posted
How exactly did you get your info, Rabbit? Since when are there different fact books? What didn't sound like me?
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there a breakdown of the military budget available online anywhere? What the crap are we spending all that money on?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So it appears I was wrong. We do kind of spend a lot on our military proportionately...somewhat. So if we were to cut 100 Billion dollars from our military, Lyrhawn, what would you suggest we do to keep up the military with 1 out of every 5 $ gone? I think the military knows what they are doing. You can't be the best in the world and not know what you are doing.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The fiscal 2006 defense budget of $419.3 billion represents a 4.8 percent increase over fiscal 2005 in real terms, but is about $3 billion less than projected for fiscal 2006 in last year's plan.
This budget does not include an expected administration request for $80 billion in supplemental appropriations, including $75 billion for the Defense Department to cover the cost of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in the current fiscal year.
Highlights of the spending include $108.94 billion for military personnel, including funding for a 3.1 percent pay raise and additional recruiting and retention bonuses for troops. That funding would include $4.1 billion for Special Operations forces -- boosting their numbers by 1,400 and increasing spending for language training -- underscoring the request's assessment that the forces have "contributed significantly" to the war on terror. The budget also allocates $416 million to start the repatriation of 70,000 military personnel from overseas bases.
In terms of weapons systems, procurement funding declined about 2 percent to $78 billion. Funding was stepped up for some systems considered important to the military's goal of modernizing: The Army's Future Combat System receives $3.4 billion, an increase of $200 million; and the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship gained an increase of $156 million to $613 million.
But the budget would cut funding for such weapons systems as the F/A-22 fighters, DD(X) destroyers, LPD amphibious ships, Virginia-class attack submarines and V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft.
posted
That money may be needed to maintain the current level of military action, but whether that level of military action is needed is very much up for debate.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still don't know where you got your numbers Reticulum.
My numbers for GDP are (2005) estimates from the CIA world fact book. My numbers for Military spending are from the Center for Arms Control and Non-proliferation (I posted the link to these numbers earlier). With the exception of the numbers for China and Russia, the data is all from 2005. I calculated the percentages.
I don't know how your percentages were calculated or where they come from. The military expenditures for US in the world fact book are for 2003, I haven't checked the other countries.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm confused by that break down of military spending.
They report a total of $419 billion. $108 billion of that is for personnel and $78 billion is for weapons. Where did the spend the other $233 billion dollars?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should also add that the budget requested in that article, is about 30 billion less than the budget that was approved.
(We should note that 30 billion is an additional $100 for every man, woman and child living in the US.)
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
A lot of stuff. Ship building, ordnance, base building, base maintenance, operational costs.
I'm reading a breakdown of the proposed budget for just the Navy FY2007.
As far as I'm concerned, we could cut the size of the army. We don't need a standing army that large. Cut it by 40,000 troops at least, and save billions. That's billions saved in salary costs, future training cost, maintenance cost, across the board it saves money. Increase spending on unmanned vehicles, and for that matter, don't cut the F/A 22 program that we've already spent billions on, it's near completion, and we've already cut the latest stealth helicopter design from Sikorsky and the Palladin weapons system.
From what I've read in this budget, it allows funding for the construction of 2 DDX Destroyers, and 4 LCR shallow draft ships, and one VA-class submarine. I'm a big navy fan, a powerful navy and a powerful airforce, as far as I'm concerned in this day and age, are more important than a massive ground force.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you want a quick breakdown (all approx.)
$25 billion for Naval operations $2 billion for Naval training $4 billion for Naval administrative costs $4 billion for Marine operations/training and administrative costs. $10 billion for Naval aircraft procurement $10 billion for Naval aircraft R&D $2.5 billion for weapons procurement for Naval aircraft $10 billion for Naval shipbuilding $17 billion for additional Naval R&D/System development and demonstration
So, for the Navy and Marines anyway: $84.5 billion. And that doesn't include the cost of naval and marine salary, which is included in the abovementioned 100 billion+ figure.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
For what? Wasteful wars of aggression that produce no gain for the US but waste HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of tax payer dollars? And in the face of rising deficits, and a massive debt, I don't see how we can justify it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because our goal is to maintain the ability to defend our allies, our interests, and our power projection overseas. If we were to cut our soldiers, we would cut our vehicles, which would cost to get rid of. We would also have to store extra vehicles, aircraft, and uniforms. Our capabilities would lower, and we couldn't defend our interests overseas. It wouldn't be good, short to say.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where do you think we keep those vehicles and uniforms now? That's utterly ridiculous. We don't just get rid of vehicles, we store them, and do routine maintenance.
We project power like crazy. Each individual aircraft carrier group we operate could take on (almost) any one of the world's navies and fight it to a standstill. We can strike with impunity in almost any nation in the world at this point.
We're perfectly capable of defending our interests with a smaller, more mobile strike force, and more special operations soldiers. Our major allies are perfectly capable of helping themselves without our help. Europe doesn't need American military power to defend itself, and even if it did, it certainly shouldn't. They have no excuse.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: Because our goal is to maintain the ability to defend our allies, our interests, and our power projection overseas. If we were to cut our soldiers, we would cut our vehicles, which would cost to get rid of. We would also have to store extra vehicles, aircraft, and uniforms. Our capabilities would lower, and we couldn't defend our interests overseas. It wouldn't be good, short to say.
How about we start defending our interests within our own borders before we go play Police of the World?
posted
That's what the military is for. The military does what the military does. Your adressing what the federal government should do. The military couldn't help in any of these things short of helping disaster reconstruction.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Really? Britain, China, and India don't seem to have a problem keeping their interests protected for a fraction of the cost.
The military is an ARM of the federal government. They aren't separate entities in the way that you are suggesting. Federal policy dictates what the military is used for.
You're suggesting the military simply exists to BE the military. The military exists for whatever purpose we decide to give it, and that purpose can be reduced and increased in scope, depending on the desires of the government, and god willing, of the people. And right now, the purpose of the military seems to be only to waste money for no return.
America should be focusing on itself. You need to help yourself before you can help others. Besides, I think it'd be good for our image, not that I really care what others think about is, goodwill is never a bad thing.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: That's what the military is for. The military does what the military does. Your adressing what the federal government should do. The military couldn't help in any of these things short of helping disaster reconstruction.
Oh, you don't even WANT to know what I think of the military and the federal government and our glorious "disaster reconstruction."
posted
Pfhhh, SUCKS MORE THEN YOU CAN POSSIBLY IMAGINE, is what disaster reconstruction was. Part of the reason Republicans will lose the next election. But then, it all depends on the administration.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because our goal is to maintain the ability to defend our allies, our interests, and our power projection overseas.
With the possible exception of defending our allies, I find those goals to be highly immoral.
Its one thing to defend your country from an invading force. It's quite another thing to defend your "interests" and "power projection". To me those are just euphanisms that allow us to call aggression defense. I mean seriously. When did anyone ever start a war that they didn't think was defending their interests? Hitler's invasion of Poland was to protect the interests of German speakers in Poland.
If we consider any war for US interests to be self defence, then we've basically justified every possible aggressive scenario that anyone would ever propose.
[ March 31, 2006, 05:45 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sergeant: Take North Korea's military expenditures as a percentage of GDP (I'm using mismatched numbers here)
2005 estimated GDP $40 billion 2002 military expenditures over $5 billion
Approximatly 12% of GDP!
Sergeant
Considering, but since NK is not a democracy, but a dictatorship, the government can (according to my knowledge) do whatever they want.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: LeoJ, I think you migh just be jelous of the U.S., considering your nation, which was once a world empire, is now nothing.
You know that is exactly the kind of statement that causes people aroung the world to view Americans as arrogant self loving jerks.
Thanks Rabbit, you cut my fingers some slack.
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: My point was, I cannot see why LeoJ so desperately hates the United States. Apparently, he thinks we Americans are dumb, arrogant( ),
I think, in my previous thread, I made it clear that I liked America, and no I dont think Americans are dumb, (only the guy that used to be my neightboor, and he was very arrogant about the U.S.), but you made it pretty clear how arrogant most Americans can be.
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: and since he views us as arrogant jerks, why not act as he views us?
You have been arrogant way before you tought i tought Americans were arrogant. Now im not saying all Americans, im stating that you answered your own question. And no, im not jelous of America, anything i could be jelous about is the movieīs release dates, since here i have to wait a couple of months.
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: and live in a nation that bullies others.
America is a big bully (or well bully isnt the correct word but its close enough), and some can agree about that with me, ofcourse most of the ones who would agree are likely non-American, and lets not put Europe in the picture, im not talking about Europe im talking about America.
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: And yes, while I should be proving him wrong, and be a respectful, kind, and humble American,
I donīt see how showing off about how your nation is the best militarily, politically or whatever you spat out on your previous replies, fits in your definition of humble.
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: they say; "Your nation sucks, and you are arrogant bastards."
All i ever said is that the public HS education system sucks, and that they mostly teach U.S. history while the world (Europe is not the World) teaches World History.
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: Well, seeing as I just proved your point, I shall heed your advice. Thank You...me?
You didnīt just proved my point, you also answered your own question.
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: Edit: Does this mean that others have to respect me? Nope, if someone chooses not to respect me,(in this thread) that is fine, now. All I want, is for my opinions to be respected.
Respect towards Reticulum is still on my book, therefore i respect your opinion.
And sorry that your name sounds like rectum to me, but hey, its life.
Posts: 56 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yay, I'm respected. Alright LeoJ, contrary to what I said earlier, and since this posy was a good one, I shall resume respecting you.
I don't see why you say we don't learn world history. I have 2 siblings currently in high school, and they learn world history. I also have one in 9th, but that doesn't count. As you get higher and higher and higher in grades, you start learning world history. Which is about the world. Do they teach as much as they should? No, they definitely don't.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
And it could not be more accurate.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
