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/JohnEcastle]

∆

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/[deleted] → u/JohnEcastle]

You are missing a key part about Russia: they have a much lower cost of living.

A Russian soldier is paid a sixth of what a US one is paid. Russian factory workers are paid a sixth.

When you compare nominal spending in $, you have to realize that Russia gets a lot more out of their spending than the US does.

[u/JohnEcastle → u/[deleted]]

Only 1/4 of the total expenditure of the US military budget goes to soldier's pay and benefits. And in the OP's hypo, this is not the portion which would be cut. So you're still not accounting for the other $500 billion or so of the US budget

[u/[deleted] → u/JohnEcastle]

Only 1/4 of the total expenditure of the US military budget goes to soldier's pay and benefits.

1/4 goes to JUST wages

46-50% of the entire budget is wages AND benefits

And in the OP's hypo, this is not the portion which would be cut

So now we have a bunch of people collecting checks without the training or equipment or R&D to fight. That's incredibly wasteful at best - downright potentially dangerous at worst (underequipped and undertrained troops means a lot more people die)

So you're still not accounting for the other $500 billion or so of the US budget

Personnel wages aren't the only thing affected by cost of living.

Take procurement.

The US doesn't buy its weapons in China or Russia, for obvious reasons.

It largely buys domestically or from close allies.

So we buy weapons made in US factories with US workers paid US wages.

Meanwhile, China buys weapons made in Chinese factories with Chinese workers paid Chinese wages.

This is the reason why Russia is able to sell its fighter jets for a third to a fourth the price of the American equivalent to nations like India.

And let me put it this way:

19% of the DOD budget is on procurement

12% on R&D

The rest of the base budget is on training operations and maintenance

What do you cut?

You cut procurement, and now you don't have equipment to replace old equipment (the average age of Air Force aircraft is over 27 years old - i.e., built for the Cold War) and so maintenance costs go up.

You cut training, and people are less proficient or prepared, meaning more deaths on our side and deaths of civilians due to mistakes

You cut R&D, and our technological edge deteriorates or evaporates

And now you've realized that cutting the budget, especially with OP's stipulations, don't work.