Defense Chief Urges Big Cuts In Military Spending

Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates says the Pentagon is wasting money it will no longer get, and focused on targets as diverse as the large number of generals and admirals, the layers of bureaucracy in the Pentagon, and the cost of military health care. 'The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, opened a gusher of defense spending that nearly doubled the base budget over the last decade,' Gates says. 'Military spending on things large and small can and should expect closer, harsher scrutiny. The gusher has been turned off, and will stay off for a good period of time.' Gates, a Republican who was carried over as Defense Secretary from the Bush administration, has already canceled or trimmed 30 weapons programs with long-term savings predicted at $330 billion, but is now seeking to convert as much as 3% of spending from 'tail' to 'tooth' — military slang for converting spending from support services to combat forces. While this may not seem like a significant savings in the Pentagon's base budget, cuts of any size are certain to run hard against entrenched constituencies. Gates's critique of top-heavy headquarters overseas was underscored by the location of the speech — the Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library and Museum. President Eisenhower, the supreme allied commander in Europe during World War II, warned the nation of the menacing influence of an emerging 'military-industrial complex' in his farewell address as president in 1960. 'Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals,' said Eisenhower, 'so that security and liberty may prosper together.'"

Comments

Interesting

[Ltap]

It definitely goes against the grain of what we've seen before now.

Re:Interesting

[AliasMarlowe]

It definitely goes against the grain of what we've seen before now.

Stating the obvious usually does.

Re:Interesting

[TheMeuge]

Indeed.

If there really is going to be some "tail-to-tooth" transfer of spending, it'll be a very welcome change.

However, I am a bit peeved at the mention of "military healthcare". Given the atrocious cuts in services for veterans who've been injured in combat, I think that is the one area where the government needs to do more.

After all, if we ask people to lose limbs for us, it's only fair if we at least take care of them, when they come back from the battlefield with life-altering disabilities. It doesn't really matter what wars they were fighting. They are OUR soldiers, and it's our duty as a nation to support them, regardless of whether we support the politics that brought them to the battlefield.

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

That is literally the only area of defense I support increasing funding for. I find it funny (and sad) that the people who most loudly proclaim to "support the troops" don't really give a shit about them once they're back.

I may personally want to cut defense spending and often not even respect the troops or what they're doing, but as misguided as I think they are, they sure as shit deserve support when they come home missing limbs or with PTSD. It's disgusting the way most soldiers end up due to the way we toss them aside once they've used up their usefulness.

Re:Interesting

[diskofish]

I agree, but in many situations it is possible to do MORE with less.

Re:Interesting

[onionman]

Indeed.

If there really is going to be some "tail-to-tooth" transfer of spending, it'll be a very welcome change.

However, I am a bit peeved at the mention of "military healthcare". Given the atrocious cuts in services for veterans who've been injured in combat, I think that is the one area where the government needs to do more.

After all, if we ask people to lose limbs for us, it's only fair if we at least take care of them, when they come back from the battlefield with life-altering disabilities. It doesn't really matter what wars they were fighting. They are OUR soldiers, and it's our duty as a nation to support them, regardless of whether we support the politics that brought them to the battlefield.

I firmly agree. One important point that Gates misses is that military personnel and civilian employees of the military often have much lower salaries than the equivalent private sector positions. One of the main reasons that many people make the choice to serve directly rather than as, say, a contractor is that the government promises job security and health benefits. In other words, many people are choosing stability over paycheck. If Gates is going to reduce the "stability" portion of that equation, then he will need to either increase the pay for those remaining or be prepared to hire more contractors to get the job done.

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

The support given to veterans is not "military healthcare." That bill is footed by the VA which is not part of the military. Gates, to his credit, took strong action when the problems at Walter Reid were first exposed, and top brass lost their jobs. This is one of the few people from the previous administration that has earned my respect.

Re:Interesting

[Phylarr]

From TFA:
"Mr. Gates said the nation owed quality health care to those in uniform, their families and veterans, but pointed out that members of the military health care system have not been charged increases in premiums for 15 years — even though the program’s annual cost has risen to $50 billion from $19 billion a decade ago.

'Health care costs are eating the Defense Department alive,' Mr. Gates said."

He's suggesting changing the cost structure of it, not cutting what it covers. Given no premium increases in 15 years, I'd have to say that it's time to make some changes to it.

Re:Interesting

[Monkeedude1212]

They are OUR soldiers, and it's our duty as a nation to support them, regardless of whether we support the politics that brought them to the battlefield.

I disagree. Perhaps if serving in the military were mandatory (like some european states), then I might be so inclined to agree with you. But no one is forcing them to become soldiers, though I understand most people view it as good money for lack of better options. Regardless, no one is required by law to serve in the military. As such, if someone decides to join the army, which means they've agreed to fight in whatever wars the higher ups choose to, then they are as much a supporter of the politics that bring them to the battlefield as the president or congress.

If I am opposed to any and all of their actions, because I think being in the middle east is a bad ida in the first place, I don't think I should have to pay for their injuries anymore then they should have to pay for MY health care. Since I work at a full time job I'm not as much as a constructive member of society? Somehow my country does better with people manning turrets in Afghanistan as opposed to a desk back home?

If my tax dollars are taking Shrapnel out of a wounded leg, then I also want them to cover whatever medical expenses I might incur at my job. Perhaps if I could see the benefit of having soldiers over there. There's no real tangible evidence that having jarhead in harms way is doing anything for me, besides increasing my taxes. I am not concerned with terrorists in Iraq. I'd be concerned about Terrorists in my home country. And if thats not the reason they're over there, then those soldiers need to be properly informed before putting them in someone elses crosshairs.

Re:Interesting

[sexconker]

However, I am a bit peeved at the mention of "military healthcare". Given the atrocious cuts in services for veterans who've been injured in combat, I think that is the one area where the government needs to do more.

No, no, you've got it all wrong.

When someone bitches about government-sponsored health care, you're supposed to point to Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA as amazing bastions of excellent funding and service. Mock their intelligence. Give them a false choice between:
- No Medicare, Medicaid, VA, etc.
- Unchecked, liberal tax-and-piss-away failnomics.

Then, when you need money, just take it from those services - even though they're already terribly run and underfunded. Start with the military. If they're overseas they can't bitch. If they're here, they're either too young to have any opinions about health care, or they're horribly maimed, burned, or otherwise disfigured - the press won't give them much camera time. The scant few who are healthy and informed? Just paint them as evil right-wing warmongers.

Then move on to the old people. Cut money from the existing programs, call it a restructuring. When they bitch, set up a new program who's cost/output is worse than the old program was. Old people bitch and vote - they've got nothing else to do. Take their pills away for a minute, let 'em bitch, then hand them half the pills in a less-efficient bottle. They'll vote for it every time.

Then draw up some legislation that takes more money from tax payers to put back into the pot you just took from, made new programs out of, etc.

If someone bitches about the new legislation, go back to the first step.

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to remind you, that YOUR army is one of the only few in the world that is a 100% mercenary. None of the people who wear the uniform HAD to do it. They are all volunteers. They knew what they were signing up for (or at least should have). Why should a tree hugging hippie PAY for someone else lack of skills/intellect/just-being-in-the-wrong-place-at-the-wrong-time? Don't tell me "to protect the said hippie": that's not the way they see the world.
My point is: there is no such thing as "military health care". Recognize already that the health care is the same as the defense: it does not matter to most people what to die from - appendicitis or IED. Either extend the health care to everyone, or ask your soldiers to buy medical, life, and disability insurance like everyone else does.

AC, lieutenant, army reserve (not the US army).

Re:Interesting

[TheReij]

You're talking about (I'll assume) Uniform Allowances, Basic Allowance for Housing and Basic Allowance for Subsistence. The uniform allowance comes once a year on the anniversary date of your service. It's enough to purchase a few uniforms to replace those that are worn or damaged during the course of the year. Those uniforms are paid for out of the initial paychecks a service member receives while at boot or OCS. They're not given away. They are paid for. Basic Allowance for Housing is based off of rank and time in service. It's not based on the number of dependents, but whether you have dependents or not. This means it's the same for a service member with just a spouse as it is for a service member with a wife and four kids. If you live in the barracks, you don't get this. If you live aboard a ship, you don't get this. If you live in base housing, you don't get this. In some cases, it will cover rent and utilities. In many cases, it will not even cover rent. Basic Allowance for Subsistence is meant to offset the cost of meals for the service member only. BAS does not increase with dependents because it is meant for the actual member, not their family. If you live in the barracks or aboard a ship, you don't get this as you're expected to eat in the mess hall/galley/etc. I Now all of this isn't enough to live on. Military members still have to put gas in their cars, maintain residences and take care of the same things their civilian counterparts do. To call the vast majority of a military member's salary disposable is ignorant at worst and uninformed at best.

Re:Interesting

[Snatch422]

Considering stuff like this happens, I would have to agree:

Turns out you can be secretly in the Army unbeknownst to you and you will be punished for telling secrets through sodomy while your conscious mind is forced to remain sleeping (considered a harsh slap on the wrist in the military - a pain in the ass but you will get over it).

First, they use a directed energy weapon to disable the conscious mind to make breaking and entering a piece of cake. They will also simultaneously mind rape you by sending directed energy transmissions into your subconscious forcing you to see imagery, hear noises or actually speak. So you could wake up from being raped, not realize it, and have all sorts of disgusting images, dialogs, moans and vocal accents, etc, inside the controlled and primitive region of your brain. Then all day there will be homosexual psychological operations to try to integrate the subconscious dirty psychology being played into the conscious mind. The government uses military intelligence teams to run homosexual recruitment through this disgusting mechanism too - in fact they create prostitutes using this exact sequence. Very cultish and very perverted - these criminals should be in jail as they are doing it all over in this very country. For example, at Sonoma State University, I was likely unconsciously gang-raped to punish and "make an example" out of me on April 30 at 10PM-May 1 at 2AM then again 10AM-2PM, when there was the May 1 Midnight Howl to set a Guinness Book of Records entry for most people howling at the moon - like all military intelligence phenomenon, it requires reading between the lines that the military would try to set an unofficial gang-rape record (let's say 300 in 3 hours based on eavesdropping). They were giving up on the gay POTUS script and decided they might as well try turning me into a male prostitute, a drug dealer, a bum, a male to female sex change, threats of forcing me into the Army, phony incarceration, phony institutionalization, and death yet they got caught big time. When will all the Nazi-style criminals holding security clearances be thrown in jail for trying to serf people?

They are routinely and covertly violating the laws and getting away with it to the point that people need to be informed of what is really going on despite how angry these criminals get everytime I expose their perverted secrets. The homosexual recruitment campaign was highly advanced yet ultimately dumb and now beyond defeated. It really is annoying too since you get some of the gayest men in the Army (as it is the Bay Area - unsurprisingly some are also in the CIA) surveilling you 24/7 when you are at home/work, the FBI on the roads or sidewalks, the NSA on the Internet - since the intel community works together to run psychological operations on everybody. An invasive homosexual recruitment campaign is worse than a death sentence - amounts to a horrendous human rights violation. You can even end up with PTSD while they attempt to violate your biology (as they all obviously failed or forgot to take biology and psychology).

Lucky you didn't get to experience 16 months of non-stop abuse and harassment by a highly corrupt intelligence community to the point that it degrades your physical health and you feel like absolutely tired and miserable all of the time. In truth, I think these sick idiots enjoy psychologically torturing people to death.

So I ratted out the military and other intelligence communities and still alive - quite amazing what they must think they can do with their mind control stupidity... We tested each other with secrets that neither side kept. Ultimately, these organizations are not trustworthy. They have permanently tarnished their own reputations through 16 months of inexcusable isolation, covert druggings, training skits, abuse, harassment, sabatoge, etc. And they continue to try to ruin my mind - funny that nobody else is agreeing here. Selling out seems to be in style these days...

When the entire intelligence community is largely traitors working towards aristocracy, you know things are completely messed up beyond repair - the constitution has truly become meaningless so be careful and never trust a traitor though when the system collapses hunt them down all the way to the gates of hell.

Re:Interesting

[slick7]

Let's not forget that military people don't have to pay for food, clothing, or shelter. That makes the vast majority of their salaries disposable income.

As for food, mess hall/deck food is widely variable mostly depending on the caliber of the cooks and the number of people being fed at one time.(one reason submariners had the best, relatively speaking). Palatable food depended on whether commissary awards were at stake.
As for clothing, only one set of dress blues was free. Everything else was automatically deducted from my paycheck until the account balance was zero. I received $15 per month to cover $30 pants, $25 shirts and I did my own washing since the ship's laundry didn't give a rat's ass about how clean or how they smelled.
As for shelter, I lived in a 30" x 26" x 78", five sided box. The fifth side was curtained, basically a coffin. This was "home" for 4 years, 11 days (but who's counting)
My only consolation resulted in my applying for 2 - 3 days leave when we went to sea for the upcoming import period, usually some exotic disease infested, overcrowded, smelly country that was a whole lot better than being aboard a ship.

Re:Interesting

[CohibaVancouver]

I find it funny (and sad) that the people who most loudly proclaim to "support the troops" don't really give a shit about them once they're back

Many of these people only 'support the troops' when it involves zero personal sacrifice on their part (other than putting a bumper sticker on their car). The mothers stuck at home while the daddies/husbands are at war, the parents who take home a son who is now blind... These are the individuals who are 'supporting the troops.'

Re:Interesting

[slick7]

'Health care costs are eating the Defense Department alive,' Mr. Gates said."

I beg to differ, Halliburton, Blackwater(Xe), and all the other military contractors are eating the Defense Department alive.

Re:Interesting

[slick7]

Tell that to the Vietnam veteran!

Re:Interesting

[tophermeyer]

I disagree. Perhaps if serving in the military were mandatory (like some european states), then I might be so inclined to agree with you. But no one is forcing them to become soldiers,

Criminal courts frequently compel individuals to join the military as an alternative to prison (where we foot their healthcare bill anyway). .

I am surprised you've never heard of this thing called the Selective Service, which does in fact exist to compel people to join the military during times of need. You are also forgetting that the American military serves at the discretion of civilian leadership, which you absolutely have the power to influence through your vote.

Perhaps you should have paid more attention during civics classes, these are two incredibly major responsibilities that American citizens enjoy.

There's no real tangible evidence that having jarhead in harms way is doing anything for me, besides increasing my taxes. I am not concerned with terrorists in Iraq. I'd be concerned about Terrorists in my home country.

Really? This Times Square bomber received training and funding from Taliban personal at a Taliban facility in Pakistan. If your goal is stopping terrorists, where else would you want to put boots on the ground? Without those Devil Dogs out there kicking ass, those terrorists would be over here bombing our schools.

Re:Interesting

[tophermeyer]

One comment I would make on your argument is that in the US, Employers typically offer healthcare as a benefit to attract and retain talent. Assuming, as you argue, that our military is entirely volunteer, you can consider soldiers as employees. Certainly after $100,000's and years of training, offering benefits like healthcare is a smart investment to retain your talent.

Re:Interesting

[AtomicOrange]

Unfortunately sometimes they're not even losing legs in the combat zone:

http://www.coltonread.com/

Military healthcare definitely needs to be worked on, I understand we don't want tort lawsuits constantly against the government. But medical malpractice is medical malpractice, situations like this should be prevented and/or punished severely.

I encourage everyone that doesn't know Amn Colton Read's story to google his name.

Re:Interesting

[Monkeedude1212]

I'm not an American Citizen (So forgive my lack of education on American Subjects) but seeing how American Foreign Politics play a bigger role than any other nation I feel compelled to express my opinion on it.

The Time Square bomber shows more or less that it's not being very effective, because it means they got lucky he didn't create a nice bomb. It shows how little the American soil is actually protected from this kind of warfare.

It seems to me that it'd simply be better if you weren't mucking around in their business. If the resources spent searching for insurgents in Middle Eastern Countries is effective over there, why wouldn't it be as effective over here? The government would rather the "Collateral Damage" be on their soil, not ours. And thats the only reason. It's not as bad if an Iraqi Civilian dies. More innocents over there have been killed than American Soldiers, and we cry when a soldier comes home wounded. Point is, neither the soldiers or innocent civilians over there would be hurt if the soldiers weren't over there. You can claim the terrorists would be more effective, but we wouldn't know that unless we tried it. I can claim that overall hostilities towards the US would decline and there would be less bombers. Neither of those arguements hold any water.

Re:Interesting

[Phist]

Increased spending does not necessarily translate into better medical treatment. It is entirely possible to decrease spending while increasing medical care through efficiency gains. Same deal with civilian healthcare and even educational systems.

Sad but true

[Anonymous Coward]

This will be spun as a Democratic administration not "supporting the troops", despite it being proposed by Gates, a holdover from a Republican administration. Much like how only Nixon could go to China, only a Republican can advocate cutting the defense budget (even if only a mere 2-3%) without being pilloried as near-treason.

Re:Sad but true

[Hadlock]

I am pretty sure Gates is just the mouthpiece for the administration on this. His job is to say and do what the Commander In Chief (aka President) says. Either way, considering roughly 1/6th of the federal budget is millitary spending, we ought to be seeing some better results for that than failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
For 665 billion dollars a year, we ought to have hover cars, laser rifles, robot/android soldiers, forcefields and fusion power by now.
 
2010 Federal budget: 3.552 Trillion Dollars
 
Total Federal revenue to pay for budget: 2.381 Trillion Dollars
 
Amount we put on the "Federal Credit Card" (a.k.a. our Children's Grandchildren), just for 2010: 1.717 Trillion Dollars
 
Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget
  http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/fy10-newera.pdf

Re:Sad but true

[LordLimecat]

Just a nitpick, but wouldnt laser rifles be really awful at anti-infantry? No stopping power, high power usage, and what kind of battery do they need to carry to power one? Last time I checked explosives carry far more energy per Kg than batteries do.

Re:Sad but true

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Just a nitpick, but wouldnt laser rifles be really awful at anti-infantry? No stopping power, high power usage, and what kind of battery do they need to carry to power one? Last time I checked explosives carry far more energy per Kg than batteries do.
Well they wouldn't need lots of power to blind the enemy soldiers, but such weapons would be against the Geneva Convention so we'd have to crank up the power to vaporize or boil the brain to stay in line with the convention.

Re:Sad but true

[Hadlock]

I would imagine they'd all have really long extension cords for their laser rifles, leading back to some mobile fusion reactor on tank treads. Imagine the "shock and awe" of a wave of men in white puffy spacesuits with big plexiglass bubbles over their heads, marching towards a city, firing off red and blue and green lasers at them, vaporizing everything in their path, leaving a trail of extension cords and destruction in their wake.
 
The military is seriously lacking in cool shit for all the money they dump into R&D.

Re:Sad but true

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you consider the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan failed wars? Iraq is pretty clearly decisively won, and Afghanistan is still very much in play.

I'm honestly curious. I hear that a lot; but Iraq is

Re:Sad but true

[WindBourne]

Actually, Clinton did large DOD cuts. And Gates is just cutting some of the fat.

Re:Sad but true

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, one reason to consider the war in Iraq failed is that they never did find those WMDs. Sure, they ousted Saddam Hussein, but that wasn't the original stated goal of the war (ok, we all know that was the real reason, and the WMDs were just a lie), so saying that the war is won because Saddam Hussein has been executed is kind of like shooting at the side of a barn, then walking up and painting a target around the hole. As for Afghanistan... remind me, what prison are they holding Bin Laden in now? Oh, right, they're not.
Obviously, I'm being harsh on them for unrealistic things. The WMDS were just a vaporous threat invented to justify a war and catching Bin Laden alive was a pipe dream. Those facts didn't stop the President and others in authority making all kinds of grandiose declarations, goals and promises. So, in the end, some of us actually hold them to their lies.

Re:Sad but true

[Anonymous Coward]

Having attended the university he was most recently President of (Texas A&M University), I can tell you that having Gates is nothing different than having a trained parrot ride on your shoulder and sqwak "Yes!"... he's a political hack and a yes-man. He was to Bush, he has been to Obama, and always will be.

And I'd point out that the last time a Democratic president (Clinton) made sweeping budget cuts in the military, it was the commond soldier that suffered the most...whether it be insufficient armor on troop trasnports (Humvees), inadequately maintained weapons, or inadequate body armor..it was the grunts who suffered.

So hell no it's not supporting the troops. The total funds will be slashed, and procurement will see the deepest cuts in gear for infantry, and they'll just reallocate what's left to drones and bombs and super-advanced fighter planes...and not to the guys putting boots on the ground

Re:Sad but true

[operagost]

We failed in Iraq? Thanks, Mr. Information Minister!

Re:Sad but true

[operagost]

By the way, we spend far more on entitlements than defense. And defense is actually a constitutional duty of the government.

Re:Sad but true

[Friggo]

By the way, we spend far more on entitlements than defense. And defense is actually a constitutional duty of the government.

Defence may be the constitutional duty of the your government...
But then your military have never done any defence in the last few hundred years or so. All it have done is attacking.

Re:Sad but true

[FooAtWFU]

Tip: The last couple hundred of years included Pearl Harbor. Good luck next time!

Re:Sad but true

[styrotech]

Does 'being attacked without putting up much opposition' mean the same thing as 'defence'?

Yeah I know... -1 Troll, -1 Not Funny etc etc

Re:Sad but true

[dogmatixpsych]

Just because they never found the WMD does not mean they did not exist. We know they existed at some point (at least in the 1980s and 1990s) but if they really were all destroyed is anyone's guess.

Re:Sad but true

[Anonymous Coward]

Of interest in the mixing of power sources are the bomb-pumped laser (bit of a no-go as a terrestrial solution) and the 20MW ABM laser as models for deriving a laser rifle design.

Re:Sad but true

[DigiShaman]

In theory, you could have a reverse railgun rifle design. The idea being that as a round exits the chamber, it charges a capacitor that feeds directly to the laser. Essentially, you have a hybrid design. Of course, using the laser mode would sap all the KE out of the round being fired. But that's the idea.

Re:Sad but true

[Jedi Alec]

I am pretty sure Gates is just the mouthpiece for the administration on this. His job is to say and do what the Commander In Chief (aka President) says.

Wow, so a member of the civilian government has to obey the head of the military? That's pretty amazing...

Is that why in order to be eligible for the job you need to be out of active service for at least 7 years?

Re:Sad but true

[AP31R0N]

Developing a weapon for the purpose of maiming people is definately a GenCon no-no.

That's why they are working on "dazzling" systems. They cause no permanent damage (unless you hold your remaining eye right up to the lens). i shine the dazzler on the enemy, Bob sweeps in for the kill.

i wouldn't work on laser rifles, but a vehicle mounted system that can lay down a blast of frequency X light, while my guys have goggles that filter out X. We can see, they can't. We win.

Or mount a lethal type laser on an armature that can raise shoot into the third floor window or around the corner. The mount would have a sensor array (low light, thermal, laser range finding, LIDAR) and a microphone and speaker. "Come out with your pants down or we'll cut in twain". Hell, toss a grenade launcher on it that can select smoke and or tear gas as well as loud bangy things.

Re:Sad but true

[AP31R0N]

Much of defense spending is to pay stockholders, overpaid contractors and the executives of those contractors. If the gov't did it's own work we could get the same results for much less.

If the federal budget was 1/12th would people still say "OMG TEH USA SPEND 1/12th IT"S BUDGET ON KILLING BROWN PEOPLE LOLOLOL!"? When you cite that fraction, are you accounting for the reality that our budget is not just ours? NATO members can afford to spend proportionately less on their militaries and more on services because they are behind our aegis. Most nations have a tiny AoR. We can be naive/selfish/short sighted/forgetful and say that we don't have to be the world's police, but if we didn't fill that role someone else would step into it.

As for failed... that's a matter of politics. If you are a partisan on the left, sure they are failures. If you are on the right or a non-partisan about it you'd say they are sucessful but frought with difficulty. Oh, i'm sorry, i mean... "NATION BUILDING EWHILE BEING SHTO AT IS EASY LOLOLOLO!".

Let the censorhip modding and flaming begin!

Re:Sad but true

[Hadlock]

Maybe we should step aside, and let other countries be the world's police? I don't think anyone thinks we're doing a particularly good job of it, and there's no real reason why the EU couldn't pick up the slack in military spending. For as long as I've been alive, despite the enormous size of our standing army, we haven't been in a conflict large enough to warrant the size of our army.

Re:Sad but true

[MightyDrunken]

Totally agree, without a much better way of storing power and more efficient lasers, projectile weapons are just so much better. If you want a bit more stopping power just use the anti-matter bullets.

In the same speech

[Vinegar Joe]

Eisenhower said:

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

http://www.h-net.org/~hst306/documents/indust.html

I wonder why people always ignore that part.

Re:In the same speech

[jandrese]

Because it didn't turn out to be relevant?

Re:In the same speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe because we have so many anti-science people, that would never happen in our lifetimes?

Re:In the same speech

[Jeng]

Goes against the teachings of Athena.

Re:In the same speech

[Thanshin]

public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

Because it didn't turn out to be relevant?

That you know of. Maybe a sufficiently advanced scientific-technological elite's control of public policy is indistinguishable from no control at all.

Re:In the same speech

[chill]

Because it has never come close to happening?

Or are you making the case that any of the previous administrations *cough*George W Bush*cough* could be considered a scientific-technological elite? Hell, President Obama just admitted to not knowing how to use an iPod or iPad. Yes, he has his Crackberry, but still...

Scientists routinely have to beg for funding, and NASA always seems to be on death's door for lack of funding.

Wake me when it is the other way around, and the military budget is round-off error for the scientific research one.

Re:In the same speech

[Raul654]

I don't think anybody ever accused Bush, Clinton, Bush, or Reagan of being a "scientific or technical elite." Obama, at least, seems scientifically/technically literate, but that's a far cry from being elite. So the Eisenhwoer quote probably gets ignored because it's entire irrelavant to modern political discourse.

Re:In the same speech

[TheKidWho]

What part of scientific-technological elite do you not get?

Re:In the same speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Anti-intellectualism rolled around. Policy positions are subcontracted via think tanks and policy institutes, which are thin on research and heavy on rationalization. I doubt drug policy is reliant on the opinion of the scientific-technological elites. Do you see any politicians consulting with academics on solutions to social problems?

Re:In the same speech

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder why people always ignore that part.

Because that would make it inconvenient to seize control of the economy in the name of fighting global warming.

Re:In the same speech

[ElectricTurtle]

If the two effects are the same, why is the cause important?

Re:In the same speech

[ClosedSource]

Sure, anybody who doesn't know how to use an iPod or an iPad can't possibly make a significant contribution to science or technology.

Re:In the same speech

[ElectricTurtle]

Yeah, I'm fairly certain public policy is the captive directly of a cabal of ex-lawyers and indirectly of delegated/representative mob-rule through opinion polls. As an alternative a "scientific-technological elite" sounds like a goddamn utopia.

Re:In the same speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Because, judged by spending, the influence of the "scientific-technological elite" is so small by comparison to the total amount of defense spending. While the potential for a similar sort of feedback certainly does exist and the warning therefore should be taken seriously, things haven't headed in that direction.

Now, if he warned about an entertainment/media elite too, he might have been onto something.

Re:In the same speech

[Thanshin]

If the two effects are the same, why is the cause important?

As always, because different causes may mean different futures.

i.e.: The two effects are currently the same.

Re:In the same speech

[dnwq]

1946:
Arthur Roberts

[Written while the Brookhaven National Laboratory was being planned]

Upon the lawns of Washington the physicists assemble,
From all the land are men at hand, their wisdom to exchange.
A great man stands to speak, and with applause the rafters tremble.
"My friends," says he, "you all can see that physics now must change.
Now in my lab we had our plans, but these we'll now expand,
Research right now is useless, we have come to understand.
We now propose constructing at an ancient Army base,
The best electronuclear machine in any place, -- Oh

It will cost a billion dollars, ten billion volts 'twill give,
It will take five thousand scholars seven years to make it live.
All the generals approve it, all the money's now in hand,
And to help advance our program, teaching students now we've banned.
We have chartered transportation, we'll provide a weekly dance,
Our motto's integration, there is nothing left to chance.
This machine is just a model for a bigger one, of course,
That's the future road for physics, as I hope you'll all endorse."

And as the halls with cheers resound and praises fill the air,
One single man remains aloof and silent in his chair.
And when the room is quiet and the crowd has ceased to cheer,
He rises up and thunders forth an answer loud and clear.
"It seems that I'm a failure, just a piddling dilettante,
Within six months a mere ten thousand bucks is all I've spent.
With love and string and sealing wax was physics kept alive,
Let not the wealth of Midas hide the goal for which we strive. --Oh

"Take away your billion dollars, take away your tainted gold,
You can keep your damn ten billion volts, my soul will not be sold.
Take away your army generals; their kiss is death, I'm sure.
Everything I build is mine, and every volt I make is pure.
Take away your integration; let us learn and let us teach,
Oh, beware this epidemic Berkelitis, I beseech.
Oh, dammit! Engineering isn't physics, is that plain?
Take, oh take, your billion dollars, let's be physicists again."

1956:

Within the halls of NSF the panelists assemble.
From all the land the experts band their wisdom to exchange.
A great man stands to speak and with applause the rafters tremble,
‘My friends, ’says he, b e all can see that budgets now must change.
By toil and sweat the Soviet have reached ten billion volts.
Shall we downtrodden physicists submit ? No, no,-revolt!
It never shall be said that we let others lead the way.
We'll band together all finest brains and save the day.

Give us back our billion dollars, better add ten billion more.
If your budget looks unbalanced, just remember this is war.
Never mind the Army’s shrieking, never mind the Navy’s pain.
Never mind the Air Force projects disappearing down the drain.
In coordinates barycentric, every BeV means lots of cash,
There will be no cheap solutions,-neither straight nor synchroclash.
If we outbuild the Russians, it will be because we spend.
Give, oh give those billion dollars, let them flow without an end.

[Folklore records that the brave and solitary scientist who so vigorously
defended the purity of science at the original meeting was killed by
a beam of hyperons when the Berkeley Bevatron was first switched on.]

In this light the context of Eisenhower may be clearer. Here is a larger quote:

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists

Re:In the same speech

[PPH]

Don't worry your poor little selves. SkyNet will take good care of you.

Re:In the same speech

[fustakrakich]

It most certainly is... It is there we find most of the micromanagement we are suffering under... even when bicycling, you have to wear 50 pounds of "safety" equipment. The insurance and legal industries flourish under it. Scientific data is being used to confuse people, not enlighten them.

Re:In the same speech

[characterZer0]

If you cannot pick up an iPod and figure out how to use it, I do not want you to be my president.

Re:In the same speech

[SlippyToad]

I'm sure Obama could figure out how to use an iPod. I'm also sure he's far more intelligent than the majority of Americans -- and judging from the knee-jerk right-wing stupidity of the comments regarding Obama, I think he's probably more intelligent than most of the readers of /. After all, he's the President, and you're goofing off on company time.

But unlike his predecessor, he doesn't seem to be spending most of his time goofing off such that he would HAVE time to learn how to use a trivial device that plays music. Instead, he's got his hands full with, you know, running the country.

Re:In the same speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, anybody who doesn't know how to use an iPod or an iPad can't possibly make a significant contribution to science or technology.

I'd say not knowing is a requirement. /ducks

Re:In the same speech

[urusan]

Just because it hasn't happened yet in the US does not mean it is not a possibility. It's a continuation of the tension between the state and intellectuals that has been going on forever. To put it another way, it's the tension between those who have power and those who have knowledge.

In the olden days it was royalty and clergy and nowadays its military-industrial and scientific-technological. In both cases the relationship is mostly mutually beneficial (the state's power is derived from the intellectuals and in exchange the intellectuals get benefits such as funding from the state), but there is some antagonism because both wield immense power and often compete for control.

By the way, although it might sound like a great idea to put the modern intellectual group in control (after all they are using science instead of the religion and philosophy of the past), there are some major pitfalls with this idea. A major one is that power would end up being concentrated in the hands of an elite few, the scientific-technological elite Eisenhower mentioned. It would also likely lead to the formation of a formal hierarchical system for scientists, much like the ranks of priests or soldiers. Think of the present day academic system of rank except extended with positions of immense power on the national scale. Another huge problem is the potential for corruption, and particularly intellectual corruption. If the policies of the elite relied on specific ideas, how do you think they might react to opposing ideas? Might they decide to use their power to enforce intellectual orthodoxy? It is up to the elite few at the top to decide such things.

Re:In the same speech

[3263827]

Yeah, he never goofs off like that bastard GW Bush did:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7607947/Barack-Obama-plays-golf-eight-more-times-than-George-W-Bush.html

Re:In the same speech

[Captain Splendid]

It is there we find most of the micromanagement we are suffering under... even when bicycling, you have to wear 50 pounds of "safety" equipment.

You're definitely doing it wrong.

Re:In the same speech

[fustakrakich]

A sometimes effective relatively minor.. how do you say.. embellishment? Gotta sex it up a little

Re:In the same speech

[Omestes]

Oh lord, the "elite" word has been dragged out again.

I would always rather have the academic elite running things, than ordinary slobs like most of America. Who would you rather have representing America, some NASCAR watching slob with a high school degree who can barely read at a 7th grade level (on the rare he actually chooses to read), who receives all of his "wisdom" from television news, and talk radio, and some mega-commercial-church pulpit; or someone with many years of education, who tries to rely on handed down wisdom from people much smarter than him?

Especially true in science. The scientific opinion of 90% of Amercians is worth absolutely nothing, as opposed to... you know... the opinions of actual scientists.

Re:In the same speech

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm also sure [Obama is] far more intelligent than the majority of Americans

Seeing as how he just followed Bush's example of "recommend someone who's never been a judge for Supreme Court justice", I'm inclined to dispute that.

Re:In the same speech

[characterZer0]

Considering some of the decisions that SCOTUS has handed down, that might not be such a bad thing.

Re:In the same speech

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, because science is hard - like we all know the sun goes around the earth - can't you see that in the sky?

Re:In the same speech

[iluvcapra]

It's a lot sexier to talk about Harrison Bergeron-style 50-pound encroachments on our FREEDOM! than concede 14 ounces of styrofoam probably prevents thousands of cases of brain injury a year.

As with all of these arguments, the FREEDOM! to ride a bike without a "goddamn-helmet-my-parents-didn't-have-to-wear" is an absolute and self-sufficient good, and the children that my get injured or die as a result are immaterial, since they aren't the speaker and therefore, from a strictly libertarian point of view, their suffering is irrelevant and none of anybody's business.

Such is the way people rationalize the misery of their fellow men, and turn it into a virtue.

Re:In the same speech

[Anonymous Coward]

For the US perhaps, for the EU and Wall St however, it is relevant - a lot of resentment towards the EU is due to the EU (as opposed to its member states) being run by technocrats rather than elected officials. Similarly, we put overly generous trust in the quantitative models leading to the financial issues in the last few years. Talking to some from the WWII generation makes me realize that unlike prior generations, Gen X and later could not start from square one and at least come up with a reasonable facsimile of the tools of their daily lives.

Re:In the same speech

[FiloEleven]

or someone with many years of education, who tries to rely on handed down wisdom from people much smarter than him?

This would be preferable to the former. Unfortunately, in reality it usually denotes someone who receives all of his "wisdom" from a filtered academic environment that is more concerned with making reality fit a particular system than handling it as-is, in all of its shifting complexity. Remember, just about everybody involved in the financial meltdown was college-educated--their models told them there would be no crash.

I don't want either one of those types in charge of things. What happened to the well-rounded individual who used to reside between the extremes and could think for himself?

Re:In the same speech

[theheadlessrabbit]

Maybe a sufficiently advanced scientific-technological elite's control of public policy is indistinguishable from no control at all.

Everyone knows the elite use magic, not sufficiently advanced technology, to control society.

Re:In the same speech

[DesScorp]

Because it didn't turn out to be relevant?

Really? Congress hands its authority off to a slew of science-technocratic authorities every day... the EPA, OSHA, etc. None of these bodies are elected, and yet they arguably have a huge and often expensive impact on our lives. They're literally the very model of a technocratic government that views "expertise" as more important than democratic self-rule.

I'd say Ike's second part was not only relevant, but turned out to be just as prophetic as the first military-industrial part.

Re:In the same speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, President Obama just admitted to not knowing how to use an iPod

Given is previous attempt to use an iPod as a gift to the Queen of England and ensuing debacle, is it any wonder he's hesitant to try using an iPod again in any capacity?

Re:In the same speech

[Unordained]

While you're rightfully avoiding one pitfall, it's not like we're not already stuck in the other, already-existing potholes of political and media echo-chambers that nullify the good that was supposed to come from democracy and free-press. Scientists might be blind to other opinions? Yes. Congress-critters might be incapable of holding a civilized dialogue, or might use the opinion of their own constituents, to whom they are leaders, as justification? Yeah. The media can broadcast back at us what we already believe and reinforce any existing variations, polarizing and segregating us? Yeah. Scientists are people too! The problem is more fundamental.

Re:In the same speech

[Anonymous Coward]

The quote should clearly be understood as a warning about the disappearance of academic freedom and inherent bias in the increasingly capitalized research environment, in my humble opinion.

Re:In the same speech

[Unordained]

What happened to the well-rounded individual who used to reside between the extremes and could think for himself?

Oh, you mean the collective pipe-dream and fictional character used by our former elites in their own nearly-purely-academic works (we now call them "founding fathers" and "philosophers", I believe?) Said individuals do exist, but they're as rare as they ever were. Nostalgia's a bitch.

Re:In the same speech

[Anonymous Coward]

[...] to ride a bike without a "goddamn-helmet-my-parents-didn't-have-to-wear" [...]

Four out of five (4/5) of their parents' doctors also said that cigarettes were good for your health and and make your skin softer.

Re:In the same speech

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

As with all of these arguments, the FREEDOM! to ride a bike without a "goddamn-helmet-my-parents-didn't-have-to-wear" is an absolute and self-sufficient good, and the children that my get injured or die as a result are immaterial, since they aren't the speaker and therefore, from a strictly libertarian point of view, their suffering is irrelevant and none of anybody's business.

Such is the way people rationalize the misery of their fellow men, and turn it into a virtue.

A lot of men are not getting laid enough. Its making them miserable.
I think there ought to be a law requiring that women be virtuous and put out enough to keep men from being so miserable.
Not only will it be good for the men, but it will probably cut down all kinds of violence - from simple assaults all the way up to foreign invasions. Look at Clinton - he was getting it regularly and we only had minor skirmishes while he was in charge. I bet if Obama were getting some strange we'd have pulled out completely from Iraq by now.

Clearly such a law would reduce suffering everywhere.

Or maybe the right to both suffer and benefit from the consequences of one's own decisions is not a rationalization, but a basic right.
It's not like megalocorp or Goldman Sachs is forcing people to not wear safety gear.

Re:In the same speech

[argStyopa]

You're right, that would take some sort of crazy happenstance, like some former has-been politician understanding that his way back into the limelight was to find some fringe ecological theory and spin it up to 'potential catastrophe' proportions.

Of course, he'd need a whole host of political fellow-travelers who would cheerfully manipulate data in all sorts of arcane ways to generate the sort of results he needs. But that's ok, they wouldn't have to be quite as careful as you'd think, since the academics who would be reviewing this arcana are probably going to be sympathetic, and anyone who DOES disagree, well, he could find something to taint them, couldn't he?

He'd probably have to find an institution that would stand behind this data, to give it credibility.

Nah, that's impossible. It would take some sort of collusion of the bulk of the mainstream media to get away with a scam that big; there's no way that journalists would swallow something like that comepletely.... ...is there?

Re:In the same speech

[operagost]

Apparently Queen Elizabeth II knows how to use one. The President gave her a second one. She had to delete all his speeches off of it first, to load more Kanye West I'm sure.

Re:In the same speech

[LanMan04]

I don't remember anyone criticizing Bush about golf.

I remember criticizing him for spending 487 days of his presidency at Camp David, and ANOTHER 490 days at his "ranch" in Texas.

That's 33.46% of his ENTIRE PRESIDENCY (2920 days), for those of you keeping score.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-4728085-503544.html

Re:In the same speech

[operagost]

Straw Man much?

Re:In the same speech

[fustakrakich]

I think there ought to be a law requiring that women be virtuous and put out enough to keep men from being so miserable.

Or just end the prohibition on doing it for money..

The war on sex is one of the major causes, if not THE major cause of most of our psychoses.

Re:In the same speech

[tophermeyer]

After all, he's the President, and you're goofing off on company time.

I'm not sure what your driving at there friend, but my gut is telling me that I don't like it.

Re:In the same speech

[Omestes]

What happened to the well-rounded individual who used to reside between the extremes and could think for himself?

They are where they have always been, sitting quietly in the margins, ostracized by basically everyone. They are probably being called something derogatory by someone right now, like "socialist" or "fascist", or whatever label we want to apply to people who we don't agree with.

Everyone is someone's extremist, since all an extremist is, in modern American political discourse, is someone who you don't agree with.

Unfortunately, in reality it usually denotes someone who receives all of his "wisdom" from a filtered academic environment that is more concerned with making reality fit a particular system than handling it as-is, in all of its shifting complexity

My experiences in academia (as a student) didn't bear this out. Granted I went to school for something esoteric and wildly impracticable (philosophy), but I only really encountered these problems in a handful of departments, sociology the fine arts, and business/economics.

As for the teaching things to fit into a specific ideology, this is unavoidable, especially in the sciences. Your limited in teaching what the current ideology is, or the alternative is teaching some form of relativism or solipsism (basically the same thing, when it boils down to it). But then again the sciences (most of them, the social sciences less so) have a hardwired uncertainty built into them, so they are a bit safer than most.

Re:In the same speech

[diamondsw]

Yes, because a couple-hour game of golf is comparable to spending weeks clearing brush.

Re:In the same speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and he plays a thousand times more basketball. So what? Starting from a low base, any change can be large as a percentage while still being small in absolute terms.

Re:In the same speech

[fustakrakich]

Yeah, you're right. From now on, the kids are wearing life vests in the bath tub. And we're all moving to bottom floor to avoid the stairs. Better put the chain guard back on the Harley.. Wouldn't want to catch my bell bottoms.. Being told to "be safe" is one thing. Being told how is very different. Especially when the "how" might be based on economic profit for a specific "elite".

Re:In the same speech

[Idiomatick]

Uh huh ... and how many days did bush go to his ranch for? 500? Looking at just golf is pretty fucking stupid. I must be the hardest working man in the world, havent played golf in 2years... thinking of signing up for WoW though.

Also, if you are harassing the left about this; The left was happy Bush took so many vacations, better to pay him to do nothing than have him do what he thought was best.

Re:In the same speech

[Idiomatick]

Lamenting the move from lone tinkerer to big money laden constructions makes sense, it is sad. It turns out that it is also completely unavoidable, and in reality the lone tinkerer has been a myth for some time (in regards to science not inventions).

Re:In the same speech

[AtomicOrange]

1. Americans can pay for goods and services
2. Americans can have sex
3. ???
4. Profit!

Seriously though, why is it still illegal? People like to have sex, people like to make money (or at least do it to pay the bills). (Offtopic, yes I know)

Re:In the same speech

[AtomicOrange]

While I'm not arguing in favor of the President being away from Washington. It seems to me that some work can be done from away from the Oval Office. He flies around on a mobile command suite, effectively. He has the capabilities to communicate with the majority of the world at any given time, at any location. It doesn't seem beyond me.

Unfortunately I wish I could work from home and exotic locales much more than I do (read: never.)

Re:In the same speech

[fustakrakich]

Seriously though, why is it still illegal?

Organized criminals gotta make a living too, you know. What are they going to do if everything is legal?... Defense contractors! Oh wait, we're trying to cut that back... ah, screw it. Just draft 'em into the military. They can be the tooth AND nail..

You can't handle the tooth!

Re:In the same speech

[kharchenko]

Remember, just about everybody involved in the financial meltdown was college-educated--their models told them there would be cash.

There .. fixed it for you. Seriously, their goal was/is to maximize personal profits - that's all.

Re:In the same speech

[Tablizer]

Hell, President Obama just admitted to not knowing how to use an iPod or iPad.

He's not an Apple fan. Move on.
   

Re:In the same speech

[Anonymous Coward]

You guys all missed the point. The "scientific-technological elite" is Lockheed, not you.

Re:In the same speech

[n dot l]

What happened to the well-rounded individual who used to reside between the extremes and could think for himself?

He and the perfectly rational consumer that most of our economic theory is predicated on get together for drinks every Friday to reminisce about the humble scholar who seeks only truth...

Re:In the same speech

[dbIII]

That's no President - that's a Playboy Prince.
Even worse he did it while the USA was at war.

Re:In the same speech

[kronosopher]

*cough*George W Bush*cough* could be considered a scientific-technological elite?

why was this mod'd insightful?

bush isn't among the elite, you insensitive clod!

He is merely a pawn in an international game of chess perpetrated primarily by credit institutions and their enforcement arm, the military industrial complex. The elite systematically indoctrinate the masses as well as the military to embrace their authoritarian dictatorship. Military technology is effectively 20+ years ahead of whats on consumer markets and they use it a LOT to manufacture, distribute, and enforce their anti-intellectual, totalitarian agenda. They have established WORLD WIDE SLAVERY behind a veil of celebrity-like personality cultists like George W and Obama.

Please stop spouting nonsensical FUD about Obama's fake fascination with consumer fads and accept the fact that the gov't is in bed with private industry. Private industry loves nothing better than to intellectually bankrupt the masses with behavioral training and subliminal messages. Why? Because that gives them an uncontested means to consolidate power, therein ensuring technological, economic, and intellectual domination over the masses. In contrast to our current centralized top-down approach, evenly distributed resources, information, and technology are key to maintaining healthy decentralized infrastructures. If the elite want to maintain their domination, they do well suppress humanities access to said necessities. If the elite can invent some new more efficient way of suppressing and subjugating the population, of which they are only 0.01%, trust me, they will.

We are inexorably and irrevocably slaves to the system, which is, in-fact a scientific-technocracy(and has been for quite some time).

Re:In the same speech

[Danse]

Because it didn't turn out to be relevant?

Really? Congress hands its authority off to a slew of science-technocratic authorities every day... the EPA, OSHA, etc. None of these bodies are elected, and yet they arguably have a huge and often expensive impact on our lives. They're literally the very model of a technocratic government that views "expertise" as more important than democratic self-rule.

I'd say Ike's second part was not only relevant, but turned out to be just as prophetic as the first military-industrial part.

Those authorities aren't appointed for life like USSC justices. They're appointed by the democratically elected representatives of the people to do a job that they should have an appropriate level of expertise in. We could go with a more direct democratic approach, but I don't think it would be an improvement. Just look at California's problems cause by their referendum system that allows people who don't know shit about an issue to make decisions for the state.

Re:In the same speech

[iluvcapra]

Christ, it's a fucking helmet! Sufficiently ideological thinking turns every pragmatic effort into a vile sellout.

Re:In the same speech

[iluvcapra]

Breaking into a house is hard work, yet for some reason people offering this service find themselves hounded at every turn by big gubmint. Stoopid big gubmint.

News flash: not everything is for sale, regardless of what the most desperate and/or evil among us may wish to vend.

Re:In the same speech

[fustakrakich]

Yeah, it's one more piece of crap I've gotta schlep around with me everywhere I go. We all grew up just fine without 'em. And if I'm going to wear a hat, I want to show at least a little class, not look like some fruity space clown..

Re:In the same speech

[AtomicOrange]

Breaking into a house in stealing someone elses posessions... How is this remotely similar to someone selling sex? Breaking into a house isn't buying or selling any goods. Burglars are not offering a service.

Were you trying to make some sort of point, because frankly you've lost me.

Re:In the same speech

[Anonymous Coward]

or someone with many years of education, who tries to rely on handed down wisdom from people much smarter than him?

This would be preferable to the former. Unfortunately, in reality it usually denotes someone who receives all of his "wisdom" from a filtered academic environment that is more concerned with making reality fit a particular system than handling it as-is, in all of its shifting complexity. Remember, just about everybody involved in the financial meltdown was college-educated--their models told them there would be no crash.

I don't want either one of those types in charge of things. What happened to the well-rounded individual who used to reside between the extremes and could think for himself?

I agree.

As to what happened to those individuals I think I have very bad news.

I can't speak for any of them but I am or at least used to be one yet rather surprisingly these days I'm finding myself "fantasizing" about:
1. Clever, covert, automated yet targeted violence against western governments despite the fact that I think western governments are still better than other governments (some only barely).
2. Clever, covert, automated yet targeted violence against hardened criminals and particularly "Islamic crime" despite the fact that I like most Muslims and realize that any such acts would themselves be criminal.

Because I'm a reasonably happy and content classical liberal yet I can no longer name a single country that both truly protect the interests of their own population including hard-won freedoms and also the essentials of their own core culture and way of life. Nowhere in Europe. Nowhere in America. Our systems have failed because good intentions have been taken to extremes at both our own and others expense. I realize I have in my own small insignificant way been part of the problem.

Then I go out into the sunshine and meet all the nice people and smile and enjoy our mutual existence. But sadly that doesn't change or even address the big issues, it only stresses the complicated nature of the huge challenges if the legacy of the Enlightenment and Freedom is to survive the next decades. Someone will have to do the dirty work and be smart about it too because the sheep will die if running scared.

And no I can't sustain belief that non-violent methods will work since non-violent methods have failed during the last forty years and then some, it has produced staggering levels of ordinarily "accepted" corruption across the entire political spectrum and government, massive slightly obscured and generally unresisted losses of freedom, widespread eradication of civil knowledge and thus huge losses of essential culture needed in order to sustain the ideas that enable(d) the societies we live(d) in.

I've become aware that if someone like me and with my political stance now at this late stage sometimes have these serious thoughts of violence then there must be significant percentages of the various populations, maybe as much as 5 or 10 %, who have had them for years, perhaps decades. All the societies in the west will have to realign back to their foundations and fast if a tsunami of blood is to be avoided. Sadly I don't think such a course correction will happen and I worry about the power vacuums the violence could leave behind.

Are our current rulers and our current enemies alike charging blindly into their own demise? The Anonymous Cowards of the world are growing stronger by the second, there might well not be any proclamations, any collusions, any broadcasts, any official confirmations.

I for one welcome...

[TheStatsMan]

our thrifty defense overlords. I really do.

Woo, maybe I could get a real job

[rwa2]

Does this mean major cutbacks on corporate welfare and job security clearances for US Persons?

I'd love to get an engineering job outside of the defense/military industrial complex, maybe this will finally make the other jobs on the market relatively more competitive! And maybe I could get to apply some of the mechanical/aerospace skills I learned in college finally?

Corporate welfare through defense spending has been an awfully good way of keeping the educated middle class too busy doing busywork to try to enact any kind of social change. But maybe mass entertainment has finally caught up with keeping those minds preoccupied with inane things.

Re:Woo, maybe I could get a real job

[Altus]

More competitive? My Ex wife got a huge raise getting out of government contracting. Not only that she finally got the promotion she had deserved for years.

Govt contracting jobs can be pretty cushy, but the private sector does very well on the compensation side of things.

Re:Woo, maybe I could get a real job

[rwa2]

I work for the private industry, just on mostly defense stuff. So still funded by taxpayers. I just find it a bit ridiculous what we get paid to do that level of work, compared to if the government employees were actually competent enough to take care of the mildly technical / administrative stuff.

But mostly I had a different view of what engineering would be like coming out of school. And it's not much like how the military-industrial complex does it. (though as a social welfare program for affluent people it works lovely)

Re:Woo, maybe I could get a real job

[kevinNCSU]

So you're complaint is you're paid too much and you can't find a job where you can get paid less to do the kind of work you want to do? I'm pretty sure if you go to some interviews and complain you got paid too much at your previous job and wish to rectify that situation you'll be a leading candidate.

Re:Woo, maybe I could get a real job

[rwa2]

My complaint is that it says something somewhat rotten about us as a society if the definition of success for a half-decent STEM grad is to join the ranks of the military-industrial complex and live off of tax dollars divided among the constituency.

As for my personal story, I started off in the civil sector doing something very interesting, but a few years after 9/11 our group was dissolved and absorbed by the defense division. I left that company after it looked like that wasn't going to be temporary, and joined yet another defense firm, but at least it was close to home, a lot more efficient, and a lot less Dilbert-esque than the first job.

But long term plan is to put as much distance between me and the regulation-and-politicking-mired DC area as practical. I mean, I know I can't escape politics and gluttonous administrative overhead, but I don't really have to live on the precipice of the seething pit of it.

Someday once I cut the family loose I'd love to go independent and pursue the technical goals that I think are important. But I've got all the cutthroat business acumen of a jelly donut. Mmmmm, donuts...

Re:Woo, maybe I could get a real job

[PachmanP]

Corporate welfare through defense spending has been an awfully good way of keeping the educated middle class too busy doing busywork to try to enact any kind of social change.

Damn straight! For the longest time, I felt pretty strongly about limited government. To the extent that I'd agree with the Paulites on most topics and pretty much felt the Federal government should really pay attention to the whole "all other rights delegated to the states or the people" section of the constitution.

Then I realized, that as an aerospace-with the emphasis on space-engineer, I'd be suckling at the government teet for the rest of my life. So yeah now I just look at lolcat pictures with my free time...

It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE

[Pojut]

"Here's what we can do to change the world, right now, to a better ride. Take all that money that we spend on weapons and defenses each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would many times over, not one human being excluded, not one, and we could explore space together, both inner and outer, forever, in peace." -Bill Hicks

Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE

[Thanshin]

Take all that money that we spend on weapons and defenses each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world

Having no military power makes about as much sense as having enough to obliterate the entire planet.

Is there still some people who believe nations live in peace because people are naturally kind and caring?

Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE

[Pojut]

Like I said, it's hippie bullshit...but it is true. If you look at how much money the world collectively spends on trying to kill each other, we could instead SUPPORT each other many times over.

This is one of those "I know this will never happen, but this is how it should happen" kind of thoughts.

Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE

[Anonymous Coward]

"Here's what we can do to change the world, right now, to a better ride. Take all that money that we spend on weapons and defenses each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would many times over, not one human being excluded, not one, and we could explore space together, both inner and outer, forever, in peace." -Bill Hicks

No, it's just plain bullshit, and it's false.

Feeding and clothing and educating (and medicating and housing and...) wouldn't do crap. We'd fight over religion or skin color or the brand of cars we drive. It's our nature to form packs around whatever common bond we can find and be suspicious of the other packs.

Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE

[Pojut]

Already responded to something very similar. This is one of those "I know this will never happen, but this is how it should happen" kind of thoughts.

Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there still some people who believe nations live in peace because people are naturally kind and caring?

I think this comic sums it all up:

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1852#comic

Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE

[Thanshin]

but it is true. If you look at how much money the world collectively spends on trying to kill each other, we could instead SUPPORT each other many times over.

This is one of those "I know this will never happen, but this is how it should happen" kind of thoughts.

Ohh, that kind of thoughts... Then why stop at the military?

If we were all kind and caring, there'd be no need for money or property, people would just work because it's necessary for teh common good of the society. We'd work as much as reasonably possible, while being happy. Then, the results of all that work would be distributed among the people, in a optimal way.

And, as to feed the entire population would only need the work of a minority, the rest could center on science, to investigate how to propagate the human collective to the stars.

In flying unicorns, genetically engineered for such purpose.

Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE

[Pojut]

Ohh, that kind of thoughts... Then why stop at the military?

If we were all kind and caring, there'd be no need for money or property, people would just work because it's necessary for teh common good of the society. We'd work as much as reasonably possible, while being happy. Then, the results of all that work would be distributed among the people, in a optimal way.

And, as to feed the entire population would only need the work of a minority, the rest could center on science, to investigate how to propagate the human collective to the stars.

There's this little-known franchise that's really popular, I'm not sure if you've heard of it. They did exactly what you described though. Here, you should check it out.

Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE

[ElectricTurtle]

Bullshit is the opposite of truth. Your last sentence alludes to the real truth, which is 'this is what I want even though it won't happen'. But merely wanting something isn't going to rewrite human nature. That's as much genetic as it is social. Even if we could eliminate the instincts that have put us at the top of the food chain I doubt that it would make us very fit to explore space. Although the reality of space exploration is almost certainly 'apes or angels', I don't think we want to turn ourselves into a herd of ibexes before we leave the cradle on the chance that odds are we won't meet any lions. Even if that chance is astronomically (heh) high, as long as it is possible such self-neutering is irresponsible.

Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE

[0100010001010011]

There's little-known home boy from back in the day that said the same things too. Here, you should check him out.

Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE

[Bakkster]

Oddly enough, Star Trek just so happens to take place aboard a military vessel, and regardless of how much they attempt to be peaceful things frequently seem to come to blows at some point.

In other words, a military will always be necessary because there is always at least one crackpot who will screw things up otherwise.

Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE

[Anonymous Coward]

Hunger and desperate poverty are not economic problems. They're political. The whole “Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime.” is so cliche, but it's relevant. Giving Africa hundreds of billions of dollars in food and aid just gives the warlords in power hundreds of billions of dollars of resources to extort the inhabitants with.

I'm pretty liberal, but it's hippie bullshit that we can just take our capitalistic unclean money and fix the worlds hunger/security/education problems. It's 100% political. Political changes to the system will start an acceleration towards those things you desire. Throwing gobs of cash at them won't.

Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE

[Squiggle]

Assuming a good education that teaches people about their nature to form packs and be suspicious and the benefits of being aware of that nature and using democracy and other positive forms of social disagreement I think you could reasonably expect large scale violence to basically disappear. I'm no expert historian but I'd wager that in every case of mass violence there were a small number of people manipulating a large number of mostly uneducated and/or ignorant people. It is easy to underestimate the level of ignorance in this world (and especially in our past) brought about by lack of access to education and the effects of malnutrition/hunger making people more aggressive and anti-social. In "developed" democratic countries it is basically impossible for a country to wage an aggressive war without many years of very expensive and pervasive propaganda designed to make people ignorant.

Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE

[Anonymous Coward]

The amount of GDP that's spent by the world on defense: 2%. The US spends 4%. While both are ridiculously low numbers, much of what the US spends is to provide protection for trading partners who have basically abandoned their duty protect their citizens. The US spends much more to take care of old people and so oxygen thieves can sit at home to get drunk, high, and breed.

Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE

[maxume]

You have bought into their authoritarian propaganda.

Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE

[walterbyrd]

Like I said, it's hippie bullshit...but it is true

I do not think the same concept can be both "bullshit" and true. It's a contradiction in terms.

Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE

[LordLimecat]

Pretty sure thats not what he said.

Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE

[LordLimecat]

little-known.... really popular

Oh right that thing that nobody heard of but everyone loved? Yea, i remember that.

They did exactly what you described though

Yea, star trek was totally based on reality. We should totally follow their example.

Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE

[SlippyToad]

Arguments such as this are useful if you're cold because like anything else made entirely of straw you can set them on fire and they burn nice and pretty.

But, nice try.

Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE

[SlippyToad]

OMG. So what would Jack Bauer do?

Oh WAIT! Those are all FUCKING TELEVISION SHOWS!! Never mind. I thought I was responding to someone who had a fucking clue what reality was.

Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE

[Anonymous Coward]

There appears to be a subset of Libertarians who parrot Bill Hicks the stand up comedian as some sort of prescient thinker because he was a contrarian with a heart of gold, and now that he's dead, he can be idolized.

Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE

[medcalf]

You are failing to note the distinction between truth and Truth. Kind of like when Dan Rather defending faked documents (attempting to bring down Bush) as "fake but accurate." If something expresses the right feelings, those that make one feel better, then it is Truth, no matter how factually inaccurate. And of course, Truth is more important than truth, and supercedes it. If you don't believe me, ask essentially any academic outside of engineering and hard sciences, and they'll set you straight.

Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE

[Anonymous Coward]

But then, all that money spent on weapons would have been wasted. If you were to use them on the poor first, then the feeding & clothing & stuff becomes much cheaper.

Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE

[nametaken]

To evaluate this idea, one only needs to drive on an expressway where everyone could safely and expediently make it to their destination, if only everyone would be reasonable and cooperate in very simple ways. We are all in control of our own vehicles and have the ability to decide the outcome. How well does it ever work out?

Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE

[dbet]

Having no military power makes about as much sense as having enough to obliterate the entire planet.

Is there still some people who believe nations live in peace because people are naturally kind and caring?

You know how much a militia costs to maintain? Nothing. Who's the militia? All able-bodied adults. This is why we have guns. Even with NO standing military, any army would have to be out of their mind to invade the U.S. So all that leaves for our military to do is run all over the world fixing problems that aren't ours, planting dictators where we think they'll help us economically, and the one thing they actually ARE good for, ensuring the safety of Americans abroad. But we can accomplish that last thing with a very small army. We can even go look for Al-Queda with a very small military. We don't need troops in 144 nations to "live in peace".

Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE

[Schickeneder]

Did you really just use Star Trek to support a normative claim about real life?

Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE

[couchslug]

"we could instead SUPPORT each other many times over."

False-choice fallacy. Just because one gives away everything doesn't mean that others won't use force to attempt to impose their preferred outcomes, religion, or ideology.

You are welcome to demonstrate on an individual scale and show the rest of us up. ;)

Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE

[denobug]

The significance of a standing army of a peaceful nation is the act of deterrance, so that people do not attempt to try to start the process of killing each other. Why do you think there were no major world wars between the nations since the coneptions and proliferations of nuclear stockpiles and the cold war started.

Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE

[Anonymous Coward]

That being said, a mind-blowing portion of technological advances comes from the military.

Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE

[Anonymous Coward]

"Those that turn their swords into plowshares will do the plowing for those who did not."

Not all people are happy and peaceful. Some cultures would rather exhaust themselves fighting and stealing the work of others rather than do an honest day's work -- it's a macho thing.

Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE

[Bakkster]

No, the parent to my post did. I simply pointed out that using Star Trek as an example of what happens when we cut out military spending is pointless, since the series' take place on military vessels.

Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE

[Bakkster]

Talk to the GP, he's the one that tried to use pop culture. I simply pointed out that his example was actually counter to his point.

Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey Costa Rica is on the phone for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Costa_Rica

Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE

[phantomfive]

It might happen, at least the peace part. It seems to be the natural progression: if you look at the number of armed conflicts in the world since the end of the cold war, it's dropped significantly every decade. It doesn't seem like it to Americans because we've become more heavily involved, but it's true. If you go back even farther, you see the trend is a long term one.

War is just not viable from a financial perspective. In the old days, you could conquer a kingdom, steal all their gold, and be rich. It doesn't work that way anymore. In modern times, war is a bad investment, even for the victors. You can make much more money by being peaceful and trading. That's why the trend is towards less and less war, and is likely to continue.

Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE

[Anonymous Coward]

Are there still some people who believe that our insane levels of military spending were necessary in the last 60 years to prevent some "Red Dawn" scenario against the US? Considering that the US military couldn't control a shithole country that we bombed to the stone age for 10 years before we put our boots to the ground, it has always been the hawks that were dreamers, not the hippie doves.

Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a difference between being a military power and having military power. Even if the whole world demilitarized and used all those wasted resources doing awesome things doesn't mean the capacity to project military power is lost. It makes perfect sense to have no active military power as long as the ability is retained. The US spends more on its military than the rest of the planet combined, if it could spend that money on scientific research for even just a decade it could move humanity forward tremendously. If they ever actually had a real need for a military again, as with WW2, they could recreate one easily enough. It's that whole "standing armies" idea the US revolutionaries opposed when they took the American colonies from the British Empire. The world doesn't need standing armies. They waste resources and distort society in negative ways.

Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE

[Anonymous Coward]

And if any in the ranks of those macho cultures question why it must be this way, they are answered with "Those that turn their swords into plowshares will do the plowing for those who did not". Got it, now I see how it works.

Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE

[CrimsonAvenger]

Take all that money that we spend on weapons and defenses each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would many times over,

So, we can feed, clothe, and educate everyone on the planet for one hundred dollars each every year?

Somehow, I doubt it....

Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE

[SleazyRidr]

The thing about the military example is that it does make some kind of sense.

There are two ways to stop people attacking you. You can either beat them up when they try it, or you can be friends with them so they don't want to attack you at all.

In the current situation, we're spending hundreds of billions of dollars to still have our ass handed to us by camel-shaggers in the desert.

I'll leave the alternate situation as an exercise for the reader.

Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE

[Anonymous Coward]

The more education one has, the more they are able to question their way of life; how much more difficult would it be for religious extremists to convince people to blow themselves up?, how much easier would it be to get conscripts in a war that people did not agree with?

Perhaps naive; but look at yourself and imagine if the most disadvantaged person in the world could think at your level with the same education and insight; wouldn't that make a difference?

Unfortunately, giving money to a country does not help as there is no way to control what the government will do with that money. I think it likely that a country would refuse direct intervention perhaps with good reason (hey who's to say the education another country offers isn't politically/corporately influenced).

Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE

[Abcd1234]

If we were all kind and caring, there'd be no need for money or property, people would just work because it's necessary for teh common good of the society.

Absurd. Why? Let's pretend for a moment that everyone was perfectly altruistic. Capitalism still provides a major, useful function: it provides an automatically adjusting system for allocating resources. It's really that simple. My point is that, in an imaginary, perfect world, you would *still* have capitalism, along with no need for a military, because unlike war and violence, capitalism serves an important and valuable function.

The interesting thing is that you presume that capitalism is some kind of necessary evil, only required in order to overcome some sort of shortcoming in human nature. That is, I'm afraid, a misconception.

Oh, and by the way, I'm a rather left-leaning Canadian (not some rabid libertarian, as I'm sure you might assume from my previous comments). As such, I believe strongly in government provided social programs and so forth. But I also realize that capitalism serves an important function in modern society, and so I believe that a blend of socialism and capitalism is an ideal macro-economic system.

Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE

[Kirijini]

Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE

[DigiShaman]

It's one thing to help lift an individual out of poverty. But it's quite another to allow an entire nation to be on a never ending welfare program.

Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE

[stewbacca]

"supporting each other" only works when all sides cooperate. Unfortunately, there's an entire segment of the world (normally called "Middle East" or similar) that doesn't want to play along.

Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE

[Anonymous Coward]

This is your defense for "let's give the military shitloads more money than it needs"?

Nice work there.

Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE

[brettz9]

While it is necessary to recognize human capacity for evil, it is also necessary, particularly in the prevailing climate of self-defeating cynicism, to recognize our demonstrable capacity for justice and greater federation.

Has not, in practically every region of the world, a system of laws and administrative machinery developed to support a level of organization which transcends tribes, and city-states, and even now to some degree, transcending nations? Yes, there is still tribalism in our nature, still conflicts between nations, and indeed yes, within nations, but even while the scale of our problems has correspondingly increased in our adolescent state on the planet, we have demonstrated the ability to transcend by achieving progressively higher levels of sustainable organization. This organization has not been achieved merely by homogenizing imperialism, as imperialism has also given way to greater, if inadequate, degrees of self-governance and federation, even while certain issues raise to higher levels of standardization and need for some component of centralized management, and may from time to time go too far in one direction.

We can quite simply not afford to continue ignoring our equally powerful human capacity to transcend limiting selfishness such as has delivered to us, despite continuing tension between the poles, the achievement of a good degree of decentralization along with a good degree of centralization in our societal structures, even while admitting that to date, this has mostly reached a reasonable balance only up to the national level. Despite a past history of warring tribes and states, in much of the world, we have absolutely no such fears left of cities arming themselves to take over neighboring cities, or neighboring states doing the same. We have consolidated loyalties which are far larger than the constituencies which originally formed our nations.

And despite being inadequate, that is still a remarkable achievement, and one which itself proves our capacity to be able to further extend such a loyalty and organizational capacity more fully to the international level. The real solution here indeed is to eliminate entirely the need for such a high degree of weaponry, just as we have freed our internal states or provinces from the need to possess massive amounts of arms to protect themselves from neighboring provinces. Had we not done so, if not in blood, we would be wasting our preciously limited resources on redundant and fear-inducing, non-productive goods. Of course, just as the states forming our Union (for my fellow U.S. citizens here) would not lay down their arms against one another immediately, and indeed a human rights issue (slavery) needed to be resolved before it lastingly could be, disarmament cannot and should not be achieved unilaterally while effective and justly representative unifying and security measures are not in place at the global level. But this is not a mere dream, unless we malign our own ancestors' achievements and our own selves.

If you respond that somehow this is different because we in different nations are different peoples, I would agree with you that indeed we have to promote, just as the Founding Fathers of the U.S. (such as Benjamin Franklin) did, the concept of a wider loyalty and identity within our educational systems, this time to the world level (i.e., to promote world citizenship in schools around the world) so that we do see ourselves as the same people, while simultaneously overcoming the weaknesses and inefficiencies of the current world system of governance, just as the Founding Fathers discovered they needed to overhaul the weak and ineffectual Articles of Confederation.

It is a chicken-and-egg situation--we need a stronger international government to be able to consolidate our identification as world citizens, but we also need greater promotion of this concept, in order for us to get there (just as was needed in the joining of the U.S. states into a wider Union where the concept of a national identity had not yet

Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE

[sjames]

It is truly a dreadful comment on the state of humanity today that we can take one look at these sorts of suggestions and know for a fact that nothing like it will happen anywhere near our lifetime in spite of being obviously better solutions.

Emerging fill-in-the-blank-industrial complex

[Anonymous Coward]

Practically everything from education to the military has become an industrial complex in this country. There is so much entrenchment and so many people and dollars protecting the status quo, it seems nothing can stop it. People vote for something different and remain selectively aggrieved depending on if their guy is in power. I think we are alert and knowledgeable, but that is not enough. And Ike's speech was nice and I agree with it, but it only came at the end of him wielding the power of that very complex he decries.

Gusher

[sonicmerlin]

The gusher will be closed off until... Republicans get back into power.

I like Ike

[Prien715]

I remember reading somewhere that Eisenhower was the president to most significantly cut the military budget in the past 60 years.

Anyone else who tried to do it was labeled as "making America weaker" or a giant wuss. But it was much harder to call the man who lead the largest amphibious invasion in history a pussy.

Re:I like Ike

[Scrameustache]

it was much harder to call the man who lead the largest amphibious invasion in history a pussy.

A frog, sure, maybe even a salamander... But never a pussy.

Re:I like Ike

[GrumblyStuff]

Some jackass will always be willing to take money for such a cause.

Remember triple amputee Vietnam vet Max Cleland?

They have no shame.

Re:I like Ike

[TooManyMirrors]

GOP called a wounded veteran a pussy (and a several things a lot worse)(1) to add to their chicken-hawk rankings (2) here in Georgia. 1)http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14474-2002Jun19.html 2)http://www.villagevoice.com/2004-08-17/news/the-sunshine-patriots/

Re:I like Ike

[yurtinus]

I dunno, not *all* cats are afraid of water....

Re:I like Ike

[joesmoe10]

You're correct that Eisenhower lead the largest amphibious invasion in World War II. Less well known, however, is that the allied amphibious assault of Sicily (Operation Husky) was larger than the Normandy landings (Operation Overlord). Operation Husky consisted of seven allied divisions; D-day consisted of five allied divisions.

Yea, I just finished my military history final two hours ago :)

Re:I like Ike

[DesScorp]

Some jackass will always be willing to take money for such a cause.

Remember triple amputee Vietnam vet Max Cleland?

They have no shame.

Being a military vet doesn't neccessarily mean you support a strong defense, or even support a military at all. Howard Zinn, after all, was a decorated AAF veteran.

And ultimately, while you're blaming "them"... Republican strategists... ultimately it was the voters of Georgia that made the decision, not "them". The fact is, Cleland was becoming increasingly liberal (see his votes on ANWR, abortion, etc) in an increasingly conservative state.

If you have a problem with the vote, take it up with the voters.

Re:I like Ike

[slick7]

You mean like this?
This

Re:I like Ike

[ahodgson]

The follow-up forces were a lot bigger. And who cares about Sicily :p

Re:I like Ike

[GrumblyStuff]

Strong defense doesn't mean perpetual offense. And what does Howard Zinn have to do with anything? His opponent was Saxby Chambliss who, by the way, didn't have to serve in Vietnam because he got military deferments.

Fair enough to call out the voters. I suppose if they were stupid enough to be swayed by this ad, well, whatever. All it shows is bin Laden, Hussein, and Cleland, and a bunch of things Cleland voted against without even mentioning what they are.

I can't find what they are but would appear to be amendments to S.2452. So, yeah, I will blame 'them' for muddying the issue with non-specific, scary talk and I will blame the voters for being stupid and lazy and accepting of the Republican narrative that it's ok to piss yourself over any mention of terrorism.

Re:That's nice

[muckracer]

> It's nice to see Mr. Gates being so active in his retirement. After running Microsoft for so long, running the US Military must be a nice break for him.
> It looks like he's using his business acumen to streamline the military.

Don't worry. Military spending will come to a screeching halt when he's done with Operation Bluescreen!

About time

[grahamsaa]

Military spending has been increasing at an unsustainable rate for at least the last 30 years. If it continues to increase at this rate it will surely bankrupt us. Our heavy investment in the military (over other important things such as education) also suggests that our priorities are badly skewed and need to be realigned.

Re:About time

[muckracer]

> Military spending has been increasing at an unsustainable rate for at least the last 30 years. If it continues to increase at this rate it will surely bankrupt us.

Very unfortunate, that using future tense is incorrect...:-/

Re:About time

[Orestesx]

Defense is not the top priority? Or are you implying that we are spending more than is necessary to defend ourselves?

Surely it is a matter of degree, not priority.

Re:About time

[dkleinsc]

Yeah, but that unsustainable spending is so profitable for Lockheed, Halliburton, and other major contracting companies who give such nice big campaign donations.

In other words, good ideas, but I expect somewhere around 0 chance of getting through Congress.

Re:About time

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently you are unaware of the drastic cuts in the military that took place during the Clinton administration. Politicians were practically wetting themselves with glee to try to figure out ways to spend the 'peace dividend' after the Soviet Union collapsed. Unfortunately, the world is a much more dangerous place than it was in 1992. What IS going to bankrupt the US Federal government is all the entitlement programs, NOT the military - one of the few constitutional items the Feds actually spend money on.

Re:About time

[Anonymous Coward]

Military spending has been increasing at an unsustainable rate for at least the last 30 years. If it continues to increase at this rate it will surely bankrupt us.

I thought it was entitlement spending that was increasing at an unsustainable rate.

Re:About time

[joggle]

Sure defense is a priority. But why do we need to spend so many billions on stealth jets when our number one enemy is planting IODs and have absolutely no air defense? Why do we need to have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined when nobody offers anything close to a serious threat to our naval forces? Why do we need so many bases around the world when we effectively have mobile bases (carriers) that we can send virtually anywhere?

We can do a hell of a lot more with a billion dollars spent on intelligence than a billion dollars spent on a jet. But a billion dollars spent on intelligence won't provide nice, high-paying jobs in dozens of congressional districts. Building a jet will so it will always get the higher priority.

Note: The US currently has 11 carriers and is building more. Russia has one functional carrier. China bought an antiquated one from Russia and turned it into a casino but may be building two of its own. France has one as does Spain. The next largest fleet of carriers in the world after the US? The UK with 3 old carriers.

Re:About time

[Shakrai]

But why do we need to spend so many billions on stealth jets when our number one enemy is planting IODs and have absolutely no air defense?

Because that enemy can't end the American Republic, whereas the countries that the jets and aircraft carriers deter conceivably could?

Re:About time

[joggle]

I would think our enormous arsenal of nuclear and conventional weapons (some of which are as powerful as small nuclear bombs) would be a sufficient deterrent for any country that has an air force.

Re:About time

[mdarksbane]

I would think not, considering that they all have them as well. Do you really think Obama (or Bush for that matter... Cheney I don't know) would commit the US and the world to nuclear annihilation because someone invaded, say, Alaska? When your options (for the sake of the argument you're making) are losing Alaska or destroying half of the world?

As long as there is a way out and equal nuclear capacity on both sides, nuclear weapons will not be used. Unless one side is completely backed into a corner, wars will still be decided by conventional arms, as they have been in every conflict since the invention of the super-weapons.

Re:About time

[joggle]

And we have an enormous supply of conventional arms that do not rely on multi-billion dollar jets or aircraft carriers.

It's basically inconceivable that a country that could threaten our defense with their own military might would attack us directly due to mutually assured destruction (most likely physical as well as economic destruction).

We could be involved in countless skirmishes with various countries which have minimal governments, but for that we simply do not need dozens of stealth bombers/jets and a dozen aircraft carriers.

Re:About time

[Explodicle]

The key difference being that entitlement programs actually benefit American citizens, as opposed to the $700000000000+ broken window.

Re:About time

[CrimsonAvenger]

Military spending has been increasing at an unsustainable rate for at least the last 30 years.

Oddly enough, when I compare US Military spending in 1980 to current spending, I note that military spending has increased at a lower rate than inflation for the last 30 years ($303 billion in 1980, $685 billion now, inflation 1980-2009 averaged 3.2% per year (totalling 157% over that period)).

Re:About time

[Sinical]

You are wrong.

Military spending has not "been increasing at an unsustainable rate for at least the last 30 years". In inflation-adjusted 2009 dollars, it began rising in the late 70s and peaked around '86 or so and then fell until 9/11. It's been going up since then. A slightly older web page shows a fairly similar picture as a percentage of GDP. It's just that the headline dollar number gets more and more impressive as the U.S. economy as a whole gets bigger. Compared to the rest of the world by percentage of GDP, the U.S. is 27th.

And remember, the biggest components of the defense budget are operations, maintenance, and pay: roughly 2/3rds. About a third is procurement and R&D.

Also remember that military spending in Europe is lower than would otherwise be the case because they offload that expense onto the citizens of the United States. The benefits associated with being the world's only military hyperpower likely makes this a worthwhile trade. Apparently the political powers of the country think so.

Re:About time

[meglon]

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 includes:

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"

Your "one of the few constitutional items the Feds actually spend money on" is unconstitutional.

Naturally, you also want to blame Clinton for Bush Sr.'s base closing imitative. Learn some history.

And for that huge social spending issue: http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

Re:About time

[mjwx]

Note: The US currently has 11 carriers and is building more. Russia has one functional carrier. China bought an antiquated one from Russia and turned it into a casino but may be building two of its own. France has one as does Spain. The next largest fleet of carriers in the world after the US? The UK with 3 old carriers.

The one the UK is building, the Queen Elizabeth Class is one quarter the tonnage of the Gerald R Ford class of which the US is building three.

The fleet carrier is going the way of the battleship, with more advanced S/VTOL aircraft and increased reliance on UAV/UCAV's smaller, cheaper ships perform the same duties. Much in the same way that guided missile cruisers and Aircraft carriers saw the end of the Battleship, drone armed destroyers and assault (light) carriers will see the end of the fleet carrier.

We can do a hell of a lot more with a billion dollars spent on intelligence than a billion dollars spent on a jet.

Throwing money at something will not make it work. The US needs to get out of this mindset. You need more brilliant people having good ideas, like back in the 50's and 60's.

I believe that George W Bush is symptomatic of US governmental problems, he promised to "run the government like a businesses" and that part he did, he ran the government like a business straight into the ground. Governments are fundamentally different to businesses and not readily interchangeable and the US needs to eliminate this mindset.

Re:About time

[Truth is life]

And that's why they have yearly budgets, and not decadal... (Reading comprehension--it is good!)

Re:About time

[stewbacca]

But why do we need to spend so many billions on stealth jets when our number one enemy is planting IODs and have absolutely no air defense?

Because it is a bad idea to plan for the current enemy and not the future ones?

Re:About time

[meglon]

Wait.... you're trying to say that the reason they adopted single year budgets was to circumvent the specific line in the Constitution that was meant to assure there was not going to be a standing army? Why didn't they simply not put the line in the Constitution to start with?

Reading comprehension is a good thing, yes. Reading actual history instead of making up on the fly is even better. I suggest The Federalist Papers to you as something to read, so you can get a grasp of exactly how much loathing there was for the prospects of a standing army.... along with a great deal of insight into other things the Constitution was to mean; with a lot less emphasis on the silly, ignorant discourse of some of our current, intentionally less educated, pundits.

Re:About time

[joggle]

And what future enemy would require 11 (or more) carriers, stealth bombers, etc.? These ships and other military resources have limited shelf lives--if they aren't needed within the next 10-20 years they simply shouldn't be built.

Russia is still having enormous financial and corruption problems. China has a massive standing army but no navy and couldn't really do anything more than what Russia did during the Cold War (since an outright attack would debilitate their economy).

North Korea? They too have a large standing army--one that barely has enough food to function. They have no air defense or advanced offensive weapons that could threaten our jets. They have some missiles, but ours are much more advanced and they have absolutely no missile defense.

Iran? Even though they should theoretically have plenty of money from oil their theocracy has pretty much driven their country into the ground over the past 30 years. They can't even refine their own oil to produce gasoline. Sure, they may be able to build a nuke soon but what can they do with it? They sure as heck don't have any ICBMs that could carry it to the US and Israel's army is more than capable of dealing with Iran.

Re:About time

[joggle]

One thing the government does share with businesses is the need to prioritize projects. Money can be used to train translators, educate the military in foreign languages, recruit spies, etc. It also can be spent on spy drones, satellites and other similar military assets.

There are many brilliant people working for the NSA. However, they now have so much information that it is difficult to filter out the important information from the information that isn't important. Algorithms can only get you so far after all.

What we really need is more human intelligence in the field and that isn't going to happen without a concerted, well-funded effort on our part.

Re:About time

[holmstar]

and that part he did, he ran the government like a business straight into the ground.

Which is no surprise, really, when you look at his record on running his own businesses... or should I say the businesses that were given to him by family and friends.

Re:About time

[Anonymous Coward]

And what future enemy would require 11 (or more) carriers, stealth bombers, etc.? These ships and other military resources have limited shelf lives--if they aren't needed within the next 10-20 years they simply shouldn't be built.

This is where your logic, and the logic of our current military system fails. What we'll need within the next 10-20 years cannot be known, and by the time we know it, it's already too late. It takes too long to react to the next threat. This is why when I was in the Army in 1991, they made every one of us with an IQ over 80 Arabic linguists. By the time I was fully trained and ready to go, the war was already over. So in a couple years when we will (probably) need Farsi linguists, yet 95% of the current force's linguists have spent the last 10 years in Arabic, we will again be reacting to the next threat instead of being prepared for it.

Re:About time

[mjwx]

One thing the government does share with businesses is the need to prioritize projects

I sort of agree, but this particular trait is shared with a lot of things.

Governments and business differ a great deal, you'll find they have very little in common. A government is about delivering the service, a business is about delivering the bottom line. Whilst governments should maintain a positive balance this is not, nor should ever be the primary motivator. A business wants to make as much profit on a service as possible, with profit being the priority. A government wants to deliver a service whilst making a profit, with the emphasis on delivering the best service. Governments are also required to maintain both a short term and long term view, you can run a business without thinking beyond the next quarter but you cant do that with governments, any decent (democratic) government has planned beyond their term knowing it's quite likely they may not be elected back in.

Re:About time

[joggle]

The things I listed can't be built overnight by anyone in the world. The things they are designed to be used against also cannot be built overnight. We aren't going to suddenly need 11 aircraft carriers.

It takes about 10 years to build an aircraft carrier, assuming you have the resources to do so in the first place. Out of the entire world there are probably only 6-8 countries that can build one and none, other than the US, could support 11. Soon China may be able to start, but they still have a long way to go considering they've never had a substantial navy.

We do need linguists and I believe we should fund that. If we simply cut a single aircraft carrier from the fleet we'd have enough money to pay for plenty of linguists in various languages for years.

Look at the Money Trail

[ATestR]

My last job was at a small company (

Don't worry though... we're going to save the economy by not spending that money on useless military programs. If we have some unemployment, we'll have enough extra (saved from military spending) to fund extended unemployment and welfare.

I lost that job, but I got another one within a month... before U/I kicked in... And this one has nothing to do with the military. To bad it sometimes deals with Government.

Sounds like a decent idea

[Cimexus]

Makes sense to me. America is in a huge economic hole and desperately needs money pumped into infrastructure, health, job creation and other areas of government. America spends more on the military than other developed countries combined, so even a slight reduction in this should reap rewards in other areas. And if the US is smart about how it cuts spending, it does not even mean the military need become weaker as a result. Spend smarter, not 'harder', I guess you could say.

Re:Sounds like a decent idea

[DogDude]

"t does not even mean the military need become weaker as a result."

So what if it does? The US already has the most powerful military in the world by an order of magnitude. What do we need all of this "power" for, anyway? We haven't had a real threat to the US since WWII.

Re:Sounds like a decent idea

[MachineShedFred]

America spends more on the military than other developed countries combined

This is true. They also depend on the 82nd and 101st Airborne, the United States Marines, missiles launched from a US Navy carrier battle group, or a US Air Force bombing wing to be there to kick the crap out of anyone that tries some shit, through "peacekeeping efforts" on behalf of the UN, or direct action via pre-existing treaty.

They don't have to spend all that money, specifically because the US Government does. Would be nice if they kicked a little something back though.

Re:Sounds like a decent idea

[peragrin]

No the USA doesn't have the strongest military. In a straight up fight(no nukes) the USA would lose to china definitely and probably Russia(it's close enough to wonder). We would win againist both at sea but the land wars would crush us.

North Korea would have Chinese backing. Thus accomplishing little.

Againist a united Europe USA would lose too.

Againist Iran we would crush the bulk of their army inside of 12 weeks. Then it would turn uglier than Iraq.

It is something no one talks about in Iraq and why it is called a failure. We crushed the Iraqi army in 6 weeks. The USA. Troops then became police officers in a country that not only hated police but hated us just as much. The war in Iraq was a complete sucess. Police the transition between governments was a miserable failure. However we have to stay until it is done.

Re:Sounds like a decent idea

[couchslug]

"So what if it does? The US already has the most powerful military in the world by an order of magnitude. What do we need all of this "power" for, anyway? We haven't had a real threat to the US since WWII."

The Cold War begs to differ.

Re:Sounds like a decent idea

[Shakrai]

We haven't had a real threat to the US since WWII.

Thousands of Russian nuclear weapons aimed at American soil would seem to qualify as a post WWII threat to the United States. The Germans and Japanese never had the ability to do any meaningful damage to North America. The Soviet Union could have destroyed 200 years of hard work in the time it takes for ICBMs to cross the North Pole....

Re:Sounds like a decent idea

[Shakrai]

America spends more on the military than other developed countries combined

So what? The US is only 26 or 27th in terms of military spending vs. GDP.

Re:Sounds like a decent idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you also lament paying for fire insurance when your house doesn't burn down? Yes the US has far and away the most powerful military in the world. Part of the reason it does is that no one since the USSR had any realistic chance of matching it and at that point we were deliberately using an arms race to bankrupt them. In many ways this is actually cheaper globally in the long run as you don't have arms races among first powers (if one side can get the US to intervene, the other is screwed anyway, so what's the point?). Instead of major wars, we have regional conflicts and civil wars/insurgencies. "If you desire peace, prepare for war," still holds true.

I agree with Gates that the F-22 for instance is probably not worth the cost, but funding R&D on new fighters is still worthwhile in general because as we learned with NASA with regard to moon rockets, once you lay off a sufficient number, and shut down the necessary infrastructure, regaining the talent/machinery necessary to do it again is very hard. If we decided "we're fine using Cold war era fighters through 2050" and the Chinese/Indians continue developing the technology, we would have a hard time catching up at that point. That said, there is no reason that we must replace each plane each generation, particularly since older technology is generally cheaper to operate - why we ditched the A-10 in favor of F-15E for ground support I'll never understand. As a fighter, the A-10 was hopeless when it was designed, but it was still the best for its ground support mission, and having a plane with that specialty is great when we have other planes capable of achieving air superiority for it. I disagree with Gates on the C-17 though - it is cost competitive with earlier designs and can carrier larger vehicles than older transports. Since our lift capacity is less than the level it is supposed to be, there is nothing wrong with expanding that portion of the fleet. The DDX is probably another area that is worth pursuing from an R&D rather than deployment angle - If we can get a real railgun in operation, it is potentially a much cheaper and more effective platform than current ships - you could have a destroyer with more firepower than a WWII battleship, at 1/10 the crew, and 10x the range. Again, no navy could realistically compete with the US Navy, but this keeps Russia, China, and India from even trying. A US Carrier battle group can "assist" cooler heads to prevail in ex China/Taiwan, Iran/Israel, etc. India/Pakistan is about the only one where it would not help due to nukes trumping air power against the aggressor. We can probably afford to shrink our sub fleet (SSBN and SSN) and retire some ships earlier than expected, but again, it is worth overpaying to insure that we maintain the capability to produce these craft into the future if a need ever arises. Similarly, replacing 50 year old carriers with more efficient designs and smaller crews is worthwhile to maintain the capability of producing them - the US is the only country with big carriers but if that ever changes we need the capability of building up to match any threat.

Re:Sounds like a decent idea

[timeOday]

No the USA doesn't have the strongest military. In a straight up fight(no nukes) the USA would lose to china definitely and probably Russia(it's close enough to wonder

Huh? I'm curious of your rationale. Are you talking about what would happen if they invaded us, or we invaded them, or if we took over australia as a venue for a big deathmatch with no home team advantage?

Re:Sounds like a decent idea

[shutdown -p now]

In a straight up fight(no nukes) the USA would lose to china definitely

Very doubtful. For starters, in a China-U.S. fight, it would definitely all happen on Chinese territory, simply because China doesn't have any means to project its force as far as U.S. Technologically, U.S. is superior - best Chinese tech is one generation behind. China has an edge in manpower, but that's about it.

and probably Russia(it's close enough to wonder)

As a Russian whose father is a retired Russian (and before that, Soviet) army major, I can tell you - from his words as well as my observations - that Russian army, in today's conditions, would stand a snowball's chance in hell against U.S., even if the latter would invade Russian soil. Russian army is mostly of conscripts, and they are poorly trained and poorly fed. While there are a few nice shiny toys such as Tu-160 and S-400, they are few and far in between, and the bulk of Russian forces is equipped with weapons dating back to 70s or so, and not significantly upgraded since then. What's worse is that equipment has been poorly maintained, and the count of planes, tanks etc on paper simply doesn't represent the real number of operational units.

The other big deal is logistics, and things are even worse there. E.g. fuel supply would be a major headache for Russia for any prolonged warfare - ironically, given its status as an "oil superpower".

Now, if U.S. would try to occupy and hold Russia like they're doing to Iraq, then it would get messy for them real quick due to guerrilla warfare, of which Russia has ample past experience to draw from, and fitting conditions (e.g. huge swathes of forested terrain; low-quality roads further degraded by seasonal weather). But that's a very different story, which doesn't have much to do with army strength as such.

Re:Sounds like a decent idea

[shutdown -p now]

Nuclear weapons are countered by nuclear weapons, though, not conventional arms.

Re:Sounds like a decent idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention that at the start of WWII, the US military was anemic - the majesty of the US storyin WWII is how quickly it built that military power when it needed to.

Re:Sounds like a decent idea

[Joey Vegetables]

War between developed and/or large nations is a negative-sum game. No one wins; everyone loses.

I think people tend to ignore the ease with which China could activate WMDs that very likely already exist in the heart of every major urban area, likely disguised as very ordinary devices like refrigerators and shipping containers, and thereby end Americans' will to fight a war before it even starts. Come on, do you really think they lack this ability, and, assuming they have this ability, do you really think they would fail to use it when the alternative might very well be the exact scenario you suggest?

They also ignore that in a sustained conflict between nations with grossly different economic capacities, the one with the bigger capacity wins. And we're screwed on that front as well. True, China's current economic output is not yet comparable with the U.S., but it is still early in its growth phase; and, even now, who could doubt that in a life-or-death struggle to produce manpower, energy, weapons (REAL weapons, not make-work for unemployed engineers) or any other supplies, China would easily roll over the U.S., even without the help of Japan, Russia, India and South Korea, all of whom, when the rubber meets the road, would side (or be forced to side) with China? Many Americans are arrogant enough to believe they could easily defeat any of those powers, but do even they think they can defeat them all, at the same time?

Also, the fact that China could not win a war against the U.S., does not imply the opposite: the U.S. would not have a net gain in any such scenario either. Occupying or holding a nation with 6 times the population (probably more like 15-20x the population within a few hours after the war starts) is not something we have the money or power to do. We can't defeat a handful of "insurgents" in Iraq or secure the Green Zone there, and the effort to do so is rapidly bankrupting us. We will not be winning a war against any large and/or developed country anytime soon. All we will do is, at best, make sure that they do not win either. The only winners will be those who were smart and/or lucky enough to stay out of it.

Re:Sounds like a decent idea

[shutdown -p now]

I think people tend to ignore the ease with which China could activate WMDs that very likely already exist in the heart of every major urban area, likely disguised as very ordinary devices like refrigerators and shipping containers, and thereby end Americans' will to fight a war before it even starts. Come on, do you really think they lack this ability, and, assuming they have this ability, do you really think they would fail to use it when the alternative might very well be the exact scenario you suggest?

GGP and I were specifically talking about conventional conflicts, without nuclear escalation.

They also ignore that in a sustained conflict between nations with grossly different economic capacities, the one with the bigger capacity wins. And we're screwed on that front as well.

You aren't. If push comes to shove, you just do the same thing you did in WW2, which is to effectively switch to command economy for all military-supporting parts of it for the time of the war. In terms of industrial power, U.S. is still very much in the front of the pack - if that power is directed properly.

Also, the fact that China could not win a war against the U.S., does not imply the opposite: the U.S. would not have a net gain in any such scenario either. Occupying or holding a nation with 6 times the population (probably more like 15-20x the population within a few hours after the war starts) is not something we have the money or power to do.

Of course, which is something that I've noted. Again, we're talking about conventional warfare, presumably in a defense against an invasion of U.S. possessions, or those of one of its allies.

Re:Sounds like a decent idea

[Joey Vegetables]

I'm not sure whether the concept of a "conventional conflict" is valid anymore. We have less ability to project conventional forces halfway around the world, in the numbers we would need (to fight an army potentially a BILLION strong), than is commonly believed. Of course, China has even less, which is why they already plan to bring the war to us in other ways should it become necessary. They are well situated to defend their current territory, not to take or occupy territory half a globe away.

But let's assume a conventional conflict for the sake of argument. We decide to invade China. Rest of the world doesn't much like this, and probably would respond, BUT . . let's also make every reasonable assumption that is favorable to your argument as possible: that Russia and India remain neutral for the time being, that Japan stays out, and that both Russia and China's Middle Eastern allies continue to sell energy to the world at around today's prices.

Command economies produce less, not more, than free ones. But again, let's assume that, given the same workforce and little to no damage to factories, we could continue to produce the current GDP under a command economy, only with manufacturing shifted toward military production to the greatest extent practical. (This is a HUGE assumption but I am granting it solely to show that it changes nothing.)

China could cripple critical components of our existing production, including nearly all of our warmaking ability, merely by disrupting oil shipping in the Gulf, bombing or otherwise disrupting semiconductor factories in Taiwan and Japan, and using the conventional warmaking capabilities that is *also* more than likely has already staged here, just in case. Eventually, we could switch to coal and nuclear, but that would take a long time, and would be very vulnerable to targeted Chinese attacks, which could be done through saboteurs or in any number of other ways.

It is an open secret that the entire U.S. surface fleet is vulnerable to ballistic missiles (e.g. Sunburns). Yes, countermeasures obviously exist and are deployed, and might work against a relatively underdeveloped foe such as Iran. China on the other hand can build more than enough, even if it does not already have them on hand, to sink the entire surface fleet. Now, how do we get troops and supplies back and forth? Do we simply take them from nearby countries, all of which understand that if they permit this, they will be seen as having committed an act of war against China?

Now, imagine that each side had the same gender ratio (they do not, and the difference is in China's favor). Also assume that they have the same age distribution (again, they do not, and again, the difference is very much in China's favor). Assume we can manage to not only "man up" the 150 million people in the U.S. of potentially fighting age, but also thin them down, teach them to shoot, equip them with weaponry, and somehow get them over to China. China has SIX TIMES our population, and most of their people are neither lazy, fat, nor stupid. They would be fighting not to gain wealth for their rulers, but to defend their homes and families. They would be fighting on familiar ground, and would have the advantage of being able to prepare themselves, the terrain, the potential battlefields, and whatnot.

Who is left to run our factories, assuming China can't find a way to bomb them to smithereens, or starve them of the natural resources they require to run? Keep in mind we'd have to conscript not only men, but women as well, to come close to matching a sixth of China's numbers. Also keep in mind that we lost much of the raw and semi-finished materials we used to import. Much of what didn't come from China came through Chinese-controlled waters. Not anymore.

China could maintain production at pre-war levels fairly easily, and could probably greatly increase it if necessary. Most of their population would not in fact be needed for defense. Most of their raw materials and other neede

Re:Sounds like a decent idea

[shutdown -p now]

But let's assume a conventional conflict for the sake of argument. We decide to invade China.

Why would one want to invade China? The point is to prevent China from invading you, or the countries you're allied with.

Re:Sounds like a decent idea

[Joey Vegetables]

I don't see many "conventional" scenarios which would not escalate or deteriorate into an attempt to forcibly take and hold Chinese territory . . . i.e., an invasion. Preventing Chinese attack, however, should be relatively simple: don't do anything to threaten its vital interests. At the present time, China is not particularly aggressive, at least not toward nations outside its immediate sphere of interest. Chinese leadership is well aware that the resources that would be needed to fight an offensive war can be put to better use helping to grow the economy, especially at this stage of its economic development. It has no reason to go around looking for fights.

On the other hand, it does seek a greater role within its region, as befitting a nation of its power and influence. It also seeks eventual reunification, an effective defense against possible Japanese aggression should it eventually rearm, an effective defense against Russian incursion, and various other local/regional threats. We need to be aware that our ability to influence these trends is limited, and can best be accomplished through persuasion and economic cooperation, not threats of violence and death.

China currently shows many signs of becoming an excellent world citizen and leader. It needs improvement in some areas (human rights, Tibet, religious freedom, extreme rural poverty, etc.) but frankly I think that given the right kind of friendly persuasion and incentives, China could potentially lead its region and the entire world into a century or longer of relative peace and prosperity, which would be a welcome change given the war and other conflict and suffering that characterized much of the previous one. The U.S. will not play the dominant role that it once did, but it is not yet too late for it to take its place as one great, peaceful, prosperous nation among many others, and to learn to lead or at least persuade through example rather than force.

Re:Sounds like a decent idea

[shutdown -p now]

I don't see many "conventional" scenarios which would not escalate or deteriorate into an attempt to forcibly take and hold Chinese territory . . . i.e., an invasion.

An attack on Taiwan?

Re:Sounds like a decent idea

[Joey Vegetables]

I don't see that as very likely. Of course China very much would like Taiwan back, but it has little to gain and much to lose if any kind of military conflict should result in or near there. Taiwan has an economic importance, not only to the region but to the world, far out of proportion to its modest size. But if it were devastated by war, it would become a drain to the regional economy, not an asset. I really don't see a military solution to the conflict, but much more likely some kind of negotiated settlement (perhaps along the lines of what happened with Hong Kong, "one country, two systems").

Re:Sounds like a decent idea

[shutdown -p now]

I don't see it as very likely, either, but only because of continued U.S. presence in the region, and the fact that it would directly intervene militarily should China try to invade Taiwan. If not for that, it would have been taken overa long tme ago.

In general, having a capable standing army is essentially a prerequisite for good diplomacy, even if said army is never actually deployed.

I really don't see a military solution to the conflict, but much more likely some kind of negotiated settlement (perhaps along the lines of what happened with Hong Kong, "one country, two systems").

I don't see that happening, nor any reasons as to why it should. Hong Kong (and Macau) were leased from China, so their transfer back was inevitable. The fact that it was negotiated the way it happened is definitely a great win for diplomacy, but I don't see how that would be in any way applicable to Taiwan.

In any case, it's something that should first and foremost solved by citizens of Taiwan itself. So far as I can see, though, there aren't many advocates for anything like the "two systems" solution there now or in the near future, which is understandable considering their history.

Budget cuts

[SoTerrified]

When your budget is greater than your earning power, things must be cut. That's just the way it is and anyone with a brain can understand that. As such, I expect that the US Military will accept the cuts logically and maturely... Much like the Greek people.

Re:Budget cuts

[Stan92057]

Um the military only earning power is body bags of the enemy. Gezz man The military is for protecting our country and our way of life,there not a for profit company. I want our men and women to have every tool available to them,no mater the cost too protect our country and way of life.

Re:Budget cuts

[Pojut]

Um the military only earning power is body bags of the enemy. Gezz man The military is for protecting our country and our way of life,there not a for profit company. I want our men and women to have every tool available to them,no mater the cost too protect our country and way of life.

The military itself may not be "for profit", but MANY of the companies that supply the military with equipment have ties to various politicians and/or political groups. Iraq/Afghanistan weren't wars for oil, they were wars for profit in general...just like every other war in history.

Much of the technology we are currently using (fighter planes, as an example) serve no purpose over in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bombers, sure...but planes designed for air-to-air combat? What, are they fighting the 47th Flying Sandies Brigade? Much of our military spending is still stuck in the Cold War. It needs to be drastically altered.

Re:Budget cuts

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Much of the technology we are currently using (fighter planes, as an example) serve no purpose over in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bombers, sure...but planes designed for air-to-air combat? What, are they fighting the 47th Flying Sandies Brigade? Much of our military spending is still stuck in the Cold War. It needs to be drastically altered.

What do you keeps other airplanes from shooting down our bombers?Not every enemy we face in the near future will be without an airforce.

Re:Budget cuts

[Bakkster]

The military itself may not be "for profit", but MANY of the companies that supply the military with equipment have ties to various politicians and/or political groups. Iraq/Afghanistan weren't wars for oil, they were wars for profit in general...just like every other war in history.

Wars and the military are for-profit in the same way as roads and peace treaties. They all let the country (in whole or part) make (or continue making) money. Security is helpful for making money.

Much of the technology we are currently using (fighter planes, as an example) serve no purpose over in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bombers, sure...but planes designed for air-to-air combat? What, are they fighting the 47th Flying Sandies Brigade? Much of our military spending is still stuck in the Cold War. It needs to be drastically altered.

The only current air superiority fighter in development and purchasing I'm aware of is the F-22, and we've already capped the order there.

Given the lead times on military development (often measured in decades), it makes sense to anticipate future needs before they arise. The reason we continued the F-22 and similar programs (albeit in reduced form) is the same reason we have such advanced drone aircraft now. We need to be prepared for future needs, not just the current ones, unless you can go from technology demo to full-scale production in months instead of years.

Re:Budget cuts

[Stan92057]

I'm all for cutting waste,but I'm not for undercutting our troops. You want to know just why the war is taking so long? Because our countrymen and women care about life,if they didn't Baghdad would have been leveled to the ground like Germany was. The only way to end a war is kill the enemy and that includes civilians,which contribute to the war by making the tools of war.And support the solderers in anyway possible In time of war, no one should profit from war,they should be making the tools of war at cost,not profit.

Re:Budget cuts

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it's just too awesome to send a $1,000,000 missile up the ass end of a $50 camel (or perhaps a $1000 beater pickup truck on a good day) when it's leading a convoy run by them terrorists.

(Although to be honest, if you have a drone giving a video feed - it wouldn't take anything more than duct taping a hand grenade to an inexpensive R/C hobbiest grade airplane and crashing it to accomplish the exact same feat. But then where would the likes of Raytheon, Lockheed, Northrop, Boeing, etc. make all their money without the contracts?)

Re:Budget cuts

[shutdown -p now]

I want our men and women to have every tool available to them,no mater the cost too protect our country and way of life.

There is one country in the world which does adheres to your "no matter the cost" principle with respect to its army. Consequently, its army is 20% of that country's male population.

That country is North Korea.

This is why Obama kept Gates

[WindBourne]

The man is awesome. He cares for America. Basically, another Eisenhower. Obama has a group working on figuring out how to cut the deficit and balance the budget. That group needs to have EVERY head of each dept. tell them how to cut waste for each. Finally, that group needs to push for a balanced budget amendmendment that will block the running of deficits during good times. Right now, the majority of our unneeded debt is from 1982-1990, and from 2002-2007. That accounts for about 8 trillion dollars of a time when we had a decent economy and had ZERO reason to run a deficit.

Personally, If Robert Gates was to run for president (or even replace Biden) , I would vote for him.

Re:This is why Obama kept Gates

[coaxial]

It's a lot easier to find waste in the military. The military knows where it is. The hard thing, is that you can't cut it. It's not because of the normal turf wars, it's because all too often you're legally forbidden to cut it. There are numerous weapon systems that the military doesn't want, yet, they have forced on them. Let me give an example I found last night. Since the late 80s the Air Force wanted to replace the A-10 close air support attack craft. Their first plan was to create a F-16 variant, the A-16. What happened? In 1990 Congress passed a law mandating that it maintain two wings of the A-10. Why? Well as Ike said, no one knows how to spread the pork around like the Military-Industrial Complex.

So what's going to replace the A-10 now? The F-35, the same plane that was supposed to be "cheap" (especialy compared to the F-22, which last I heard has not been deployed in combat) that's now experiencing huge cost overruns.

Re:This is why Obama kept Gates

[Phrogman]

So the biggest periods of accrued and unnecessary debts were during the Reagan years (81-89) and the Bush Jr years (2002-2007). Both militaristic Republicans.

Re:This is why Obama kept Gates

[Anonymous Coward]

unfortunately, we are currently in bad times (at least how it's been defined by the Bush administration), so the amendment wouldn't matter.

Re:This is why Obama kept Gates

[WindBourne]

First, the military is NOT the only department with waste. They ALL have it. Lots of it. Take the example of Ag. reagan promised to get rid of the subsidies for the ag market. Instead, he raised it. Same with W. And that is just for starters. There are plenty of examples.
Secondly, you are right that Congress foists large systems on the DOD (and NASA, BTW). Far too many in Congress consider all of these depts. to be their personal bank/job's bills. It needs to stop.

And as to F-22, it will not be seeing action in any of these wars. It was not designed for these. These are designed to defend against China. All of the studies show that our next major war will be China unless we stay far enough ahead of them that they will chose to not get into it. The F-22 is night and day above all others (at this time). That is also why we are not exporting to other nations. Personally, I think that we should export to UK and Australia (proximity to China), but the fear is that some of the unknown tech will end up in China's hand. As it is, China has a massive spy network all over the world working hard to steal as much military/space tech as possible.

Re:This is why Obama kept Gates

[WindBourne]

We are currently at a bad time. HOWEVER, the economy IS improving, so now is the time to get our budget under control and then keep it there. If we do not, then America will not go down the path of Greece. We we ill be in far worse shape.

Re:This is why Obama kept Gates

[ShakaUVM]

>>So the biggest periods of accrued and unnecessary debts were during the Reagan years (81-89) and the Bush Jr years (2002-2007). Both militaristic Republicans.

Uh, no. Obama certainly takes the cake.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2008.png

Re:This is why Obama kept Gates

[coaxial]

And as to F-22, it will not be seeing action in any of these wars. It was not designed for these. These are designed to defend against China.

Try again. It was designed for a war against the Soviet Union, and the Su-27 in particular. We're talking about a plane, whose first flight was in 1990. Also, you're argument is doubly untenably weak since both the F-117 and the B-2 have been deployed against adversaries that lack radar. It's a weapon, that needs to be tested in actual combat conditions. Now is the best time to do that.

All of the studies show that our next major war will be China unless we stay far enough ahead of them that they will chose to not get into it.

Actually, while China is the most likely major state threat, an actual shooting war is just a remote, if not more remote than ever, given the close economic ties between the countries.

Re:This is why Obama kept Gates

[carp3_noct3m]

I have seen some of his actions lately that seem to show he is making smarter decisions, but that being said, Gates is one of the last people I think we would want in the presidency, much less in the position he is in now. Under his watch since 2006 there have been some of the biggest travesties, both strategically and tactically, that could have been made. He is not only one of the "good ol boys" who basically got into his position because of his tenure at A&M and previous work at CIA (while being heavily involved in the Iran Contra affair), but he is one of what Micheal Scheuer calls the Cold War men. He studies the soviets in school, and Scheuer argues in his book "Marching toward Hell, America and Islam after Iraq" the cold war mindset is one of the key issues with our modern strategic failures.

Let me explain a bit if I may, leaders during the cold war developed a mindset that they have yet to grow out of, in many ways it was an required, but currently among the things they still grasp to and in doing so lose grip on reality are:
a fixation on the nation-state as opposed to international groups,
forgetting the rule by example of soft power and public diplomacy many founders intended,
  the use of proxies for war,
  a good sense of time (that tactical and precise action should be taken sooner rather than later, the opportunities we had to kill Bin Laden in the 90's for example),
ahistorical thinking - the process in which many leaders who championed war in Afghanistan and Iraq without even being slightly informed on the history and culture of the middle east, where they even to this day continue to view history with some sort of contempt, like they are too good to learn the lessons of the British or Alexander the Great.
The use of exiles and expatriates as a source of information and strategy, when often these same expats havent been in their own countries for over decades. It may have worked in the cold war, but not anymore (cough Chalabi cough).
The mission creep of rebuilding nation-states before a war was even over is also just as ridiculous.
But above all, the fixation with the RMA (Revolution in Military Affairs) that to this day is taught in war schools, but is fundamentally flawed in its replacing of flesh and bone on the ground with technology, making leaders imagine "bloodless" wars that are impossible.

  Basically what I'm saying is Gates is exactly the type of leader who got us in the mess we are in in the first place, just because he has a couple of good ideas now doesn't change that.

Re:This is why Obama kept Gates

[Anonymous Coward]

The overwhelming majority of wars are not fought between strangers, but by those who know each other well. And that applies more to those with close economic ties.
See Kuwait/Iraq, Iraq-Iran, Gulf War Desert Storm I, Korean War, WWII, WWI, etc..
The precursor to Nam was that France was still colonizing Vietnam and we came to their aid, of which Vietnam left us holding the bag (though johnson was happy to stop Kennedy's pull-out and then escalate the war).

What is comes down to is that close economic ties rarely stops a war. In fact, it leads to it if one or more of the participants have a different attitude about how things are handled, typically, when they are controlled by a single (monarchy, dictatorship), or small collective of people (totalitarian such as China). The reason that most democracies tend to stay out of wars is because the top ppl will be quickly booted out.

Re:This is why Obama kept Gates

[WindBourne]

The periods that I pointed out was during good economic times. I ignore the bad economic times since I believe that those are times that the country SHOULD be willing to incur some debt. Obama is dealing with a near depression. As such, I overlook his debts during these times. However, if he continues on this course AND the economy has improved, then you are absolutely right.

Re:This is why Obama kept Gates

[coaxial]

The overwhelming majority of wars are not fought between strangers, but by those who know each other well.

Well given that most wars are fought between neighbors, that's nor surprising.

The reason that most democracies tend to stay out of wars is because the top ppl will be quickly booted out.

Is this even true? I can think of multiple wars where a democracy was not attacked, and yet fought a war. Your examples work well in this regard. I'd even add India and Pakistan's multiple wars to boot. How intertwined the belligerent countries economies is where I quibble with you. None of these examples were between primary, or even major trading partners.

Re:This is why Obama kept Gates

[Anonymous Coward]

The A-16 was the pork, not the A-10. The A-10 actually does a damn good job (and plenty have been shot up doing that job in the last two Iraq wars, surviving fire that would have downed A-16s).

For comparison, an A-10 costs $12 million, whereas an F-16 costs $46 million (and a heavier armored F-16 would cost more than that).

Re:This is why Obama kept Gates

[dbIII]

China have better things to do and are aiming to influence most of the world without a fight.
That influence is so strong already that any real military conflict between the USA and China would reveal how many US allies would prefer not to fight for trade partner number six that won't buy their sugar, wheat or steel at any price against their major trading partner.
However the US may be facing Chinese made weapons at some point in other nations - and it's likely that some of those will be US designs like the tank control systems that went via Israel and China to Iran. US allies with US technology will sell things to China and China will trade with absolutely anyone.

Re:This is why Obama kept Gates

[Anonymous Coward]

The mission creep of rebuilding nation-states before a war was even over is also just as ridiculous.

The reason we are doing that is pretty straightforward. Prior to us toppling governments in the middle-east, there used to be a balance of power between Iraq and Iran. If left alone, Iran will become quite a force in the middle-east that will cause even more problems. The goal (after removing Saddam Hussein) is and was to set up a government to oppose Iran to keep that power struggle between powerful nations going. However, we pissed off too many of the people who oppose Iran (by killing their leader and fucking things up for them), so we have been getting attacked or ignored by the people who we need the most support from.

So, if we don't want to deal with Iran becoming a local hegemony, we need to set up an effective Iraqi government that opposes Iran. To do that, we need a functioning infrastructure. Thus, we rebuild.

It would be nice if we could have just left after taking out Hussein, but the reality is that it was just a poor decision to mess with the area in the first place.

All that said, I agree with you on Gates and the coldwar mindset.

Re:This is why Obama kept Gates

[drinkypoo]

China have better things to do and are aiming to influence most of the world without a fight.

China has over 35 million "spare" men of military age, i.e. they have no women for them. Normally you rid yourself of excess male population through military action, nothing else is as effective or useful. Even if equal numbers of boy and girl babies were raised from here on out (hint: not happening) then China would end up with a surplus of over 50 million men of military age before the imbalance stopped growing. What are they going to do with these men? (It may sound racist, but there is no nation in the world which believes it needs a bunch of extra Chinese men. Find a citation if you disagree.) It's hard to imagine China not pursuing a military campaign sometime in the next decade.

Re:This is why Obama kept Gates

[dbIII]

That is one philosophy but I very strongly doubt that the leaders of China or your own nation share it. In most countries they are really not going to care about the extra men and have a war just to get rid of them. With a bit of consideration it comes across as simplistic and to be very frank - a rather juvenile view of reality that should be allowed to escape from a Tom Clancy novel.
Have you considered applying your reasoning to the even more extreme example of India over the past few decades? It hasn't happened for the same reason it hasn't happened in China, because it's more than a militaristic Medieval city state run by a drunkard.

Re:This is why Obama kept Gates

[carp3_noct3m]

Ah the crutch is that you are quite correct about Iran. What many people fail to take into account and I think is a very large possibility, is that it is too late, Iran is already a local hegemony, not just in Iraq, but using strife in the middle east to wiggle into Bahrain and the Saud's territory. The book by former CIA guy Robert Baer "The Devil We Know, Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower" Bob argues this is the case, that we have already basically handed over the keys to Iran, but are too stupid to realize it. On top of that, everyone assumes that we DONT want Iran a superpower, but I think one of the most overlooked things is that if anything they could be the controlling factor of radical islam if ever such a thing could exist. Bob argues that they have evolved strategically and tactically from sponsors of terrorism in the 70's to a militarily strategically thinking entity, something we often overlook.

Re:This is why Obama kept Gates

[Anonymous Coward]

That could be very true.

On top of that, everyone assumes that we DONT want Iran a superpower, but I think one of the most overlooked things is that if anything they could be the controlling factor of radical islam if ever such a thing could exist.

That's an excellent point, but it seems like political suicide to openly accept Iran (in the States, anyway). While Iranian geopolitical decisions seem to have been mostly rational, a lot of the rhetoric that gets said within the country makes people fear for the future of Israel.

If we end up openly accepting Iran as a super power in that region, something pretty big has to happen. I'd imagine we'll get them to tone down on calling for the death of Israel - it would create far too many political openings for a leader in the US to seemingly abandon Israel (even if that isn't truly what happens).

Any other thoughts on what might start opening up people to accepting Iran?

Re:This is why Obama kept Gates

[carp3_noct3m]

Not sure if you're still reading this, but, I think simple small shifts in policy that could very well also deal with the nuclear issue. For example, one of the primary things Iran uses their nuclear capabilities for is mostly just for saber rattling in order to get attention, and at the nuclear "breakthrough" point, respect that has often been denied them. Really and truly, besides a general education on Iran, simply acknowledging Iran as a ME superpower, while making other concessions with them at the same time, could all be done in one fell swoop. Flyntt Leverrit (Spelling?) a former CIA guy, released an article explaining how our traditional piece by piece talking points will not work, and that we must have one big accord all signed at once. Robert Baer's book also has some clearly defined proposals (some of which are a bit far fetched) that we could use to ally ourselves with Iran, and if the case required, use them to control Iraq, and to a much smaller extent Afghanistan, should we ever withdraw.

Military-Industrial Complex

[Anonymous Coward]

If you study the events leading up to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the size and rampant spending of their military-industrial complex as it slowly bankrupted them for thirty years comes out on top. Everyone knew it existed, and everyone knew it would suck the nation dry before they could "win" the Cold War against the United States, but it was so entrenched in their economy that the means to measure and control it simply did not exist. It's interesting to see that Eisenhower noticed this disturbing trend fifty years ago. If the Soviet Union was bled dry in thirty years, how much longer can the United States survive the siphoning of hundreds of billions of dollars from their economy? Or is it already too late?
American citizens really must ask themselves what this spending has done for them. Access to foreign oil? Protection from terrorists? For a fraction of the trillions of dollars spent in the past decade on "defense", those issues could have been resolved virtually overnight. Instead, you have made a select group of people very rich and very powerful. Was it worth it?

Re:Military-Industrial Complex

[vlm]

Instead, you have made a select group of people very rich and very powerful. Was it worth it?

Well, since they also happen to be the ones in charge of almost everything, I think they'd say yes. The lower classes are too busy drugging up and watching TV, and the middle classes are kept busy with B.S. distractions like "gay marriage" and federal vs state control of abortion. When Bush/Haliburton said "mission accomplished" they meant it literally. Just not the mission the gullible thought it was.

Re:Military-Industrial Complex

[gtall]

And you still would have a deficit of 1 trillion in the current budget even if you cut every last dollar out of defense. Get a sense of proportion. It will be the entitlement programs that bankrupt the U.S.

Re:Military-Industrial Complex

[urusan]

American citizens really must ask themselves what this spending has done for them. Access to foreign oil? Protection from terrorists? For a fraction of the trillions of dollars spent in the past decade on "defense", those issues could have been resolved virtually overnight.

I'm curious as to what alternative solutions you have that could have accomplished these objectives for a fraction of the cost.

Re: Military-Industrial Complex

[Black Parrot]

It will be the entitlement programs that bankrupt the U.S.

You refer, of course, to the entitlement programs for the rich and powerful, such as Gates is saying we need to cut out?

We'll go bankrupt because of the unwritten amendment to our constitution that says "The Congress shall make no law that cuts into anyone's profits or share prices."

That and the fact that we've offshored all our industry, so that what passes for an economy these days is just a giant pyramid scheme called "Wall Street".

Re:Military-Industrial Complex

[Anonymous Coward]

Has it occurred to you that repurposing that money towards improving the quality of life and education of our own people would help to eliminate "entitlement" programs?

Re:Military-Industrial Complex

[Lord Ender]

A sense of proportion? Here's some proportion for you:

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

If we cut our war budget from six times the next-biggest country to three times the next-biggest country, our budget would balance and our economy would grow. And we would still be far and away the best-defended nation.

Re:Military-Industrial Complex

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that defense involves killing people, and entitlements involve helping them, I'm still okay with cutting defense spending.

Re:Military-Industrial Complex

[Shakrai]

If the Soviet Union was bled dry in thirty years, how much longer can the United States survive the siphoning of hundreds of billions of dollars from their economy?

Probably for a real long time. Military spending as a percentage of GDP is nothing compared to what it used to be.

Re:Military-Industrial Complex

[Anonymous Coward]

You're going off of the '09 budget? Those numbers don't properly reflect military spending.

This one is skewed in the other direction, but probably closer to reality:

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

Also, "it's not military, it's entitlement" is pretty binary thinking. The real problem is that the money taken in annually by the government is somewhere between $1.5-2T dollars. There are many thing contributing to this, military spending, shifting the tax burden onto the bankrupt or nearly bankrupt lower and middle classes, buying garbage assets from massive, bankrupt banks so that they can turn around and buy up smaller banks, etc, etc.

The debt is at about 90% of GDP and growing at a pants-filling 10% per year, with no end in sight. Military spending, "entitlement programs", taxation policy, DHS bullshit, everything should be on the table...but won't.

Re:Military-Industrial Complex

[WrongMonkey]

Which is hilarious in the context of all the people who are quick to label any social program as "communism". We, the USA, learned the wrong lessons from the cold war. We should have learned that a modern military-police state is unsustainable. Instead we're taught that the Soviet Union failed because of their socialist programs, all while he happily march towards a military-police state of our own making.

Re:Military-Industrial Complex

[ShakaUVM]

>>When Bush/Haliburton said "mission accomplished" they meant it literally.

Haliburton said Mission Accomplished? What, did they pay for the banner or something?

Did Haliburton buy your tinfoil hat as well?

Re:Military-Industrial Complex

[mdarksbane]

How does that math work?

According to your chart, the US spends 607 billion on its entire military.

According to this chart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget) the budget deficit is about 1.4 trillion.

So if you cut out US military spending entirely, you wouldn't have cut half of the deficit.

If you cut it to 3x what China spends (3 x 85 billion = 255 billion, or a 352 billion dollar cut) you will still have over 1 trillion of deficit.

The US spends a ton on its military. Whether it needs to or not is something that can be debated, as well as whether that money could be better spent elsewhere. But saying that military spending is even the primary reason the US government is bankrupt is just bullshit.

Re:Military-Industrial Complex

[ShakaUVM]

A sense of proportion? Here's some proportion for you:

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

If we cut our war budget from six times the next-biggest country to three times the next-biggest country, our budget would balance and our economy would grow. And we would still be far and away the best-defended nation.

What a wonderful, hippie, idea!

Unfortunately the numbers aren't anywhere like you think they are.

Total outlays this year: $3.5T (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7a/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png)
Total receipts: $2.1T (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f9/U.S._Federal_Receipts_-_FY_2007.png)
Deficit: $1.4T

Total military spending: $782B.

Unless you can somehow draft nega-soldiers that get paid in negative dollars, I find it rather unlikely that cutting the military budget by $390B or so will make up a $1.4T deficit.

It pays, sometimes, to get your facts from sources other than your hippie friends sitting around a campfire.

Re:Military-Industrial Complex

[GasparGMSwordsman]

Everyone knew it existed, and everyone knew it would suck the nation dry before they could "win" the Cold War against the United States, but it was so entrenched in their economy that the means to measure and control it simply did not exist.

Actually very few people knew that it was happening at the time. The leaders of the USSR were very good at keeping information from public view. It was not until after the critical mass of economic failure was long past that the strains became apparent. What we take as common knowledge today is a great example of historical 20/20 hindsight.

Re:Military-Industrial Complex

[Spykk]

It is a little disingenuous to suggest that military spending is siphoned out of the economy. Tanks are one of the last things we don't buy from China after all...

Re:Military-Industrial Complex

[steelfood]

And we would still be far and away the best-defended nation.

We're not the best defended nation because of our military spending by a long shot. We're the best defended nation because there's nobody close enough to bother us; Mexicans all want to be US citizens, and Canadians are too busy trying to keep warm.

All defense spending does is assist our outposts in foreign lands and their territories. It's a product of the cold war mentality, that if a country is not with us, they're with the Soviets. Defense spending helps us maintain a grip on those countries "with" us by giving us a big stick to wave a them whenever they get out of line. Heck, we can even give them a big stick to wave too if they ask nicely and we like them enough.

We could cut our defense budget to 0, and still be the best defended nation in the world. The only catch is that we'd also have to pull out of Europe, the Middle East, and Asia and leave those countries to their own devices. Of course, nobody wants that--not the leaders of the other countries, and not the leaders of this country--so it'll never happen.

Re:Military-Industrial Complex

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sensing a lot of animosity towards hippies. I don't know what hippies ever did to piss you off, but you should probably get over it.

Re:Military-Industrial Complex

[Sinical]

I think you are confused. What the grandparent comment said was correct: the budget deficit was $1.7 trillion: cutting out the roughly $700 Billion spent on defense leaves a $1 Trillion dollar deficit. That means the budget doesn't balance. Subtraction, okay? I don't understand how you think you can reduce $700 billion dollars to $350 billion (from 6x to 3x the next-biggest country's spending) and that somehow balances the budget. $1.7 trillion - $350 billion is not $0.

Re:Military-Industrial Complex

[jafac]

The Soviet Union was a net oil producer.

This is why they attempted to take over Afghanistan; in order to have access to the Pacific Ocean, for pipeline transport of Siberian reserves. It was a desperate move. (because they still would have had to get through Pakistan, and/or Iran - Iran having recently had a regime-change unfriendly to the Soviet Union) -

Their economy was based on oil priced as it was in 1979, relatively expensive. When Reagan cut a deal with the Saudis to make an end-run around Opec, and open the spigots, this made the value of oil plummet, which destroyed the income capability of the Soviet Economy. It took years for this to have the desired effect - the economic collapse of the Soviet Union. They did not have the shelter of the sophisticated banking system of the West.

Had the oil market not been gamed the way it was, the Soviet Union would have easily survived.

Re:Military-Industrial Complex

[Lord Ender]

Tax revenues are lower at the moment due to the recession. Spending is higher at the moment due to stimulus spending due to the recession.

Cutting a few hundred billion in wasted military expense does not balance the budget this year, but it does once revenues and expense return to non-recession levels.

Re:Military-Industrial Complex

[Anonymous Coward]

"Gay marriage" and abortion are B.S. They shouldn't be issues because they shouldn't exist. Okay, abortions in some very limited cases or incest or rape or imminent and severe endangerment of the life of the mother but other than that, they shouldn't be issues. Once we can have those issues go away - the push for "gay marriage" and the availability of on-demand abortions for basically any reason - we can focus on other issues. So yes, they are B.S.

Re:Military-Industrial Complex

[dogmatixpsych]

Or you could say that defense spending saves lives - it depends on your perspective. Yes, defense spending results in killing people but it also saves people.

Re:Military-Industrial Complex

[mdarksbane]

Even in a normal year, (say, two years ago) you have to cut it down to $100 billion or less, roughly about what China spends with with 1/3 the economy, to balance the budget. That would be put us at the lowest percentage of GDP of any first world country with any interest in having a functional military.

If we spend something closer to the percentage that the UK or France spends, we'd still be several hundred billions dollars short of balanced in a normal year.

However, one suggestion for him

[WindBourne]

Eisenhower and DOD created DARPA as a way to guarantee that we had fundamental RD being done. That group has been responsible for keeping American military on the cutting edge. W converted it from a mix (basically university, business, etc) to a great deal of money to just business esp. into Texas. That has come at the cost of long range basics. That needs to be changed back. We do need a better way to get our RD into the field, but not at the cost of the future. In addition, more of the RD needs to funnel back to either American business, or at least Western business, with all of the work in America/West.

Talk about looking into the abyss. . .

[vm146j2]

The economy must really be on the verge of disintegration, if this is what they are talking about publicly. Batten down the hatches!

Re:Talk about looking into the abyss. . .

[d474]

Hell just froze over if the Sec. of Defense is calling for spending reductions. Prepare for impact...

Military-industrial-CONGRESS complex

[Scrameustache]

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial-congress complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

I know it's complex, but if you ignore the political implication aspect you're devaluing the entire notion.

Re: Military-industrial-CONGRESS complex

[Black Parrot]

"Military-industrial" is retro. These days it's the military-pharmaceutical-energy-banking-insurance complex.

Military healthcare

[DogDude]

We, the US taxpayers, pay for not only the health care of soldiers, but their families, as well. There's simply no reason for us to do so, when so many other people in the US don't have healthcare. The soldiers are great, and all that rah-rah-rah stuff, but come on. The military is the largest entitlement program in the country. We can't continue to pay for entire military families, especially when the vast majority of our military isn't even productive. It's unsutainable and a complete waste of money.

Re:Military healthcare

[bsDaemon]

Soildiers, sailors and marines, as well as their families, earn everything they get. I would hardly call it an 'entitlement' program to give benefits to people that we ask to give up their youngest, healthiest years and spend them slogging through mud, risking their lives; or for their families to have to sit back and wait, wondering if their spouse/parent will come home in one piece, if not alive. I'm not saying this because of the "rah-rah-rah" stuff, I'm saying it because there is a world of difference between soldiers earning keep for themselves and their families and, say, welfare. "Back in the day" there might have been something to be said for perhaps a tiered system where those "in the rear with the gear", who were at less risk, didn't get as sweet a deal. But, as we're now in wars where there really aren't front lines and safe zones, where anyone is a potential enemy and you're just one grenade away from death, even at the supply depot, there really isn't a whole lot of difference now.

Re:Military healthcare

[tibman]

The alternative is that the soldier's enroll their family into a healthcare program and pay for it then? Ok, cool. So they will remove the benefit from the soldier and pay him the value of the lost benefit so he can then pay for healthcare. It's not like it's the whole family, only spouse and children under 18. No parents or other family, just dependants.

Besides, have you been to the military hospital? Trust me, it's cheaper to leave the military healthcare as it is.

Re:Military healthcare

[Nadaka]

No. Healthcare is considered a right in most of Europe. One of the big pushes has been to provide healthcare for everyone.

The military healthcare system for veterans and their families is an absolute necessity. Soldiers get payed crap, they deal with a job that curtails their constitutional freedoms, a job where they have to deal with the trauma of violence, death, killing and risk being killed/maimed themselves.

You want to cut the military pay roll? Fine. Reduce recruiting, let old soldiers retire. But each and every one of them needs what little help and compensation they do get and deserves more.

Re:Military healthcare

[k8to]

Because it really makes sense to have a parallel health care system only for soldiers?

VA hospitals are a pretty good system, but they should really be for everyone, not just ex soldiers. Public health care is good for everyone, not just people who were in wars.

Re:Military healthcare

[Buelldozer]

Your comment makes me rage. If you were close enough I kick you in the junk so hard your grandchildren would still be feeling it...if you were still capable of having them.

The military is NOT the "largest entitlement program in the country." It's not even fucking CLOSE.

Maybe you should take your ignorant self over to http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258 and read the very simple article that breaks out the spending. The U.S. Military budget is about 20%, Social Spending is about 55%!

So no, I'm not kicking you in the junk for slagging the military although that irritates me as well. I'm kicking you in the junk for being ignorant of the real budget numbers.

Re:Military healthcare

[DogDude]

"I would hardly call it an 'entitlement' program to give benefits to people that we ask to give up their youngest, healthiest years and spend them slogging through mud, risking their lives; or for their families to have to sit back and wait, wondering if their spouse/parent will come home in one piece, if not alive"

It's voluntary. Nobody is asking anybody to do anything. If they don't want to do it, then they shouldn't sign up. Why people sign up with families, I'll never understand. None of the "wars" that we are involved in are defensive, or even necessary. If enlistment drops by 90%, we'll still be able to DEFEND the country just fine.

Re:Military healthcare

[DogDude]

Ah, the old military is only xx% of the budget, argument. Right. Most of the money that we waste on military isn't even IN the budget. It's "discretionary" spending.

Any way you slice it, it's a massive, massive waste of money. We need about 1/10 of our current military to defend the country. All of the wars/invasions that the US has started since WWII have benefited military contractors, and military families. None of them have been of any benefit to the citizens of the US.

Re:Military healthcare

[TooMuchToDo]

And *you're* qualified to determine what's a massive waste of money? *I* think Social Security and other entitlements are a waste of money, but that's because I'm 27 and not going to see a penny of it. So, frankly, leave it up to experts to decide if it's a waste. Mr. Gates seems to have a fine handle on the situation.

Re:Military healthcare

[medcalf]

Actually, yes, it is good to have a parallel health care system only for soldiers. The physical and psychological needs are vastly different than most civilian situations. We owe it to those who put their lives on the line for us to take care of them. We do not owe it to everyone else (including me) to take care of them.

On the other hand, the real scandals are that (a) the VA system is shockingly bad at providing good health care, and (b) if ObamaCare is not repealed, we will essentially get VA for everyone... except Congress, the president, cabinet officers, the politically connected and other "better than the hoi polloi" types.

Re:Military healthcare

[Spril]

> The military is NOT the "largest entitlement program in the country." It's not even fucking CLOSE.

Your link refutes your argument. Your link refers to three large entitlement programs with approximately the same size as military spending. These numbers are from your link:

* $715 billion for military spending ("some 20 percent of the budget")
* $708 billion for social security ("another 20 percent of the budget")
* $753 billion for Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP ("together account for 21 percent of the budget")

Your own source states that military spending exceeds social security spending (albeit by just 1%), medicare, medicaid, and CHIP. Only by combining *all* of them can you justify your bizarre "not even fucking CLOSE" claim. It's like saying that Bill Gates was never one of the highest paid employees of Microsoft because there were many other employees whose *combined* salary exceeded his.

In addition, "military spending" above specifically excludes veterans benefits, but if we're talking about entitlements they should clearly be included. Even excluding that, military spending--using your own data--is slightly larger than spending on social security, the largest of entitlement programs.

> Your comment makes me rage. If you were close enough I kick you in the junk
> so hard your grandchildren would still be feeling it...if you were still capable of having them.

I suggest consulting your own sources before getting so angry you consider assault.

Re:Military healthcare

[dbet]

The military is NOT the "largest entitlement program in the country." It's not even fucking CLOSE.

Maybe you should take your ignorant self over to http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258 and read the very simple article that breaks out the spending. The U.S. Military budget is about 20%

Except those numbers are a bit misleading. Why are benefits paid to veterans NOT included in the defense spending part of that chart? That money is certainly part of what we spend on defense. It's just a game to make it sound like less than it really is.

Re:Military healthcare

[Anonymous Coward]

We need about 1/10 of our current military to defend the country.

Really? That so? And where do you get your facts, Mr. DogDude? Do you work for the Pentagon? No? Oh. How about the Senate? No...not that either. Oh. Hm. I'm really confused now. It almost seems like you're pulling your answers out of your butt...

All of the wars/invasions that the US has started since WWII have benefited military contractors, and military families. None of them have been of any benefit to the citizens of the US.

Oh, all-knowledgeable DogDude. I am so glad you are here to enlighten the dregs of Slashdot. What would we ever do without your insightful comments and great understanding. Our brains would turn to mush without your great blessing.

Just FYI, those "military contractors" and "military families" are made up of US citizens. So, by your own argument, all the wars and invasions that the US has started since WWII have greatly helped this country. Heck, WWII alone was the catalyst that pulled us out of the Depression by creating an industry around military. If that didn't help American citizens, I don't know what did.

Re:Military healthcare

[Scrameustache]

*I* think Social Security and other entitlements are a waste of money

Hungry people don't stay hungry for long.
They get hope from fire and smoke as the weak grow strong.

Re: Military healthcare

[Black Parrot]

*I* think Social Security and other entitlements are a waste of money, but that's because I'm 27 and not going to see a penny of it.

People have been wringing their hands over the looming demise of Social Security since before you were born.

The only real threat of you not getting your investment back is if the politicians find enough excuses to dip into the kitty for other uses, or if the people who want to transfer the whole kitty into the stock market finally get their way.

Re:Military healthcare

[sexconker]

"VA hospitals are a pretty good system"

I take it you have zero experience with the VA.

Re:Military healthcare

[tibman]

I'm cool with that, if you're cool with Military Personnel working on your body.. who aren't doctors. Your X-Ray tech will be an E-4 Specialist who gets paid ~28k$ yearly. You can't contract out those jobs either because those soldier's need to learn how to do those jobs so they can deploy and perform them.

I apologize for sounding hostile, didn't sleep last night. But honestly, VA hospitals don't typically see a soldier's family. The base/post hospital does. VA hospitals are kind of setup as support for old (read grandpa who fought in the war) vets. It is only in the last few years that so many young vets have needed post-service care. Soldier's on active duty who are injured don't leave the service until they are fixed/rehab'd (in theory). Or their care is migrated from the on-base hospital to a more permanent VA hospital during a medical retirement.

But after you leave the military, if you want to keep using Tricare or whatever, you have to pay (75$/month for a single guy i think? and more for dependants). If you retire, you get medical benefits for life.. so do your dependants i think (until they are over 18)?

I'm glad you think VA hospitals are good, i do too. But they aren't public health care, you have to "pay" into it. Not with money, but an oath and putting up with crazy BS. I think after VA learns to cope with this new influx of younger Vets they can expand to provide coverage for citizens, it's more than possible. The VA has been running such a huge healthcare system for so long they would make a good template for a public system.. if not morph into one (if, like i said.. people are ok with very underpaid military guys working on their body).

TL;DR - The VA is decent and unfortunately setup to be exclusive to military. But would make a good template to follow for a public system.. or expand the VA's capacity to service all citizens.

Re: Military healthcare

[TooMuchToDo]

The kitty has already been dipped into, and exhausted. It's full of IOUs. FICA payroll deductions are going to be insufficient to support the growing retirement base, and the US gov is going to need to dip into the general fund to provide even 70-80% of current benefit levels.

http://www.iousathemovie.com/

Re:Military healthcare

[TheReij]

I'll bite. You show me a plan where the military is drawn down 90% across the board and show me how we could defend our borders (including territories, commonwealths and allies that we have defense partnerships with. Go to Wikipedia and use the numbers for each of the services there. Let's hear your grand plan.

Re:Military healthcare

[TooMuchToDo]

Right, so now not only is the younger generation coughing up to support their older generation, if we don't provide what they want AARP is going to come wielding pitchforks on their golf carts? I already pay $300-400/month in FICA. Keep taking more, and at some point it just becomes impractical for me to work to pay for others (and being young, I'm mobile and can move to another country).

Re:Military healthcare

[Anonymusing]

"VA hospitals are a pretty good system" ...compared to the average American hospital.

(As good as the best hospital? No.)

Re:Military healthcare

[Scrameustache]

if we don't provide what they want AARP is going to come wielding pitchforks on their golf carts?

Pretty much. Social programs keep human misery below the "bloody uprising" threshold, they are as important to social stability as police and fire services.

Re:Military healthcare

[TooMuchToDo]

Best of luck to them. I suggest they continue to work if they're able to (Retirement is an abboration in history; only one generation has been able to do it). I myself plan on working until the end.

Re:Military healthcare

[Shakrai]

None of the "wars" that we are involved in are defensive, or even necessary.

You might have a different viewpoint on this if you lived in Arlington or New York City.

Re:Military healthcare

[Scrameustache]

Best of luck to them. I suggest they continue to work if they're able to (Retirement is an abboration in history; only one generation has been able to do it). I myself plan on working until the end.

Live long and prosper :)

Re:Military healthcare

[istartedi]

But, as we're now in wars where there really aren't front lines and safe zones, where anyone is a potential enemy and you're just one grenade away from death, even at the supply depot, there really isn't a whole lot of difference now.

That does it! I'm writing the Pentagon for my Cold War back pay as soon as I finish this post. Let's see... 1968 to the fall of the Wall... that's a good 21 years give or take... Washington DC area most of the time... OK... 5 years away at school so let's say 16 years of high risk certain annihilation and 5 years of lower risk Mad Max survival.... I'm working up those figures now. Suuuuwheeet retirement, here I come!

Re: Military healthcare

[TED Vinson]

Eventually any pyramid scheme must fall apart. If you are under 50 and expect to get a comfy retirement from Social Security you will likely be very disappointed. I do not plan to get any useful amount back from Social Security. I do, however, expect Uncle Sugar to keep its mitts off my other retirement preparations.

It will be too politically costly to let Social Security collapse completely. It seems likely that 'means testing' will be implemented. Those with pensions, 401Ks and other savings will get less money from Social Security, probably less than the 'contributions' they made while working. Everyone will get something, even if it is only a token payment, just to say no one is left out.

For those of us who have planned and saved diligently for retirement, the Social Security payment will be something less than a dollar each month. And that, my friends, is change you can believe in.

Re:Military healthcare

[Golddess]

Why people sign up with families, I'll never understand.

Because some people want to ensure a future for their children? Is that really that hard to understand?

I'll grant you though that the need to do so may or may not exist today.

Re:Military healthcare

[thesandtiger]

You are an idiot. I just wanted to say that up front before I completely demolish your point.

Many jobs offer healthcare benefits for the family of employees, either subsidized by the employer or paid for by the employee. In the case of the military, the absolutely shit pay that military personnel receive can be considered to be part payment for healthcare for their family members. As I remember from when a family member was in the service, a married E-4 with 1 kid makes so little that they are considered to be below the poverty line.

The military person themselves is not the only person who can need medical care as a result of their job. A soldier who comes back from a combat zone with injuries has a massive impact on their family, and the family will need counseling and care as well.

Finally, these are people who volunteer to put their lives on the line for their country. Unless and until we can guarantee that ALL US citizens will receive health care regardless of the ability to pay, we absolutely must provide specific coverage for military/their families.

Re:Military healthcare

[brutaljam]

I find looking at the numbers graphically helps me to better understand the relative scale of things.

http://www.deathandtaxesposter.com/

Re:Military healthcare

[Stupid McStupidson]

VA hospitals are a pretty good system, but they should really be for everyone, not just ex soldiers. Public health care is good for everyone, not just people who were in wars.

I actually paused at that to try and determine if you were joking or not. The VA system, which always gets a lot of deserved and undeserved bad press, is swamped right now only handling former military members. Swapping it over to handling all military personnel is quite literally impossible. You would have to do a massive spending spree to build the facilities and recruit and hire the people to man it. It's not as simple as just taking the military medical facilities, draining out the medical officers, and filling it back up with VA personnel. By the time congress had passed the laws to do the switch, stuffing it with favorable contracts for their districts, it would cost massively more than the current system. Even if you could just wave a magic wand and switch them without additional cost, you've just swapped the money from one office to the one down the hall. The VA is not part of DoD. It is its own independent cabinet level office of government. Since you pay taxes for all of them, it is a net savings to you of zero. If you take a peek at this handy little graph at http://gregmciver.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/federal-spending.jpg , you'll see that with the exception of a couple post-WWII years, the federal budget has never gone down in the last 66 years. When congress tells you they are "cutting" programs and/or departments, what they are telling you that instead of spending 100 million over last years budget for department X, they will only be spending 50 million additional dollars. And in most cases, the 50 million in "savings" is moved to another department elsewhere.

Re: Military healthcare

[Anonymous Coward]

The underpayment is already here.

I know a few dozen people who paid into SS their whole lives. How much do they get a month? About 300 bucks.

They saved for years. Had a good stash of money (401k ect). They get that from the government. What happened was the inflation from 1975 till now happened. It TOTALLY flattened what they were going to get. Back in 1975 300 a month was pretty sweet money. Now its not enough.

My father who had a 100k pension plan from a company will get 50k of it. That was probably enough to retire decently in 1980 (when he retired from that company). Now you would be lucky to make that stretch out 3 years.

It doesnt matter. EVEN if I get the money back from SS. By the time I get it the money will be so devalued its not worth it.

Ever wonder why the gov lets inflation in the 2-10% range? Because they have HUGE obligations. Inflation erodes those obligations.

Re:Military healthcare

[jimbolauski]

You should familiarize yourself with the book "Your Life, Your Choices" aka The Death Book it was written in 1997 and adopted by the VA shortly after. The Bush Administration axed it and Obama brought it back. The basic summary is if you get a debilitating injury you should take into account how difficult you are going to make your families life by existing and you might want to consider refusing treatment to save them of this. That is how the VA treats it's patients right now, they try to guilt them into refusing expensive care and die. Robert Pearlman the main author has been a long supporter of health care rationing so the save money motive seems reasonable.

This story shows why it is so important to discuss your wishes. Talking with your family and health care providers ahead of time can prevent confusion and help ease the burden on them.

Re:Military healthcare

[misexistentialist]

If you divide the amount by the number of beneficiaries it's got to be the most expensive, though "entitlement" is not exactly the right word.

Re: Military healthcare

[TooMuchToDo]

To be fair, the problem with social security is that it was enacted when most people died before retirement age (retirement being 65; most died at 63) and we now live much longer. The solution is to push the retirement age for social security higher (it should be tied to estimated life expectancy statistics) and encourage (from a tax perspective) people to save more during their lives, while being comfortable as a nation/world with slower growth due to lower levels of consumption. But we know that ain't gonna happen, and it's going to end up as a clusterfuck of epic proportions. There is going to be a huge retired population who is going to want to lean on younger generations to provide for them, and those younger folks (myself included) are not going to want to slave away for the older generations. Begun, the generation wars have.

Re:Military healthcare

[SteveFoerster]

I'm writing this in Arlington, Virginia, and I believe that most of the U.S. military's overseas missions, such as the war on Iraq, are neither defensive nor necessary.

Re:Military healthcare

[ShakaUVM]

>>I take it you have zero experience with the VA.

The VA actually does a pretty good job providing "good enough" health care for people, and on a tight budget.

Don't knock it; Kaiser has made a fortune off "good enough" health care.

It's certainly better than Medicare, or whatever Chimeric monstrosity the Democrats will dream up next.

Re:Military healthcare

[Anonymous Coward]

Name one war since Korea (hah, you fixed that yet fuckers?) that was worth fighting.

Re:Military healthcare

[Anonymous Coward]

It depends, some specialties are needed for VA that are not as often needed in general hospitals - prosthetic limbs are likely different for combat vs accidents, treatment of PTSD is likely handled differently, pediatrics is not as needed, etc. I could see it being cheaper or more expensive to integrate the two depending. Whichever better meets needs and is less expensive is the right choice. What Gates is proposing is not cutting funding for wounds, but rather making reserve/retired health care closer to the private sector norm rather than a "Cadillac" plan. The retiree healthcare issue is part of what bankrupted bulk of the US auto industry, and addressing the same drain on the DoD budget makes fiscal sense. Both were designed in an era of relatively short retirements and much more limited (in care and cost) treatment options.

Re: Military healthcare

[clarkkent09]

People have been wringing their hands over the looming demise of Social Security since before you were born.

2010 was the first year that the payouts for social security exceeded the amount that was taken in by social security taxes (contributions is a silly word for it). So yes, the demise was looming, and now its getting closer: http://economistmom.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/nytimes-social-security-deficit-032510.jpg With the ratio of working population v. retirees getting more and more heavily skewed in favor of retirees you will get a situation where either the taxes will have to increase or the benefits will have to decrease. As somebody who doesn't expect to retire for another 30 years I would MUCH prefer paying the 7% (plus employer's 7%) into a retirement fund than into Social Security if I had that option.

Re:Military healthcare

[Runaway1956]

I have to argue with that. Ever been "over there"? How in hell can a soldier or sailor keep his mind on what he's doing, after he gets a letter from home: "Dear John, Suzy needs braces, and you know there's no money for them. Your mom sent me $xxx, my mom sent $xxx, and I took some money out of my 401k, and almost had enough - THEN THE FUCKING CAR BROKE DOWN!! I don't know how I'm going to get the car repaired, and dress the kids for school. Jimmy has outgrown his walker, and we'll never be able to afford a prosthetic for him. I'm about ready to go home to Kansas, and let that dirty old lecher who has always chased me have his way, if he'll just take care of the kids!"

Preposterous, you say? Maybe. Maybe not. Soldiers and sailors don't get much of a paycheck to start with, they certainly can't afford a decent health care plan if we take away what they have now.

Now, IF you had suggested that MAYBE the military wastes some of the health care money they DO have, then we might find that Gates agrees with you. If you bothered to find citations, then some of the rest of us might agree with you. There is waste in every system - and that is a large part of what Gates is on about.

Re:Military healthcare

[Runaway1956]

Yes, it's voluntary. Take away the most basic necessities that any family needs, and you'll find that the volunteers aren't showing up any longer. Do you want to go back to the way the Queen's army was run 150 or 200 years ago? Good luck with that.

Re:Military healthcare

[astar]

there is something a little narrow about your perspective. I recall being in the military as a draftee and I do not really recall a lot of choice. admittedly, it was one those crap big asian land wars that no one both patriotic and sensible should go for. but no one really complains about world war II and we are still doing personnel expenses for that.

and so there are problems. but i think you should go with current personnel costs than with the junk contracting out Blackwater crap that started up big time under Rumsfeld. I do not want to play "I get to pick the alternatives" Lipmann scams, but I am just saying.

as it happens, I have pretty good anti-war creds. S-2 and I got to be real friendly. and it was real rare for a draftee to say anything good about a lifer. But you might work on trying to get a handle on the reasons people join up, not the economic reasons. again, just saying.

Re:Military healthcare

[Runaway1956]

We can agree on the Iraqi war. But, that's POLITICS. Politics is completely separate from what a soldier has to do. Politics shouldn't have anything to do with whether a soldier can provide for his family or not.

If you expect a soldier to provide his own health care for his family, be prepared to increase his pay twofold, anyway, and maybe more. In the end, it will cost you a lot of money to deprive a soldier of the family health care that he has now.

Re: Military healthcare

[Anonymous Coward]

That last might be true if there were any kitty for them to transfer. The social Security Trust fund exists only on paper, it is a debt of the government to itself. At present we are now paying out more than we take in for social security (and it will only get worse as the Baby Boomers retire) and while social security can redeem that paper debt, the federal government can only pay that paper debt by converting it to real external debt. We either have to raise payroll taxes or cut/reduce nominal growth in benefits. True, we can remove the cap on payroll taxes, but that buys us an extra 5-10 years of solvency according to economists. The root of the problem is that Social Security was created as a pyramid scheme with high enough investment rates to last a long time before collapsing. Unfortunately we are starting to reach the point where it does.

Re:Military healthcare

[shutdown -p now]

It's voluntary. Nobody is asking anybody to do anything. If they don't want to do it, then they shouldn't sign up .. If enlistment drops by 90%, we'll still be able to DEFEND the country just fine.

The problem with such attitude is that feedback won't be measurable as just a drop in new recruits. It's also the whole attitude that your soldiers will have. What you say basically implies an army that is strictly mercenary - since you're effectively treating them as such, that's what they will be. The problem is that, when a truly just war comes eventually, all you'll have is the mercs, and an army built on merc culture. I very much doubt that such an army could, say, fight to win in something like WW2.

Re:Military healthcare

[Runaway1956]

"you have to "pay" into it. Not with money, but an oath and putting up with crazy BS."

I couldn't have said it any better. The problem is, those who have never been there simply can't understand. It's like trying to explaind the difference between blue and yellow to a blind man. He MIGHT understand, academically, but he will never REALLY understand.

Re:Military healthcare

[Eli Gottlieb]

You do realize that strengthens his point? These people volunteer to fight for their country, and you think that when they come home sick or broken, we shouldn't pay to heal them?

Re: Military healthcare

[DragonWriter]

Eventually any pyramid scheme must fall apart.

This is true, but only if you define "pyramid scheme" in such a way that Social Security is not one.

If you are under 50 and expect to get a comfy retirement from Social Security you will likely be very disappointed.

If you are anyone -- including someone currently on Social Security -- and expect to get a comfy retirement from Social Security, you are guaranteed to be disappointed. Social Security is not setup to provide a comfortable retirement, it is setup to provide a minimal safety-net pension to mitigate (not eliminate) poverty among those who have worked but can no longer do so due to age or disability.

It will be too politically costly to let Social Security collapse completely. It seems likely that 'means testing' will be implemented.

Weak "means testing" is already implemented, since Social Security benefits are taxable income if your total income is above a certain point.

Those with pensions, 401Ks and other savings will get less money from Social Security

For the reasons in the preceding response, SS beneficiaries with other sources of income already get less money from Social Security. Since Social Security is insurance against poverty due to age or disability, this makes sense.

For those of us who have planned and saved diligently for retirement, the Social Security payment will be something less than a dollar each month.

This is scaremongering with no basis in reality.

Re:Military healthcare

[SteveFoerster]

Don't get me wrong, I was merely disagreeing with Shakrai's comment, which was pretty limited in scope. Sure, I agree that if you're going to field an army that you'd better make sure its soldiers don't have to worry about whether their families have food on the table or their kids can go to the doctor when they get sick. (But that's also part of why I don't think we should field so many unnecessary armies in the first place.)

Re: Military healthcare

[clarkkent09]

Enjoy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCdgv7n9xCY

Re:Military healthcare

[TheCarp]

So what you are saying is that the people who are closest to horrible tragedy often have their judgment clouded by the desire for revenge that goes along with such atrocities, even to the point of not being able to make rational decisions?

Agreed, that happens, and its why hot heads make bad policy. Its why we should outlaw naming bills after murdered children. Its why we need to roll back the majority of post-9/11 changes. Its why the civil libertarians need to yell the loudest when everyone else is the most sure that its time to give up some liberty.

-Steve

Re:Military healthcare

[steelfood]

VA hospitals are a pretty good system

What are you smoking, because that's gotta be some good stuff you got there. VA hospitals are among the worst medical facilities out there bar none.

Last I recall, there was a special report about a VA hospital that had mold growing on the walls of every room. None of the hospital staff cared to do anything about it, despite the health hazard that the spores posed.

Re: Military healthcare

[steelfood]

Unless your workforce continued to increase, social security was never sustainable anyway. It was only possible over the past 40 years because of the baby boomers. Without another similar increase in workers, and another one every 40 years, it'd be impossible for the taxes collected to keep up with the people retiring, especially as they're also living longer.

Re:Military healthcare

[TheCarp]

> Because some people want to ensure a future for their children? Is that really that hard to
> understand?
>
> I'll grant you though that the need to do so may or may not exist today.

No not at all, though, what IS hard to understand, for me, is how anyone, who hasn't had their head in the sand for their entire life, equates signing up to fight whoever congress and/or the president says to fight with ensuring a future for their children.

So far, they have a piss poor track record when it comes to picking the fights that we need to (or even should) fight. So far they have shown absolutely no shame whatsoever when its come to provoking the start of conflicts for political ends (a tradition going back far enough that Lincoln himself was nicknamed "Spotty Lincoln", long before he was president).

Aside from the revolution (which wasn't fought under the current government), the war of 1812, WWI, and WWII, I am having trouble thinking of a conflict that Americans needed to fight to ensure the future for their children.

-Steve

Re:Military healthcare

[DogDude]

"show me how we could defend our borders"

Defend it from, who, exactly? The boogeyman? Oh wait... now the military calls them "evildoers".

Re:Military healthcare

[AtomicOrange]

There are different "colors" and "pots" of money within the government budget. Veterans benefits and retirement benefits are not associated with the same pots as defense spending. It's just how Congress works, it's not limited to the military.

Re:Military healthcare

[diamondsw]

Is the VA as good as the best private hospitals? No, it's not the Mayo Clinic. But better than average? Hell yes. The VA is one of the best-run government programs.

Speaking as the son of a 30-year VA doctor, and of a 30-year St. Jude Children's Hospital doctor (once acknowledged as the best in pediatric oncology). I've seen how they both run inside and out, and the VA is much, much better run than most private hospitals. It's one of the best services we've provided to our veterans and their families.

Re:Military healthcare

[sexconker]

The VA actually does a pretty good job providing "good enough" health care for people, and on a tight budget.

Good enough? I doubt it. The quality may compare to other shitty health care that has been successful in terms of profits, but it isn't quality health care by any means.

Good enough? No.
"Good enough" sure, in comparison to other shitty services.
Enough? Not by a long shot.

VA hospitals are shut down all the time. Tons of people eligible for said care can't take advantage of it because there are simply no facilities within a hundred miles of them anymore. The situation is worse when you consider that the reason the VA hospitals are shut down is to save money and redirect it to improving the quality of care at other VA hospitals - the ones who can still only provide your "good enough" level of care.

Re: Military healthcare

[ravenshrike]

SocSec would be eminently sustainable if it were pegged to the average life expectancy with a 5 year lag between the rate and when it was implemented. Which is currently over 77 years old.

Re:Military healthcare

[meglon]

Yes, ignorance it horrible. Try this on for size to learn why you're numbers are wrong.

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

I served. The military is a fine establishment, being abused by the military industrial complex. Defense spending is an entitlement for them, they produce things we don't need, and all the cowards in office listen to all the cowards in the population who are so scared of their shadow they piss their pants when the step into the daylight (who are also usually boisterous wanna-be bullies who are too cowardly to do their own fighting). Stop drinking the kool-aid.

Re:Military healthcare

[meglon]

Lets go with the plan that our founding fathers had. Every abled body man between the ages of 16 and 56 is part of a well regulated militia, to be called up in case of invasion or insurrection. The only thing the federal government does is: establish the training program (for the well regulated part); provision weapon stocks; run a navy.

I'm sorry, did you not like the constitution? You know, the part where it says they will be no standing army.

Re:Military healthcare

[ShakaUVM]

>>Good enough? I doubt it. The quality may compare to other shitty health care that has been successful in terms of profits, but it isn't quality health care by any means.

If you're expecting an MRI when you kinda sorta maybe need one, then no. You're not getting an MRI.

But they do an outstanding job for the budget they have. Even RAND likes them, and they're about as anti-socialized medicine as they come.

Re:Military healthcare

[everett]

This is complete bullocks, your life your choices is a guide to creating a Living Will, something everyone should have which spells out plainly what choices you want made about your medical care in case you're not capable of relaying your wishes yourself.

Re:Military healthcare

[Buelldozer]

Your argument, while technically accurate, is simply ridiculous.

It's clear from the numbers I posted that military spending represents less than 25% of the total budget.

It's also clear that social spending is upwards of 50% of the total budget.

So let me clarify, if you cannot achieve the promised social nirvana with expenditures of 1.9 TRILLION (that word deserves to be capitalized) ***per year*** then what makes you think that having an additional paltry 214 billion or so is going to make a difference? (214 Billion represents roughly 30% of the military budget.)

Further, you state that military spending is somehow "entitlement" spending but you see nothing wrong with CHIP (entitlement) SS (entitlement) Medicare/Medicaid (entitlement), plus innumerable safety net programs (entitlement).

Taken in gross amounts based on YOUR categories your argument is ridiculous from top to bottom.

Re:Military healthcare

[Buelldozer]

Sir,

I am not prepared, at this time, to argue with you.

I will state that your link is of questionable value and here is why I believe that to be true:

First, there is the question of their estimate of interest on national debt. There is no basis for this other than their say so.

Second, I have some serious questions about the 162 Billion they casually add for GWOT. Even a casual reading of the website shows a serious problem with this.

In the future please try to link to non-partisan sites for information. With WRLs reputation and the inaccuracies on display in that budget breakdown I'm having difficulty taking them seriously.

Thank you for service to our country and my post shouldn't be read as an attack on you personally.

Re:Military healthcare

[TheReij]

So you would advocate conscription? That's what it sounds like to me.

Re:Military healthcare

[DogDude]

"And *you're* qualified to determine what's a massive waste of money?"

I've never had anybody articulate why we need a massive military. Until I hear a single argument other than "Freedom" or "Liberty", I can't believe that there's any point to it besides providing jobs for the unemployable and lining the pockets of Haliburton, KBR, etc. If you have a cogent reason for why we need such a massive military, I'm all ears.

Re: Military healthcare

[Anonymous Coward]

You are practically GUARANTEED not to get your money back. Do the math on Social Security. It's a loser.

Re:Military healthcare

[SteveFoerster]

Actually, the mercenaries, e.g. Blackwater (or whatever their name is now) are already much better paid than the regular army.

Re:Military healthcare

[Anonymous Coward]

Citizens who risk above and beyond should be afforded some type of benefit above the regular citizen. Public health care is nice, but priority should not be given to someone who is a "net loss" to society over a warfighter.

Re: Military healthcare

[DigiShaman]

But it hasn't and it wont be. SS is bankrupt. Hell, our entire nation is pretty much bankrupt. We're just juggling with numbers to provide smoke and mirrors.

I'm in my 30s. Honestly, I don't expect to get a dime out of SS. Anytime some politician wants to side aside more money for the program, it ends up in a general slush-fund anyways. My advice? Give it up, SS is a lost cause for anyone but baby boomers.

Re:Military healthcare

[Anonymous Coward]

It's interesting that you have been modded Troll. It foregrounds just how courageous Gates' stand actually is. It's one thing to cancel weapons research or trim down management, but pointing out the level of waste in regard to service health care is really attacking a holy cow.

Re:Military healthcare

[cyn1c77]

It's voluntary. Nobody is asking anybody to do anything. If they don't want to do it, then they shouldn't sign up. Why people sign up with families, I'll never understand.

Probably the same reason police and firefighters sign up for a dangerous job. Patriotism and a hankering for a little excitement. Maybe you think it is crazy and stupid, but have a little respect for people that are willing to put their lives on the line for people like you, who don't even care about them.

You're probably one of those people who wouldn't try to pull a victim out of a burning car either, because you might risk your life, hmmmm? Better to watch the person burn and wait for the volunteer firefighters to solve the problem while you watch the show.

None of the "wars" that we are involved in are defensive, or even necessary. If enlistment drops by 90%, we'll still be able to DEFEND the country just fine.

I think the US said the same thing at the start of WWII.

Re:Military healthcare

[adamchou]

I think you're thinking too far into what the parent was saying, or I'm not thinking far enough. But what was asked is why people would sign up with families. And the reason is those people that have families need to support their kids and spouses. The military really takes care of the spouses and kids of those who volunteer for the military whether it be financially, medically, or the numerous other benefits. That sounds to me like ensuring a future for their children.

Re:Military healthcare

[adamchou]

You must have no idea what the VA health care system is like. I can tell you for a fact that civilian health care was much better. My endodontist wanted to extract my tooth without even trying to save it and denied the option for implants, both of which my civilian endodontist offered. Besides that, I can't go to a civilian health care provider because the military already offers one, even if it may be inferior.

Re:Military healthcare

[DrFalkyn]

The only war you can make a case for is WWII. The War of 1812 was basically started by the US in an ill-conceived attempt to conquer Canada.

WWI we really didn't have much business picking either side, per the tradition of George Washington and the Monroe doctrine. At the beginning the US tried to arm both sides, but the US basically had to choose between arming one side or arming neither side. The US had much greater financial ties with Great Britain which in the end was the decisive factor

Re: Military healthcare

[winwar]

"SS is bankrupt. Hell, our entire nation is pretty much bankrupt."

Only if you define bankrupt as spending more money than you earn. While this could lead to bankrupty eventually, people, companies and governments can spend more than they bring in for long periods of time as long as they can service the debt. SS won't stop paying out benefits-the government will just make up the difference between the amount of taxes it collects and the amount it disburses each year either by borrowing more money, raising taxes and/or cutting benefits.

Put simply anyone who claims that the US is bankrupt, that SS is bankrupt or Medicare is bankrupt is lying.

Re:Military healthcare

[Anonymous Coward]

You honestly think the VA healthcare system is a pretty good system? Have you ever tried to swim through the red tape that is the VA medical system? I dealt with them for 20 years, being told that I had severely strained back muscles, before going to a private (read "A REAL") doctor who repaired a ruptured IV disk in 4 hours. The damage done to my nerves has me in a wheel chair. If the VA had been such a "pretty good system", I wouldn't be in this condition. No, I think the VA medical system needs to be privatized and real doctors need to care for the returning, retired, and disabled military survivors. Yes, I DO think the vets need a health care system just for their ailments, but they need one that hires professionals, not med school water treaders.

Re:Military healthcare

[LanMan04]

Soldiers get payed crap, they deal with a job that curtails their constitutional freedoms, a job where they have to deal with the trauma of violence, death, killing and risk being killed/maimed themselves.

Sounds like a good reason to not sign up for an entirely voluntary force...

Re: Military healthcare

[Jesus_666]

The solution is to push the retirement age for social security higher (it should be tied to estimated life expectancy statistics)[...]

The problem is that those last twenty years will be quite difficult. After you passed the 50 year mark you can't expect to get a decent job anymore. No, specialized knowledge and plenty of experience don't help; they are a further disincentive as they make you more expensive than a 20 year old college graduate who is much more flexible regarding eccentric work hours and relocation than you anyway.

Yes, WalMart will gladly hire you as a bagger. But if you don't have your retirement money in the bank when you hit 50 you can only hope you don't get downsized or you're not going to make it on your own.

Re:Military healthcare

[TheCarp]

So essentially, they do it for the exact same reasons that many suicide bombers who were told that their families would be paid large sums of money when they were martyred do it?

Seems... appropriate.

-Steve

Re:Military healthcare

[TheCarp]

Interesting. Actually, I added 1812 because I knew it was a war that we fought with England, but, I couldn't remember why and I vaguely thought that they started it.

As for WWI, I could at least make the case that with such a large conflict going on, there is something to be said for taking sides in a conflict thats already going on and bringing it to an end. At least we didn't start that one, or otherwise provoke it into happening.

-Steve

Re: Military healthcare

[TED Vinson]

This is scaremongering with no basis in reality.

Not scaremongering, just a set up for a joke. Sheesh.

Re:Military healthcare

[adamchou]

I'm sure it'll be very appropriate when a suicide bomber goes into your country and detonates a bomb that kills your entire family.

Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry...

[gestalt_n_pepper]

Well, we're doomed then. For the majority of USA "citizens," if it doesn't exist on American Idol, it doesn't exist.

Re:Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry...

[vm146j2]

Why do you suppose there is "American Idol"?

Re:Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry...

[Scrameustache]

Bread and circuses.

Re:Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry...

[yurtinus]

Because the show was popular enough in the UK to make a version over here?

Re:Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well... here's the problem. With the fourth estate isn't doing its job, how can you expect the citizenry to be knowledgeable?

Discourse is so polluted in America that it's barely worth considering. Even 'knowledgeable' people often consciously choose to disregard opposing viewpoints, considering them to be flawed or biased.

Being politically savvy in the US is somewhat akin to building a car with half a manual, most of it relating to the care of salamanders.

Re:Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh this isn't fair at all.

Look most Americans are firmly aware of the problems facing the country. They are also smart enough to see the current game as rigged. What does is matter if the electorate in mass demands changes when there are billions upon billions of dollars against them (see the bailout)? Throw the bastards out and they will be replaced by new bastards. Money rules the world, not the people, and there is not one among you that is bright enough to shine a path out of this hellhole.

READ The transcript, don't depend on the media

[david.emery]

http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1467

I found a lot of the media coverage to be selective, and the headline on this /. posting to be somewhat misleading

Re:READ The transcript, don't depend on the media

[masterwit]

I found your coverage david.emery to be very informative (no sarcasm, thanks for link):

Finally, this Department’s approach to requirements must change. Before making claims of requirements not being met or alleged “gaps” – in ships, tactical fighters, personnel, or anything else – we need to evaluate the criteria upon which requirements are based and the wider real world context. For example, should we really be up in arms over a temporary projected shortfall of about 100 Navy and Marine strike fighters relative to the number of carrier wings, when America’s military possesses more than 3,200 tactical combat aircraft of all kinds? Does the number of warships we have and are building really put America at risk when the U.S. battle fleet is larger than the next 13 navies combined, 11 of which belong to allies and partners? Is it a dire threat that by 2020 the United States will have only 20 times more advanced stealth fighters than China?

Media hype: just like if you turn on C-SPAN do you realize that most of the points brought to the floor are legitimate and well, the system isn't broken just at the House or the Senate, it has its bottlenecks everywhere! I for one want to see some smoke tests done in t...

Should have been done long ago...

[Zooperman]

I supported the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, but I do not support the way they were handled. I do think the military-industrial complex should have been abolished long ago. Why? Because what has it done to protect us, really? Vietnam? It didn't help us win. Grenada? Yeah right. A banana republic with a few Cuban troops that our Salvation Army could have whipped. Panama? See above. Gulf War I? We didn't win that war, remember? We stopped just short of victory, a violation of one of the most fundamental principles of war that history has ever taught us: never leave an aggressor intact. We had to go back and do the job right in 2003. Somalia? We were trying to help those people, they started shooting at us, so we left. Confrontation with Saddam's forces while enforcing the no-fly zones and inspectors? Come on. We had about 20,000 troops in theater at the time. We don't need to spend $400b a year to maintain THAT, or any of our other troop commitments around the world. Iraq War and Afghan War? We took an army with a military doctrine of slowing down a Soviet tank advance across Europe just long enough for our ICBMs to reach Moscow, and tried to use it to fight two major land wars in Asia. Big mistake. We SHOULD have immediately instituted a draft after 9/11, converted factories to war production, raised a massive army (like, 5 million men), and when the time was right, rolled into Iraq with at least a million strong. The PROPER way to occupy a country you defeat is to make sure your occupying troops are in every city, town and village so they can establish ORDER. That wasn't done. You can only spread 100,000 troops so far in a country if 28 million. And we have all seen the results. They always make the same mistakes, thinking you can do war "on the cheap". You can't. But I am encouraged by Secretary Gates' plan. It may be a step in a direction we should have gone in decades ago.

Re:Should have been done long ago...

[Anonymous Coward]

why invade iraq after 9/11?

nukes

[Weezul]

We're very far away from all nations that pose any significant threat. And our nuclear deterrent doesn't cost all that much.

Re:nukes

[Thanshin]

I fully agree. But while "a reasonable military, much weaker and defense oriented than the current one" is reasonable, "no militar power whatsoever" isn't.

I doubt we'll bring home troops from anywhere

[AthleteMusicianNerd]

I'm sure this is all political and we'll continue to police the world. They're not coming home until the dollar outright collapses, which is probably not far off. While we're at it, how about cutting a couple TRILLION off the $4 Trillion budget!?!?!?

Re: I doubt we'll bring home troops from anywhere

[Black Parrot]

They're not coming home until the dollar outright collapses, which is probably not far off.

FWIW, I read somewhere a few years ago that the biggest threat to the US economy is that the international drug and arms cartels will switch from dollars to euros as the medium of exchange for the black market.

Moderate parent up!

[Anonymous Coward]

Too often science is taken at face value simply because many people (who really should know better) think that when a scientist says something, they are saying it through some kind of pure lens of objectivity, so it must be true. Unfortunately as you point out, anthropogenic global warming is yet another example of the tendency of scientists to use unproven science to push an agenda. Another great example which people seem to have forgotten is evolution. This "theory" has immeasurable holes in it, and the scientists who use it to push left wing agendas for things like teaching unquestioned secularism in schools. Unfortunately it seems that the scientists are learning from their previous success with evoltuion and are turning global warming into yet another unfalsifiable tautalogy. In simple terms, ask any scientist who believes in the myth of either evolution or global warming to tell you what evidence would be needed to prove the theory wrong (this is the very basis of science). The resulting blank look on their face will be all you need to know.

Re:Moderate parent up!

[Unordained]

Easy. Stop all carbon emissions and atmospheric pollutants, and see what happens over the next few decades. If there's no statistically significant drop in the rate of temperature change, then carbon emissions and other atmospheric pollutants weren't the (sole) cause. Wait, is that what they're already asking us to do? See? They're not asking us to stop polluting because they know it's bad -- they're asking us to stop so they can get the data they need to falsify your claim that pollution isn't the problem. Just good science.

Bang For the Buck

[MarkvW]

There will always be terrorists--does that mean that we must always have war? If we do have war, does this mean that we always have to fight in in the quintessential American way--throwing massive amounts of expensive resources at our enemies at an overwhelming rate?

That strategy is great for WWII and for duking it out with the Soviet Army at the Fulda Gap, but it isn't very sensible for a long term war against a loose coalition of poor, ideologically committed killers.

We're spending tens of thousands of dollars per terrorist kill. If we're going to fight terrorists successfully we need to do it on a budget. Our irresponsible spendthrift congresspeople can only see as far as the money that defense industries bring to their regions. Military spending can easily become just welfare for the upper classes. Gates' point about the military being topheavy with generals and admirals is important. The military leadership is committed to propagating itself and will never act to make its command structure more "lean and mean."

We've remained in Iraq and Afghanistan all these years because our military is a $700 hammer and those countries happen to be the nails that our country's warhammer is adapted to. That approach isn't working and we can't afford it forever.
   

Re:Bang For the Buck

[dbIII]

We're spending tens of thousands of dollars per terrorist kill.

Unfortunately that is tens of millions per "terrorist kill" even if you label every insurgent an terrorist. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that it is very expensive.

We'll be better off.

[AnonymousClown]

I don't think the dollar will collapse because of our status as a reserve currency; which has that reputation because of our military strength.

Contrary to the posts above, our military might has other ramifications outside of defense.

On a similar note; when Britain ceased being a, if not THE World Power in their time, because of the reduced military spending the average British citizen's standard of living went up. (I think I read that in the Economist and I'm too lazy to find the cite.)p/>I for one hope to see the day when we, the USA, are not the World Power.

Re:We'll be better off.

[AthleteMusicianNerd]

Yeah, but there's talk of the dollar not being the reserve currency anymore. Gold is up 20% just in the last year. The Keynesian global economy is unsustainable. Do you really think that we are so mean that we'll say lend us money or we'll bomb you? Maybe we are, but I don't think so.

Every empire on the planet has collapsed because they did the things we're doing now. You're right, Britain was probably smart to pass the buck over to us and maintain our good relationship.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Was it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're at the top of the pyramid, part of the elite who control the economy from the top down, with a vested interest in expanding the business of government -- absolutely, it was 100% worth it.

If you're at the bottom (like me) -- I think you know the answer.

It's time to admit that government is a business, designed precisely to enrich the people who control the business. They are NOT working for you and me, like the fairytale goes -- they work for themselves, and only for themselves, and until we accept this fact of life, they will continue laughing to the bank, year after year.

Hard to Kill

[NicknamesAreStupid]

When I was born, America was the industrial giant of the world. Economic theory held that a positive trade balance was necessary to remain an economic power and that "consumer driven" societies were doomed to collapse under a mountain of debt. Since then, we have given up our manufacturing leadership in every area but one -- weaponry. The military industrial complex is our last big manufacturing exporter of hard goods. True we are selling death on a scale that Wall-mart might envy, but just like the Soviet Union in the 1970-80s this is what keeps us as a world power. Many might say "good riddance" to such a role, but this industry will not go down without a fight, something that is probably second nature. Many Americans will support them too. Mr. Gates may slow the acquisition of new weapons. However, it will only take one contractor selling a "latest and greatest" weapon to another country instead of US for all of that to change.

Wrong

[Animats]

Eisenhower said "military-industrial complex", not "military-industrial-Congress" complex. Read the speech.

Re:Wrong

[Scrameustache]

Eisenhower said "military-industrial complex", not "military-industrial-Congress" complex. Read the speech.

I quoted the speech. I linked to the speech. I added <B> tags around the part you think isn't in the speech... you're not intelligent.

Re: National Debt?

[Phrogman]

I put it to you that you are already bankrupt from overspending for the past 30 years. If the USA wasn't a nation that can just keep printing more money when required, or spend itself trillions into the hole, it would have been bankrupt years ago.

The Military/Industrial Complex that Eisenhower was warning against, got into power, and its been reaping massive fortunes for its Corporate Owners for that entire time. Look at Haliburton most recently.

Blackwater - when did the US citizenry decide it was actually okay for the country to hire mercenaries, and in fact let them equip themselves with a private airforce etc? Billions lost there.

Its long since past time for these cuts to be made - and in fact if the system were forced to trim itself down to ensure the "Tooth" part of the equation is still effective it would probably be very effective still - but the US budget is firmly in the grasp of the corporations that are making billions in profits for their owners off of defense spending, and the Military who naturally want all the high-tech tools and manpower they can get so they can be as effective as possible. You are not going to break that grip, ever. The politicians who are in office, BELONG to those companies, and if they want to keep their jobs, must keep supporting them I am afraid.

our peaceful methods and goals

[AlgorithMan]

"our peaceful methods and goals"
yeah, right!

Reading Ike's entire speech

[cluge]

It's interesting that people always point to Ike's comments re: the military industrial complex. In the same speech he said the following re: science

"Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. "

I wonder if we will see similar thinking with respect to funding science?

-cluge

Um, Mr. Gates?

[ThatsNotPudding]

You might want to stick to civilian transport for a while.

...just sayin'

Trim Base Budgets or Base Closure?

[warGod3]

It would be difficult for the administration to come out and say that they wanted to close bases without being labeled anti-military. However, trimming the "base budget" may not be the only thing that needs to be considered... Have they ever looked at some of the costs associated with operating stateside bases? I wonder what the costs are to operate the bases in Hawaii compared to operating the ones in Florida? Not just facility costs, but associated costs with shipping stuff out there, pay, etc. Same with some bases in California. Granted, congresscritters will have a cow if the military shut down large bases in "their" state.

I'm still trying to figure out some things about the military. For instance, the Air Force should be the aviation specialists, however, each branch has it's own planes. The Military Occupational Specialities cross all the branches: for instance every branch has a cook, admin personnel, police, etc. Why can't money be better spent cross training? Instead of having different cooks dependant upon the base, why not have one branch provide cooks? Or admin? Or intel? Or pilots? That might help clean things up a little. There could also be less bases if there then potentially less budget required.

Re:Trim Base Budgets or Base Closure?

[Red Flayer]

Have they ever looked at some of the costs associated with operating stateside bases? I wonder what the costs are to operate the bases in Hawaii compared to operating the ones in Florida? Not just facility costs, but associated costs with shipping stuff out there, pay, etc. Same with some bases in California. Granted, congresscritters will have a cow if the military shut down large bases in "their" state.

You have to consider the strategic value of these bases as well. Hawaii is important as a site for a naval base because of its location. Having a cheaper-to-run naval base on the coast of Florida will be worth squat if we ever get into it with China.

Yes, cost of operation is something to consider -- but the location-dependent utility of the base must also be considered.

Re:Trim Base Budgets or Base Closure?

[warGod3]

Strategic? Maybe at one time, but I highly doubt that someone will attempt to invade Hawaii, which would mean that the Army bases are not needed.

Marine Corps is a department of the Navy, yet there are two Naval Air Stations and one Marine Corps Air Station, plus another Marine Base...

As for strategic locations based on location... Guam might be better suited for a strategic location, much in the same way that Diego Garcia is located and both have smaller populations than Hawaii. I'm not trying to say that the military needs to move out of all kinds of places... but you can have one area that may have several bases. Tell me that each base doesn't have it's own overhead that could all be condensed, right?

% GDP doesn't reflect how much real cost it is

[Onymous Coward]

As percent of GDP? What about as percent of total expenditure? Or percent of income generated by the state itself (taxes)?

Doesn't seem like such a low number then.

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7a/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png

Especially considering a very large percent of that slice of the pie is actually spent on foreign invasion instead of just keeping up a military for protection.

WWTMICD?

[slick7]

What would the Military-Industrial Complex do?

Watch This Suckers

Gates and the defense contractors

[DesScorp]

While I agree that we're spending too much on some weapons systems... there's absolutely no excuse to pay 7 billion dollars for a DDG-1000 destroyer...Gates is fiercely protective of the biggest, most expensive military boondoggle of all time, the Joint Strike Fighter. He will absolutely tolerate no talk of canceling it.

It was supposed to be the "cheap" supplement to the F-22, much the same way the F-16 was the cheap supplement to the F-15. But now the F-35 costs as much, or possibly even more than the F-22 (CBO estimate: $122 million a copy and climbing), while being a substantially less capable airplane. And this has happened under Gates' watch.

And yet, he balks at buying more Super Hornets for the Navy instead, at what is a bargain price in the fighter world... $45 million apiece. There's no logic here.

I'm as big a hawk as you'll find, but I think the primary problem is with two parties here... defense contractors, and Congress. Congress sees defense as a jobs program, and defense contractors are ripping off the taxpayer. I've come to the reluctant conclusion perhaps we should abandon private suppliers for the military, and go back to in-house supply solutions. For instance, the Navy used to build their own ships in their own shipyards. It was seen as a way to not be too reliant on private yards, and to keep them honest. God knows we need that again. I'm a big capitalist, and all for competition in truly free, private markets. But defense contracting isn't really a free market. You're serving one customer... the government. Maybe it's time to open up our own shipyards again, and revive the old Naval Aircraft Factory in Philadelphia. Maybe that's the only way to put firms like Lockheed on notice that the gravy train is over.

Re:Gates and the defense contractors

[IgnoramusMaximus]

I think a far more comprehensive and cost effective, albeit most unlikely, method is to simply revise your Imperial doctrine of 'Pax Americana' before it leads you inevitably down the same path as the Roman Empire before you.

US spends over twice as much on "defense" as all of the other nations of the world combined, maintains a network of "forward bases" in 135 counties (as of 2008) out of 194 that the US foreign department recognizes (that's over 69%) and wages wars of naked aggression whenever it pleases against whomever it pleases.

And so, as military spending was always a primary method of maintenance of all empires past, whining about how the Imperial Elite is getting rich off the very thing they've worked so hard to create in order to get power and riches is rather pathetically hypocritical on the part of an "upstanding" Imperial Citizen, like yourself. But then again, moaning about military expenditures, whilst watching the "games" in the Coliseum was also a favourite past-time of your Roman predecessors.

Re:Gates and the defense contractors

[Anonymous Coward]

Gates is fiercely protective of the biggest, most expensive military boondoggle of all time, the Joint Strike Fighter. He will absolutely tolerate no talk of canceling it.

Waitwaitwait... I thought the guy was into software?

Re:Gates and the defense contractors

[GooberToo]

It was supposed to be the "cheap" supplement to the F-22, much the same way the F-16 was the cheap supplement to the F-15. But now the F-35 costs as much, or possibly even more than the F-22 (CBO estimate: $122 million a copy and climbing), while being a substantially less capable airplane. And this has happened under Gates' watch.

I agree. I the plane is anywhere over 100 million per plane, it doesn't make much sense. At that price, based on what I've seen and read, the F22 is more than twice the plane. So from that perspective, it doesn't sound like the tax payers are getting a good return on the money.

And yet, he balks at buying more Super Hornets for the Navy instead, at what is a bargain price in the fighter world... $45 million apiece. There's no logic here.

On the other hand, I can defend this position. Each F22 and F35 consistently tests on par with at least a ten to one ratio. That means an F35, at 120 million each, versus 45 million per SH, is still a far, far, far better buy. For the same money we can get 2.7 SH or one F35. Given that one F35 can easily take out ten SH's, that places us 315 million ahead when contrasting F35 vs SH purchases.

Re:Gates and the defense contractors

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said. This is what the American foreign policy have looked like for the past 50 years if you watch it from outside of NATO. Where they really serious about cutting the military spending, they would reformulate away the "we are responsible alone" doctrine from their policies based on the realization that out of suffering rises the next period of stability in a form of an empire.
  Too bad the Americans can't tolerate the idea of an empire based on non-American culture and values, as such an empire wouldn't necessarily listen to political and military pressure of the American government as it tries to enforce the ideas of political capitalism, that is, a capitalism providing benefits for the few instead of the many as it feeds the hungry, overweight employees of the American companies and the dictatorships formed by political assassinations.
  Tens of millions of Europeans died as a cost of creation of the current, modern system of values and contracts for which the "European civilization", as it could be called, is based. Populations collapse as they lose their ability to adapt to the environment when inhumane practices kill the individualists. Why should evolution be any easier anywhere else?

Re:Gates and the defense contractors

[Brian Knotts]

Too bad the Americans can't tolerate the idea of an empire based on non-American culture and values, as such an empire wouldn't necessarily listen to political and military pressure of the American government as it tries to enforce the ideas of political capitalism, that is, a capitalism providing benefits for the few instead of the many as it feeds the hungry, overweight employees of the American companies and the dictatorships formed by political assassinations.

As much as I tend towards isolationism, it's still hard not to respond that over the past century, at least a couple of "empire(s) based on non-American culture and values" have been proposed and imposed, with somewhat less than positive results.

Re:Gates and the defense contractors

[LeperPuppet]

On the other hand, I can defend this position. Each F22 and F35 consistently tests on par with at least a ten to one ratio. That means an F35, at 120 million each, versus 45 million per SH, is still a far, far, far better buy. For the same money we can get 2.7 SH or one F35. Given that one F35 can easily take out ten SH's, that places us 315 million ahead when contrasting F35 vs SH purchases.

This presumes that 1 F35 can perform the work of 2.7 SHs in many areas. With less available aircraft, it will be more difficult to maintain combat readiness for a squadron during operations, especially if aircraft are lost due to accidents or enemy action. As to the 10:1 kill ratio against SHs, you're pitting the F35 against one of the least impressive non-stealth fighters in the world. Most of the time the Navy and Marine versions wouldn't be able to take out more than four aircraft due to their lack of an internal gun. Also the SH is available today, while the F35 won't be available in significant numbers until sometime after 2016-2020, depending on whether they identify any significant problems during the remaining tests.

The main problem with the F35 is its cost/capability compared to existing aircraft (F22, F15, F16, SH) and how effective it is likely to be against future air threats. It is unlikely that the F35 will be able to safely operate in airspace defended by Russian S300 or S400 SAM systems, unless other stealth aircraft are used first to clear the defenses. Once the US has done this and gained air superiority, the F35 becomes an overpriced bomb truck, a task which could be better performed by current non-stealthy aircraft, which would be both cheaper and more effective in this role. Basically the F35s problem is that it's too ineffective against future peer or near-peer level enemies and too expensive to use in permissive air environments and the F35 program needs to be killed for this reason. The USAF should attempt to purchase more F22s, F16s and F15s. The Navy should purchase more SHs and look into either navalizing the F22 or developing the F/A XX as a SH replacement. The Marines should be left to either solo fund the STOVL F35 or forced to depend upon Navy aircraft for their strike needs.

Re:Gates and the defense contractors

[IgnoramusMaximus]

As much as I tend towards isolationism, it's still hard not to respond that over the past century, at least a couple of "empire(s) based on non-American culture and values" have been proposed and imposed, with somewhat less than positive results.

That is because the problem lies in concepts such as "empire" and "impose", rather then "culture". Thus it is quite possible to have truly vicious crap going down that has nothing whatsoever to do with America or its culture.

At the same time however this does not excuse the USA in the slightest for falling for the lure of the Empire and all of its trappings anymore that it excused Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan, whole slew of British royalty, Hirohito and his flunkies, Hitler, Stalin and many, many others.

Re:Gates and the defense contractors

[GooberToo]

This presumes that 1 F35 can perform the work of 2.7 SHs in many areas.

It can in most areas.

With less available aircraft, it will be more difficult to maintain combat readiness for a squadron during operations

This is a concern I also share. Just the same, this aircraft is not forcing retirement SHs. As such, when numbers matter, they are still available. Also keep in mind, one of the reasons why squadrons are sent out is to provide protection and air superiority for their brethren. In the case of planes like the F22 and F35, this requirements for an extra squadron doesn't necessarily exist. This in turn also reduces the number of aircraft which would otherwise be required in theater. And if they are otherwise available, it frees them up to be tasked where numbers might still be required.

The main problem with the F35 is its cost/capability compared to existing aircraft (F22, F15, F16, SH) and how effective it is likely to be against future air threats. It is unlikely that the F35 will be able to safely operate in airspace defended by Russian S300 or S400 SAM

I encourage you to review tactics. Beyond, I doubt such missiles are anywhere near such a potent threat you believe it to be. You need to remember, many aircraft, left than a couple miles away, typically have much difficulty maintaining a radar lock on F35s and especially F22s. Beyond that, these aircraft also have various jamming capabilities should threats require it.

You also need to keep in mind the effective range of such weapon systems is actually much, much smaller verses nimble targets. Against a fighter, I doubt they are effective against targets over half their stated range against fighters. Furthermore, unless system systems are within twenty miles or so, I doubt they'd even have much hope of even identifying an F35, let alone an F22, as a threat, let a lone a target. This combined with the bag of tactics currently employed doesn't, IMOHO, a significant threat.

Once the US has done this and gained air superiority, the F35 becomes an overpriced bomb truck

It doesn't sound like you understand what an F35 is. It is an air superiority fighter. First and foremost. Your argument is that by not allowing it to serve its primary role it has no value. We'll of course that's true. But that doesn't make your assessment accurate. You need to understand all pilots who have flown against the F35 and especially the F22 are scared shitless of them; and with good reason. Even our own F35/F22 pilots, when flying our other conventional aircraft, are lucky to actually see the aircraft before they are "dead." To say such aircraft will never be used as their primary role means the US is without conflict in the world.

Basically the F35s problem is that it's too ineffective against future peer or near-peer level enemies and too expensive to use in permissive air environments and the F35 program needs to be killed for this reason.

Basically, no one else in the world can even afford to create a "near-peer", let alone a "peer". And when such an aircraft is created in fifty years from now, our existing fleet will have served their purpose wonderfully.

You need to keep in mind, most of the world is only able to design, develop, test, and deploy aircraft in the league of the SH. And frankly, the SH doesn't hold a candle to the aircraft we're talking about. Long story short, we're easily decades away before the US need even worry about a real "near-peer" threat from any other power in the world; let alone a "peer" level threat.

I don't think you fully appreciate the technological leap in capabilities the F22 and F35 represent. Just the same, don't get me wrong, I too still have some reservations about actual fielded costs of the F35. If successful, its a win-win. If not, its still arguably a win - albeit just not at the budget we'd all hope for.

Re:Gates and the defense contractors

[jcaplan]

What is the threat that all these planes are supposed to defend against? The cold war is long gone and Russia's decaying military infrastructure is no match for what is already deployed by the US. They may now be a rival but certainly no longer an enemy of the West. China? Their only territorial ambition is Taiwan. Anti-aircraft and anti ship systems would seem to be the more appropriate technology if one were to think in military terms. What is making a military conflict between China and Taiwan less likely is economic interdependence between China and the rest of the world. Invading Taiwan would make many businessmen in China quite unhappy.

Re:Gates and the defense contractors

[dontbgay]

You know, that would have been a good argument if you would have left your personal bias out. But what's a good rant without a little personal bias to set the tone?

Re:Gates and the defense contractors

[IgnoramusMaximus]

What personal bias? The fact that I see obvious parallels between ancient Rome - one of the most vile empires ever - and the USA? In that vain any observation of this sort will constitute "personal bias" as would my pointing out that his musings about which Centurions are to get what swords made by whose sword-smiths and thus which Senator gets to get his snout in the troff first for it are somewhat slightly missing the larger picture.

Re:Gates and the defense contractors

[dontbgay]

Eh, it's a little late but I guess better late than never. The reason I say personal bias is because you put such vitriolic candor to your musings that you can't be taken seriously by someone who is actually trying to form an informed opinion. If you'd just state your opinion plainly without coloring it up for effect, then you wouldn't seem quite so biased. If people (like myself and others, I assure you) believe you're biased and biased against them, they'll close up and your message is lost. Now, if you do this purely for mental masturbation, by all means continue.

Re:Gates and the defense contractors

[IgnoramusMaximus]

I see. What you are saying then that you, and your intellectual kin, decide to ignore arguments arbitrarily not due to their factual contents, chain of reasoning or other such factors but upon "coloring". So, If I were to write using formal English straight out of a Victorian-era letter, you would accuse me of being "too formal", if I were to write using allegory, you would accuse me of being "too poetic", if I were to write using sarcasm, you would say I was "not serious enough", etc and so on. And then, in each and every case you would accuse me of "bias" because I did not conform to your, wholly arbitrary, standard of presentation of my arguments, standard that is specifically designed to be a set of ever moving goal-posts, which present an ever elusive target for your opponents. All constructed of course so that you can smugly posture as being "objective" and all of your opponents "biased".

How very comfortable defense wall did you build yourself there. Too bad that it also exposes your position as utterly intellectually bankrupt.

For you see, the contents of a message does not change based on how it was delivered or by whom it was delivered, were it prose or poetry or allegory or comedic hyperbole, be it by a janitor or a holder of 27 doctorates from 10 universities, although some people would wish very, very, very much for it to not be so and that only ideas of certain "right" people speaking in a "right" way could be considered "legitimate".

Re:Gates and the defense contractors

[dontbgay]

No, the content of the message doesn't change. It's the intent of the message. Coloring your speech with polarizing words is a bit misleading in mine and other peoples' opinions who actually appreciate opinions to further develop our own. I wouldn't have hated on you for using a more formal way of explaining your point. Actually, that's what I was driving at. It's a pretty safe tactic to try to elicit an emotional response from your target group to have them rally behind you. It's all over the news, it's all over the TV, and everyone tunes it out because it's too negative. Then, your target audience shrinks to those who listen to and enjoy the negativity anyways.

I wasn't deriding your message. Actually, I thought it was well thought out and really insightful. I just think the doom and gloom of your message doesn't help to fix the problem. I agree with you. Our imperialism and militaristic nature is going to be our downfall. We should be looking for a way to fix it and talking about that, not lamenting the eventual demise of our society.

As Neil Cavuto said...

[ducomputergeek]

And then was quoted by Brian Williams later: "The dirty little secret is the world is out of money and the emperor has no clothes."

All of government is going to have to be cut back and more than 50% of the people paying taxes. Not just the "rich".

Re:As Neil Cavuto said...

[Areyoukiddingme]

Oh look, a Fox Newser crawled out from under his rock. 47% they told you, so you rounded up to 50% when you regurgitated their sound bite like a cat puking on the rug.

100% of the citizens pay taxes. Even the 10% unemployed pay taxes. Just because very poor people may be able to reduce their income tax liability to near zero (and most can't) does not mean they can avoid losing 12%-15% to social security and Medicaid. Those payroll taxes are as much a tax as the other kind - it's money they don't take home in their paycheck every month. The unemployed and the participants of the underground economy (drug dealers, pimps, prostitutes, illegal immigrants) pay sales taxes, and the 100 different license fees (taxes) levied by governments from large to small. EVERYBODY pays taxes. No exceptions.

Stop blaming poor people for being poor. It's a shitty thing to do. Stop pretending being poor is advantageous somehow. It's not. Stop believing that taking a dollar from a billionaire and taking a dollar from a Walmart employee is the same. It's not.

And stop puking on my rug.

Not Quite

[DesScorp]

Military spending has been increasing at an unsustainable rate for at least the last 30 years.

No, the cost of individual weapons systems has been rising at an unsustainable rate. Military spending is a fraction of what it was during it's peacetime highs, when it dominated federal spending in the 50's and 60's. Bush the Elder made big cuts to the military budget, and Bill Clinton made even bigger cuts. Even at the height of our military force structure during the Reagan years, the military was a fraction of what it was under Ike, Kennedy, and Johnson.

What we're getting isn't more military spending, but less bang for our military buck, by buying fewer weapons. We're spending about the same, GDP-wise. It's just that individual ships, planes, etc, cost more, so we're buying less of them. We bought 800 F-15's. We replaced them with 187 F-22's. Same buck. Less bang, even though the individual weapons are more capable. There's simply no way one F-22 can replace 4 F-15's in the real world, no matter what Lockheed's marketing department says.

By far the largest and most bloated parts of the federal budget are the entitlements... Social Security, Medicare, etc. They'll bankrupt us long before military spending would. And while you can cut military spending, by law, you can't cut SS and Medicare, only their rates of growth.

Re:Not Quite

[Anonymous Coward]

And while you can cut military spending, by law, you can't cut SS and Medicare, only their rates of growth.

Please don't propagate this bullshit. You can cut SS/Medicare and just about anything else by law or otherwise. Another option is to simply not fund something. Whatever law one Congress passes, another Congress - or even the same Congress - can revoke. Why would you think otherwise?

Re:Not Quite

[TerranFury]

There's simply no way one F-22 can replace 4 F-15's in the real world, no matter what Lockheed's marketing department says.

You raise an extremely good point, and Lanchester's Square Law agrees with you. Basically, in order for a military force to beat an opponent twice its size, its weapons need to be four times as effective. In other words, numbers trump technology.

This only goes so far of course. It's based on a model in which both armies are engaged for the entire duration of the fight. If technology allows one army to strike the other from a distance with impunity, then the model does break.

Re:Not Quite

[mjwx]

This only goes so far of course. It's based on a model in which both armies are engaged for the entire duration of the fight. If technology allows one army to strike the other from a distance with impunity, then the model does break.

"All warfare is based on deception" - Sun Tzu

"Battles are won by slaughter and manoeuvre, the more a general contributes in manoeuvre the less he demands in slaughter" - Winston Churchill.

Technology or numbers ultimately do not win wars. It's tactics and strategy that wins wars and in this respect we (all western nations, the collective "we" as I'm not a yank) are failing horribly in. It's no good fighting the enemy on paper.

Give the Art of War a read if you haven't already. Most of it still rings true today. The first 20 stanzas outline the keys to victory. This one is most important one is:

12. Therefore, in your deliberations, when seeking to determine the military conditions, let them be made the basis of a comparison, in this wise:--

13. (1) Which of the two sovereigns is imbued with the Moral law? (2) Which of the two generals has most ability? (3) With whom lie the advantages derived from Heaven and Earth? (4) On which side is discipline most rigorously enforced? (5) Which army is stronger? (6) On which side are officers and men more highly trained? (7) In which army is there the greater constancy both in reward and punishment?

1. Which side believes itself to be most right and will act in complete accordance with a leaders decision, Sun Tzu calls this "the Moral Law" but we'll use the modern term, "Morale".
2. Which general is most capable, coming up with unique strategies and adapting to changes on the battlefield.
3. Then are environmental conditions, rain/snow, higher ground and so forth.
4. Which side has better discipline.
5. Now we have an armies strength.
The whole chapter is worth reading, just don't get hung up on the meanings of words like "Moral" when applying it to your enemies. The book was written by a Taoist 2000 years ago and translated by an Englishman 100 years ago, some things are bound to get lost in translation so use context.

Remember that the NVA/Vietcong ultimately forced the US to withdraw not out of superior technology or superior numbers but by superior tactics, they kept the front well supplied, were able to use the land to their advantage, unique attacks that had circumvented existing defence doctrines.

Re:Not Quite

[Burning1]

There's simply no way one F-22 can replace 4 F-15's in the real world, no matter what Lockheed's marketing department says.

If you only have need for 187 aircraft, then 187 F-22s can easily replace 800 F-15s.

Re:Not Quite

[Anonymous Coward]

That is one stupid law, that has no basis in reality. History is full of examples where the smaller force wins by determination, and also many battles where most casualties comes from the routing force after the battle has been decided. People don't just stand there are trade shots until one side is eliminated some units run away when faced with a bayonet charge.

And in a modern war terrain seems to make a difference, desert warfare vs. house to house and/or caves seems to show quite different advantages of higher technology.

Re:Not Quite

[drinkypoo]

By far the largest and most bloated parts of the federal budget are the entitlements... Social Security, Medicare, etc.

It all depends on how you do the math. When you include pensions for past military the figure grows; actually paying off the interest on our war debt puts the military over 50%. The only way you get under 50% for military spending is if you put a bunch of stuff which should be considered military spending under other line items, like interest. How is the interest on debt militarily incurred not military spending?

Re:Not Quite

[TerranFury]

"Battles are won by slaughter and manoeuvre, the more a general contributes in manoeuvre the less he demands in slaughter" - Winston Churchill.

A very apt quote! Lanchester's Laws do indeed put the emphasis pretty squarely on slaughter. I think there are a few different, maybe reasonable, interpretations of this:

1 - the Law describes a condition in which equally-matched generals face one another on open terrain, so that the 'tactics' variable has been eliminated

2 - Tactics simply increase killing efficiency, and can be included in the model as such. This would tell you that a force half the size of another must have tactics that make it four times more efficient at killing. One issue with this, however, is that the ability of a force to execute efficient guerrilla tactics seems to be inversely proportional to its size, and this is not modeled in any way. Another is that "tactics" are hard to measure, so this may just result in a meaningless tautology in which the effectiveness of tactics are computed after-the-fact to make the model fit.

3 - The Laws model a particular mode of combat which both sides -- especially the smaller one -- seeks to avoid.

Of these, I think the first and particularly the third are complementary and most reasonable, and in this light the Laws are useful not as predictive rules -- like the laws of physics -- but rather as a sort of mathematical fable or parable. What's more, it does at least something to explain some classical strategies -- like "divide & conquer" and "defeat in detail," as well as many uses of terrain (e.g., "chokepoints" as at Thermopylae), which negate an opponent's square advantage by forcing him to engage in smaller groups. The fact that a "mind-sized" mathematical model has something to say about this is intriguing.

Overall, I of course recognize that it's a gross, gross simplification. For instance, some of Sun Tzu's main concerns -- morale and deception -- are ultimately to do with manipulating the human mind. And this of course is something that mathematicians model at their peril!

Clarification on rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Healthcare a right?

Maybe, maybe not.

A right is something which you are in the right for doing - you can do it with impunity.

A privilege is something which can be taken away at any time, without recourse.

A guarantee is something which will assuredly be provided.

Barring some hand-waving about medical licences, approved procedures and so on, there are very few places on earth where medical care is not a right. That does not, however, make its availability guaranteed. When people talk about medical care being a right in Europe, they are confused. It's a right in the USA too - you can go to the doctor of your choice, strike a mutually acceptable deal, and get the care (again, hand-waving the bit about approved medications and procedures) of your choice. What people talk about in the european model is a guarantee of health care, within a certain formulary.

Let's keep this clear, because there are armies of numpties who want to obfuscate this discussion at every turn.

Re:Clarification on rights

[Capsaicin]

A right is something which you are in the right for doing - you can do it with impunity.

No a "right" is a legal concession from the state which an individual can positively enforce in a court of law. A right can be negative, --a concession that the state will not do something to you, eg. legislate against your freedom of expression-- or positive, a concession that the state will do something for you, eg provide you or your children with a adequate minimum level of education.

Rights are neither God given, self-evident, universal nor fixed (though they may be entrenched). If you can't enforce it, it's not a right.

seems to me

[nimbius]

this whole issue would become a non issue if we had presidents and politicians that didnt start a war every 2-4 years. less war usually means less military...it also means alot more work for politicians who are completely resolved to sitting on their duff all day. Learning about cultures, countries, and history as opposed to the knee jerk "nuke em from orbit" response politicians usually give to countries that dont fall lock-step with US policy might do us all a world of good.

The first step...

[frank_adrian314159]

Stop calling the DoD what it was renamed after WWII and start calling it what it really is: The Department of War.

end 2 unneccessary wars FIRST before budget cuts

[jsepeta]

gates is a fucking moron. i'm sorry, is that not LOUD ENOUGH?

when gates' buddy preznit Bush invaded the wrong fucking country [Iraq] and told everyone it's because they had WMDs (yet no deployment system to reach the US) we were told that it was to save America. but really the Iraq war has done just about nothing right and cost us BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars - funded by the chinese, since we don't really have the money for that war in the first place.

if gates wants to rightsize the military budget he should do so by gettting our troops the fuck out of iraq. NOW, not in 2012 or whatever bullshit obama has dreamed up. it's not our role to police iraq any longer; they've had plenty of time to realize that if they want the rule of law, they'll need to take care of their problems themselves.

initially, afghanistan appeared to be a good place to find the taliban/alqueda and get back at them for 9/11. now several years hence, we're in an intractible position: vietnam without the jungle. we should pull out of there as well to cut back on military expenses.

what this article fails to mention is that military spending funds a lot of our rural, gun-toting, conservative areas in America. cutting the military budget means putting a lot of factory workers out of work. what will they possibly do? we need a better plan for fixing america's economy, and if you're going to cut military spending, you need a plan to put people to work doing other valuable jobs.

Re: National Debt?

[Anonymous Coward]

> The politicians who are in office, BELONG to those companies.

Yep, that's why Eisenhower's original draft of the speech said Military/Industrial/Congressional complex.

Don't or couldn't?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Sure, anybody who doesn't know how to use an iPod or an iPad can't possibly make a significant contribution to science or technology.

Well, obviously those haven't been around for very long. But given how easy they are to use, anyone who can't figure them out quickly can't have much potential in figuring out really complex things like science and technology.

If you can't figure out an iPhone, how are you going to figure out, say, Calabi-Yau manifolds?

Re:Don't or couldn't?

[ClosedSource]

I don't understand how saying "If you can't figure out an iPhone" is supposed to be a defense of the statement "if you don't know how to use an iPhone".

My beef is that knowing how to use an iPhone is no more relevant to advance science and technology than knowing how to flush a toilet.

Federal budget visualized for easy comparison

[Amiga500_Rulez]

I don't know if anyone else has seen this, but this sure helped put things into perspective for me. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWt8hTayupE I know it's not 100% on topic with the defense cuts, but it still helps to illustrate the scale of the problem.

Fun Fact:

[Max Threshold]

The United States could cut its defense spending by 80% and still have the most expensive military in the world.

Re: National Debt?

[mjwx]

Blackwater - when did the US citizenry decide it was actually okay for the country to hire mercenaries,

From the very beginning.

French and other military personnel were enlisted, borrowed or "bought" into the continental army to fill critical skill gaps. Most specifically the naval forces to which the colonies had practically no skilled personnel.

But all governments did this, the US were not exception, letters of marque, bounties, hiring armed merchantmen (pirates). Mercenaries only really fell out of favour in the 19th century. Skilled soldiers and sailors were hired by the hundreds in the Napoleonic wars, the US did the same when it blockaded Tripoli.

Hiring professional soldiers is a long standing tradition in all governments.

Noobies

[ipooptoomuch]

You Must Construct Additional Pylons

There has always been a lot of fat, but lean where

[dbIII]

There has always been a lot of fat, but lean where extra resources are needed.
An extreme example was the late General Haig who somehow managed to completely avoid any sort of logistical, combat or other involvement with operations in Korea, Vietnam, Central America etc etc and still get called a "warrior". By the end he was in charge of God knows how many people doing God knows what, while the resources for combat troops got tighter and tighter. The cold war is well and truly over so there is no longer any excuse.
There's also such things as donations to Israel and other places (Algeria?) hidden in that military budget - give them the stuff but not out of a Navy budget or other misdirection.

In case it wasn't clear

[dbIII]

There are thousands out there involved in pointless projects just as a lot of the inflated crap under Haig was. The numbers by which the US capacity exceeded that of the USSR were staggering to the point of complete meaninglessness - 10 times more missiles makes a very strong point but 100 times is an expensive joke that is taken far less seriously by potential enemies.

only probable problem with this solution is

[shnull]

the surrplus money will only be used to pay for more politicians and commite's

Collective security

[currently_awake]

Collective security means you spread the cost. Instead of all western countries having enough soldiers to defend themselves against everyone you only need enough to hold your enemies off till help arrives. Of course it -does- mean trusting your friends. The logical place for such things is a world government, though few in the USA would agree.