Would you be in favor of drastically scaling back the size and scope of the military to pay for healthcare and education for all if it meant the US could still easily defend itself if necessary?
I know people in the military who do say they need updating the weapons and they need newer vehicles. But there's too much government waste. May that's what they need to go after. And keep the preexisting conditions. Bills rack up. Depending on the illness. And medications? Same. Don't be an asshole.
I think when you look at running a navy with 6 Of the worlds 7 super carriers, an aging nuclear arsenal approximately 45 times larger than what is needed to explode the earth into only particles, the only true 5th Generation Fighter jets (F22/F35) that are deployed in large enough numbers to be effective. The security we need is there and in spades, but there is something to be said for preparation for any type of fight. Should our military be run more cost effectively I think everyone would agree that's a yes. Could it be cut in day half and still expect to be outpacing the world by leaps and bounds? Maybe but it's not likely. I think pragmatically you could cut a good deal, still maintain your overall safety. I have seen the way the military spends money first hand and the amount that should be spent on better gear or sensors that gets wasted on computers that never leave there box or BS end of year spending is criminal. Even fractions of saving of DoD would be huge windfalls for...
Healthcare and Education. I would rather see the dollar that are placed into the coffers scrubbed the same way, and let them better use the money they have. Reallocation from DoD to the rest doesn't fix problems. Our healthcare problem isn't 2, 20, or 200 billion dollars from being fixed, neither is education. Money doesn't solve problems, good ideas, smart folks, and then and only then resources do. We cannot spend our way out of any of these holes.
Until just recently our ICBM force relied on 9 track tapes to process targeting data. 9 Track tapes that the manufacturer stopped making 10 years earlier because the air force was their only customer and it had long since stopped being profitable to produce antiquated media.
Our nuclear arsenal that is big enough to blow the world to tiny bits dozens of times over was designed with the intent that it would be fielded for less than a decade before it was replaced with something better. It has now been fielded over 50 years.
Current plan is to have our 40 year past it's sale by date system until 2050. The design of a new system is taking place because it is cheaper to make a whole new system than to continue to maintain the old one.
Those planes don't just sit in hangers until they are oulled out to be used they have to be maintained and sustained just like your car. And just like your car when you cut the budget to save money short term maintenance is left undone and it costs you buckets more miney in the long run.
Trump gets the credit for all this additional military spending because he tweets what a wonderful idea it is. But the reality is most of these new spending programs started during Obama's pacifist adminstration.
I agree that our nuclear arsenal needs updating the first minute man silo to receive an entirely new system just wrapped a few weeks ago if I remember correctly, my point was that those nukes and the ICBMs or Tridents they are sitting on is still one hell of a deterrent, that is what happens when you make a weapon so powerful it doesn't really need new generations. To your point though the support infrastructure does need updated for the weapon. To your point on our jet fleets, we absolutely maintain and house and fly and arm those birds and at huge costs. You also cannot expect to stay ahead in R&D on the idea of American Exceptionalism. So I totally agree our military is expensive and will continue to be expensive to be effective. My point was more geared to the idea of we are ahead of everyone, we have some security in that, we sit in the cat bird seat, but our military is hugely wasteful of its dollars. The cry is always we won't maintain the tanks or planes, but the reality is
the place you find the 5-10% savings isn't going through program line items at the pentagon level. Where you read a budget for all DoD and people squirm when they see the things that save you 300-600 million bucks a year. You save that by incentives to every program to value engineer, to be tighter where the money is spent day to day. I'm don't fancy our military being better off with drastic reductions in spending, but I do know it spends inefficiently I have watched it personally and the way government spending is set up the encourage that sort of BS spending to maintain budget levels. Anytime some is asked to trim a budget they immediately say oh well that's impossible because we'd loose X most important thing, it's like looking at a home budget and saying save $100 next month and you say "welp the mortgage just isn't getting paid then"... while that is one option let's look at the smoking habit or Starbucks habit first
No. The very premise is impossible to sustain. Why don't we all eat chocolate all day and every day with out any bad health consequences.
No, but I'd be greatly in favor of cutting in order to save money.
in 2014 the US spent $610 billion on military - that was 34% of the world's total military spending. China spent the second highest amount at $216 billion and the top 8 countries combined beyond the US roughly equaled US spending (the 8th being Japan).
we can easily spend less and still be safe. we need better balance of investment in not only security but the future of the country through education, infrastructure, and health care.
RebelFury, you have outdone yourself with this stupid poll of yours. At a time when provocations and threats abound, you sill parrot the Leftwing desire weaken our military.
Why do you hate peace?
I'm a currently serving reservist
Sit the fuck down you pansy ass piece of shit
LandL, wars start when one side is obviously vulnerable! I don't hate peace. I once told my wife from a French Overseas Call center that there was nothing to worry about, while thinking it might be our last phone call. I definitely do not hate peace. I just know that the price can be very high!
Drastically cut the size and scope of the military and lower taxes.
Brilliant idea! The world is a safe place and we should rollover and play dead! Do you have any more bright ideas?
Straw man fallacy.
10 yard penalty and first down.
RF, It's late and you seem too tired to proceed. Sleep is advised!
There is no way we could cut the military that much and still be safe
Thank God. A voice of reason!
If we changed our pussyfoot policies we could.
No need for multimillion dollar smart bombs to target a single house.
If we are in a fight we are in a fight, carpet bomb the whole damn area and show them we mean business. Cheap and affective.
Actually xtarite you're completely wrong
Rebelfury - mind expanding on that?
He cannot, and he usually will not!
I've been arguing for years that defense spending has to be threat based.
Do you actually believe that we are facing fewer or no threats?
We'd face fewer if we minded our own business
I didn't say we were facing fewer threats.
Well if we have readiness concerns and the threat level is not diminishing, why cut the Defense Budget unilaterally? It seems like an Obama move!
RR, we tried isolation before. It didn't work then and it would be less effective now!
No, because your hypothesis is faulty
Is dislike for our President clouding people's minds?
I disliked the last one too. And the one before that.
And LJ care to elaborate or just declare victory without a retort?
Not on health care. All we need is some constraints put on the Industry and we should be fine there.
Tort reform would be a great place to start!
Yes! It's the ideal plan.
Healthcare is a privilege, not a right. Ditto education.
We could still cut the dod in half and be just fine
I think the right vs privilege formulation for healthcare is incorrect. Carried to its logical conclusion, the health care as a privilege construct would lead to people dying in the streets.
Healthcare, like national security and education, could also be seen as a shared responsibility in the sense that other public goods (public roads, fire service, police service, public parks) are shared responsibilities.
And before anybody wets the bed, shared responsibility is not a synonym for socialism.
That is literally the textbook definition of socialism.
The Government should not be engaged in charity!
Harry, the amount the US spends on the military means the NATO partners don't have to spend as much. We're subsidizing their military.
In other words, charity.
RF, the Defense Department budget is the total budget, while the NATO Budget is a treaty obligation. I agree, we would be suckers to pay more to cover a NATO Partner's shortfall. That is the kind of trust breach that makes Socialism impractical.
Eh, I said yes, but I'd prefer that spending not be spent on anything at all.
Daily reminder we are $19 trillion in debt.
And unfortunately the military-industrial complex is so engrained into our economy, a change like that would likely wreck the economy no matter what.
Not to make this country less safe.
Are you some kind of NeoCon, because you're coming across as very militant throughout this entire thread.
When all the NeoCons perish and GenZ continues growing to voting age the warmongering will no longer persist the way you want it.
Another Trump idiot.
More like a GOP shill.
I served and manned a battle station for real. I wasn't militant then and I'm not militant now! Does it make you more comfortable to label anyone who doesn't agree with you?
I appreciate your service. I still think you sound like a NeoCon and I wonder if you are.
KK, I had to look that up to even know what label you were trying to pin on me. Although JFK was the first President I was old enough to vote for, I never felt inclined to join the Party of Sheep (Democrats) although stupidly liberal in my youth. I became conservative as I grew older. I tend to vote for people rather than a Party. I will be ashamed to my dying day that I voted for Jimmy Carter, because he was a Naval Academy graduate, a Nuclear Engineer and a Navy Submariner. Does that satisfy your apparent low opinion of me?