US military budget

[RedRalph]

You can see it on wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_federations_by_military_expenditures

Its gigantic, no one else comes even vaguely close. Bigger than the next 20 put together IIRC. but I dont think many people would seriously contend that the US would win a (conventional, nuclear war involving russia or the US isnt winnable)war against those next 20 countries, or in fact againt the top 10 of them. I'm no expert (far from it) on military expenditure, so what is the money going on? I know their IT and airpower is unsurpassed, as is their navy. but why, considering their outlay, arent they by a million miles stronger than everyone else put together? how come they cant even control Iraq, and are too militarily overstretched to invade Iran (I dont think they would want to anyway)?

I'm not asking this rhetorically, or just having a dig at the US, I just dont undertsnad how if they are spending unimaginable amounts of money cant they complete some relatively straightforward military tasks? why do they NEED blackwater?

 

[Trajan12]

It's only four percent of our budget. Hence to you it may seem like a lot, but to us it's a drop in the bucket. Could stand to be lowered though, IMO.

 

[nc-1701]

Well, if you compare us to say China...

Our soldiers have much higher salaries, and we put huge amounts into R&D.

As for our military it's clearly better than an in the world by a good margin. Only China approaches our spending and capabilities, but I think the biggest thing is in means of power projection. We have spent huge amounts on power projection capacitys, which are very expensive. Because of this nobody comes close to us in power projection, but it greatly inflates our spending because power projection is very costly.

 

[brennan]

Note that nobody actually knows how much the Chinese are spending.

RedRalph: the reason it is getting harder for the US to perform tasks is that expectations are far far higher than they were back in, say, WWII. Back then we were in an age of total war and combatants cheerfully flattened each others' cities with bombers.

Observe by comparison the PR nightmare the US has in Iraq. We're all just a lot more civilised these days; yes, the US could theoretically behave in an WWII manner by razing Iraqi cities to the ground for housing insurgents, but the importance of public perception of such actions, both at home and abroad makes such actions a virtual impossibility.

 

[Winner]

It's only four percent of our budget. Hence to you it may seem like a lot, but to us it's a drop in the bucket. Could stand to be lowered though, IMO.

AFAIK it's four percent of your GDP, which is something completely different.

 

[woody60707]

RedRalphWiggum, WHAT THE HELL???? I have no clue what you are talking about???

When it comes to killing people and blowing up things (for good or bad), the US is by FAR the best in the world.

Now if your talking peace keeping and/or nation building, then yea, the US military sucks at it. But last time I checked no military was ever good at that role.

Who says the US couldn't win vs the 10 next countries?

 

[brennan]

Who says the US couldn't win vs the 10 next countries?

In the theoretical situation where the next 10 countries mobilise against you, their industrial capacity just needs time to warm up. And then you're toast. You'd be making the same mistake the Japs did in WWII. Which would be silly of you.

 

[RedRalph]

RedRalphWiggum, WHAT THE HELL???? I have no clue what you are talking about???

When it comes to killing people and blowing up things (for good or bad), the US is by FAR the best in the world.

Not even close. Congolese Militias are far better over the last ten years, even accounting for sanctions on Iraq

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

It is that big because of the influence of the military industro complex.

 

[RedRalph]

Well, if you compare us to say China...

Our soldiers have much higher salaries, and we put huge amounts into R&D.

As for our military it's clearly better than an in the world by a good margin. Only China approaches our spending and capabilities, but I think the biggest thing is in means of power projection. We have spent huge amounts on power projection capacitys, which are very expensive. Because of this nobody comes close to us in power projection, but it greatly inflates our spending because power projection is very costly.

Yeah, you may be on to something here. but is it worth it? Is the US proportionately getting its value for Power projection moneys worth? China couldnt really attack anybody but neighbours... Russia could really only attack countries pretty damn near to it, and they'd need a land border... America could easily mount an attack (not neccesarily a successful one) anywhere in the world, their projection is completely and utterly unsurpassed. but to me, America seems a damn sight more likely to be attacked than China or Russia

 

[bhsup]

Consider also things like blowing $8.5 billion (yes, I said billion) on the Comanche helicopter program and cancelling it right as it is ready to role into production.

 

[uppi]

I'm not asking this rhetorically, or just having a dig at the US, I just dont undertsnad how if they are spending unimaginable amounts of money cant they complete some relatively straightforward military tasks? why do they NEED blackwater?

Those are not straightforward military tasks. The US military is a liberation army at heart. Its basic mission plan is: Invade an opressed country, kill all the evil opressors, be greeted by the people as liberators and then leave after handing power over to the people and maybe giving the female population a few presents, so that they will be remembered.

That's what the US military excels at, and that's where it spends most of its money: To get better means to kill the evil ones.

That's why they keep getting problems if they're forced into an occupation role. The US military is nott designed to play heavy armed police in a country full of people that don't like them.

The question why they need Blackwater is easily answered: In addition to money, a soldier also costs popular support. Every soldier that dies abroad costs a small amount of support at home. A mercenary on the other hand only costs money and their deaths won't show up in the military causality lists. So if you have lots of money and not much support, hiring mercenaries seems attractive.

 

[RedRalph]

I know Projection is extremely expensive, I just dont think its paying off. In fact, i think it makes the US more liekly to be attacked

 

[woody60707]

In the theoretical situation where the next 10 countries mobilise against you, their industrial capacity just needs time to warm up. And then you're toast. You'd be making the same mistake the Japs did in WWII. Which would be silly of you.

I was thinking of force projection. Where they couldn't build the factories faster then the US could bomb them. Outside of maybe Russia, no outer nation has the Force projection even close to the power the US does. So...

To be honest, I kind of hate these US vs (whatever) threads. I just wanted to point out to RedRalphWiggum that his non-debatable point is very debatable, win, lose, or draw.

Also as I said, no other nation has the Force projection power the US has, not even close. Force projection on the scale the US has is a money pissing hole! The money and man power cost to defend a nation vs the cost of fighting a war half way around the world is a very wide gap.

On that note I think we piss away WAY to much money on our military.

 

[RedRalph]

[.Those are not straightforward military tasks. The US military is a liberation army at heart. Its basic mission plan is: Invade an opressed country, kill all the evil opressors, be greeted by the people as liberators and then leave after handing power over to the people and maybe giving the female population a few presents, so that they will be remembered.

Hmm.... I think a lot of people around the world would not share that perception, in fact I think a lot of Americans wouldnt either... bit too Hollywood

That's what the US military excels at, and that's where it spends most of its money: To get better means to kill the evil ones

Obviously not spending much on bin Laden then

That's why they keep getting problems if they're forced into an occupation role. The US military is nott designed to play heavy armed police in a country full of people that don't like them

Yeah what with the overwhleming body of world opinion, the UN and the entire Arab world againt them, they had to invade Iraq... I feel sorry for them, being pushed around

The question why they need Blackwater is easily answered: In addition to money, a soldier also costs popular support. Every soldier that dies abroad costs a small amount of support at home. A mercenary on the other hand only costs money and their deaths won't show up in the military causality lists. So if you have lots of money and not much support, hiring mercenaries seems attractive.

Bizarre logic. were the best army in the world, with the biggest budget, so we need to pay people to do jobs the army should do. why not privatise the entire army then?

 

[woody60707]

Bizarre logic. were the best army in the world, with the biggest budget, so we need to pay people to do jobs the army should do. why not privatise the entire army then?

As it was pointed out, you mistakingly believe the US military should be doing these roles. I'm not sure where you got this Idea from, but its wrong. One can look at history and see almost all militaries have had a costly time, if not all out failed at filling these roles. Add in the fact that these are roles we have very little training in, and the outcome shouldn't be a surprise. Don't ask me why the US goverment is surprised time and time again at the outcome.

TLDR: don't confuse the actions of the US goverment with the outcome of the US military.

 

[uppi]

Hmm.... I think a lot of people around the world would not share that perception, in fact I think a lot of Americans wouldnt either... bit too Hollywood

Of course that's the Hollywood version of it, but it is the ideal stemming from a romanticized perception of WW2

Obviously not spending much on bin Laden then

I should have added "in uniform"...basically those who openly show that they're "evil"

Yeah what with the overwhleming body of world opinion, the UN and the entire Arab world againt them, they had to invade Iraq... I feel sorry for them, being pushed around

I meant forced by incompetent politicians

Bizarre logic. were the best army in the world, with the biggest budget, so we need to pay people to do jobs the army should do. why not privatise the entire army then?

Because the more you privatise, the more control you lose.
Despite its budget the US military has manpower problems, because soldiers cost more than money. That's where the mercenaries come in.

 

[Photi]

It's only four percent of our budget. Hence to you it may seem like a lot, but to us it's a drop in the bucket. Could stand to be lowered though, IMO.

pretty sure like 75% of our national budget goes toward 'defense,' another big chunk goes to servicing the national debt and what's leftover goes to things like public schools and healthcare or lack thereof.

what about a educational hospital complex? peace could be both popular and profitable. for every one bomb the US doesn't buy a teacher could be hired and a school could be built. that's like a hundred jobs right there.

 

[woody60707]

Someone ask for the US budget? As you can see PhotitheMalfeas, it's only like a tad under 50%.

 

[RedRalph]

going to have to scale that down if possible bud