Pentagon Plans To Cut U.S. Military to pre World War II Levels!!

Yeah...if you have no airlift capability and your Navy uses sails.

And from this you conclude that we should spend more, just in case? Because that's not really the lesson there, nor is it the lesson of the US in Vietnam or Iraq.

It's a refutation of the idea--implied by your post--that because we spend so much more than everyone else that big cuts to our spending can be done willy-nilly.

Not like all or even the majority of that money is going to people, so cutting people won't help the budget, but it will hurt the operational effectiveness of the military.

Even when you have those advantages, you can still lose. Case in point...

I'm not arguing for spending more. I'm arguing against substantial cuts that would make us weaker.

And Vietnam makes my point even more strongly. Having money, power, influence, technology on your side still isn't always enough. A world power, like the U.S. (and Britain before it), may have the lion's share of capability, but it is spread throughout the world.

The U.S. military is the most powerful, most technically capable military in the world bar none. But that in way confers invincibility on us. And if we have to fight after ceding influence in the world, a loss will be against an up-and-coming rival.

But the cuts represent drawing down from a war time budget geared toward occupation. That's not our core mission, and not something we need to spend money on right now.

I was just wondering whether you thought cutting deals with our geopolitical adversaries or starting regional arms races that threaten our interests or our trading partners was a thing of the past. Or maybe just that the U.S. didn't do those sorts of things anymore.

Our budget isn't geared toward occupation. It's about maintaining security in the world.

Does the world of the near future look like a place where regional conflicts are more or less likely to spring up?

Pretty much, yes.

First, we currently have no geopolitical adversaries for anyone to cut deals with, although, arguably, Russia and China could be viewed that way. Second, very few countries are acting in a way that actively opposes our geopolitical interests. And those that do? The worst countries on the planet...

Are you for undermining the Pax Americana if it means the alternative looks like Venezuela or Syria or Cuba or North Korea or (hopefully not) Ukraine?

Maybe if you explained why you think that is instead of just repeating it...

I disagree with your premise.

We weren't able to solve those problems, or make a more effective run in Iraq, even with aggregate troop levels much higher. You're arguing that more spending and technology is not necessarily the solution. So what is the (politically and economically feasible) solution?

Increase troop deployment to Cold War levels and pay for it by cutting entitlements, right?

Elaborate.

And the insurgents in Iraq were weak sauce compared to up-and-coming geopolitical rivals who will be looking to pick up whatever influence we cede.

How does downsizing the military make future conflicts avoidable/more winnable?

I don't owe you an alternative policy.

Making ourselves weaker in a world where disorder seems to be on the rise is not a wise move.

You do if you want to substantiate your argument that these cuts are making us weaker.

Me: "Draining your blood off into a bucket is going to make you weaker."

You: "What's your alternative?"

Me: "Don't do that."

1) You have yet to demonstrate that these cuts make us weaker.

2) From 1950-2007 on average 148k people were killed a year in war. From 2008-2012 the average was 28k. For this entire millennium the average is 55k. The world is getting more orderly, not less.

You seem to be suggesting that there are no back channels, that the only history being made is (A) military and (B) available to you in the 24/7 news cycle.

One of the most misleading statistics in existence. IIRC, more than half the U.S. Defense Budget is for personnel as opposed to only 5% or so by the Chinese.

IIRC, only about 150 billion of the U.S. defense budget is for procurement (buying new weapons) while more than other nations like China and Russia spend more than half their budgets on procurement of weapons.

Thus, the U.S. budget for actual weapons is about the same as China and Russia combined.

And in regards to gul talking earlier about NATO. NATO or other U.S. allies will NEVER step up in terms of needed capability to compensate for the U.S. In fact, if I recall correctly there was a study that U.S. allies frequently CUT their defense budgets and REDUCED their own capabilities whenever the U.S. did the same.

And 5 years ago they weren't especially good at the former.

We've stealthed mini-drones that can be mass produced faster than a recruitment office can get people to sign, shove them through basic and then try not to get killed on a battlefield. We've exoskeletons and robots in a similar capability level as drones were under a decade ago. In 5 years time there'll be machines that'll give you nightmares and with reach and capability a meat army could never achieve.

War is changing. If the other guy has more troops, fine, that's more dead bodies for their media to report on heading home undermining their war effort. Unpleasant, but true.

The downside is that we're going to be ever more insulated from the horrors, so it'll take on a new moral dimension we've not seen before.

Because I have enough experience with the Air Force to know that's the case. Personnel pay is nothing next to the money spent on equipment, contracts, and development projects. There's already been plenty of discussion about how wasteful the military can be in its spending, and how for some of these things the military actually has no choice in the matter, such as being forced to buy new tanks and new cargo aircraft that they don't even want. Are you actually foolish enough to think cutting personnel is going to alleviate the bloated budget problems? Do you really think the cost of drone development is going to be offset by personnel cuts, which is one of the reasons given for the recent focus on drones? Please, the personnel cuts are just political hand-wave-um meant to make it look like the government is trying to save the taxpayers money. Meanwhile, more and more money is being poured into drones, tanks no one wants, ships no one wants, and airplanes no one wants, and the only winners in all of this are part of the military industrial complex that dug itself into the American taxpayer during the Cold War and has been keeping fat ever since.

I sure hope you don't see that as a positive.

We are no longer occupying and fighting wars in two central Asian countries. We do not need to continue spending as if we are occupying and fighting wars in two central Asian countries.

Which personnel cuts will not help.

I'm looking at the 2011 budget which is probably not too far off the mark. Personnel is about 25% of the budget. That's not insubstantial. Also, I assume you realize that fewer people also means less procurement. People are talking about troop levels because it's an easy measurement, not because it is the only thing to be cut.

50,000 fewer soldiers--most of them of the fighting type, not the office bureaucrats--no A-10s, no U-2s...it's hard to see how those losses could possibly make the military stronger unless none of those things were providing anything that could be construed as combat capability.

First, death and disorder are not the same thing. As wars go, the Cold War had relatively few casualties, but few would argue that it wasn't highly destructive.

Second, you must acknowledge that the decline in war casualties happened in a context of American-sponsored world security. Trends don't come from nowhere; they happen because circumstances created by people allow them to. The decline in war deaths isn't happening in spite of American power; it's happening largely because of it.

it's called 'progress'. you don't need U2s when you have drones. you don't need a huge standing army when the fight is in a cave in whateveristan.

but i get it. some just need 'power' they can claim as theirs so they can feel big in their small, small lives. smartness just won't cut it. i suggest we reintroduce lethal panem et circenses to distract them from their sad lives.

"Generals always fight the last war." It should not be assumed that all our opponents going forward are going to look like al-Qaida.

Silly ad hominem.

What happens if we need to? As I've shown with the 1991 Operation Desert Storm, wars can come about quickly. And if one has to be fought, the U.S. probably won't be given 5 years to rebuild its military to adequate size.

What was that I said about cutting deals with our adversaries?

We gave up a lot of our influence in Iraq. Iran's picking it up. Fix that with a drone.

I'm waiting for @NotDayton to weigh in on this thread.