Survivalist Forum banner

Should the US Defense budget be changed? By how much?

  • 100% increase

    Votes: 3 4.3%
  • 75% increase

    Votes: 1 1.4%
  • 50% increase

    Votes: 2 2.9%
  • 25% increase

    Votes: 2 2.9%
  • Unchanged

    Votes: 12 17.1%
  • 25% decrease

    Votes: 17 24.3%
  • 50% decrease

    Votes: 21 30.0%
  • 75% decrease

    Votes: 6 8.6%
  • 90% decrease

    Votes: 6 8.6%
1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,889 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Should the Defense budget of the United States be increased or decreased over the next few years?

By how much?

Random facts:

Current projected 2012 DoD spending = ~$1,200,000,000,000 (1.2t)

^ $700 billion + current overseas contingency expenditure.

Potential conventional enemies military expenditure (USD):

----- USA = $1,200 billion
- Iran = $7.04 billion
- North Korea = Unknown (GDP of $40 billion, so not more than 25% or $10b)
- Pakistan = $5 billion
- Venezuala = $3 billion
- Syria = $2 billion
- Lebanon = $1.5 billion
- Afghanistan = $0.25 billion
- Saudi Arabia = $43 billion
- Russia = $52 billion
- China = $114 billion
----- Enemies combined expenditure = $237.79 billion






 

·
Ryding Free...
Joined
·
6,372 Posts
I say torpedo the MIC so it's decentralised and let the states sort out their own military's via a non-interventialist isolationist mindset.

The US can't afford to keep policing the world, it's strangling the economy from within folks.
Just like what happened with Rome in the 300 - 400 AD period.

The sooner it draws down drastically the better.
Prolonging the agony or a short sharp shock?
The ptb want the former, while the people would benefit from the latter...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
923 Posts
If you are speaking of total DOD budget, id say decrease by 25%, based on where i work & what i see. The civilian workforce is overpaid & under worked. It takes an act of congress to fire most folks so eventually to make up for lack of production uncle hires more folks.
 

·
Garbage Collector
Joined
·
11,363 Posts
I wouldn't change the military budget, but I would reprioritize the way it is spent.

I believe that the days of large scale division level deployments and battles are over, all forces should adopt the Marine Corps MEU concept and work on special operations capabilities more than we do.

Their budget isn't the problem it is the stupidity of how it is allocated that is the problem.
 

·
VA / NC
Joined
·
12,688 Posts
After ever conflict we have had a reduction in defense spending. We have always heard complaints of not being ready when another conflict crops up. Heard today that if the current cuts go through, our force would only be able to address one conflict at a time.

If we could agree not to be the world's policeman, and cut WAY back on assisting others in conflicts, then yes perhaps it would be a good idea. The numbers on the charts at the top are probably a bit off if one considers salary is part of the defense budget, and Im sure that say a Chinese military member does not receive the pay as someone in our military.

There are cut backs that could be made in many areas such as the length of unemployment benefits, funding of some bureaus that are not needed, and a real look at some of the ear mark spending, plus the "gifts" we give to other nations. Would be worth looking at what we spend in the UN, and our contributions to the World Bank.

I voted to keep the spending level where it is. Sure the military could be physically cut back some, but the funds saved by cutting back should be spent to provide better care of vets who return from conflicts missing limbs, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
395 Posts
Their budget isn't the problem it is the stupidity of how it is allocated that is the problem.
I'd disagree. $1.2 trillion is a huge problem. I voted for a 50% decrease. There are a lot of lifers on active duty that waste the air they breath much less taxpayers monies.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
12,251 Posts
Keep the amount the same, but change the distribution significantly. Minimize foreign activity, increase border security, and develop significant anti-missile defenses and reinstitute Civil Defense and a shelter program.

Just my opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,474 Posts
we have the same threats facing us as the rest of the world. our spending should be on par with china and russia. if it's way over that it's due to fraud in the complex, (200 dollars for a toliet seat?) and other abuses.

if our spending is 100 times higher than the rest of the world it's becuase the US tax payer is getting screwed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,004 Posts
The Defense budget is high but historically in the post WW2 context, it is a bit moderate. I suggested a 25% cut as we should be cutting back on our foreign entanglements that might be more than we need in a fiscal sense but more appropriate given our current needs in the force projection areas.
 

·
Vitesse et Puissance
Joined
·
16,211 Posts
As soon as they comit to the major cuts, we will be in another major conflict. It always happens and it will happen again.

We will the blow even more money trying to catch up on the troops we lost.

If they do offer the early retirements like mentioned above, then its usually the Higher quality NCO's and Officers that take the money and run.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9111315 and 556X45

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,156 Posts
Problem will be the problem with every single federal agency. Lifers who will do whatever they can to protect their pay check and position and benefits. Plus the cash cow that is the military for subcontractors and politicians is staggering. IF a space alien came and studied and restructured the military with the same budget we would be even more awesome. Unfortunately nobody involved will do anything more creative than lay off the rank and file enlisted man. Everything else has too much gravy to sop up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,150 Posts
save money by firing the civilans and letting the military do it right the first time.... that ought to save several billion right at the gate....

actually place a full bird or something equivilant in a position that really oversees the bidding posts and goes for quality and cost over the name of some company that is gonna screw it all ....
 

·
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Joined
·
6,767 Posts
Keep the amount the same, but change the distribution significantly. Minimize foreign activity, increase border security, and develop significant anti-missile defenses and reinstitute Civil Defense and a shelter program.

Just my opinion.
I thought the shelter program was ended cause they could not protect everyone. I sure you know it that is true.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,428 Posts
I say triple it or quadruple it, whatever it takes. Invade the big mouths, slap them around til they learn their place. Launch a simultaneous nuclear first strike at Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan and any other unfriendly nuke puke. Oh yeah, Venezuela too because they might think about getting a nuke bomb. Preemption!

Let's not forget to nuke Mecca and all those other stinkholes that people stick their asses up in the air about. If you're a man and you can't wear pants like a normal human being, we'll make your little dress glow in the dark!

Finally, peace on the planet and I can sit back and enjoy my Pina Colada. Geesh!
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
12,251 Posts
I thought the shelter program was ended cause they could not protect everyone. I sure you know it that is true.
Sure I do. But it is in the nation's best interest to protect as many as possible. Russia and China can shelter much of their population. Switzerland can theoretically shelter all their population and Sweden isn't far behind. Israel has shelters, too.

And if a program is ongoing, with all new construction required to have a shelter and retro-fitting buildings that can be, and eventually replacing buildings that can't be, the US would have enough shelter spaces for everyone.

Of course, not everyone would make it into a shelter in time, and some would be destroyed in a worldwide nuclear war, but the more saved, the better off the country is, as long as Civil Defense does the other programs needed to support the population that survives post event.

Just my opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,832 Posts
Keep it the same, close foreign bases in Europe and Asia, and reallocate funds into maintaining a 12 carrier Navy, with corresponding fleet support; 3 Division Marine Corps back to a force in readiness, not rotation. Cut back competing programs across the branches, boost Air Force strategic capacity and slash Army occupation troop strength. Biggest cost savings would be to de-civilianize logistics and return it to military ratings. I'd also slow down promotions a tad or at least tighten up the pace.
 

·
Vitesse et Puissance
Joined
·
16,211 Posts
And after the draw down, unemployment will rise!! YAY:rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: East Coast Woods
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top