US should cut military spending in half

kenmabmcc

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0427/p09s01-coop.html

Quote:

Our defense budget is almost half the world's, even leaving out nuclear weapons, the wars, veterans, and homeland security. It is also more than we spent at any point during the cold war. When that struggle ended, we simply gave back the Reagan buildup and kept spending at average cold war levels. Then we began another buildup in 1998 that nearly doubled nonwar defense spending.

There are no enemies to justify such spending. Invasion and civil war are unthinkable here. North Korea, Syria, and Iran trouble their citizens and neighbors, but with small economies, shoddy militaries, and a desire to survive, they pose little threat to us. Their combined military spending is one-sixtieth of ours.

Russia and China are incapable of territorial expansion that should pose any worry, unless we put our troops on their borders. China's defense spending is less than one-fifth of ours. We spend more researching and developing new weapons than Russia spends on its military.

Wasting money on unused weapons/weapon systems is silly,
and a huge drag on the budget.

Far better to spend some of that saved money on renewable energy research.

Wink

CowpokeBob

kenmabmcc wrote:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0427/p09s01-coop.html

Quote:

Our defense budget is almost half the world's, even leaving out nuclear weapons, the wars, veterans, and homeland security. It is also more than we spent at any point during the cold war. When that struggle ended, we simply gave back the Reagan buildup and kept spending at average cold war levels. Then we began another buildup in 1998 that nearly doubled nonwar defense spending.

There are no enemies to justify such spending. Invasion and civil war are unthinkable here. North Korea, Syria, and Iran trouble their citizens and neighbors, but with small economies, shoddy militaries, and a desire to survive, they pose little threat to us. Their combined military spending is one-sixtieth of ours.

Russia and China are incapable of territorial expansion that should pose any worry, unless we put our troops on their borders. China's defense spending is less than one-fifth of ours. We spend more researching and developing new weapons than Russia spends on its military.

Wasting money on unused weapons/weapon systems is silly,
and a huge drag on the budget.

Far better to spend some of that saved money on renewable energy research.

Wink

Well if you feel so strongly about it maybe you should immigrate to the States, run for office and do something about it. Very easy for you to say that while you reside on an insignificant rock that nobody is likely to fight over in the forseeable future.
Looking back, as I recall we found ourselves technologically trailing the Axis powers at the beginning of WWII. It cost this country enormously in both dollars and lives to have to make up that gap in the midst of a war. Since then this country has prided itself on being second to none militarily and I for one like it that way. There's a good reason Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran among others don't pose more significant threats to the world. It's precisely because of the military advantage the USA holds. I've no doubt that technological advantage has been instrumental in saving more than a few American lives in the conflicts we've faced since WWII regardless of what bad decision making got us into them.
There's no doubt that a lot of waste exits in military spending. Any organization that large is going to have waste. I suspect if some of that waste was stopped there would be plenty of money to waste on renewable energy research without us having to sacrifice our safety or standing as the world's greatest Superpower.
Perhaps instead of complaining about how much we Americans spend on our military if you Kiwis invested a little more effort locally on renewable sources of energy you wouldn't need to wait for the USA to do the hard work for you.

xavierx · Joined: Nov 06, 2004 Posts: 5427

Hmm, I wonder why our defense spending is so high. Could it be the part that Ken so conveniently omitted?