Military spending; necessary?

[jarofthoughts]

Apparently the US contributes 41% of the worlds expenditure on arms and armed forces, coming in at about 700 billion $, which is a LOT more than China, the second one on the list at about 114 billion $ (Russia clocks in at about 61 billion for comparison).
Now, I'm somewhat sitting in a glass house being a Norwegian seeing as we come in at the 26th spot in total spending and on the 7th place as measured per capita. Norway being an active NATO member and comparatively rich, I suppose we kinda feel like we should punch above our weight class so to speak.

Still, I do wonder though...is it really necessary?
I mean, spending almost seven times as much as China (not necessarily an ally) and more than ten times as much as Russia (traditional Cold War enemy), one would think that at some point it would become redundant?
And while I realize that even cutting all of the military budget wouldn't fix the deficit, surely some of that money could be better spent on something else?

 

[Revoltingest]

Spending on self defense is worthwhile.
Spending on foreign adventurism is dubious.
Of course, there's only one solution....vote Libertarian.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Yes, it is necessary. You see, we need the military to protect us against the enemies our military makes. It's naive to think that we could somehow bring about worldpeace or at least, a lack of effective enmity towards us by using such vast sums to feed, clothe and educate the world's people.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, it is necessary. You see, we need the military to protect us against the enemies our military makes. It's naive to think that we could somehow bring about worldpeace or at least, a lack of effective enmity towards us by using such vast sums to feed, clothe and educate the world's people.

We threaten Iran....Iran threatens us...we build up our military in response
to their building up theirs in response to our......and so it goes. Is anyone
starting to gravitate towards our brand of isolationism yet?

 

[Father Heathen]

[youtube]iMUiwTubYu0[/youtube]
Bill Hicks - It's Just A Ride - YouTube

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Bill <3

 

[jarofthoughts]

Bill, as usual, makes my point way more eloquent than I could.

 

[Levite]

Apparently the US contributes 41% of the worlds expenditure on arms and armed forces, coming in at about 700 billion $, which is a LOT more than China, the second one on the list at about 114 billion $ (Russia clocks in at about 61 billion for comparison).
Now, I'm somewhat sitting in a glass house being a Norwegian seeing as we come in at the 26th spot in total spending and on the 7th place as measured per capita. Norway being an active NATO member and comparatively rich, I suppose we kinda feel like we should punch above our weight class so to speak.

Still, I do wonder though...is it really necessary?
I mean, spending almost seven times as much as China (not necessarily an ally) and more than ten times as much as Russia (traditional Cold War enemy), one would think that at some point it would become redundant?
And while I realize that even cutting all of the military budget wouldn't fix the deficit, surely some of that money could be better spent on something else?

Spending enough for a vigorous military is perfectly reasonable.

But spending as much as we do is insane. The current budget has defense spending at around $525 billion. Considering that we're the world's primary superpower, and threats from other major industrialized nations are minimal, it is absolutely criminal to be spending this kind of money on advanced weaponry and pointless wars when our infrastructure sucks, our education is even worse, and there are literally millions of people without adequate housing and food, let alone healthcare.

It's stupid, it's disgusting, and it serves only to take money from underfunded social programs and hand it over to corporate greed. We could have a perfectly good military capable of responding to pretty much any reasonable threat on half of what we're spending.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's stupid, it's disgusting, and it serves only to take money from....

.....taxpayers.

.....hand it over to corporate greed.

Corporate greed isn't the problem. Our leaders get us into these wars, & keep us there. Don't let'm off the hook by blaming the material suppliers.

 

[Quintessence]

I used to be vehemently against what I perceived to be an extreme overinflation of military spending, but I find myself reconsidering that somewhat. I've had strong biases to see things that way as a general pacifist, but when I'm honest with myself, I'm not nearly well-informed enough to have any business saying how much is too much when it comes to military spending. Would I prefer that money be spent on science, education, and the environment? Damn straight. But I do not understand enough of international politics - much less military operations - to fairly say "we can slash the budget in half and be a-okay!"

Strictly speaking, no spending on any program is "necessary." Necessity is relative to goals. So what are the goals? I think that is a good question to ask at the start. What is the goal served by having the most fantastic military in the world?

 

[Valjean]

Odd that the most militarily powerful country also seems to be the most fearful and insecure. Other countries, with miniscule militaries, sit secure 'neath their vines and fig trees.

I agree with Shuddhasattva. We poke at hornet's nests then complain when we get stung. The military doesn't defend us from enemies, it creates enemies. Our military adventurism was the cause of 9/11.

Soldiers don't serve our country. With the possible exceptions of the Coast Guard and National Guard, they harm our country.

You want to serve our country? Join the Peace Corps.

 

[Revoltingest]

You want to serve our country? Join the Peace Corps.

Better yet, join the business community.....start a business, & employ some people.
The Peace Corps serves other countries.

BTW, don't follow my example....my business is getting smaller.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Strictly speaking, no spending on any program is "necessary." Necessity is relative to goals. So what are the goals? I think that is a good question to ask at the start. What is the goal served by having the most fantastic military in the world?

I agree that this might be a better way to approach the issue.
Currently there is no-one who is a credible threat to the US in the sense that they might actually win a war against the US military, not even if Russia and China banded together.
So what is the goal and purpose of all this spending?

 

[Father Heathen]

They say soldiers "defend our freedom", but the only things that threaten our freedom are our own politicians that we ourselves elect.

 

[Wirey]

Odd that the most militarily powerful country also seems to be the most fearful and insecure. Other countries, with miniscule militaries, sit secure 'neath their vines and fig trees.

I agree with Shuddhasattva. We poke at hornet's nests then complain when we get stung. The military doesn't defend us from enemies, it creates enemies. Our military adventurism was the cause of 9/11.

Soldiers don't serve our country. With the possible exceptions of the Coast Guard and National Guard, they harm our country.

You want to serve our country? Join the Peace Corps.

I don't mean to be too rude, but I call absolute and utter hippie bullpuckie on this one. You want to talk about poking hornets nests? After WW I the US became very, very isolationist. They refused to send off good American boys to die in service of what they saw as colonial European fights. As a consequence, some lovely people who were allowed to act unchecked pulled off a few minor stunts like the Rape of Nanking, and the Holocaust.

America is a unique experiment in human history. A country founded on a violent act that has pledged itself to peace. They saw what happened when they didn't intervene, and they remembered. Five years after the horrors of WW II, they formed the first 'Coalition of the Willing' and saved the people of South Korea from dominance by a communist system that has obviously failed. They rebuilt Europe and Japan so that those people could have the same quality of life that every American had.

Like it or not, America became the planet's policeman. Take away the aircraft carriers, and the oversized military, and what would happen in the Middle East? What would happen in Korea? What would happen in China? I'll tell you what. Sad, angry little men would destroy the lives of millions because there would be no one to stop them. Ask yourself, why don't China and N. Korea invade the south? Think it's because they're afraid of the South Koreans? I'm betting not. I'm betting that the idea of the Enterprise or Stennis showing up has something to do with it.

Other countries sit beneath their vines and fig trees, secure. Care to guess why?

 

[Chisti]

Better yet, join the business community.....start a business, & employ some people.
The Peace Corps serves other countries.

BTW, don't follow my example....my business is getting smaller.

Not everyone has the capital to start business.

 

[BSM1]

Think of this: Whether you like it or not one country in this world will be the most dominate militarily, which one do you want it to be?

 

[Reptillian]

Corporate greed isn't the problem. Our leaders get us into these wars, & keep us there. Don't let'm off the hook by blaming the material suppliers.

Corporate greed certainly is the problem. They support the politicians that favor their agendas. Since most corporate agendas boil down to "make more money and attract consumers" instead of "improve the nation and serve the people", we're left with a leadership that doesn't represent the general population and it's interests. Our leaders only get us into these wars because they're profitable for the corporations that support them.

If corporations were kept out of politics, then I'd be more inclined to blame the leaders than the suppliers.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Think of this: Whether you like it or not one country in this world will be the most dominate militarily, which one do you want it to be?

The one where it doesn't matter because other nations check and balance it, and the prospect of war is unthinkable due to the devastation caused by WMDs.

Yeah, that.

 

[Father Heathen]

Think of this: Whether you like it or not one country in this world will be the most dominate militarily, which one do you want it to be?

Gross excess isn't not required to be "the most dominate", neither is unnecessary and unprovoked meddling.