Too much military spending.

[ElasticNinja]

The Pentagon said it had a total of 5,113 warheads in its nuclear stockpile at the end of September, down 84 percent from a peak of 31,225 in 1967. The arsenal stood at 22,217 warheads when the Berlin Wall fell in 1989

I doubt those 5000 are broken or past sell-by

 

[Dark Jedi]

CMIIW, but wasnt the use of B-52's to carry nuclear warheads discontinued?

NOPE they still carry them as it's one of it's primary rolls.

 

[lordofthereef]

I think the important thing to take from the original post is that military spending keeps going up, along with our debt, while cuts are being made everywhere else. Schools is the big thing for me. Somehow we are supposed to educate our children for the future but schools are getting cuts all the time. Don't get me wrong, money is not the number one issue with why the average American student is now an imbecile, but it certainly doesn't help.

 

[Dark Jedi]

I think the important thing to take from the original post is that military spending keeps going up, along with our debt, while cuts are being made everywhere else. Schools is the big thing for me. Somehow we are supposed to educate our children for the future but schools are getting cuts all the time. Don't get me wrong, money is not the number one issue with why the average American student is now an imbecile, but it certainly doesn't help.

Why pick on the military ? I mean at least you can see where the money goes to. Why not focus on congress and all that money they get for their bills but never see that money in action. Just like here in va the lottery was suppose to fund the schools. Now they are looking into where that money is as the schools sure don't have it. The military is such an easy target. I for one would rather see the money goto the military than some congressman pet project.

 

[AndroidSPCS]

Why pick on the military ? I mean at least you can see where the money goes to. Why not focus on congress and all that money they get for their bills but never see that money in action. Just like here in va the lottery was suppose to fund the schools. Now they are looking into where that money is as the schools sure don't have it. The military is such an easy target. I for one would rather see the money goto the military than some congressman pet project.

Everything else has been picked. The military is one area that has not been. That's the discussion at hand. Did you even read the very first post???

 

[EarlyMon]

Nuclear Weapons: Who Has What at a Glance | Arms Control Association

Ours are working.

GPS targeting systems are avoided in favor of other means.

EDIT and PS - in my mind, I totally said this earlier - Personally, I don't find that byteware making a simple mistake on how nukes are targeted destroys his credibility. One boo-boo doesn't erase a history of insightful posts, whether any you agree with his position or not - you've all agreed in each other's validity on enough topics to argue out the truth.

 

[SporkLover]

So much to address in this thread.

First, I'm not sure anyone in here read the article, or if they did they failed to take away what the writer intended.

His bottom line point was not that we spend too much on our military (although that's a big component of his article), it's that in the foreign policy department we tend to rely more on our military, and not enough on diplomacy. He does recognize the necessity of a strong and robust military to back up foreign policy when diplomacy fails.

I think that the issue is much more complex than he can summarize in his short snippet. This issue has been way oversimplified.

I'll try to summarize my thoughts into a few sentences....... The military in Europe, and around the world for that matter, are there for many more reasons other than show of force. They fill a unique niche in the Foreign Policy department that Department of State, or other diplomatic channels couldn't fill. There are others areas that other facets of Diplomacy could certainly fill, but you are just robbing peter to pay paul, it's a Zero sum game. You cut the Military Budget and responsibilities in those areas, and you will end up plussing up in other areas of the government.

On to the other Tangents:

China vs US: I think you guys are looking at China vs the US through too narrow of a lens. Yes it would be highly unlikely that we would go into an all out war with China, but there are complicating factors that could draw us into a conflict with China. China has disputed territories with our allies, Taiwan is a complicated issue all on it's own, North Korea vs Korea....

Regarding the $400 hammer.... those statements are made by folks that do not understand the Government acquisition process. There are some blaring examples of government waste where you can find those $400 examples, but I can promise you those are typically the exception.

Regarding the Nuclear Arsenal. The US has more than 4000 warheads. Most people quote the START treaty as their source for guesstimating the Nuclear stockpiles of the US and Russia. The fallacy there is that the treaty only covers Strategic Nuclear weapons, not the tactical/non-strategic nuclear weapons, and the START treaty only really tracks deployed strategic weapons and their delivery vehicles (Missiles and Bombers), it does not account for any of the non-deployed warheads. Regardless, the terms of the new START treaty is more firepower than anyone in the world will ever need. On the topic of non-strategic nuclear weapons, this is one area the US has not been able to see eye to eye with Russia on.

Regarding B-52's ability to carry Nuclear Weapons. Absolutely. They are counted as a Nuclear weapon under START. Now the USAF has avoided carrying nuclear weapons with warheads attached for many years, I believe mainly because of the accidents they have had. As recent as the early 90's it was common practice for B-52's to sit on alert with Nuclear armed weapons, although that practice too has gone by the way side. Typically the US likes to avoid transporting nuclear armed weapons on nuclear delivery platforms (Submarines the obvious exception), as it can send the wrong political signals plus no one in Louisiana wants to hear about BUFFs flying overhead with nukes. Typically nuclear weapons are transported on cargo aircraft. That's why those nuclear mishaps 3-4 years ago were such a big deal.

 

[X10iUser]

Then Europe can defend their own damn area

Sorry, who was it that dragged everyone else in to the illegal under international law wars in the last decade, and want us to help go start another no one can afford?

 

[LaTuFu]

Typically nuclear weapons are transported on cargo aircraft. That's why those nuclear mishaps 3-4 years ago were such a big deal.

You might be surprised to learn what rolls down your local rail line late at night. Not in all corners of the USA, and almost certainly not in densely populated metro areas. But there are certain areas of the country that handle weapons grade materials vewwy vewwy quietly. It has to get in there somehow.

 

[LaTuFu]

We need a strong military. Do we need one as large as what we have now? Perhaps not, but we would still need to spend money to keep it trained and deployable. Unfortunately, our historical track record has been to draw down/stand down too much (pre-WW1, pre-WW2, and post-Vietnam as examples) and overspend to compensate later. We also need to get social engineering and political correctness out of the military culture. This is much more debilitating than a $400 hammer. A big chunk of the bloated spending nowadays is spent providing a variety of "sensisitivity/diversity/cultural awareness/try not to blow up their national treasures as you conquer their government" garbage programs.

The military needs to get back to what its fundamental job is: train your soldiers, airmen, and seamen on how to do their jobs under great duress, including life threatening conditions. Train them to be the best fighters possible. When some fanatic is shooting an AK-47 at a soldier, he's not going to ask him to please refrain from blowing up his town square when the soldier shoots back. He's trying to kill him. I'm all for making sure that "they" die for "their" cause first.

War sucks. It should be an absolute last resort in diplomacy. I agree with a previous poster that we use it quicker than we should. Thats another topic. Once the dogs of war are unleashed, that isn't the time to decide what's right about it. Either we play the war card completely and absolutely, or we don't. Doing it halfway ends up getting too many people killed on both sides.

 

[Dark Jedi]

We need a strong military. Do we need one as large as what we have now? Perhaps not, but we would still need to spend money to keep it trained and deployable. Unfortunately, our historical track record has been to draw down/stand down too much (pre-WW1, pre-WW2, and post-Vietnam as examples) and overspend to compensate later. We also need to get social engineering and political correctness out of the military culture. This is much more debilitating than a $400 hammer. A big chunk of the bloated spending nowadays is spent providing a variety of "sensisitivity/diversity/cultural awareness/try not to blow up their national treasures as you conquer their government" garbage programs.

The military needs to get back to what its fundamental job is: train your soldiers, airmen, and seamen on how to do their jobs under great duress, including life threatening conditions. Train them to be the best fighters possible. When some fanatic is shooting an AK-47 at a soldier, he's not going to ask him to please refrain from blowing up his town square when the soldier shoots back. He's trying to kill him. I'm all for making sure that "they" die for "their" cause first.

War sucks. It should be an absolute last resort in diplomacy. I agree with a previous poster that we use it quicker than we should. Thats another topic. Once the dogs of war are unleashed, that isn't the time to decide what's right about it. Either we play the war card completely and absolutely, or we don't. Doing it halfway ends up getting too many people killed on both sides.

Yeah I love the dont fire unless fired upon. If you follow that rule 9 times out of ten your dead. I look at if you are in a war area and carry a weapon. Guess what you're fair game. We have so many laws and rules for war. War is hell and you do anything necessary to win. In the end a Win is a win no matter how you do it. and the winner writes the history.

 

[X10iUser]

Couple of snippets from another great article...

 

[Strings]

The above reminds me of something that has bothered me for awhile.

John Browning was designing weapons in his workshop (without either government regulation nor funding) for most of his life. Two of the weapons he designed (1911 pistol, M2HB machinegun) are still in service close to a century later.

John Garand created what Patton described as "the greatest battle implement ever devised". The M1 rifle is still in use today (in a "modernized" version: action remains fairly unchanged). Again, this was done without government spending or regulation...

Eugene Stoner created what may very well be the ultimate in military small arms, on his own. Hell, he even had to circumvent the normal military procurement system to get his rifle looked at (that was in the 60's: that rifle is still in use today).

Maybe we need to curtail some of the money spent by the military on R&D, and reduce the regulations that keep the "common man" from developing the next generation of weapons. How much money would THAT save?

 

[EarlyMon]

Back then there were simple family traditions on what gun use was appropriate for and not for - the turning point maybe being in Stoner's time.

The common man still develops weapons systems - I'm reminded of the guy that created the shaped-charge, storm entry system from a good idea and a simple plastic molding, or the tractor guys who developed the high-speed treaded carriage (70 mph?) and turned to their local congress-critter for small funding support and an opportunity to at least be able to show it to the military.

There are parts of our larger cities where government-ok independent gun design and manufacturing might be not the best idea.

 

[X10iUser]

Maybe we need to curtail some of the money spent by the military on R&D, and reduce the regulations that keep the "common man" from developing the next generation of weapons. How much money would THAT save?

What needs curtailing is the West's appetite for war and want of dominating the rest of the World, but to do that we need to remove the corporate control of Governments. War in the past made sense, war in 2011 and beyond doesn't, so I personally don't want to see a "next generation" of weapons.

"Probably, no nation is rich enough to pay for both war and civilization. We must make our choice; we cannot have both."

- Abraham Flexner

I know which I would choose.

 

[LaTuFu]

What needs curtailing is the West's appetite for war and want of dominating the rest of the World, but to do that we need to remove the corporate control of Governments. War in the past made sense, war in 2011 and beyond doesn't, so I personally don't want to see a "next generation" of weapons.

"Probably, no nation is rich enough to pay for both war and civilization. We must make our choice; we cannot have both."

- Abraham Flexner

I know which I would choose.

I agree with much of what you have said. Most especially the removal of Corporations from the Government process. I think far too many people fail to realize how large corporations have completely transformed our economy and government in the last 50 years.

I agree with your sentiment that war in 2011 makes no sense. The problem is, war has NEVER made sense. But it will continue to be a part of humanity, unfortunately.

 

[SporkLover]

The military needs to get back to what its fundamental job is: train your soldiers, airmen, and seamen on how to do their jobs under great duress, including life threatening conditions. Train them to be the best fighters possible. When some fanatic is shooting an AK-47 at a soldier, he's not going to ask him to please refrain from blowing up his town square when the soldier shoots back. He's trying to kill him. I'm all for making sure that "they" die for "their" cause first.

The only issue here is that the military is scaled and equipped for the job given to it by the national command authority. The services already do the training and equipping. It's those additional duties the politicians give the military that make it bigger; Establish and maintain presence across multiple key areas in the world, Partnership for Peace through military relations, Theater security cooperation, 911 response force for multiple State Department and Department of Homeland Security core responsibilities (think Haiti relief or domestic disaster response).

If you want a smaller military, then expect to curtail the jobs it's given. But you should also expect other areas of the government to grow if the same level of influence in the world is expected to be maintained.

The old paradigm of the military being just a fighting force died a long time ago.

As far as the US wanting to dominate the rest of the world; I think that's a short sighted statement. The economies of the world are increasingly globalized and countries are increasingly interdependent on each other. To protect the interests of the US (you can insert any other globalized economy into this statement), the government looks for many ways to increase and maintain it's sphere's of influence in the world. Wanting influence in the world is not unique to the US, many of the world powers are guilty of it. Russia and the eastern European countries, China and some east Asia countries are prime examples. Countries that are isolated and only look after their own interests these days are the exception and are often not by choice (Iran, North Korea).