quite a few other European countries).

---

and canda, who would join in simply because of our relative location to one another.
anything that threatens the us also threatens them just by proximity.

There's no way the defense budget will ever go down. And that's why I laughed at Obama's campaign promises.

The Department of Defense is essentially a government subsidy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

There's no way the defense budget will ever go down. And that's why I laughed at Obama's campaign promises.

The Department of Defense is essentially a government subsidy.

---

If by "subsidy" you mean a gigantic black hole sucking in money with essentially 0 accountability as to where that money goes or how much of it is wasted, embezzeled, etc...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sycld

If by "subsidy" you mean a gigantic black hole sucking in money with essentially 0 accountability as to where that money goes or how much of it is wasted, embezzeled, etc...

---

we've got the best military in the world. take that as you will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sycld

If by "subsidy" you mean a gigantic black hole sucking in money with essentially 0 accountability as to where that money goes or how much of it is wasted, embezzeled, etc...

---

He means a subsidy to defense contractors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sion

we've got the best military in the world. take that as you will.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

The US accounts for nearly half of the world's combined defense spending, meaning we spend nearly as much on our military as all other countries in the world combined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_expenditures

---

...and a lot of that money just disappears with nary a care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

He means a subsidy to defense contractors.

---

I know, I know... I'm well aware of the existance of the military-industrial complex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sycld

...and a lot of that money just disappears with nary a care.

---

Nonsense! It doesn't all just disappear.. a lot of that missing money is later used by LockMart and Boeing to bribe foreign officials into buying their airplanes.

Syme, your points are well-stated and you have swayed my opinion on all points. I withdraw all of my previous concerns except one: I still think we are upsetting the monopsony by cutting some of our investments in advanced conventional vehicles, and jobs stand to be lost. Were the economic atmosphere different this wouldn't be that big of a deal, but things the way they are currently it could end up making the government look bad (on top of hurting the people who will lose their jobs).

That's a reasonable sentiment. By not funding the vehicular components of the FCS, we are also failing to give our troops the equipment they need. The Abrams is a great tank but it's extremely heavy and thus has poor strategic mobility, it's too large to fit through city streets in many third-world countries, it's too heavy to safely use bridges in many third-world countries, it guzzles gas and thus has poor in-theater mobility, and it's exhaust makes it harder for it to work in close cooperation with infantry. The Bradley is a capable IFV but it can't carry a full squad, it's armament is optimized for killing Soviet AFVs on a 1980s European battlefield, and it's also rather heavy. Don't even get me started about the Strykers. The Army needs new vehicles for low-intensity warfare. IMO, cutting the FCS vehicle funding is the only major mistake in Gates' proposal.

I just found out (from the Colbert report no less) that Gates' new budget plan will destroy 14,000 jobs....and create 44,000 in the F35 program. All of my points are now withdrawn. Good game, Robert Gates. Part of the issue that the American people are going to have with this plan is that it is being terribly reported. News stations across the board (by that I mean MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News are all saying this) are reporting it as a pure budget cut and only mentioning the potential jobs lost, not the ones gained.

Stupid media. Sometimes I think they want the American people to be pissed off and miserable.

Well it's one of those old things taken for granted that a happy nation won't watch much news.

Fox News is just one of the greatest things around though. It's like alongside their news coverage they'll complain about liberal bias in the media, then they'll brag about how they dominate their huge ratings and how they dominate the media.

Although they only get the ratings they do because so many liberals watch it as a guilty pleasure/know thy enemy kind of thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

Stupid media. Sometimes I think they want the American people to be pissed off and miserable.

---

WELL YOU KNOW