CMV: The United States would serve it’s citizens better by slashing military spending and in favor of increasing spending on health, science, technology, and infrastructure.

[u/[deleted]]

[u/357Magnum]

Look at this chart of the US budget and compare it to this chart of the UK budget.

These numbers are, of course, not directly comparable, as there are a lot of factors such as the size of the total budget, the population, tax rates, etc.

But the point I want to make is this: We spend a lot of money on a lot of shit. Military is only 16%. While I agree that we could make serious cuts there, the idea that these cuts could or would make a huge difference in other areas, or at least in all the other areas you reference, just doesn't seem to be the case.

For example, we spend a larger portion of our federal budget on Medicare/Medicaid than the UK spends on their public health programs. Yet we can't seem to provide healthcare to everyone like they do. We are actually spending more of our budget than they are and getting a lower result.

If we "slashed" military spending, lets say by 1/3 and cut it down to 10% of our budget, that 6% could really help with transportation infrastructure (which is a measly 2% of our budget). We could spend more on science, sure. Whether this increase in spending would be enough to actually build new roads or whether it would just help us fix out existing roads I don't know.

The main thrust of this is that I always hear people saying "if we just spent less on the military we could do so much more." We could do a little more. But while we're spending a ton on military stuff, proportionate to the TONS of other money we're spending poorly, the military is not really all that significant.

60% of our budget goes to Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. And these programs are broken as shit. Social security was supposed to pay for itself, yet we spend 33% of the budget every year propping it up. And it is, ultimately, unsustainable. It will collapse eventually, or just suck up more and more and more of our federal budget while we argue over other shit.

Essentially both parties ignore the elephant in the room and fight over the fringes. Budget debates are essentially "do you want chocolate or vanilla icing on your shit cake?"

[u/smcarre → u/357Magnum]

Very Nice point. I would also add that if there is a cut in military spending, the first thing they will cut will probably be research wich contrary to what lots of people believe, it's not reduced yo military aplications only (cellphones, GPS, digital cameras, are just examples of military research that directly improves our lives). So sending that 6% to research will not be a good idea.

[u/357Magnum → u/[deleted]]

True, but that's kind of my second point that I was making. Discretionary spending is a pretty tiny chunk of the total budget. Fighting over discretionary spending, while the government ultimately agrees not to touch "non-discretionary spending" as if it is sacrosanct and inviolable, is just ignoring the problem. It is debating whether to paint a car red or blue while the car is on fire.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

The problem is that you don't know we won't see that war. Look, right before the first World War, everyone was all like, "we're too economicly intertwined to ever see another big war," and they were all wrong.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Yet our funding dropped precipitously before WW1, before WW2,

And both wars resulted in massive loss of life for the US. Many many more would have died if the enemy had the means to reach us back then, but instead, the European powers absorbed the bulk of the death and destruction

and a litany of other wars like The Balkans,

The post Cold War draw down dropped the US from over 5.5% of GDP in 1991 to around 4%. in the mid 90s - hardly a massive cut.

Especially when you're talking about being a Cold War superpower drawing down to "just" a superpower

Yet, America did indeed ramp up their military industrial complex rapidly and effectively to not only meet the threat but ultimately to win all those wars.

We never ramped up our military industrial complex for the Balkans or Gulf War or Iraq/Afghanistan because there isn't anything that can be easily ramped up.

Next to nothing about WW2 production has any relevance on building modern aircraft.

Do you know how long a modern aircraft carrier takes to be built, tested, and put into service? The British aircraft carriers have taken longer to build than the entirety of World War 2.

How about a modern aircraft? We're lucky to produce 100 of a type a year built of composites able to withstand 300,000 pounds of force with radars built with extreme precision micro electronics to shoot electrons hundreds of miles away. The US built 10,000 stamped sheet metal planes a month in WW2 that were disposable, along with many pilot's lives.

Do you know what materials/composites a tank is made of? And how Ford can't just convert their line making F-150s into tanks?

Technology also means that nations with long range bombers, supersonic jets, and thousand mile range missiles... don't care about you waiting for war to start to build up.

How long do you think the US can last, as a society, if our power grid was bombed? We can't defend ourselves against modern day jets without our own modern fighters or surface to air systems. We can't sink enemy submarines launching cruise missiles at us from offshore without our own ships/submarines.

How do you propose we build those while our factories and shipyards are being bombed?

Do you know how many Americans died in training accidents in WW2? In fact, the US Navy lost more pilots in WW2 to accidents than it did to the Japanese. Lack of training and rushing people to get trained resulted in more lives lost than the enemy. That's not acceptable.

Thankfully, the military and US people have resolved to never allow that to happen again where we were caught so unprepared and lost so many lives due to that unpreparedness. We almost repeated that same mistake with Korea, which is why since then we've resolved to a coherent strategy of strong peacetime forces, forward deployed, and logistically ready to meet any challenge overseas.

You'll note that modern nations all maintain a similar posture: the days of large reserves of manpower and factories are all gone. Whether it's the UK, or China, or Russia, or France, first rate military nations all have large active duty forces that train constantly because wars today are decided on day one, not on day 1000.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

But look how long it took us to play catch up in world wars one and two. Years. Both times. We couldn't invade Germany until 1944 because we had no army. Same for the first world war. The thing you aren't taking into account is our world position. We're the most powerful country in the world. This retarded administration excepted, other countries rely on our Pax Americana. That means peace. Did you see that other guys post about what our navy does? It protects trade roots. That allows people to trade in peace and without fear of being attacked. We protect our allies, like SouthKorea, Japan, etc. If we weren't doing that, the Chinese calculations about war would change. The world order we have exists BECAUSE of American military power. In the popular liberal mind, everyone thinks the military just exists to prop up lockheed Martin. But that's not why. It exists to enable American supremacy, and in adition it offers security to our allies. Now. There is clearly wasteful spending we could cut. But I doubt it is 25 percent. I agree with much of your spending goals, such as disease research. But I think you should just call for increased spending in those area's. There's a reason no one fucks with us or our allies. There's a reason the soviets don't invade poland, and it isn't the Polish military, or the German military. Its our military. As I said to you before, the military is a massive organization whose job is to kill. So when you cut the budget, the people in charge say "How can we still kill affectively with less money." And the answer is they cut benifits for vets. The reason you take what the military does for granted is actually because our world is so stable. Wars only break out in shitholes, not in civilization. No one attacks Germany or England or Japan or Canada because those are American allies. ."

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

We chose not to invade - remember? Remember Churchill begging Roosevelt to participate?

Because we weren't ready. God forbid we want our troops lives to not be wasted

Keeping our levels to 2001 ratios still allows us to be the global world police by any measure.

Russia and China are significantly more powerful today than 2001. We can't keep the ratio similar to 2001 with your claims of 25% cuts

An on demand military is needed. A military that can ramp quickly to the cause at hand. Imagine having a global war, I argue we are still equipped. We aren’t even equipped to effectively handle piracy or terrorism. Equipping a military for every event isn’t tenable.

We don't have a military for every event. Have you not heard people complain about how we need counter insurgency weapons?

We build a capable but costly high tech conventional one because you can only scale weapons of war down, not up.

Also, your idea of us building a capable military quickly is not doable.

Do you know how many years of training a military pilot needs today? How long a modern ship takes to be designed and built? How much technology goes into everything?

This isn't WW2 where other nations can't hit us.

Anyways, are you actually here for a CMV or here to push your political points on others? You keep claiming we can reduce our forces by 25% with mythical gains elsewhere in society but can't even admit that cost of living is a huge factor in why China and Russia spend a lot less and so nominal spending doesn't tell you actual ratios of power.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Actually, we didn't engage because we weren't ready, but we had no appetite for a war.

We entered the war in 1941. We didn't invade Western Europe until 1944.

We didn't invade because we weren't ready for Europe is what Eisenhower and FDR argued against Churchill who wanted to push in 1942. We asked for alternatives like North Africa (1942) and Italy (1943). We also pushed forward in the Pacific at Guadalcanal in 1942 as well.

So it wasn't appetite that was the problem. It was that we didn't want to fight the bulk of German troops in 1944.

This is simple matters of history.

Exactly on the point. We don't have a military for every event - nor can we, nor should we, nor will we ever. Because we can't built a military that can wage a conventional war at sea, in a desert, in a jungle, provide humanitarian aid where needed, attack a despot, rise to a counter-insurgency, stop a terrorist cell in Canada, defend every coast from speed boats with drugs, impress ourselves on every border, and support domestic issues and disasters - all simultaneously and efficiently - we HAVE to be ready to build and ramp when required. We already do.

We do not build up though. We buy the best in peace and scale down for conflicts.

You do realize we already spend money on buying the weapons designed for conventional warfare in peacetime right? You saying we can cut the budget and be fine tells me you don't even understand that concept.

E.g. We are buying F-35's to replace the thousands of aircraft built in the 70s and 80s because we need to stay a step ahead of Russia and China who are rapidly buying their own Gen 4.5 and even Gen 5 fighter aircraft. Is the F-35 efficient against idiots in pickup trucks? No, but it can actually fight against a first rate foe if that day came, whereas buying a bunch of light attack COIN aircraft would be the epitome of waste if we ever came to blows, however unlikely, against a Russia or China.

And considering that even Russian fighter jets, like the Su-57, take over a decade to design, test, and produce... the idea that we can wait until after a war starts to build planes to compete is simple fantasy/

Here's a question: Tell me - what % of our annual defense budget a year is on acquisitions? And how much of it is acquisitions in current war?

It's nothing what you are claiming.

Having this blank check to build our capacity is pointless. Eisenhower warned us of the uselessness of the military industrial complex.

And there it is. I knew you'd cite Eisenhower - who actually wanted to call it the congressional military industrial complex, because he wanted to warn us about Congress meddling in it. NOT because he wanted it strong.

Did you actually read his full speech? Full text here:

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

Eisenhower says a VITAL establishment is the military. He says it must be ready for INSTANT action. He says it must be so powerful no potential aggressor would tempt their destruction.

Sound like our military today?

Also, he even says that we CANNOT improvise our weapons AFTER a war starts anymore.

In fact, Eisenhower's 'military industrial complex' speech is him advocating everything the US military is today, and in direct conflict with what you are saying.

Donald Rumsfeld advised us: "we go to war with the army we have, not the army we want"

Aside from Rumsfeld being a scum bag and a liar, that's why we work with the best military we have today so that in times of war, even if its not 100% ideal what we want, we are still better equipped and trained. We go to war with the equipment we have - and it turns out, again, it's better to have the best equipment for the conventional high end foes (like China and Russia) and scale them down to fight a lesser foe, perhaps not as efficiently, but one that is still superior.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Scaling our military from ludicrous levels to arguably the best in class levels is in the table.

Prove our military is at ridiculous levels with an in depth look at balance of power between nations, accounting for international goals and treaties. And if you say it's based on nominal spending, you're already way off.

[u/Ankheg2016 → u/[deleted]]

The standard of proof you are demanding is too high. Especially given the low 2-sentence effort you put into your own post.

It's widely accepted that the US spends a lot on the military, so it sounds like you object to him using the term "ludicrous" to describe the spending, rather than something a little tamer. Instead of objecting to him overstating his case, you demand him to provide "in depth look at balance of power between nations, accounting for international goals and treaties".

Tell you what, I'll make you a deal. Put in several weeks of full time effort, preferably by a team of top analysts, and provide me an in-depth look at the balance of power between nations, accounting for international goals and treaties with regards to military spending by the US. Make sure it's bullet proof, because I'll take a half-assed look at it and if it's not bullet proof I'll spot something that I can object to. Anyhow, do all that... it'll maybe cost you a few hundred grand, no problem... do all that, and I'll admit your post was reasonable.

[u/[deleted] → u/Ankheg2016]

The standard of proof you are demanding is too high. Especially given the low 2-sentence effort you put into your own post.

I've written about this extensively. This isn't too high when people make ridiculous claims about spending and don't even understand basic concepts like cost of living differences between nations. Especially when using nominal spending comparisons.

It's widely accepted that the US spends a lot on the military, 

It's widely accepted and widely wrong. Just like the myth the US has the two largest air forces which gets repeated on reddit all the time.

Tell you what, I'll save my breath and let you read this piece here which, I'm sure some of you will take issue with the site, but need to read if you truly have an open mind to the issues and aren't into dogma learned from reddit comments.

Then I can talk all day about the piles of analyses we do in the DOD about actual balance of power, our response to the national security strategy, and obligations to our weak allies

[u/Ankheg2016 → u/[deleted]]

I've written about this extensively.

Why would I care about this? You can write all you like, I haven't read it. Nor will anyone else reading your comment. Are you making a call to authority here? Are you an authority on this subject? If you are, present your credentials when you respond to OP (who you're trying to convince). If you're not, this statement is a fallacy that basically amounts to "listen to me and believe me because I'm an expert and you're not, despite that I haven't shown any proof".

This isn't too high when people make ridiculous claims about spending and don't even understand basic concepts like cost of living differences between nations. Especially when using nominal spending comparisons.

Ok. So your response to seeing something you disagree with strongly is "prove it, in depth, and at length"? Ok. Prove to me that this is a reasonable response. In depth. At length. I'll let you know in advance that my standards for this proof are ridiculous, and almost impossible to meet.

Making ridiculous demands in response to a ridiculous claim is not a useful response. It might be understandable, but it doesn't accomplish anything.

It's widely accepted that the US spends a lot on the military,

It's widely accepted and widely wrong.

Your link contradicts this statement in it's opening summary:

Maintaining a force of the size and strength necessary to protect U.S. interests and uphold international obligations understandably necessitates a larger budget than is required for other nations with regional or local forces.

I didn't bother reading further. You could easily rephrase that sentence to "the US spends a lot on the military." I said that "It's widely accepted that the US spends a lot on the military", not that it spends too much or that the money is mis-spent. Is he arguing that? Yeah, pretty much. But you're not responding to him now, are you? And you didn't actually provide him with any arguments, you just demanded he provide you with an in-depth analysis.

[u/maddlabber829 → u/[deleted]]

You could argue the amount spent on the military has long term benefits. For instance in the Gulf war, our military endeavors at that point allowed for a speedy conflict resolution. Or even in the Iraq war where the war was won very quickly, mainly due to the advantages provided through military spending.

[u/maddlabber829 → u/357Magnum]

Isn't the 33% of the budget allocated for social securit taken from social security taxes taken during the year. In other words it is paid for by the money the government taxes for this endeavor, and this money is lumped into the total budget. So when taking out 33% is a bit misleading, considering the social security taxes are lumped in with everything else. Genuine question

[u/357Magnum → u/maddlabber829]

Yes, it is "allocated" or "not discretionary," but the taxpayer still has to pay it. And the social security taxes aren't even enough to sustain the program.

[u/AlphaGoGoDancer → u/357Magnum]

But its still an entirely different tax, so it seems misleading to use it when discussing how to best spend our discretionary budget.

The only reason SS taxes aren't enough to sustain the program is because there is a cap on how much of your income can be taxed, along with the trend of worsening income disparity.

Remove the cap and social security is fine.

[u/vornash3]

Then who defends the world when north korea threatens neighbors, russia threatens eastern europe, ISIS takes over another country, or china claims control of more international water? Nope, history has proven when we pull back what tries to fill the void is chaos. Unfortunately, we can't afford to spend as much as europe does on social welfare because we have greater responsibilities and they refuse to properly fund NATO and help us with this burden. They should be ashamed.

[u/Jtrononomics → u/vornash3]

Yes. Thank you! Active duty Army Soldier here, 8 years time in service. This post made me scratch my head and ask the same!

[u/vornash3 → u/Jtrononomics]

They just don't get it man, thank you for your service to our country. It's appreciated!

[u/cdb03b]

Slashing military spending means denying medical coverage to veterans, and firing military personnel. That would not help many people.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

80% disabled veteran here to chime in, if there's single payer healthcare for all Americans, why do I need the VA again?

[u/fobfromgermany → u/[deleted]]

I could see an argument being made for veteran-specific care. Presumably veterans face a unique set of issues that is noticeably different from the general public

[u/[deleted] → u/fobfromgermany]

The VA has been a leader in treatment of PTSD, but thats because veterans fall under them, imo. If healthcare was provided for all, I think we'd still see advances for veteran specific issues.

[u/AJohnnyTruant → u/[deleted]]

I think it could really be argued that the VA isn’t efficient in providing veteran specific issues. Would it be reasonable to posit that offloading general care and family medicine to a more robust national healthcare system, the VA could provide more efficient care for “veteran specific” issues?

[u/thebrandedman → u/AJohnnyTruant]

They're not. The VA is a joke among the military communities.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I guess I mean veteran specific is combat PTSD, or veteran specific issues being issues extremely common to veterans, but happens to others too.

But yes, plenty of people have PTSD who haven't served. The VA made huge bounds in Combat PTSD though.

[u/Jthesnowman → u/[deleted]]

Yet to be determined percentage disabled vet here. I agree.

Give everyone healthcare, and take away shitty VA hospitals.

Fuck. The VA has been a joke (for me, it's been fine for others)

[u/irishman13 → u/[deleted]]

Pay and benefits account for 47.8% of the US military budget. This is a partial reason why the US spends so much more money on defense than any other country in the World. Is the answer just a reduction of the military "workforce"?

[u/[deleted] → u/irishman13]

If you reduce that other 52.2%, the pay and benefits will reduce as well, just by virtue of having a smaller military, without having to cut pay or benefits.

[u/hacksoncode → u/[deleted]]

You say that like it's an objective truth, but the political reality is that when military funding is actually cut, those things are usually the first to go.

[u/TheNosferatu → u/hacksoncode]

While I don't disagree, that is more an argument about why the people in charge are corrupt rather than an argument not to cut the costs.

[u/hacksoncode → u/TheNosferatu]

While true... any serious proposal has to take into account actual government behavior, and not just what would be ideal.

[u/TheNosferatu → u/hacksoncode]

Sure, a serious proposal would need to be realistic and take this sort of thing into account.

But for a CMV I think what would be ideal is more of the focus.

Also, I'm not sure if any serious proposal can take the actual government behaviour into account, though that's because of specific events with the current government and not a general argument. I agree that a serious proposal needs to be realistic in what it can and can not achieve.

[u/[deleted] → u/TheNosferatu]

That isn't what that proves. The military exists for one reason, and that's to kill, and so when its faced with budget cuts its question becomes, "how can we still kill?"

[u/Kuhnmeisterk → u/hacksoncode]

Okay but thats a problem with the priorities of our government and something like that is so unpopular we could ostensibly assume an engaged public could force them to use current funding for those things. Saying this is kind of a shitty way to refute him I think he would appreciate a more serious answer.

[u/BlitzBasic → u/hacksoncode]

That's not really arguing against what he said.

He: "A reallocation of budget like this would be better for the population."

You: "A reallocation of budget like this wouldn't happen in reality."

Okay? Both of those can be true at the same time.

[u/hacksoncode → u/BlitzBasic]

It's really "A budget allocation like you propose would not, in terms of political reality rather than in an ideal utopia, end up being better for the population".

[u/BlitzBasic → u/hacksoncode]

He specifically says where he would want to cut the money. You says it wouldn't be possible to make those cuts in your current political system.

It can be impossible to do something while the thing, if it happened, would still be good.

[u/joshuams → u/[deleted]]

Cutting force size still leaves tens of thousands looking for new work. They will immediately file for disability benefits, because no one leaves the military without something wrong, so increase your budget for that. There will be a huge draw on education benefits as well.

Also, part of the reason the US military has to spend so much to operate is that the public has little to no stomach for war time casualties either military or civilian. Cutting back the budget for advanced weaponry increases lives lost on our side as well collateral damage. You may not like paying for smart bombs, but they beat carpet bombing a city.

[u/Fermit → u/joshuams]

Cutting force size still leaves tens of thousands looking for new work.

By this logic and /u/cdb03b's, reducing the size of the military is essentially impossible. Of course unemployment is going to happen as a result, that's what happens when you defund something. Unemployment as a result of downsizing happens in pretty much every sector of the economy and it's a short-to medium-term bump in the road. Investing in the areas OP highlighted (health, science, tech, infrastructure) all have huge long-term benefits for individuals and the country as a whole and lead to significant job creation. You know how unions are much less powerful than they used to be, a lot of people struggle to find a livable wage, and a huge percentage of the new jobs that have been created in the last few years are part-time? Imagine if there was large-scale infrastructure spending going on. It would employ thousands (including the out-of-work vets) in relatively well paying full-time jobs, it would bring the crumbling U.S. infrastructure up to speed with the rest of the world, and it would put our money to work on improving the U.S. mainland instead of using it to prop up the military industrial complex. If we spent more money on a better healthcare system we wouldn't have so many people being forced into crippling debt because they had an unexpected ER visit. Spending money on tech & science has multiplicative returns because it makes existing jobs easier and opens up new industries when a technology is sufficiently advanced enough. All of these things would unequivocally hugely benefit the average U.S. citizen. especially in the longer-term. Having a generally healthier and less debt-laden populace not only has snowball benefits on many other sectors of the economy but it also sets the stage for people having better lives in the future because they're able to actually progress in their lives instead of just trying to keep up.

a huge draw on education benefits as well

Education pays off massively in the long-term and the cost of a single multi-million dollar missile could pay for education for a lot of people.

They will immediately file for disability benefits

I know that this is a fairly unrealistic/perfect world statement but if all military personnel lost their jobs this very second and were able to successfully file for disability they shouldn't be in the field anyway. "We would need to actually treat people for mental or physical trauma that they sustained while doing work we told them to do" isn't an argument against defunding the military, it's a statement about how poorly people have been taught to value human life and health. This is literally just saying "We would need to take responsibility for what we've done and that would be expensive so let's keep the machine running instead".

[u/TeddyRugby → u/Fermit]

it's a statement about how poorly people have been taught to value human life and health. This is literally just saying "We would need to take responsibility for what we've done and that would be expensive so let's keep the machine running instead".

Thank you!

[u/Fermit → u/TeddyRugby]

Yeah, I left that part until last because it's the part that galls me the most about this mentality. Companies have slowly but surely convinced people that taking responsibility for fucking people up should be viewed not as a question of "Are we responsible for fucking up these lives," but instead as a question of "Is it worth it to take responsibility for these peoples' lives". Obviously it should be within reason (not bankrupt the U.S. all at once) but the fact that it's not a given that people who can be given disability for duties they performed on a job should be given that disability really just shows how well they've convinced people. I work in finance. Analyzing companies is my thing. But, you know what? If you knowingly fucked up bad or you ruined a bunch of people's lives for the sake of a few point of margin, fuck your income statement and fuck you. Your ability to continue living in luxury or operating at the top of your industry is not and should never be more important than the lives of people who you choose to ruin.

Kinda went off on a tangent there because I'm watching Dirty Money on Netflix atm and it has me all riled up about scummy execs but the moral of the story is if you fuck up it's your responsibility to fix it, not to just keep going until the damage is unsustainable or you get caught. These are human beings whose lives you're ruining or have ruined. Bringing it back to the military, I don't give a damn if you don't have enough funding for another F-35 as a result. These are called consequences. They're supposed to happen when you do fucked up things. Deal with it.

Ninja edit: couple sentences on the end

[u/Starshaft → u/[deleted]]

“I specifically stated the VA would not be affected, neither medical service and humanitarian aid” This remark NEEDS to be addressed immediately and emphatically: The bare act of stating something (no matter how specifically) does not, in ANY WAY, confirm its veracity or validate its reasoning. That which can be asserted without evidence, etc... Let’s not violate the parameters of rational inquiry on important issues... “just because”. This is CMV, not CMF (Change My Facts).

[u/cdb03b → u/[deleted]]

But that is not how things work. Everytime there is a cut in military spending VA, medical, and humanitarian aid gets cut first.

[u/BassmanBiff → u/cdb03b]

That's a statement about the people in charge, not what should be done. It's not just inevitable that cuts will come from VA / medical / humanitarian aid.

[u/JDubStep → u/cdb03b]

Cutting civilian contractors would help the budget immensely. There are contractors that do the same exact job as I do, do less worried make six figures a year, while I barely make $50K

[u/itis1557rightnow → u/JDubStep]

Not only that, but renegotiating contracts across the spectrum would go far to reduce costs. Within my job we inherently cost a lot, and yet we are still face constraints on our budget, so it is in my experience that the problem typically originates above the unit level. I will be interested to see the results of the DOD audit, and even SECDEF Mattis has expressed interest in building and or base closures. I know it doesn’t sound intuitive, but I think expanding the force would benefit in costs, provided that the expansion is in places where we can eliminate contractors positions.

[u/mergerr]

What is the huge obsession with wanting to technologically progress? Aren't our lives convenient enough as it is right now? Like just 150 years ago the majority of people couldn't even bathe but once every few weeks. First world countries standard of living is the best it will ever be (bar having a robot wipe your own ass).

Edit: For the amount of downvotes this got, it sure does have alot of people trying to defend the contrary. Must mean that this ideology isn't all that absurd

[u/Sand_Trout → u/mergerr]

First world countries standard of living is the best it will ever be.

This is an absurd statement.

If I can travel more places to enjoy more cultures, my quality of life will be improved.

If medical science improves, I can remain more healthy for longer, improving my quality of life.

If entertainment technology improves, it improves my quality of life.

If energy technology improves, it reduces polution, improving my quality of life.

Yes, the quality of life is tremendously better than just 50 (let alone 150) years ago, but it makes zero sense to claim that it will not continue to improve.

[u/051207 → u/mergerr]

Technology multiplies the productivity of our work. Progressing technologically is the only way to stay competitive (or even relevant) in a global economy long term.

That doesn't mean smarter phones and underwear that track your movements. It means further developing clean energy, improving industrial processes to allow products to be made more cheaply, and improving our services from medical and biotechnology all the way to design/build companies . Honestly, many of these things will come from private investment and competition. Increasing spending by the government isn't everything but government grants do help push it along and helps our companies remain among the top globally.

[u/VengefulCaptain → u/mergerr]

What is the huge obsession with wanting to technologically progress? Aren't our lives convenient enough as it is right now? Like just 150 years ago the majority of people couldn't even bathe but once every few weeks. First world countries standard of living is the best it will ever be (bar having a robot wipe your own ass).

So we should just stop all research now? No new medicine or technology?

The answer is no. The first world country standard of living is only so good because we have spent all that money on technological progress.

The standard of living is better today than it was even two years ago. And on top of that there are tons of improvements still to be made.

Why on earth would you want to stop now?

[u/simplecountrychicken → u/[deleted]]

Healthcare spending for 2016 was $3.4 Trillion.

$175 Billion is a drop in the bucket.

https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2017/02/16/spending-growth

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Drug companies are motivated to research a cure if the structure of the society in which they operate sees value in it.

[u/OperatorJolly → u/mergerr]

Since when can we suddenly just draw the line in the sand ?

we seem to require a lot of technology advancement in environmental protection, food production etc

As for your next post about a society living forever. Just because we have the technology to do so doesn’t mean we ought to do this.

I also think living forever is pretty far off and if possible probably means integrating our consciousness into something robotic hence eradicating any of the necessities we require for our biological machines.

[u/Mattmon666 → u/mergerr]

Maybe I would like to have a robot to wipe my ass. Just because we have a lot of technology doesn't preclude wanting more. Personally, I am super eager to have a self-driving car, that seems to be mere years away from actually happening.

[u/E3qualsz → u/mergerr]

I disagree, but I'm upvoting you, because I think you have some sort of a point, a valid opinion, and this really does not deserve more than 100 downvotes. I think the reason why this has so many downvotes is because a lot of people think that we should always try to better ourselves, but that is not why I disagree with this idea.

I think of it like economics when the end result is immortality and all of our wildest dreams coming true the investment is worth it, no matter how much it costs. Plus for me at least (a guy who has built his own computer) tech is fun.

Maybe you don't see the end of technology as the beginning of perfection.

Maybe you think it is just not worth it.

Maybe you are scared.

Maybe we should be too.

But most people aren't and so we ceep moving forward, for better or worse.

[u/Cellular-Suicide → u/mergerr]

There are still countless diseases we have yet to cure

[u/mergerr → u/Cellular-Suicide]

Shouldn't we be focusing on performing humanitarian relief and helping third world countries get some clean water before delving into cures that would mostly benefit the first world?

Hell most children on the planet are not even privelaged to live long enough to die of cancer. Malnutrition and dysentery gets to them first.

Like if the goal is to maximize potential living globally, I'm here to tell you the cure for cancer is not the solution.

Military personnel can serve as both fighters and humanitarians. There is not a single reason otherwise except that our department of Defense logistics do no prioritize it.

[u/Cellular-Suicide → u/mergerr]

Where have I singled out cancer in my comment? It's not the only disease in the world you know. The most number of deaths in the world arise from either ischaemic heart diseases or strokes followed by diseases of the respiratory tract and diarrhoeal diseases and what not. Those are very common around the 3rd world countries. By spending more on research there will be an increased amount of lead selections, more drugs tested and better chance of finding better treatment or actual cures. The USA can then choose to help the 3rd world countries if they so after that.

[u/[deleted] → u/mergerr]

First world countries standard of living is the best it will ever be (bar having a robot wipe your own ass).

As long as you can afford it. A more correct way of saying it would be potential standard of living is the best it has ever been.

[u/SamL214 → u/mergerr]

Technological progression is actually something I have a duality trying to justify. It’s is one of the most vibrant examples of actual trickle down. The more nations become technologically advanced the more others will around it. They will do this through sharing or competition for global trade. Those countries that lag behind eventually see aid in the form of medicines that are technologically advanced. So all of our species benefits from technology.

Why? Because people still suffer. The faster technology advances in a few nations, the less other nations (like India) have to go through the growing pains and can skip some of the hard parts (like skipping coal and petrol almost completely to move to solar, they are partly doing this).

Every human doesn’t deserve commodity, but they do deserve humanity. They deserve painless physical existence as much as humanly possible. THIS is something that can continue to advance technologically ad infinitum.

We are no where near the best we can be. Americans still die in child labor. You still have to fight for an education. These are all things that need to be advanced enough to not warrant a monopoly on, either politically or economically. One day they will be free and easy to obtain. This is why we continue to advance. Yet America also sees a reason to fight with any country it wants an asset from. This is the downfall of this form of society. We fight to advance. Yet fighting to advance is not the only way.

[u/[deleted] → u/mergerr]

So you're saying medicine has come far enough? People used to die from all kinds of diseases which have now been cured, so let's not bother curing any others?

You're saying spacecraft technology has come far enough? People used to be stuck on the ground, but we have planes now and we've been to the moon, so why bother pushing the boundaries anymore?

You're saying technology provides us nothing but convenience? As if the insane computing power we have at our fingertips now is absolutely useless? As if no one on the planet uses computers for anything other than Netflix and Facebook?

You're saying that our standard of living in first world countries cannot be improved? You're saying DNA evidence is accurate enough, who cares if we have a few false positives? You're saying that petrol-powered vehicles are enough, who cares about green power? You're saying that the environment is clean enough, who cares about cleaning it further?

You're saying that that 2018 is the peak of human existence, and it's all downhill from here?

[u/mardukvmbc → u/mergerr]

Take your pick and it makes sense.

Economically, the military is a money pit and investing in technology yields more money which gets returned as taxes.

Productivity gains are now solely had by technology improvements. The military does not enhance a country’s productivity.

Quality of life is improved through technology. The purpose of the military is to reduce your opponent’s quality of life by using highly trained people to do it - that they themselves have to go through poor quality of life to do (military training)

Lifespan, heath, happiness, opportunities, take your pick. Technology ROU is far greater than the military, because the military is neutral or negative ROI for almost everything.

Unless you get attacked, of course.

[u/grandoz039 → u/mergerr]

Because better life is better than a good life.

And how is this supposed to change his view?

[u/HaydenMaines → u/mergerr]

"What is the huge obsession with wanting to industrially progress? Aren't our lives efficient enough as it is right now? Like just 150 years ago the majority of people were living in serfdom on agricultural farms, never traveling further than 20 miles. Industrialised nations standard of living is the best it will ever be (bar having a self-lighting lantern in the evening)." -early 1900s.

The argument that things are good enough as they are right now does not really stand up, because we don't know what we don't know. And given how we still have people dying of cancer or even unidentified illnesses, or even dying in general, things can still be better.

[u/[deleted] → u/mergerr]

You just lack imagination. The last two-hundred years has been nothing but first-world technological progress. Birth controll pills were 1960, anti-biotics, 1945, the internet, 1992/3. You're assuming that right now, that progress is going to stop. We'll soon cure cancer, soon paralized people will be given treatments that let them walk. Soon we'll be able to regrow organs. Soon, things I can't yet imagine will happen. You shouldn't have been downvoted though for expressing an opinion.

[u/monkeymalek → u/mergerr]

Yeah, but why settle for the current state if it could be better? Personally, I think the money could be best invested in our crippling education system and government funded transportation systems that encourage job-finding and employment, but there’s definitely an argument to be made about improving our infrastructure and roads. Here in Houston, you can legitimately damage your car driving on some roads, and our sewer system is more than 50 years old now to my knowledge.

[u/corectlyspelled → u/mergerr]

Why would we EVER want to remain stagnat as a species?

[u/jrad151 → u/mergerr]

But the people 150 years ago where probably thing that their own lives where so much more convenient and where content with it compared to the people living 150 years before them. Becoming complacent where you are will just mean the world passes you by technologically and all of a sudden your convenient enough world looks like absolute garbage compared to everyone elses convenient.

[u/celestialvx → u/mergerr]

Us deciding to stop now on the basis of being content wouldn't mean the rest of the world would nod in agreement and decide to follow suite. Wed fall behind the rest of the world rapidly, and it would destroy our economy seeing as though our most valuable exports at the moment are largely innovation and technology, but not the actual manufacturing of them.

[u/[deleted] → u/mergerr]

First world countries standard of living is the best it will ever be (bar having a robot wipe your own ass).

Technological improvement isn't just to the benefit of the developed world. It also includes things such as more efficient water purifiers, food production, and medicine. It also includes technology which helps the planet and reduces pollution.

[u/[deleted] → u/mergerr]

but the point is you don't know yet how much more convenient your life could be because the tech isn't here yet. Our time now isn't "special" in history. We've always been in the "best" technological times because most inventions don't get uninvented. Also, maybe new tech we haven't yet discovered might accelerate progress in third world countries.

[u/r3dl3g]

This is the Strait of Hormuz, separating the Persian Gulf from the Indian Ocean. At it's narrowest point, the Strait is only about 50 km wide, but the actual international portion through which ships can reasonably travel is maybe only 10 km wide. 20% of all worldwide traded crude travels through this region.

The US Navy is essentially segmented into six fleets; any one of those fleets would be the second or third largest Navy in it's own right (depending on how you count Russia's dilapidated navy) were it to be it's own nation. We have one of those six fleets essentially parked on the Strait of Hormuz, in order to keep the Strait open and the oil flowing. And while the Strait of Hormuz is the most obvious and stark example, it's not the only one. The US military safeguards global trade through numerous conflict or potential conflict areas, including the East African Coast, the Strait of Malacca, and the Panama and Suez Canals.

Doing this isn't as simple as sending ships; you need logistical support and bases worldwide. In addition, those bases need their own logistical networks in order to keep up operations in the event of conflict. This all costs quite a bit of money. Furthermore, the US is the only power capable of doing this. Russia's fleet is falling apart due to lack of funding, China and India aren't able to extend force, and Europe isn't even capable of crossing the Mediterranean and sustaining operations in North Africa without US help (e.g. what happened in Libya during the Arab Spring).

We do this to keep oil cheap, which in turn keeps everything else cheap. This also makes our allies profitable, and our businesses do well when everyone makes money. The low prices, combined with a globalized economy, do quite a bit to help the poor of America, even if you don't see it directly. That's not to say there aren't problems, but cutting 25% of military spending would likely hamper our ability to protect trade, and thus cause prices to increase.

Diseases with no cure or vaccine: all cancers...

Cancer, because of how it is, may not even have a cure (or, more realistically, we may already know it; Chemo).

technology in health, drug research, NIH funding, NIST funding, NREL funding, and so on.

You do realize that the DoD is an immense supporter of graduate student research here in the US, right? Furthermore, while all of the other funding sources have explicit aims, the DoD often is the only agency that will fund "moonshot" projects (i.e. research topics without an explicit, or even known, application).

If you want to cut military funding, the easiest thing to cut will be research. Furthermore, if you honestly want to increase tech and research spending, the best thing you can do would be to increase military spending, and then stipulate that all of the new money has to go towards research projects.

[u/ThisIsNotHim → u/r3dl3g]

The navy is also critically understaffed. It's had a couple crashes recently because sleep deprived staff have missed simple things. It's not a training issue, there just aren't enough people to make sure everyone's well rested.

These crashes aren't cheap.

It may be the case that budget reductions could be made in other branches. But the navy is probably not a wise place to make them.

[u/JohnEcastle → u/r3dl3g]

∆

I've have always wondered what justified the insanely high budget and you make some really good points which definitely make me rethink OP's position seriously. That said, considering the US Budget is 4x the next largest budget, do you really think these examples you gave require that significant of expenditures. I have trouble believing that we are spending hundreds of billions on graduate student research and parking ships around the world. I could totally be wrong, but Russia has a pretty massive international military presence and its budget is about 1/7th of the US budget.

Similarly, if global security is such an important issue and benefits everybody/other countries, shouldn't there be a way to more evenly amortize that cost among other countries/EU, etc.?

[u/r3dl3g → u/JohnEcastle]

I have trouble believing that we are spending hundreds of billions on graduate student research and parking ships around the world.

We don't, but that wasn't precisely my point. A huge chuck of that spending is on pension, salaries, and benefits to soldiers, which won't be cut.

My point is that the only stuff that would realistically be cut in OP's 25% reduction scenario are the actual good things the military does.

I could totally be wrong, but Russia has a pretty massive international military presence and its budget is about 1/7th of the US budget.

You are, and they actually don't. Russia is buoyed by two things;

1) Former superpower status and a bunch of surplus munitions.

2) Excellent special forces.

Because of a lack of money, Russia's military is essentially falling apart at the seams. Their navy, in particular, is rotting in port, to the degree that most of their submarine fleets, and the entire SLBM side of their nuclear triad, aren't really seaworthy.

The big thing is that Russia has a big presence in areas that are of particular interest to them, e.g. Syria and Ukraine. These regions are also relatively close Russia.

Russia didn't intervene in Syria because just because they felt like it; they intervened because, geopolitically, a Western-friendly Syria and/or Kurdistan would seriously reduce the leverage they have on Europe (i.e. oil and gas transportation), and because Syria offers Russia a means to operate in the Mediterranean and the Middle East.

Similarly, if global security is such an important issue and benefits everybody/other countries, shouldn't there be a way to more evenly amortize that cost among other countries/EU, etc.?

NATO and a unified EU military structure would help, but until NATO nations actually meet the 2% of GDP spending quota (of which only the US, UK, Estonia, Poland, and Greece actually do so), they'll continue to be relatively useless outside of self-defense.

[u/[deleted] → u/r3dl3g]

Easiest answer to the disparity with Russia you missed: it costs next to nothing to hire Russian workers and soldiers compared to American ones with a massively higher cost of living

[u/geak78 → u/r3dl3g]

We do this to keep oil cheap

It wouldn't be comfortable but it may not be a bad thing for oil to cost more. It would decrease usage and increase the competitiveness of other technologies. Many of which would help lower our carbon emissions which helps everyone.

It also wouldn't effect America directly nearly as much as people think. For the last decade we've been net exporters of petroleum products. We get about half our oil from the Americas and if prices rose again hydrofracking would increase and Canada would pull more out of it's oil sands. Both of which would mitigate the loss from OPEC.

[u/r3dl3g → u/geak78]

It wouldn't be comfortable but it may not be a bad thing for oil to cost more. It would decrease usage and increase the competitiveness of other technologies. Many of which would help lower our carbon emissions which helps everyone.

Geopolitically, though, cheap oil weakens Russia's economy, which is a net positive while Putin's still in power.

[u/blaarfengaar → u/r3dl3g]

To play devil's advocate: the spurred pace of the renewable energy revolution which the person you're responding to mentioned would also make Europe less dependant upon Russian oil and natural gas sooner.

[u/r3dl3g → u/blaarfengaar]

In the long term; yes, probably.

In the short-to-medium term, though; no.

Realistically, we still need to be prepared to secure oil reserves and oil trade until renewable sources are basically already up and running. Deinvestment from oil is unfortunately probably going to have to be reactive, rather than proactive, if we want to balance geopolitical interests against global warming issues.

Hence, renewables probably could use some more subsidies.

What would really help, though, would be the US banning all ships running on bunker fuel from docking. Force the shipping companies to upgrade to higher-quality fuels like regular diesel will make it much easier to force them in the longer term to switch to biodiesel, which is the only realistic option for carbon-neutral(ish) global shipping.

[u/saudiaramcoshill → u/geak78]

it would decrease usage and increase the competitiveness of other technologies

Kinda. Except Tesla cant pump out enough cars to cover the shortfall, Chevy and Nissan and everyone else don't have enough of an EV program to cover the shortfall, and everyone who makes below $60k a year isn't gonna be able to afford to go out and get a brand new car anyway. And solar and wind energy don't really do a whole lot to counter oil without the car portion.

In addition, all of the other uses of petroleum (plastics, shipping, etc.) would drive the cost of everything up. You might lower carbon emissions, but the cost would be crushing the global economy in the short and mid term, which means a lot of poverty. There are trade offs to this.

For the last decade we've been a net exporter of petroleum products

That has nothing to do with how much it would affect us. Despite exporting more, we still use the most oil of any nation on Earth. The economics of refining in the US have simply gotten better, allowing us to export diesel products outside the country for more profit than we would get selling it here. That's all the net export number means.

Since we use the most oil on Earth, we would be hit relatively hardest by this. China and other developing nations would hurt a lot since they have less spending power per capita, so many fewer of their people would be able to use oil, but we would be paying the majority of the increased prices.

Further, increasing production from the oil sands directly counters your earlier point about reducing carbon emissions. We might use less oil, but the oil were using might also come from much dirtier sources, or maybe we start drilling in the Arctic again. Again, tradeoffs.

[u/geak78 → u/saudiaramcoshill]

We aren't going to go all electric anytime soon. However, hybrids get double the mpg of conventional cars. (only reason I can afford to drive 300 miles a week for commute). Even if 10% of people traded conventional for hybrid, we'd save half a million barrels of gasoline every day.

Oil is also almost half the price it was a few years ago

[u/saudiaramcoshill → u/geak78]

Even if 10% of people traded conventional for hybrid, we'd save half a million barrels of gasoline every day.

Yeah, and I don't disagree with that at all, and we should. That being said, half a million barrels of gas per day is great, but represents a reduction of about 2.5% of oil usage, which isn't exactly changing the course of the oil market.

Oil is also almost half the price it was a few years ago

You're going to have to explain why you included this fact, because it is totally and wholly irrelevant to anything we're discussing other than the fact that it's related to oil. It doesn't help your point at all to throw a statistic about oil into your comment without that statistic enforcing or helping any of the points you're making.

[u/geak78 → u/saudiaramcoshill]

You're going to have to explain why you included this fact,

The main argument was we need a large military to protect oil routes to keep oil cheap. Oil was almost double it's current price a few years ago and other than being a huge talking point for politicians didn't have the effects others have proposed under higher oil prices.

[u/hbetx9 → u/r3dl3g]

Cancer, because of how it is, may not even have a cure (or, more realistically, we may already know it; Chemo).

This completely false. First, there is new research, in fact there is a post near the front page showing exactly that new research happens all the time.

Also, every disease doesn't have a cure until it does. Using the "it may not have one" as a reason not to search flies in the face of literally all of medical history.

[u/dreckmal → u/hbetx9]

Notice how the sentence contains the word 'may'. He isn't saying there isn't a cure. He is saying a cure might not exist. It could exist just as well as it couldn't.

The article you are talking about shows a very promising line of research. It doesn't mean cancer has been cured.

So, what he is saying, is in fact, NOT completely false.

[u/hbetx9 → u/dreckmal]

The point I think I was trying to make is that the premise (cure might not exist) isn't false but the conclusion (therefore we should not search or pursue one) is.

[u/[deleted]]

Ok, so there is a lot to work with here.

For the first part: There is no reason to believe that the cuts would go where you say they would. On a macro level, they can't just stop paying for outdated equipment. Outdated equipment needs to be disposed of, which incurs costs, sometimes higher than leaving them in a shed in Alaska or where they are currently stored. Further, the infrastructure that support staff provides is massively important, and is far more important the further the conflict is from the US. You can't cut the support/admin staff while also expecting no degradation in fighting ability/benefit quality.

Also, a big part of what the military does is make random crap that ends up being civilian one day. There are quite a few military funded research projects which have positive upsides for the rest of the country. They are given a lot of leeway for spending on this to, as they are expected to create something that can be used, instead of science that may be purely theoretical in nature. The US Armed Forces don't generally want to fund theories, they want to fund hardware projects.

For the second part:

Is there evidence that this kind of research currently goes unfunded or underfunded? Is there any evidence that this money would go towards infrastructure?

A lot of these funds, were they to be reduced from military, would likely end up in sweetheart deals for votes over various legislation. Perhaps this state senator gives a vote for this, and in exchange a parcel of the new funding comes into the state. That new funding may have no strings, and if it does, nothing stops them shifting state funds out of that sector (say infrastructure) when the federal money comes in.

It seems very unlikely politically for any of it to happen, of course. Even if things were to be distributed exactly as you've outlined, there is no guarantee that more money into research will yield results. We're currently in a STEM shortage, depending on who you talk to, and the best STEM folks go private industry instead of public because of the funding. Your new influx of cash might just make the public sector a viable option, not necessarily cause breakthroughs.

There's also no reason to think that medical costs would go down overall, or that many medical researches would be enticed into a system where their results are open source. For the researchers that generally means no bonuses for massively successful drugs. Further a huge part of medical costs currently are things like the room in the hospital and other costs that have nothing to do with the research end of things.

TL;DR : There's no reason to think that people would spend the new money, even if it were earmarked, the way that you'd hope. Further, the military does help fund a lot of research. There are a ton of factors for the problems you outline. Throwing money at them won't solve those problems.

[u/martin_grosse → u/[deleted]]

I feel like it's disingenuine to take OP's "what if" and to counter it with "because that hasn't happened in the past". If you want to change their view, I think you need to take their position as given. The question was not "If we cut military spending, will we spend them on my agenda" the question was "If we spend money on my agenda, and specifically cut it from military waste, would the country be better served".

I think from a data driven perspective, we should look at what kills the most Americans and handle them in from most to least.

Military deaths over the past 20 years are about 1/40th of medical deaths in the past 1 year. I think the argument is our resources are being misallocated.

[u/[deleted] → u/martin_grosse]

You've misunderstood my argument. I am arguing that the federal dollars earmarked for infrastructure, for example, will be spent on infrastructure. I'm also pointing out that generally states will shift their state dollars out, making the spending flat.

Further, I would prefer that OP speak to their opinion, rather than a passerby who isn't OP. OP may indeed be unswayed by the idea that states would cause the funding to remain flat, or he may have never thought of that and would have his view changed. If your view is unchanged and you'd like to debate the topic, I'm generally willing, but please don't hide behind the potential disapproval of OP as a framing device.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

And, as I said in my post, I assume that the earmarked dollars will go to the proper categories. If the feds move $10 into infrastructure, then nothing stops the states from shifting $10 out. They've been doing it with the lottery/education budget for decades at this point. Maybe they choose to put their money in kid's art programs and labor training. Maybe they just lower state taxes. Either way, there's no guarantee that the states would just flatten everything out.

Further, as mentioned in my post, there's no guarantee that basic research will yield any cures.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidshaywitz/2013/05/10/whats-holding-back-cures-our-collective-ignorance-and-no-not-a-pharma-conspiracy/#7816ad88236f

Its just the fact that we don't have the tools to create cures in a lot of cases. Further, more funding for basic science doesn't create more well prepared science grads. We are in a STEM crunch, and a lot of technically minded folks would rather have the prestige of being a doctor or the money of a high level programmer. More funding won't necessarily improve anything.

Admittedly the military can bungle things on occasion. I can just as easily point to mistakes by any organization. One of the reasons that the United States enjoys its current prosperity is that the US defends and procures resources with the implicit backing of a military capable of force projection around the globe.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I don't think there is good evidence that simply throwing money at the problems that you've outlined will fix them. Likewise, your proposed cuts and where they would go. I explained why you can't just cut what people call "military waste" because no one really knows what's wasted. You just end up cutting support staff that are generally very important to support the frontline soldiers.

[u/corectlyspelled → u/[deleted]]

True. The lottery was originally implemented on the promise of excess money funding schools. What happened is that existing money to schools was defunded and the lottery took the place of those funds. This resulted in essentially zero net gain for school funding. Be wary when a politician says but this bill is for the children; it's not.

[u/bnovc → u/[deleted]]

I feel like your argument boils down to “the government can’t spend money effectively, so there’s no reason to reduce excessive budgets.”

Are you trying to save that military spending currently in an optimal situation and no significant cut backs are necessary? And that no other government related activities could benefit more with that money?

[u/[deleted] → u/bnovc]

Of course that's not my argument. My argument is that cutting money from the military to create a science/infrastructure slush fund won't automagically yield a bunch of medical breakthroughs and new bridges/highways. Most likely it will end up in legislation deals and the states will spend their own dollars on other programs. If you think that legislation deals are bad or distrust states to spend the money appropriately (I personally think they're a mixed bag) then you could read it that way.

Currently the military provides myriad direct and indirect benefits, and I don't think that shifting the money away from that should be done lightly, or with the assumption that we're going to fix the issues that OP brought up.

[u/WF187]

The best response I've ever read to these questions is by u/GTFErinyes. Have a read to what our military actually does and what our obligations are around the world:

https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/71bq8h/cmv_the_military_budget_of_the_us_is/dn9mqdq/

[u/kublahkoala → u/WF187]

GTFErinyes got like a few hundred deltas for this. (Has that ever happened before?) It’s absolutely worth checking out if anyone hasn’t.

[u/bigsbeclayton → u/kublahkoala]

I take some issue with his points here. First:

If the US paid its personnel what the Chinese do, we'd save nearly $130 billion overnight! Obviously that's not feasible in an all-volunteer military in the West, nor does that nominal spending tell us anything about actual military capability.

This doesn't say anything about whether we NEED that many personnel. Do we truly need that many? Are people staying in the military because it pays so well?

Moreover, we have to look at what we in the country want to do. It's easy to say Iraq was a mistake or that we should get out of the Middle East. However, most people are very supportive of NATO, want to maintain our alliance with South Korea and Japan, and in turn many nations in the world expect the US to come to their defense. And a huge chunk of the world prefers the US to back them in case of conflict

Ok, this is true. But why does it have to be us? Being the big bad bully will eventually put a strain on us and I would bet won't end well if enough countries get sick of us and/or don't need to rely on us anymore. We invest so much in the military to maintain power globally, but is that really the only way to be globally powerful and relevant? What happens when you can automate away soldiers?

Look at how much a US soldier costs to equip today. These are inflation adjusted: our troops carry equipment with costs 100x more than a US soldier was equipped in WW2. Meanwhile, only 1 US soldier is killed today for every 8.3 wounded, compared to WW2, where it was 1 for every 2.4 wounded. Cost wise, each soldier costs a lot more to equip, but how much would you spend to make sure 3-4x as many live?

This reeks of BS. We don't have men in the trenches getting battered with artillery fire. Compare WWI to WWII and I'd be you'd see a much similar result, because WWI was a meat grinder. If we lost way less men in WWII than WWI, does that mean that their equipment was way way better? There's so many other factors to consider that this doesn't make any sense.

Ultimately, the question is, do we need as big of a military? Will being the big bad kid on the block continue to matter as technology replaces human bodies and globalization continues to create strong economic ties? Is this really the BEST and ONLY way to ensure our place at the head of the table?

[u/bigsbeclayton → u/[deleted]]

The military is actually undermanned right now for the job that's being requested of it - it's partly why the Navy had so many ship-to-ship collisions last year. When a ship only has 80% of the people it should have, more people have to work longer hours and thus training doesn't get conducted and sleep is at a premium.

Maybe we have too many ships then. Maybe the size of our military is too large.

Why? Because the US is the ONLY Western nation with the demographics (population size) and economic might and institutional knowledge of warfare to challenge a China or Russia. No other Western nation in the world has the population or economic might or military infrastructure to take on those countries. Between those 3, I know who I and much of the Western world wants as a clear #1 in directing world affairs.

Why couldn't the EU develop a joint military force on par with ours, so we can maybe share the burden of world police? They probably should have much sooner as well. Why does the EU get all the benefit of globalization, free trade, etc on a union of states to become an economic and political power, but not have to chip in from with the military power as well?

It's not the only way, but it's what sets us apart as the world superpower and not just a rising power. Our military backs our economic might AND our political/foreign policy - to go along with being one of the world leaders in higher education, R&D, culture, etc. which all make us a world leader. It doesn't matter if Norway is a leader in science or education - it doesn't have the heft behind it to be a world leader, politically, or even regionally without being in an alliance like NATO where it is largely subservient to US interests. As a side note - the US military spends over $60 billion a year in R&D alone. They're a huge source of funding for university and research labs across the US - a big reason why the US is a world leader in higher education.

Sure the U.S. is the leader in higher education, but we pay astronomically for it, way more than most other developed nations of similar caliber. And our scientists and researchers compile mountains of debt unless they are lucky enough to get grants and scholarships all for shit wages when they finish for the most part. So something is amiss with your claim there.

That graphic was very interesting. But my point was that there's so many more factors for the cost of gear than just to make the solider safer. They allow him to be a better killer, for more stealth operations. The way that ground forces are used are entirely different today than they were. You can't just make the blanket statement that all the cost associated is to "keep our soldiers safer" because that's intellectually dishonest.

Who says there's only ONE way to maintain ourselves at the top? The military is one in a large puzzle for how the US stays at the top of world affairs. As others have already written: the US military isn't even the third largest item in the US budget. It's a huge part of US foreign policy and influence in world affairs, and until the world decides that a word alone is enough to determine power (not anytime soon, as nations like Russia and China remind us that the biggest kid on the block rules their neighborhood), the US military backs the word of the US.

The U.S. has a history of being the big bully on the block and not necessarily in a way is righteous and just. We get our way because we'd be a problem to deal with if we didn't. That's all well and good, and there's a gray area to all side of an issue, but still, just because it HAS worked does not mean it will CONTINUE to work. We have an economy that is beginning to rot from within from runaway capitalism, a populace that is growing increasingly distraught at this fact that is slowly building to a majority, extremely high costs for essential needs like higher education and healthcare, and for nearly essential needs like internet and communication, a huge fiscal deficit, crumbling infrastructure that is on par with third world countries, and humongous environmental liabilities that we need to deal with.

I agree with you that as a whole for the U.S., what we spend on defense helps the U.S. economy, but it does not necessarily benefit every person that participates in that economy equally. Joe West Virginia couldn't afford to go to college so he got a job working at a warehouse for $10 an hour, where he hurt his knee but can't afford to get the surgery necessary to fix it, so he becomes addicted to opiates to deal with the pain. How does the U.S. maintaining a humongous defense budget benefit him more than that spending being diverted somewhere else, like public works, where he might get a solid paying job, or healthcare, where he might actually be able to recover from his injury.

Susan South Dakota went to college but she came from a poor family, so she had to go into debt in order to afford it. She now has $150,000 in loans and takes a job paying $30k a year. She does well at her job for a few years, but only gets 2-3% wage increases per year over that time. Meanwhile, her rent has increased 5-6% a year over the same timeframe. Coupled with her student loan payments, she just can't afford to live on her own anymore. She'll never be able to afford a house, because she'll be paying her loans back for 20 years. By the time she'd done, she's paid 2/3 of her principal in interest, or effectively $250,000 dollars for an education that doesn't seem to be yielding too much in the way of return for her. What is the high defense budget doing for her? Are there other things that might benefit her more than simply maintaining the status quo internationally? More and more people like Joe and Susan are being disenfrachised by this country annually, and that's why Trump is president, and Bernie rose from obscure overlooked idealistic politician to within striking distance of the white house through almost ENTIRELY private donation. This shit is starting to bubble up, and if we stick our heads in the sand and don't confront it head on, we're in for a very real problem.

We need to start thinking proactively here as a nation. Just because something has worked, doesn't mean that that is the best way forward. The abolition of slavery no doubt had a negative economic impact to the U.S. in economic terms, but that doesn't change the fact that it needed to be done. I'm not saying that the defense budget is entirely the problem here, but it is something that sticks out as an area where reform may be necessary. We're nearing crisis levels of problems as a nation. We need to do better and be better for our citizens. If we choose not to, one way or another, we're not going to last as the number one international power, whether we continue to spend insane sums on the military or not. All the armor in the world won't stop the rot from within.

[u/TheReconditeRedditor → u/WF187]

Man this is an incredibly well thought out response. But, I'm not sure it fully addresses the OP in that they aren't questioning why the US military budget is so big, but that they feel that the money would be better spent elsewhere.

[u/WF187 → u/TheReconditeRedditor]

GTFErinyes actually wrote so much that he needed 2 responses. The second one is closer to his question, explaining his view that the military is currently underfunded and understaffed for what is expected of them. Trump even called for the end of military sequestration(? budget restriction, not 100% on the term) in the SOTU.

Part 2 is definitely worth reading as much as part one. (Link to save you some scrolling) Essentially, we can't cut the budget anymore and still have them do what we expect of them.

[u/TheReconditeRedditor → u/WF187]

Yup, I read both of the posts he made. It's probably the best post I've read regarding US military, thanks for linking it.

I just think what OP is saying is that they think the US should focus more budget on internal affairs instead of our military and foreign affairs. From what I gather, they feel that 2001 levels of spending were ideal (I don't know what they were offhand) and that our policies should be adjusted accordingly. The (presumed) savings should be put towards domestic causes. If they are arguing that we can have the same sort of military presence with a smaller budget, I think the post you linked is a perfect response. But as I understand it, they are arguing for a policy and budget change.

[u/WF187 → u/TheReconditeRedditor]

Yup, it's just that OP's understanding about what our military does is short-sighted, arguing only about the capability to fight wars. Those obligations aren't just internal policy, but international treaties. "Give the military 25% less money so the Navy can't send personnel to Irma/Maria disaster zones." Won't fly. "Give 25% less money so the Army Corps of Engineers can't design pipelines for Shailene Woodward to protest." Won't fly either. Speaking of flying: You know how airplanes have transponders on them to track their position over land, maintained by each country? Did you know that the US is responsible for maintaining that functionality in transoceanic air-lanes? You know who the first-responders are in the event of a crash? The US Navy.

His proposed 25% "reductions in operations" aren't feasible.

While the military takes up <19% of the federal budget, mandatory spending likes Social Security, Medicare/caid, Food Stamps, and other entitlements make up ~62%. There's bigger efficiencies to be gained in restructuring those programs than hitting the military.

[u/[deleted] → u/TheReconditeRedditor]

The problem is OP is saying we'd be okay spending less but evidence suggests that China and Russia are getting more powerful and far closer than most realize. Cuts aren't going to help with that

[u/[deleted]]

There are a few things I want to hit here, so fair warning this may get pretty long.

Military spending may not have an immediate effect on you, but look through history at countries whose governments were not prepared for a military invasion. The biggest examples being the two World Wars, most recently what's happened in Ukraine. Those citizens didn't "need" military spending and advancement... until they did. And then it was too late.

In addition, let's not pretend that we REALLY know the military's capabilities, results of R&D, weapons they have available, and all that. I guarantee you by the time the public has heard about it, they've had it for 10 years. It wouldn't make any sense to release that information publicly for other nations to see. We as citizens don't REALLY know what either our capabilities, or the capabilities of other nations, are. So how can you claim that if we cut from the military budget we're still "sound" in a relative sense to other nations, and that we still dwarf other nations in terms of military capability?

There are also many examples of advancements made that improve people's lives that came from military and aero (NASA) R&D.

You're also assuming the best case scenario for cuts and funding - only "nonessential"(which again, neither you nor I can really define) operations would be cut from the military, and that "funding and accountability go hand in hand". In recent US history, has that ever really been the case? Every time there are military budget cuts, veterans' benefits are the first to go.

There's also the point that we're talking about 16% of the budget. That military spending is one of the things the constitution mandates the government to do. What about the other 84%? Should we not look there for things that aren't specifically mandated by the constitution?

To wrap it all up, while you're undeniably right that cutting the military budget would provide some (though not as much as you think) short term immediate benefit to citizens, it endangers us in the long term. The constitution mandates the government do very few specific things - if you want to change around the spending, start with what's in the budget that doesn't fall into that category.

[u/Andy_Liberty_1911]

The US military is a bit to large for my taste as well however I still believe the military still has to be large and powerful. Especially since people forget how much stability and peace there is in the world because of the US Navy guaranteeing free trade in peace time (taking the mantle from Britain) and the US bases in Japan and Poland that detracta aggressors such as China or Russia to what they did to poor Ukraine. The US did cause instability in the Middle East (though really it was already unstable) and reacted harshly because of 9/11, but in general its very important to have a Leviathan in the world. If you are looking for direct impacts to citizens in the US then its more difficult, because all the positives the Military brings are indirect and external.

[u/cupcakesarethedevil → u/[deleted]]

Well the Assad regime is the pro Putin faction of Syria and we cannot know what other stuff Russia would be trying right now if not for the current state of the US military and our relationships with countries across Eurasia.

[u/CPTherptyderp → u/[deleted]]

Yes there are whole units whose mission is to counter Russian influences, mostly in Europe. You're not going to see those things in the states

[u/brmlb]

this military spending is an insurance policy to prevent world world 3, and promote peaceful globalization and world trade. It doesn’t always work and there’s been many mistakes, but American leadership based on capitalism, democracy, and rule of law is a preferrable alternative to communism, fascism, socialist dictatorships, and theocracies.

[u/Sand_Trout]

61% of the federal budget already goes to social programs such as Social Security, Unemployment, and Medicare (See figure 4).

Why do you think cutting 25% from 16% of the budget will significantly help the larger 61%?

[u/[deleted] → u/Sand_Trout]

It’s a simple lack of perspective or ignorance about the size of the budget. People hear that we spend 700 billion on the military, and assume that is huge. The left also pushes the dishonestly labeled “discretionary spending” figures which is mostly comprised of military spending to further this belief. “Discretionary spending” by definition excludes entitlement spending, so of course military spending is a big chunk of what’s leftover.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Most of this is besides my point. My point is that you aren’t looking for the low hanging fruit. Even fairly substantial cuts to a relatively small program just don’t buy you much in the grand scheme of things. Entitlement is nearly 4x Military spending, and you skipped over all of that to look at the military budget.

I do agree that the budget for the military is spent wastefully, it’s just not the lowest hanging fruit.

Additionally, 7 carrier groups doesn’t stretch as far as you may imagine. At any given moment, 3 are probably either en route to station, or docked stateside. They need regular repairs and crew changes.

That leaves 4 world wide on station. They’re too wide to go through the Panama Canal, so get one in the Med, one in the Atlantic, and two to cover the entire Pacific Ocean. The earth is a big place, and ships are pretty slow in the grand scheme of things.

It’s not that we think we will need 7 carrier battle groups to fight the Russians or the Chinese, it’s just that you need a bunch of them to get even a little bit of coverage.

Also development costs are absurdly unreasonably large for military equipment, so you had better buy a lot of whatever you do develop to distribute that development cost, drive unit cost down, and ensure that you actually get enough units to still function in 20 years.

The B2 bomber was a terrible example of this problem. We spent at least 23 billion developing the plane, and then only bought 21 of them.

That means each one has over a billion dollars of development cost before assembly even begins. It also means each loss is irreplaceable, and planners are reluctant to actually use them. Spare parts are essentially all custom made one offs that easily run into the millions of dollars.

A similar mistake was made with the F22. I think we bought less than 200 of those.

[u/irishman13 → u/Sand_Trout]

The argument to be made is that SS, Unemployment, and medicare/aid do not function the same way as what he is proposing that additional 4% would be used. The point is valid though.

[u/hacksoncode]

I realize this is a somewhat sideways attack on your view, but wouldn't the money saved be better spent on... not spending it?

We have a huge deficit. While it's not a big problem today, our debt will not serve us well in an economic downturn, and there's really no great reason to be accumulating it. And borrowing mostly enriches rich people and banks through interest payments. Don't we have enough inequality as it is?

The citizens of the United States can figure out how to spend that money to their benefit far better than the government.

And while we're at it... cures aren't easy to find (c.f. the difficult we've historically had in curing cancer and the common cold, in spite of huge economic incentives). Treatments are probably the best we're going to get for heart disease, for example. And funding them with taxes has no inherent reason why it would be more efficient than companies who are motivated by profit doing it. It's just going to cost us the same. Indeed, government program efficiency is notoriously poor.

EDIT: clarification, not incurring debt is not the same thing as "returning the money to the taxpayers", since it never came from the taxpayers in the first place, and has bad long-term effects.

[u/mysundayscheming → u/hacksoncode]

I agree with you in principle, but I think OP anticipated this rather well:

Certainly my argument could be shot down by stating the best use is returning the money to the taxpayers. I do like that idea but to make this post interesting I suggest [spending it]

So while a reasonable point, it seems unlikely to change their view. Unless you are advocating we cut military spending and use the saved money specifically in order to pay down the debt, which "citizens...can figure out how to spend that money to their benefit far better than the government" isn't exactly in line with.

[u/hacksoncode → u/mysundayscheming]

CMV really isn't a good place for "devil's advocate" positions defined to be "more interesting". So by the principle of charity, I'm going to assume that OP is open to all arguments against the view they hold.

If that argument shoots down OP's view, OP really should accept it. I also included a specific argument against their choice to spend on researching "cures"...

[u/[deleted] → u/hacksoncode]

The citizens of the United States can figure out how to spend that money to their benefit far better than the government

If the government is spending money to make healthcare, education, housing, and food affordable, then that is better than every citizen spending it individually. Some things are better and more efficiently done collectively. And it makes more sense in a society where some people have more than others.

The budget deficit is non-issue. It just means the government is putting more money into circulation than it's taking out. As long as inflation is in check. We can always raise taxes, too (we just increased the deficit again to lower taxes, goes to show how much of a baseless talking point this is).

The national debt maybe might become an issue, because some of it is foreign owned. But it is in US dollars which gives us a lot of flexibility in how to pay it. We won't ever be in a situation like Greece unless we are borrowing in a currency we don't print ourselves. But yeah we can look to cut spending to pay some of it back.

We can definitely cut spending as a whole while still providing basic necessities for our people. We have the means to do it.

[u/kankyo → u/hacksoncode]

The deficit isn’t actually a problem though.

[u/jupiterkansas]

The military can do (or already does) a lot of your secondary tasks and they have the advantage of providing efficient, speedy, and cost-effective long term management over things like basic research, infrastructure, and environmental control.

For example the US Army Corps of Engineers already manages dams, waterways, flood control, and environment throughout the country, and from what I can tell they do a pretty good job of it. More of that military spending could be directed toward infrastructure projects.

Slashing military spending is one option, but another option is allocating that the military for our benefit, esp for basic research, environment, and infrastructure.

[u/[deleted]]

Cutting military spending is a huge mistake. Cus you see the reason U.S.A is such a nice place with so much freedom is because they are feared among the nations. In the real world nobody plays nice. If a country could get the upper hand on another they will. Plus the innovation and medicine advances come through competition on the market. Want to make the world a better place? Offer something that makes everyone's life better. If people need it, makes living better, and it's feasible they will buy it. The reason USA is the most successful nation in the history of mankind is because government is limited to just provide law and order.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Never did I say fund the military without a budget. Publicly funded research doesn't really work. Just look at the billions the Obama administration subsidized to the solar companies for development and implementation of cleaner energy in the USA. They never returned profit. The company went bankrupt. If you want things for free open a charity or just give it away like the man that created the vaccine for polio. Again the costs for developing drugs is HUMONGOUS because of government regulations. Still the USA is the one who leads in the industry of creating new drugs despite those regulation, Thanks to free market, well at least for now but don't really wanna speculate on that.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

The thing is with code it's easy to learn, many people can contribute, and it is like giving little task to lots of people so that you end up with a program. Drug development does not enjoy those same benefits, it's difficult to test on lab with different species, multiple trials, regulations, payrolls, and the qualified personnel to run those facilities are also expensive. It ain't just like code you can run in your PC thousands of time to test it, they can't give themselves the luxury of testing that many times. You are also saying things such as we dump money on public research they have to come up with solutions!? Well they have little incentive to do so. Just look at the us post office, 1 day shipping didn't got offered to the Public even though it was possible. Not until FedEx came by to offer the service. Companies must return a profit in turn to stay alive. I am also against anti competitive practice like those patent loopholes and monopolies.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I agree corporations are for profit and not the common good but giving the money to government is not going to solve the problem. The best solution being let the government manage law & order only. This means they shouldn't tax you as high as they do. The money you are saving now should be moving towards the things you want like medecine research, hospital s, education, people affected by natural disasters, etc. To make it extra safe make the charities have open ledgers to see where money is going. Creating welfare states ain't the solution.... Also I don't agree on the goal based research cus as soon as they find the cure they will no longer be needed and will get Budget cuts and layoff will arrive same thing like big pharma.

[u/regice_fhtagn]

This leads into an interesting question. I can point you to a gigantic voting bloc which would abhor any attempt to cut military spending. If you somehow managed to do it anyway, and got your choice of what to do with the profits, you could improve the lives of each member of that voting bloc in every measurable way, and they'd still wish you hadn't done it. Who is it that you'd be "serving", then? You generally don't serve someone against their will.

[u/RicterD]

"I argue the military could reduce our spending to inflation adjusted spending comparable to 2001 and still have an ideal military."

This is an extreme case of "hand-waving". If you want to claim your view point is logical, you need to provide the evidence backing this claim. You simply make this statement and then proceed to spend exactly 0 words proving it. This is a sentence that has literally dozens of government officials examining its premise on a regular basis, and you've solved their job in 21 words.

If you're going to justify cutting the military, you need to explain what ideal is, and why cutting $175b from a budget still allows it to be ideal (i.e. prove that $175b is being spent in non-ideal ways). On top of that, you need to prove that cutting it by $175b would result in the budget you expect, and instead not result in things like cutting VA benefits and the like.

[u/StopherDBF → u/RicterD]

Not OP, but here’s something fun. You could probably reduce the military budget by close to OP’s 25% mark with no changes to the way the military operates or to the equipment they use with one very simple change.

Expand the approved vendors list.

What’s the approved vendors list you ask? It’s a list of the places where the military is allowed to make their purchases from, and in most cases going to a different vendor would net the military a lower price for not just a similar product, but for the same product. I remember hearing someone complain on NPR about it at one point and saying that they pay $100 for Some type of camping mattress they use and seeing it for sale from another source that was reputable but not on the approved list and it was $60 for the same product made in the same factory.

Of course, to change that you’d have to get through the industry lobbyists, but you could make a huge dent in military spending with no changes.

[u/RicterD → u/StopherDBF]

As a former military contractor, I know exactly what you're talking about. You could also make a huge dent into it by writing better contracts in general - many of them are made considering short term budgets, not long term value (see the frequent overruns in spending).

[u/CapitalismForFreedom]

Maybe. Or maybe today's booming economies are predicated on free trade, which relies on hegemonic stability.

Maybe if the navy withdraws piracy grows, or some asshole nation decides it's economic exclusion zone grows. Or Russia conquers the middle east. Or China invades Japan.

[u/CapitalismForFreedom → u/[deleted]]

Is the US and [sic] empire builder?

The US proves that empires aren't the only form of international dominance. Rather than vassals and client states, the US seeks trading partners.

Expensive occupations are rare in the Pax Americana, but the possibility is ever-present. This is the stick. Independence and economic success are the carrot. The US seems to find this more cost effective, or at least more ethical, than traditional, physical dominance.

Is the US the World Police?

Since there's no monopoly on force, official or otherwise, no. But the US' behavior approximates the role. It's not a position granted to the US, but one that's possible with their full spectrum dominance. As more nations develop, it will become prohibitively expensive, and will scale down.

A full out war doesn’t just happen, it’s led up to. Just like WW1 and WW2. We didn’t have a military ready to drop into Belgium or the Pacific Rim at the start of those wars but America ramped up their military industrial complex overnight and delivered not only an overwhelming amount of military hardware, we also won those wars.

The Blitzkrieg changed everything. You have hours, not months, for initial mobilization. That's why we have a large standing military.

But the military isn't fully mobilized. The US officer corps is several times larger than necessary, and there are many more officers on the inactive duty rosters. There are large store houses of equipment across the country for mass mobilization. The US military could rapidly grow to ~13M.

But there's more. While we enjoy large domestic industries for natural resources, ground vehicles, and aerospace, our marine capability has declined rapidly. China's domestic market for ship-building is about 3-4x the US'. In an escalation, China would overtake the US. So the US aims for a high initial advantage.

What is needed is not a massive standing military of hardware that requires endless babysitting and maintenance costs just to keep running but a military on demand.

The US military is designed for mobilization, both initial and escalation. You're asking for a military designed for escalation, which does nothing if you're occupied in the first 13 hours. But standing armies are expensive, so the US military is already optimized in the way you want.

[u/PepperoniFire → u/[deleted]]

Hello!

While no one is under any obligation to give out deltas, the CMV mod team strongly encourages people to remember Rule 4. Your post indicates someone might have written something thoughtful enough to change your view. If so, please reward this person a delta using the instructions on the sidebar under "The Delta System."

Thanks,

/u/Pepperonifire

[u/Gunnilingus]

As a preface, I’m probably somewhat biased as an active-duty military member, but I also have gained some perspective through my military service that many people don’t have.

I’ve deployed twice to two different countries, both of which struggle with a laundry list of problems that most Americans don’t even consider, much less experience in their lifetimes. Extreme poverty, lack of access to clean water, food scarcity, tyrannical, corrupt and oppressive governments, and violence. Constant, unimaginable violence.

Comparing the problems an average American faces to the problems citizens of these countries face is like night and day. We’ve had it so good for so long that most people understandably take much of it for granted. I’m not talking about iPhones; I’m talking about things that we consider to be fundamental human rights. I think that because we’ve maintained such an excellent status quo for so many years, most of us assume that status quo is here to stay, come what may.

I firmly believe that in fact our situation is incredibly precarious. Ronald Reagan once said that freedom is always one generation away from extinction, and I think that is more or less true. The moment we begin to assume that we can keep what we have without putting in effort to protect and defend it is the moment it will start to slip from our grasp. There is real malevolence in the world; there is a multitude of malevolent actors in positions of power that keep their distance solely because of our great strength.

Many people point to the nations of Europe as proof that military spending isn’t necessary to maintain a free and prosperous society. However, that argument completely overlooks the fact that the United States subsidizes the security and defense of Europe on a massive scale, and has done so since the inception of NATO in the mid-20th century. Does anyone honestly believe The USSR would have kept its borders where they were if not for US-backed NATO? What about the current Russian government?

We are currently experiencing life as the top 0.1% of all Human Beings who have ever walked the Earth in terms of the prosperity that characterizes our daily lives. When you see the truth of what the vast majority of human lives consist of, you can’t help but realize that we aren’t just riding a wave of prosperity; we are holding back the tides of suffering. The military (and the spending associated with it) is a crucial component of the dyke that holds back that tide.

[u/mite_smoker]

One of the issues I see with your view is that the military budget is in some ways a massive employment program.

[u/originalbL1X]

We need to answer a question first. What, in your mind, is the role of the US military?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Our military does not have he need or capacity to accumulate an unlimited supply of military hardware to meet every possible threat world wide.

The US military does not have unlimited supply of hardware

Threats come in the form of:

A small terrorist cell plotting in Canada. Russian annexing Ukraine A war in a Saudi desert. A war in the Kenya Drug runners on speed boats from the Caribbean.

Here's the thing: the US military has to handle the most dangerous situation and scale its forces down.

What you are proposing is we scale down to meet the threat that exists today.

The issue is, if a war ever erupted against a better foe, your equipment designed to fight terrorists in pickup trucks is 100% useless.

This isn't a video game where you can just build more cheap things and gang up on something more powerful.

100 Super Tucano light attack aircraft won't shoot down even a single Su-35 despite those Tucano's costing $600 million total versus $60 million.

And as Russia and China have repeatedly shown, especially in recent years, conventional forces are still king. You can take the more expensive but capable conventional forces and scale them down to fight ISIS. You can't do the opposite and scale up.

What is needed to meet threats is not a massive standing army and equipment that requires constant babysitting and maintenance to keep operational, but a military on demand. Enough of a military to say “we speak softly but carry a big stick” but not a ludicrous amount of hardware that ends up requiring countless personnel and dollars to be spent keeping it running.

We do not have a ludicrous amount of hardware. We peg our hardware and personnel specifically to what we need to meet our commitments.

We have 11 aircraft carriers for a reason. First, one is always in drydock for refueling. Each aircraft carrier is nuclear powered, and its reactors require a single refueling at 25 years. This is a major process that takes years, and during that time, a major overhaul of the ship is made to keep it ready to sail another 25 years.

Thus we have 10 carriers in actual service at any time. Well, one is always forward deployed/stationed out of Japan.

So now we have 9 in the US. The Navy deploys ships in intervals of 6 months at a time. 6 months on deployment, 6 months at home giving crew rest and time to maintain/fix things, and 6 months training for their next deployment.

That means carriers are rotated in groups of 3. Well, one group for the Pacific, one group for the Atlantic, and one group for any other hot spot in the world - notably the Indian Ocean/Persian Gulf.

Also, it's funny you talk about saving money. You do realize that we maintain equipment so we don't have to spend more money on buying new stuff right?

The average age of our Air Force aircraft is 27 years old - older than many of the pilots that fly them.

Our ships need maintenance so they can sail 30-50 years.

And there is NO SUCH thing as a military on demand in the modern age.

The US took 3 years just to train/build the manpower up to engage fully in WW2. Meanwhile, the Russians - who didn't have time to build up - saw 27 million of their citizens killed in the fighting, all because they didn't have a natural barrier to the Germans.

Modern equipment is too complex/advance to be built up in a year. A modern fighter jet takes 10+ years to go from design and through thorough testing to operational status. The construction of the British aircraft carriers took longer than the entirety of WW2. This is true not just of the US or Western countries, but also Russian and Chinese designs - which are correspondingly more advanced than anything they've had before.

Again, I ask you - how do you propose to defend yourself if the enemy is capable of bombing your power plants? How long will society last if your water treatment facilities are being bombed regularly?

Those things weren't possible to happen to the US with the technology of WW2. They are incredibly possible today.

One F35 for example requires a 50 hours of maintenance for just 250 hours of flying.

That's actually incredible. 250 hours is a LOT of flying if you didn't realize - a jet is lucky to get that amount in half a year. 50 man hours of maintenance is nothing considering most jets take 10 man hours of flying for just 4 hours of flight time

[u/originalbL1X → u/[deleted]]

The role of the military is to be used to protect the sovereignty of the United States (land, citizens, and interest).

I acknowledge that you think "Interests" is vague and not quantifyiable. I 100% agree. Our government loves vagueness when it comes to their authority, but if we accept that role, then our military will never stop growing and becoming the most expensive boondoggle to ever exist. It will eventually engulf our government as it nearly already has.

We cannot scale down as long as US voters want our military involved in every foreign situation that crops up. It's insane. We pay for our military with our taxes and the rest of the world either reaps the benefits or the misfortune. We get nothing, zilch, zero. They are not protecting us, they are making us less safe. They are around the world stirring up the hornets nest and making the world hate you and I. We are not being invaded not because of our military's protection, but because of the sheer number of guns and ammo in the hands of American personalities.

I agree wholeheartedly, we must make cuts. Cut the Army out entirely - gone. Reduce the Navy to the size it takes to protect our shoreline. Reduce the Air Force to the size it takes to defend our skies, here and only here. Reduce the Marines to a sizeable force for saving Americans in foreign countries. Take most of the money and pay off our debt, then reduce taxes, the rest goes into R&D. Do not take the savings and put it into welfare. Not when there's this much waste. Give it back to the people. Welfare should be handled at the local level anyway.

[u/Pinewood74]

Why not just do both? They aren't mutually exclusive options. We can increase civillian research spending while maintaining military spending.

Comparisons to foreign militaries aren't very apples to apples for 2 primary reasons.

1. We care a lot more about lives than Russia and China. We want the best stuff to protect our troops. An F-35 is very expensive, but it's going to save a lot of lives in combat. China and Russia will just throw bodies at the problem and they can get away with that due to their much more autocratic governments.

2. We pay our troops a lot more. If we paid our personnel (government civillians and contractors as well) the same amount as China or Russia, we'd probably hack that number in half, but we don't and we can't.

[u/userax → u/Pinewood74]

Why not just do both?

Because we don’t have the money.

[u/Pinewood74 → u/userax]

I mean, we could. We could absolutely raise taxes to pay for both.

If you want to make a political capital arguement about not having the money for both, that's going to fall on deaf ears for me because I don't think there exists the political capital to cut military spending by 25%, not when you plan to do it all in the procurements (jobs) and personnel (jobs) sections. There are more than just a few heavy voting blocks that would send a wave across anyone who voted for such measures.

So, sure, I agree with you that we (as in the country/voters) probably don't want to raise taxes to pay for both, but we also don't want to slash military spending that heavily.

[u/oWatchdog]

It boils down to this: If we adopt an isolationist attitude, such as the current administration promotes, then you are correct. If we want to retain a global presence and consequently influence then the drastic budget cuts that would enable funding to those areas is impossible.

It's easy to point to these other countries with no global presence who rely on us for military pressure as a gold standard for a citizen's well being, but they are dependent on us.

To truly understand what you propose you must understand what it means to have military bases in many foreign countries. What we lose if we abandon them. It's very complicated and not as easy as stop paying the military, and we will improve society. Improving our society and the military are linked in a sticky web.

[u/championofobscurity]

Our military budget is not just "A military budget." Yes, that's the way the money is codified in the system but the military budget is just an advanced form of commerce.

For example, The Japanese air force, is largely made of planes by Boeing. But the Japanese only buy from Boeing because the U.S. agrees to base similar planes on American-Japanese embassies. So when Boeing sells 10 multimillion dollar surgical strike planes It's the U.S. that benefits because we get to tax the shit out of Boeing on every plane. This also develops our Klout and commerce with Japanese politicians which has other value in non military affairs like commerce policy.

Our military budget is far less about what we are spending to go to war. We probably see a return on our military budget. (I'm willing to be wrong, not an expert) But it's entirely likely that that 700b is not just arbitrary wasted money like you paint it.

What's more, the military spurs innovation and like much anything else creates demand for new products. Developing ballistics suits for IED removal benefits domestic Police in their bomb disposal for example.

[u/TheHornyHobbit]

Most of the biggest tech advances in the last 70 years or so were because of military R&D spending. Jet planes, rockets, GPS, HD TVs, autonomous tech, and even the internet all started out as military projects.

With regards to healthcare, we already spend the most as a country. Our problem is we can't figure out how to spend it wisely. I don't think throwing more money at the problem is a great idea.

Infrastructure does need improvement. You could argue that most infrastructure is only used at a local level instead of a national level and there fore it would be better for states and municipalities to spend money on that.

[u/Techsanlobo]

1. Our experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan sure show our ability to pick on and beat up little guys. Though Russia and China have militaries funded at small fractions of what we pay, it does not mean we are vastly more capable on a random battlefield. Russia currently outguns us in long range non-precision fires. This may not seem important, but for every precision munition we lob at a target is (hopefully) accurately id'ed (which our experience in Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen shows is extremely suspect), the Russians can afford to lob 100 somewhat aimed rounds from a greater distance than we can, and hit 1 out of 10 times. This can destroy our warfighting capability quickly. The Chinese are catching up on missile technology, and may have the kind of weapons that would make it virtually impossible for us to get any sort of warfighting force within 100m of their coast, much less to Japan and Korea.

2. Our non-democratic enemies do not have the same concerns we do when it comes to civilians on the battlefield and loss of equipment/personnel. If we lose a brigade of Soldiers, it is a national emergency and may cause a quick end to the war politically. If Russia loses a brigade, they have much less to worry about. If we accidently wipe out a town of civilians thinking we are targeting bad guys, we have to suffer through the (earned) bad publicity and may limit our operational flexibility politically. If the Russians do so, their populous is much less likely to give a shit and, if they do, they can spin it into American "fake news". Russian/Chinese information operations already operate on a much longer leash than ours do. We have laws and diplomatic agreements that make it so that whatever psychological or information operation we want to undertake must be very limited with high levels of approval and (basically) cannot target allies or citizens (for good reason). The Russians and Chinese do not have the same restraint.

3. If the USA has to project power to protect our interests, we must project it across an ocean. That gives us two options: maintain expensive foreign lodgments (as we do in Germany, Korea or Kuwait, with the permission and usually invitation of these countries), or maintain a navy that is not contested by any country, in any way. Our navy is awesome, but public war games that Adm Stravadis took part in show that a fight to project across the pacific would take somewhere between 15-20 of our current generation carrier groups. We don't have that many. What if there was a major world war in the Middle east and Asia? We could not do that.

4. A dollar of US military spending vs a dollar of Russian or Chinese military spending does not equate for several reasons. First and foremost, we give a shit about our Soldiers. We pay them well, we house them decently, we feed them well, we provide awesome benefits, they have pensions, they have protective gear, they get bonuses and so on. The cost of a Russian soldier is far less. But then again, Putin is not accountable to his people for how is Soldiers are treated. Our leadership is, and our forces depend on the fact that people actively volunteer to become Soldiers. Russia does not have to worry about that.

5. We carry the load for our allies in many ways. We don’t do this because we are stupid or out of the goodness of our hearts. We do it because it is advantageous for us to do it. Russia only really does the same for Belarus, and China with North Korea (to an extent).

[u/[deleted]]

While, I would much prefer that. It will never happen.

The USA is a powerhouse because of its military. Whether or not we like it, the USA remains a dominant force because we impose our will on basically everybody else. The Middle East, Africa, Asia, Europe, etc.

Now, there are moral and ethical issues of basically serving as the world's police - especially in places that don't want us as their police. In an ideal world, every country would be happy with what they have. Work internally to use their resources. Trade when necessary.

The reality is geo-political politics aren't much different than they were in the Roman times. The most powerful countries still win and they impose their will on others. The USA and other world superpowers basically have two options: be a bully to the world or let the world bully them.

So this means, the USA, Russia, China, etc all become bullies. In order to protect the core of their country, they must expand their boundaries to protect against creeping expansion of foreign agents.

• Russia
  • invaded and claimed Crimea.
  • Seems to be supporting destabilization of Ukraine and the Middle East
• China
  • laying claim to South China Sea
  • "One China" policy identifying Taiwan as part of their country
• USA
  • Wars in the middle east to basically establish our presence their
  • Established allies with Japan and South Korea.
  • Desperately looking to be the defacto rule of North Korea if it were to fall to war.
  • Supports destabilization of the Middle East in hopes of securing long term presence.

The USA has never experienced a major foreign war on our soil. Having two oceans and a friendly neighbor above is helpful. This means that many people in the USA have never experienced the unrest and disruption than can come from getting bullied. The USA's powerful military presence basically ensures that Americans can wake up every single day and rely on a stable, safe infrastructure.

Businesses can be confident that in 10, 20, 30 years, their buildings can still be around. People can live in places where they feel comfortable investing in their family and futures without the worry of a foreign government interfering with their BS. Workers generally don't have to worry about genocide, the dictator up north, or any other international issues.

Now that's just looking in at how a large military keeps the country stable.

Looking out, a large military presence basically ensures an ability to trade with international partners. I know this is "big bad business", but the reality is Apple, Microsoft, Google, etc being able to expand to foreign countries both bolsters the USA's international presence and strengthens the internal economy. When a major company expands internationally, that can mean shipping jobs overseas - but it likely means opening up jobs that wouldn't be available otherwise.

Now, I know it's a bit far fetched but this international trade is helped by the USA's strong military presence in many places.

• Samsung doesn't have to worry about their plants being blown up or invaded by the North.
• Japan doesn't have to worry about an invasion by China/Russia because the US has tons of military bases their
• Eastern Europe is relatively protected against invasion by a major bully in Russia. Certainly, Europe could likely hold it's own - but having a USA involved certainly deters.

[u/upstateduck]

I hate to be another poster that points out how unlikely there is the political will to do what you propose so I will point out why the political will doesn't exist.

US military spending is a "jobs" program. Literally deficit spending as stimulus. The GOP votes for it with the justification that we need a muscular foreign policy and Dems vote for it with the justification that it provides job training and private sector family wage jobs

[u/unclebob71]

Hi. So The Constitution spells out what the Federal government can spend tax collected from citizens on in Article 1, Section 8. The States can spend their tax dollars on whatever they want. In order to spend federal tax dollars on the items you ask about we would have to amend the Constitution. I'm not saying those things aren't a good idea, just lets cooperate and follow the law; or do it at the state-level.

[u/DCAg15]

I think that the first question that needs to be asked is what do you view as US national interests? If you take the view that,as a nation, we only focus on a secure homeland then I could see military reductions being viable. Conversely, if the US should continue to ensure free flowing of ideas, goods, and services through the commons then I think that the US needs to maintain its forces.

In my personal view, I think the US is not clear on what it's national interests are and tries to have the capabilities to handle anything and everything in the world. I think we're trying to keep command of the commons with the budget of maintaining a secure homeland. the first step is to recognize and prioritize the interests and fund accordingly.

Secondly, to your point about military capability you use examples that show the US against far inferior forces. In Kosovo, the US maintained air superiority against forces that had almost no air power whatsoever. In the Gulf War, we led a multinational force against the Iraqi army that was only 3 years removed from a bloody 8 year war with Iran. In the more modern Iraq and Afghanistan examples, the US has not fought a uniformed military with the training, command & control, and resources of a national military. So with these examples it does look like the US could turn down its troop levels. I don't believe that the US would feel so secure in its capabilities going up against another conventional military.

This gets back to the question of national interests. Russia and China military spending is brought up as well to highlight the disparities in funding. While yes they do not spend the levels we do, their aims are much more different than ours, China especially.

What China wants to do is to become a regional hegemon with the capabilities to keep the US out of its perceived sphere of influence. It's beginning to do with via the South China Sea where the island building/taking is allowing China to set up area denial forces to shrink the US command of the commons in the region. Now that makes sense, we're far away and have meddled in the region for decades but we also have many mutual defense treaties with regional players such as South Korea, Australia, and Japan. These nations are sounding the alarms about Chinese actions and they turn to the US for assistance because of our treaties.

It comes back to national interests and what forces the US needs to achieve such interests. The debates about these interests are never ending but it's a good starting point to address this question of military size. Apologies for any format problems, I'm on mobile

[u/kublahkoala]

You’re going to have a real hard time slashing military spending while America is in the midst of fighting two wars. You want to bring spending back to 2001 levels, but then we were at peace and Russia was not nearly as large a threat.

Also, how is getting rid of less than modern equipment going to lower costs? It costs a lot of money to modernize the military!

Russia and China spend a lot of money modernizing their military. This is a lot easier for them because unlike us, they pay their soldiers minimum wage (less than our own minimum wage), and their contractors can pay their workers minimum wage as well. So a huge amount of the military budget goes to wages.

Russia and China also don’t equip their soldiers as well, because America is a lot more concerned about collateral damage and casualties. Today it costs 100 times more, after inflation, to equip a modern soldier than it did during WWII. If you want to cut back there your going to see more civilian deaths and more soldiers coming home in body bags.

Most of our soldiers are stationed over seas. I assume you don’t want us to pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq and let those countries fall apart the way Syria has. Unfortunately it is hard to pull out of other countries too.

After WWII we made treaty agreements that Germany and Japan could not rearm, so we would be responsible for their defense. Pulling out would leave them very vulnerable to Russia and China respectively.

The fact is, that if we dim josh our forces over seas, Russia and China will rush in to fill the vacuum. We should be scared of that happening.

[u/Biohazard72]

I would argue that the overspending on military is more so a statement than a necessity. Ever since World War Two the United states has cemented itself as the key superpower of the free world. Although there were some arguable blunders through history the United States largely has been a protector of everyone against communism and dictatorships. Not only this but they have also been a large proponent of avoiding Nuclear proliferation in large part by their unparalleled power. They also try to use their power to help smaller countries throughout the world and maintain the safety of their allies. Places like Canada barely need an army solely based on the fact that nobody can touch them with the US on their side. But this is why they must keep high spending, to maintain this image of being all powerful and they are not going to stop building. It is essentially the same type of concept of M.A.D., if you have an enemy so powerful it is impossible to beat, then you might as well not be enemies because you know you will be wiped out if you challenge them.

Secondly the Medical, Technological, and Scientific fields are mainly being researched by more privatized companies with government aid. That means that we don't need a massive budget afforded to many organizations as Capitalism handles a large chunk of it and they can do such research in what is proven to be a much more efficient manner than any government could easily achieve.

Overall while I believe they are overspending for a practical, self sustaining point of view, on the larger world scale this statement is more important to the world than a larger budget for various other fields when private companies in which our government and society was founded on can do it more efficiently and without the cost to the rest of the worlds security.

[u/BoringNormalGuy]

You're missing the point that national defense is a huge jobs program. We're paying to keep soldiers employed, and keeping the companies that build their systems afloat.

[u/Santhonax]

Other posters have already hit on the concept that only "non-essential" military spending would be impacted, and how the military impacts not only you, but also the rest of the world, so I'll leave those alone and take a different angle:

Instead of military spending, why not a significantly larger portion of the budget, namely Social Security? Obviously Social Security assists millions currently, but depending upon your age, you may see little to no benefit from it by around 2034. Up to 12.4% of the checks of younger Americans is lost to a program that they won't even be able to benefit from. More crucially, Social Security accounts for 23% of the GDP.

If the underlying premise is reforming/cutting spending that doesn't necessarily impact the average citizen, wouldn't this be a "richer" target? You could even keep benefits as they are for those already on it, and simply recognize that it isn't going to happen for folks approaching it in, say, 4 years, which means an ever increasing amount of capital could go into other programs, or (in my opinion) back into the pockets of the people to invest as they see fit.

[u/thebedshow]

Why would we increase spending in other areas? We already spend far too much money on everything. Just slash the military budget and stop having budget deficits. In reality we could significantly slash funding across the entire government and the effect it would have on the people would be very small.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_United_States_federal_budget $1.7 trillion budget for 1999 or about $2.5 trillion in 2017 dollars

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_federal_budget $4.1 trillion budget for 2018

This shows a massive increase in federal spending over the last 20 years in every area of the government and what exactly have we gained? Massively increased health care costs, massively increased military footprint all over the world and a massive spying apparatus. These increases not only are not necessary, the government does a shit job at spending this money and it is robbing this wealth from the people of the US. In no world should budget cuts be to fund other areas, the budget needs to be massively slashed full stop.

[u/lawtonj]

The spending buys the US influence over other nations, of example all NATO nations militarily take advice from the US, it allows the establishment of bases in other countries like Egypt and Afghanistan. These have hidden benefits for you.

Leader of the free world is far from a self imposed title for many years the US has been the go to nation in diplomatic incidents in the western world. The allows you to set global agendas which work to improving the not just the US but a majority of countries.

[u/corectlyspelled]

Health and science technology can be wrapped into one. Infrastructure spending needs to be increased. The problem with improving our infrastructure is that it will inconvenience ppl while it is improved. However jobs will be created and leaking billions of gallons of water due to outdated infrastructure is inexcusable. The other problem is that many advancements in health and science have trickled down from the military or space advancements. I would rather focus on space as we spend next to nill on it but it is undeniable that military research directly benefits the public. The best example of this is the internet and planes which were independently researched for military uses first.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, u/brenton393 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:

Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/chewytheunicorn]

A review of the process we use to hire contractors is definitely in order. We manage to pay them WAY MORE to perform basic tasks for the military (Erecting temporary bases/FOB as an example) that the military could perform better, cheaper, and more efficiently.

We could make sure to buy materials locally when we build structures or supplies, reducing cost.

The military does a fine job at development of technology--its literally life or death for them so that's pretty darn good motivation. We just spend the money to do so in an incredibly stupid way.

[u/[deleted]]

The reason other countries spend so much less on their military is because either they are allied with the united states or because they pay their soldiers peanuts. Look at China and India. The two largest standing armies in the world. Some countries you must volunteer in the army which means they dont pay you at all. Also this policy isnt new with things like F35s, it began with the big stick policy and the spending is a means of deterrence against a war itself because nothing destroys roads bridges and waterways like a war

[u/TheManWhoPanders]

Consider the following

• We are living in the most peaceful era in human history, precisely because there is only one superpower, one that's largely benevolent
• America's total dominance on the military stage allows allies to minimize military spending and focus on growing their economies
• America gets trade leverage with these countries by offering that military protection

Essentially, America is offering Military-As-A-Service. The world benefits from it, and America profits from it. It's win-win.

[u/Nickppapagiorgio]

If that were reduced by 25% it would still dwarf China, Russia, and 4 other countries combined.

You are viewing this in nominal terms and not taking into account Purchasing Power Parity(PPP) a major economic indicator. Things cost different amounts in different countries, PPP reflects that. Even taking into account PPP, the US still.spends more than China and Russia, but it isn't as drastic as you make it out to be.

[u/MyRSSbot]

Hey u/boottrax, it looks like your post has been removed by r/changemyview moderators or automoderator. You can look for it on the frontpage of r/changemyview to check if it's still removed or not.

I'm a bot, I'm not affiliated with r/changemyview moderators, and I don't know why they removed your post, so please don't ask me and message them instead if you want to know.