US military budget

[Photi]

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

it says military/national security is 67%. these both fall under defense don't they? anyway, even if we say 50%, that's a lot different from the guy who said 4%.

edit: i see now that 67% is only the discretionary portion of the budget. this is a hard graph to read for reasons other than its size. its a bit of information overload.

 

[woody60707]

it says military/national security is 67%. these both fall under defense don't they? anyway, even if we say 50%, that's a lot different from the guy who said 4%.

edit: i see now that 67% is only the discretionary portion of the budget. this is a hard graph to read for reasons other than its size. its a bit of information overload.

I uploaded an old one from 2005. Old, but much easier to read.

 

[Integral]

The defense budget is the smallest of the Big Four government expenditures (namely health, income security, education, and defense, roughly in that order)*.

Also, we must seperate war into its two phases: fighting and reconstruction.

The American military is quite good at fighting wars. However, it is underequipped in fighting peace. The support troops in the Army are designed to keep the Army functioning, not rebuild a city.

For example, each infantry division has a battalion each of medical, signal, engineer, supply, and military police troops. That would be great, except that those forces are designed to keep the Army running not designed for nation building.

To nation-build, we need to drastically rethink the size, composition, and overall nature of the army.

-Integral

* BEA, NIPA table 3.16. Always NIPA 3.16. It's exceedingly useful.

 

[downtown]

^^ surely thats not the federal government. It would make sense that there would be more education spending nationwide, since there are hundreds of local governments, where basic services like libraries and public schools are the biggest expense.

But its not true federally. I think the Defense budget is the biggest single item on the federal budget (although medicare/medicade and SS aren't far behind)

 

[Integral]

Yes, I was being deliberately vague.

Overall, defense is fourth among the big items. (Defense: $550 bn; Education: $650 bn; Health: $840 bn; income security: $910 bn.)

Among federal government expenditures, defense is third ($550 bn), health is second ($680 bn), and 'income security', broadly defined, is first ($840 bn). For the sake of completeness, Federal education spending is $70 bn.

However, defense is the largest in terms of 'single item', because health and income security can be broken down into several component parts, while defense is usually considered a single expense.

(Social security, as far as I can tell, is about $470 bn, from line 76. That makes it the smallest of the big four, though broad income security, including unemployment benefits and disability pay, is still the largest.)

 

[JollyRoger]

The U.S. defense budget is bloated. We pay some pretty good self-proclaimed marksmen to shuffle papers stateside during a global war.
Moderator Action: Trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Kozmos]

Again you go mentioning blackwater, go to hell.

 

[neviden]

They need blackwater because it is the best army money can buy.

 

[Patroklos]

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.

Industrial capacity means nothing in wars between major powers, they would be over to quickly (the force on force part anyways) for you to even ramp up your current defense manufacturing, let alone retooling other industries. A fighter jet worth anything takes over a year to manufacture, a ship 2-3.

The US would win against most of those countries for one simple reason, trade. Most of those top 10 would wither instantly when their oil supply was cut off. A few would starve without imported food. Then things like your power grid slowly but surely being ground to dust, your transportation system (bridges) disappearing, etc. would wear terribly on any nation with a decent standard of living.

We would basically just siege them. They will realize the futility eventually.

 

[RedRalph]

Industrial capacity means nothing in wars between major powers, they would be over to quickly (the force on force part anyways) for you to even ramp up your current defense manufacturing, let alone retooling other industries. A fighter jet worth anything takes over a year to manufacture, a ship 2-3.

The US would win against most of those countries for one simple reason, trade. Most of those top 10 would wither instantly when their oil supply was cut off. A few would starve without imported food. Then things like your power grid slowly but surely being ground to dust, your transportation system (bridges) disappearing, etc. would wear terribly on any nation with a decent standard of living.

We would basically just siege them. They will realize the futility eventually.

yuo do realise most of them have ICBMs and would use them if on the brink of defeat?

 

[shortguy]

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 don't necessarily disagree, but keep in mind that Ford factories can't crank out F-22s in 2007 like they could P-51s in 1944. It's a lot harder to mobilize industry these days, because modern weapons are so technologically complex.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

We're 50 billion dollars short of paying for half of all military expenditures, one more supplemental request away from... Hey, wait a minute. That would mean we're almost to the point of paying more for our military than everyone else on that list, combined!

What th'? How accurate is that list? I need to read those sub-notes. That can't be right.

 

[JollyRoger]

We're 50 billion dollars short of paying for half of all military expenditures, one more supplemental request away from... Hey, wait a minute. That would mean we're almost to the point of paying more for our military than everyone else on that list, combined!

What th'? How accurate is that list? I need to read those sub-notes. That can't be right.

To be fair, a lot of the spending is going to provide socialized programs over there so we don't have to provide them over here.

 

[neviden]

What th'? How accurate is that list? I need to read those sub-notes. That can't be right.

Actually.. that figure doesn't include Iraq war so it is already over the half..

Trick question: Who is more dangerous.. North Korea that spends $5 billion on army or US that spends $500 billion.. It must be that “axis of evil” that goes around invading other countries..

 

[Patroklos]

yuo do realise most of them have ICBMs and would use them if on the brink of defeat?

Depends on the defeat. If we are fighting China over Tiawan we don't need to invade China, and I don't they think Tiawan is so important they need to throw a holocaust temper tantrum because they lost and STILL not have Tiawan.

 

[neviden]

Depends on the defeat. If we are fighting China over Tiawan we don't need to invade China, and I don't they think Tiawan is so important they need to throw a holocaust temper tantrum because they lost and STILL not have Tiawan.

Why would you want to fight China over Taiwan?

 

[Patroklos]

Taiwan is a democratic country, I tend to think naked aggression against democracies by dictorships should be addressesd.

 

[neviden]

The only country that has any capability to do naked aggression against other states is US. Any invasion from China would be easily repulsed by Taiwan military even if China would be crazy to try something like this.

And if you try to paint China as bad bad wolf that is out to kill and enslave people under its “communism” take a look at what happened at places like Hong Kong. Nowadays China is more concerned with making cheap toys for US and growing its economy for their own people. And its not like they are scared of US, since by the virtue of double deficit that the US is running, they don’t even need the army. If US tries to invade China they will be able to destroy US economy without firing even a single bullet. THAT is power..

 

[Patroklos]

The only country that has any capability to do naked aggression against other states is US.

Every nation has this capabilty.

invasion from China would be easily repulsed by Taiwan military even if China would be crazy to try something like this.

No it wouldn't, but hopefully it would be able to hold out long enough for forces from other democracies to bail them out.

If US tries to invade China they will be able to destroy US economy without firing even a single bullet. THAT is power..

If we go to war with China, our debt to them immediately becomes a trivial matter.

And the "single bullet" you think China has is aimed squarely at it's own head. You are mistaken in who is beholden to who.

 

[Troymk1]

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.

HA!

You perhaps should look into where your Defence Aid has been going for the last 50 years. *rolls eyes*


Since the end of the Cold war the US military has taken on more intervention capacity. Rather than being able to sustain an intense modern war in Europe.

And the liberating thing? That was WW2. (Let's see how Iraq and Afghanistan turn out before the term liberation can really be applied)



PS I'm assuming you're a yank with that comment. Apologies if not mate!