Is the US military starting to turn into 90's Russia?

[lucinator]

The US has just had a credit downgrade from AAA to AA+ for the first time in it's history. The size of its debt is it's biggest problem at the moment and it's economy is taking a big hit. Wall St lost 5% overnight. Yes the 2012 elections are going to have an impact upon the size of the deficit cuts but the US is going to have to bite the bullet sooner rather than later. I think now well before November 2012 because the markets are very jittery. That translates in dollars and no economy can afford to have billions wiped off it's current market value daily.

The US defence budget is at moment about 4 times that of China's going on recent figures. As yet China is really only a regional player as far as military power projection goes. For it to become a global player will take time maybe 30 - 40 years to get to stage where it has the ability to be at a really competent level operationally in all aspects. The US has a deficit that is US$14.7 trillion hanging around it's neck like a very large millstone and is a ticking time bomb. IMHO that is the largest threat to US national security at the moment. Not China nor Russia nor Iran nor the Taliban. Another point. China owns US$1.2 trillion of that debt. What happens if they decide they want the monies owed to them by the US?

you missed what I was trying to say. What I meant was that changes in who voting power could result in either increases in income(taxes and tax loophole fixes) or even larger cuts.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Dude, to what end?
In case you havent notice, most of european countries aren't doing that great on their eco.
So your answer is to increase THE DEFENCE SPENDING?

Surly not..
We don't want to end up in US current situation do we?



If you want a lean, dynamic and healty military, US military is in for cuts.
There is no other way around this problem.
And it will be more than 5%, thrust me..

You are contradicting yourself, first you say Europe should not increase its share of military spending which means they would have to rely on the US but then you call for cut backs in US Military spending, you can't have both.

And in order to have a lean, dynamic and healthy military...you have to properly fund it, by not doing huge across the board cuts....

Defense has already played its part in the debt problem, with around $350 billion cut over 10 years. President Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the Joint Chiefs and most of Congress all agree that more defense cuts is unacceptable and will not solve the problem.

There is no other way around it? Actually there is, cuts to entitlement spending and more revenue. That is really the only way. Without cuts to entitlements and more tax revenue the debt will only get worst, and military cuts will not solve it.

Carrier Groups or Carrier Air Groups, big difference.

At some stage in the future, the US military will by necessity have to take budget cuts if the US Government decides to make a serious attempt to start paying down their debt.

That doesnt mean that the US Military will turn into 1990's Russia though, as long as Force quantity is reduced along with the budget.

As I said above, the US Military did make some reasonable cuts, anymore is high risk and unacceptable, which Obama and the Pentagon will agree.

If people want to get serious about reducing the debt, if they really want to get serious than they must tackle the real drivers of the debt. And its not the military. They must do what no one wants to even hear of....cuts to entitlements and raise revenues.

US will cut the number of carrier group from 10 to 9, but it's still much bigger than anyone else able to send to the sea including potential big comers in carrier game like India or China.

There is the possibility that the number of carrier strike groups will be cut from 11 to 10 and the carrier air wings cut from 10 to 9. That however is only one of many choices the military is considering, nothing is final as they are still in budget planing.

A 10 carrier fleet is workable IMO with little risk as long as it does not go down any farther.

 

[exported_kiwi]

I would agree with most of what you said, however a 10-20% cut is too much and wont happen over night. A 5% cut is more likely.

Yes there is fat and waste in the defense department, but its not the only government agency thats full of waste, every one including the DoD, medicare, medicaid, and social security needs to be trimmed.

And when I say trim the DoD I don't mean cutting muscle and bone such as troops, weapons programs such as planes, ships, tanks and other equipment, I'm talking about cutting the bloated bureaucracy, the oversized 700,000 civilian work force employed by the DoD, too many contractors and subcontractors, the $6000 toilet seats and hammers assembled in 20 different states and all that useless crap of the like which does nothing to defend America and actually sucks money away from programs that the military really does need and want.

So lets not cut the number of aircraft carriers, lets not cut land based missiles and next generation bombers, or F-35 fighter jets, or ballistic missile submarines, or the ability to fight two wars or the 2.3 million active and national guard/reserve troops that protect America. Lets actually cut the actual waste and fat and not the muscle and bone of the Defense Department.

Also America's NATO European allies need to pick up their share of their own defense, America can pull out some of its troops in Europe but redeploy them to other areas around the globe where they are better needed.

And military health care and retirement costs....oh yeah that too needs a good long hard look at too. They needs to control its health care and personnel costs ASAP, which this along with the waste and fat should be dealt with before they ever think about force structure and capability cuts.

They need a lean, mean but yet still robust military. One where they can have both strong fiscal discipline in the DoD but still have the worlds best damn military that is robust and lean and mean. This is possible and it can be done if they do it right with good priorities and a good sound strategy.

Even if defense budgets still continue to grow, efficiency should always be important. That no matter how large the defense budget gets, every dollar and every cent is used for defending the US. So the American tax payers get their bang for their buck with no money wasted. However they should have done this in 2001 but instead they got lazy because their was endless money coming in and the Pentagon felt like it did not need to be efficient that they could always reach out for more money and not give a damn how much is wasted. That lazy and dangerous attitude in the Pentagon needs to stop if the Pentagon wants to maintain the best military in the world in the future. And I think they are finally starting to realize this.

This is exactly right and it reads like something out of Tom Clancy's book; "executive orders". Sorry for short post and off topic.

 

[exported_kiwi]

And in order to have a lean, dynamic and healthy military...you have to properly fund it, by not doing huge across the board cuts.....

I disagree with this sorry, you can cut the budget hugely as long as the manpower is cut correspondingly and, retain a lean and mean military.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I disagree with this sorry, you can cut the budget hugely as long as the manpower is cut correspondingly and, retain a lean and mean military.

But you end up with a smaller military that is less powerful and able to deal with the china build up, or possibly Russia, or Iran and North Korea. America will not be able to defend itself or it's interests around the world. That would be a stupid mistake to repeat. America's debt problem was not caused by military spending and it won't solve the debt problem ether by cutting the defense budget too much leaving America's military weak. You can't reduce manpower and And reduce it's missions along with it nor can you just change up your military strategy to whatever you want to save money and still expect everything to work out in the end. It just does not work that way.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

The have less but do less idea than turn around and say look but hey at least it's not a hollow force concept is a stupid and lame approach. That's not military thinking or strategy. That's just gutting the military than trying to come up with a way to justify it. Reducing missions along with manpower/force structure to avoid hollowing out the military is just as dumb and cowardly than actually hollowing out the military, do less with less is in my mind as pathetic as do more with less. A better way to go about things is to determine what threats America faces and how to defeat those threats which in turn requires money and a large military. Than prioritize core mission capabilities over less important things. That is real military strategy and leadership.

 

[exported_kiwi]

But you end up with a smaller military that is less powerful and able to deal with the china build up, or possibly Russia, or Iran and North Korea. America will not be able to defend itself or it's interests around the world. That would be a stupid mistake to repeat. America's debt problem was not caused by military spending and it won't solve the debt problem ether by cutting the defense budget too much leaving America's military weak. You can't reduce manpower and And reduce it's missions along with it nor can you just change up your military strategy to whatever you want to save money and still expect everything to work out in the end. It just does not work that way.

Agreed, that the US has to be able to credibly defend itself against all manners of possible threats.........but, where is the threat today and for say, the next 10 years? Certainly not China, not yet. russia, laughable! Iran, maybe if they can slip a few nukes into CONUS. NK, same for them. I think that if the US can retain naval and air capacity, while maintaining ground forces purely as reserve/national guard, just for the time being, there would possibly be viable savings. It might seem a bit simplistic, this view, but sometimes, simple is best and the US has a heck of a deep hole to climb out of so the simpler, the better, no?

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Agreed, that the US has to be able to credibly defend itself against all manners of possible threats.........but, where is the threat today and for say, the next 10 years? Certainly not China, not yet. russia, laughable! Iran, maybe if they can slip a few nukes into CONUS. NK, same for them. I think that if the US can retain naval and air capacity, while maintaining ground forces purely as reserve/national guard, just for the time being, there would possibly be viable savings. It might seem a bit simplistic, this view, but sometimes, simple is best and the US has a heck of a deep hole to climb out of so the simpler, the better, no?

Well said, in fact as for ground forces they could just back to pre-2007 troops surge levels. Such a move would reduce the US Army from 547,000 today back to around 485,000 it was in 2006 and the USMC from 202,000 back to 175,000. Back to the size it was always been. The US could still be the superpower by going back to its original 2006 level and still keep all of its tanks, artillery, and helicopters just as always. If the US was a superpower back in 2006 with these force levels it could do the same again, I see no problem with that. Some more base closures in Germany is possible but keep our bases in Asia such as South Korea and Japan.

Scrap the ineffective LCS but keep the aircraft carrier, submarine and DDG-51 destroyer production lines going.

 

[exported_kiwi]

Well said, in fact as for ground forces they could just back to pre-2007 troops surge levels. Such a move would reduce the US Army from 547,000 today back to around 485,000 it was in 2006 and the USMC from 202,000 back to 175,000. Back to the size it was always been. The US could still be the superpower by going back to its original 2006 level and still keep all of its tanks, artillery, and helicopters just as always. If the US was a superpower back in 2006 with these force levels it could do the same again, I see no problem with that. Some more base closures in Germany is possible but keep our bases in Asia such as South Korea and Japan.

Scrap the ineffective LCS but keep the aircraft carrier, submarine and DDG-51 destroyer production lines going.

You've got the general idea but not quite what I was trying to suggest I think. I meant that it'd be ok for the US to keep naval and air forces active but to entirely reserve the ground component of the US military, the Army. There could be one division in training at all times as a QRF and the others could be reactivated quickly, with practices help regularly etc. The USMC provide a credible force until the full army TOE can be reassembled and shipped out to wherever it is they're going. The costs savings in base personnel and also maintenance would be seriously worth considereing. I'm not suggesting doing away with the army altogether, just deactivating it, on a fulltime basis, until needed or until the current problems over there are solved. get me now?

 

[Cadredave]

You've got the general idea but not quite what I was trying to suggest I think. I meant that it'd be ok for the US to keep naval and air forces active but to entirely reserve the ground component of the US military, the Army. There could be one division in training at all times as a QRF and the others could be reactivated quickly, with practices help regularly etc. The USMC provide a credible force until the full army TOE can be reassembled and shipped out to wherever it is they're going. The costs savings in base personnel and also maintenance would be seriously worth considereing. I'm not suggesting doing away with the army altogether, just deactivating it, on a fulltime basis, until needed or until the current problems over there are solved. get me now?

1. Do you know how long it would take to reactivate a ground force from scratch have you got any idea how much corporate knowledge and skills you are proposing to throw out the door. There is a reason lessons learnt are called exactly that, and the last couple of conflicts still hold true, properly equiped and trained personel work better than poorly trained pers.

2. Reserves have day jobs no amount of training exercises ever fully prepares them, you need an active component to hold the fight until the full mass of your reserves can join the fight,

3. USMC are perfectly tailored to what they do best they are not the French Foreign Legion by time your proposal got into the fight the USMC would no longer be an effective force they would be what you want them to be expendable.

4. Poorly trained ground forces have suffered because of miss guided short sighted ideas there is a reason why KIA rate in both WW1 & WW2 was so high because of the same ideas you are proposing right now. You are sugesting with the doing away of the full time army your ideas can apply to the other services just as well, yes there is room for some active duty BCT to be placed into reserve but you like me can not fore see the future no one saw Russia & Georgia coming (State on State conflict) why do you think that two Divisons of US forces defeated Sadams Army they were strong well trained full time and well motivated ground forces. They held the line until the rerseves could get into the fight. Armys are the only force that can sieze and hold terrain not aircraft or ships you are asking the Army to become amatuer while the Navy & Air remain professional this concept of yours is akin to chucking the baby out with the bath water!!.

CD

 

[exported_kiwi]

1. Do you know how long it would take to reactivate a ground force from scratch have you got any idea how much corporate knowledge and skills you are proposing to throw out the door. There is a reason lessons learnt are called exactly that, and the last couple of conflicts still hold true, properly equiped and trained personel work better than poorly trained pers.

2. Reserves have day jobs no amount of training exercises ever fully prepares them, you need an active component to hold the fight until the full mass of your reserves can join the fight,

3. USMC are perfectly tailored to what they do best they are not the French Foreign Legion by time your proposal got into the fight the USMC would no longer be an effective force they would be what you want them to be expendable.

4. Poorly trained ground forces have suffered because of miss guided short sighted ideas there is a reason why KIA rate in both WW1 & WW2 was so high because of the same ideas you are proposing right now. You are sugesting with the doing away of the full time army your ideas can apply to the other services just as well, yes there is room for some active duty BCT to be placed into reserve but you like me can not fore see the future no one saw Russia & Georgia coming (State on State conflict) why do you think that two Divisons of US forces defeated Sadams Army they were strong well trained full time and well motivated ground forces. They held the line until the rerseves could get into the fight. Armys are the only force that can sieze and hold terrain not aircraft or ships you are asking the Army to become amatuer while the Navy & Air remain professional this concept of yours is akin to chucking the baby out with the bath water!!.

CD

Hi Dave. Yes, I know what the costs would be to reactivate the active ground component should it be relegated to reserve status. This is why I suggested that they keep recycling a division of the ground forces through fulltime training constantly...thereby giving all divisions active duty once a year. I know that badly trained troops suffer worse than well trained ones which is why I suggested the above, to keep them honed.
I'm aware that the USMC isn't the French Foreign Legion, very well aware. I suggested that they are still infantry, no matter what anyone wants to call them. they're just landed into an AO differently, that's all.
Dave, and everyone, this is just an idea, one that I know would never happen, but in light of what's happening in the US right now, I simply presented it as an option to help save a few bucks to try and help since it seems inevitable that the US military budget will be cut. This is one way to retain some capability under such a circumstance....nothing more!

 

[Belesari]

Wont work cut the military and it would stay cut we would lose the power to do what is in our best interest even if others disagree.

Add to that we remember what we used to be. In the late 1800 we were still pretty much a agrarian society. Not much industry compared to others. We cought up by the end of ww1 and by the end of ww2 we were without any doubt the single most industrialized and powerful nation in history.

Everything happens faster now. We have to be ready. Dont build carriers you forget how to. Dont develope and build aircraft like say a f-22 or F-35 you can forget how to.

Much has been said of china's seeming lack of spending compared to americas in defense. However little is said about when personel cost is taken into effect. About half of US defense spending is personel.

Not to mention the hospital ships as well as other non-defense related expenditures.

Agreed, that the US has to be able to credibly defend itself against all manners of possible threats.........but, where is the threat today and for say, the next 10 years? Certainly not China, not yet. russia, laughable! Iran, maybe if they can slip a few nukes into CONUS. NK, same for them. I think that if the US can retain naval and air capacity, while maintaining ground forces purely as reserve/national guard, just for the time being, there would possibly be viable savings. It might seem a bit simplistic, this view, but sometimes, simple is best and the US has a heck of a deep hole to climb out of so the simpler, the better, no?

 

[Locarnus]

Among many other things, massive overspending in relation to the thread scenario and the economic base, taking a live of its own and contributing to the downfall of its host in the process.

Actually imho it appears more like the Soviet Unions military of the 80s, of course there are many other examples in history (or biology, or medicine - like eg autoimmunity) covering parts of the structure of the phenomenon.

Known causes, symptoms, processes, interdependencies and well predictable results.

 

[moahunter]

Everything happens faster now. We have to be ready. Dont build carriers you forget how to. Dont develope and build aircraft like say a f-22 or F-35 you can forget how to.

I think you have to keep the production lines going, it allows the retirement of more costly / less efficient platforms as well (e.g. the enterprise). It is also important like you note, to maintain technology, and, to keep a large part of the economy humming.

But I think given the choice between smaller elite forces, or current size crumbling ones, the former is preferable. Perhaps for example, each new carrier results in two older ones being taken out of service. Its the same new aircraft, maybe each new fighter wing deployment of F35s should replace two former ones of F16's, or similar.

As technology is improving, and unmaned technology is moving ahead very fast, manpower can be reduced significantly I think. I also think there is an opportunity to pull out of some regions of the world, and let Europe and other nations take a larger role, it doesn't seem right that the US has to hold most of the burden for most of the world today.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I would strongly agree with Cadredave said about the ground forces. The same can be said with air and navel forces as well. You can not win a war with just one or two you need all three. Which is why it's very impotent to keep the production lines going not just to repace aging ships, aircraft, and ground equipment. But also to maintain the knowledge to know how to build the most advanced weapons and maintain our technological edge. We did it even after the cold war ended when defense spending fell by 36% we can do it again with a 5% cut which would amount to $350-400 billion.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Nope, that'll never happen. Even with the nutty neocons in power and their MIC running the show

Can you please elaborate? Nutty neocons? Perhaps you don't realize that there are both democrats and republicans who support the military, none of them I would call neocons.

And how does America have this big evil military industrial complex? Military spending is like what 19% of the federal budget, far lower than it was during the Cold War, 4% of our GDP compared to 9-12% during the Cold War.

And the size of the military went from over 2 million active duty to 1.4 million. We have only 39 fighter squadrons which is half of what it was during the cold war, our bomber fleet went from 360 to 154, the Army went from 74 active combat brigades to 45, and the Navy at 288 ships is the smallest since 1916, they need at least 313 ships. During the Cold War the USN had 570 ships. Deep cuts to defense spending will also mean hundreds of thousands perhaps up to a million of the 2.9 million jobs that work in the defense and aerospace sector could be laid off, not to mention the high paying and highly skilled labor is gone forever.

MIC? I think not, the military is not oversized and we don't spend too much of our nations wealth on defense. Perhaps a little more research next time.

 

[BlCityfan]

Can you please elaborate? Nutty neocons? Perhaps you don't realize that there are both democrats and republicans who support the military, none of them I would call neocons.

And how does America have this big evil military industrial complex? Military spending is like what 19% of the federal budget, far lower than it was during the Cold War, 4% of our GDP compared to 9-12% during the Cold War.

And the size of the military went from over 2 million active duty to 1.4 million. We have only 39 fighter squadrons which is half of what it was during the cold war, our bomber fleet went from 360 to 154, the Army went from 74 active combat brigades to 45, and the Navy at 288 ships is the smallest since 1916, they need at least 313 ships. During the Cold War the USN had 570 ships. Deep cuts to defense spending will also mean hundreds of thousands perhaps up to a million of the 2.9 million jobs that work in the defense and aerospace sector could be laid off, not to mention the high paying and highly skilled labor is gone forever.

MIC? I think not, the military is not oversized and we don't spend too much of our nations wealth on defense. Perhaps a little more research next time.

You obviously have no idea of what you're talking about. Spending on defense has INCREASED not decreased since 9/11. America has bases around the world and you think we don't have an oversized military? you're a fool. We spend more money on having advanced air jets and naval ships than actually maintaining our regular forces. If you had any understanding of this you would realize that defense spending is realitivly higher than is actually reported. Oh sure the number of vechiles have decreased compared to their cold war counterparts but the spending to make these things have gone up. We have less troops but more mercs on the field. And why is that? because of the MIC and maybe also because there's no draft. [Mod edit: Rude trolling text deleted.]

 

[StevoJH]

No need for the two of you to get all upset with each other.

All I am going to say here with regards to military budgets, is that according to wiki (which references SIPRI....which I havent bought), the US currently spends north of 42% of the worlds total military expenditure. The next highest country being china at 7.3%. I think that says everything that needs saying with regards to whether the military is "disproportionate" or otherwise.

Regards,
Stephen

 

[Bonza]

You obviously have no idea of what you're talking about. Spending on defense has INCREASED not decreased since 9/11. America has bases around the world and you think we don't have an oversized military? you're a fool. We spend more money on having advanced air jets and naval ships than actually maintaining our regular forces. If you had any understanding of this you would realize that defense spending is realitivly higher than is actually reported. Oh sure the number of vechiles have decreased compared to their cold war counterparts but the spending to make these things have gone up. We have less troops but more mercs on the field. And why is that? because of the MIC and maybe also because there's no draft. [Mod edit: Rude trolling text deleted.]

Alright matey, you got told you reign it in and you've obviously got no interest in doing so, so you're on holiday. Throwing a tantrum every time someone disagrees with you is puerile and ridiculous.

 

[Feanor]

No need for the two of you to get all upset with each other.

All I am going to say here with regards to military budgets, is that according to wiki (which references SIPRI....which I havent bought), the US currently spends north of 42% of the worlds total military expenditure. The next highest country being china at 7.3%. I think that says everything that needs saying with regards to whether the military is "disproportionate" or otherwise.

Regards,
Stephen

I've encountered numbers anywhere from 45-55% of the worlds spending as the US defense spendings. Keeping that in mind proportionality of defense spending is not in relation to the rest of the world, but in relation to the tasks you need your military to be able to complete, and the goals you have set for them.