Defense Budget to Top $500 Billion

[Pangloss]

I've been predicting this for a couple of years, and it's finally happened -- the first proposal of a defense budget over $500 billion. This one, for $517 billion, was approved by the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday, and may not end up in this form, but generally speaking they only get bigger between now and signing.

 

http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060508-103116-1016r

 

Believe it or not, I actually caught wind of this in an email from one of my senators, bragging about all the hard work he's doing up there in Washington.

[Sisyphus]

Yikes. Where is all that money going? Is it all just wildly overpriced government contractors?

[Jim]

I've been predicting this for a couple of years' date=' and it's finally happened -- the first proposal of a defense budget over $500 billion. This one, for $517 billion, was approved by the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday, and may not end up in this form, but generally speaking they only get bigger between now and signing.

 

http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060508-103116-1016r

 

Believe it or not, I actually caught wind of this in an email from one of my senators, bragging about all the hard work he's doing up there in Washington.[/quote']

 

A 4% increase doesn't seem that shocking all things considered.

[Pangloss]

How about a 50% increase in six years?

[Sisyphus]

Such an increase would be expected, I would think, in dealing with Afghanistan, adapting to terrorism, and, most of all, the money incinerator that is Iraq. What I'm more curious about is why it's so high in the first place.

 

I mean, yes, we have the strongest military in the world, and can project power quickly and decisively anywhere. That's great (and that's not sarcasm). But, for all that, it STILL seems way too high. I mean, we're in a position right now where all the major industrialized powers are either our long term and highly stabile allies (e.g. Europe, Japan, etc.), or at least so heavily involved with us economically that any real conflict seems more and more ridiculous (e.g., China). So do we really need all those warships and fleets of bombers and missle submarines? Those things are for symmetrical warfare, for blowing up other warships, bombers, and submarines. Pretty much all of what we're doing in the world today is peacekeeping, for which we're (somehow) apparently underfunded. Does the ability to destroy a nonexistant enemy outweigh the economic benefit of reducing federal taxes by a few hundred billion dollars a year?

 

Note that I'm not really informed about this, so this is a genuine question. I'd really like someone to explain this to me. Because all I see from where I'm sitting is the military-industrial complex at its most malignant, absurdly overpaid contractors, bureaucratic entrenchment, inter-service politics, and big fat barrels of pork. Is that really what's happening, or is my liberal paranoia getting the better of me?

[swansont]

Such an increase would be expected' date=' I would think, in dealing with Afghanistan, adapting to terrorism, and, most of all, the money incinerator that is Iraq. What I'm more curious about is why it's so high in the first place.

 

I mean, yes, we have the strongest military in the world, and can project power quickly and decisively anywhere. That's great (and that's not sarcasm). But, for all that, it STILL seems way too high. I mean, we're in a position right now where all the major industrialized powers are either our long term and highly stabile allies (e.g. Europe, Japan, etc.), or at least so heavily involved with us economically that any real conflict seems more and more ridiculous (e.g., China). So do we really need all those warships and fleets of bombers and missle submarines? Those things are for symmetrical warfare, for blowing up other warships, bombers, and submarines. Pretty much all of what we're doing in the world today is peacekeeping, for which we're (somehow) apparently underfunded. Does the ability to destroy a nonexistant enemy outweigh the economic benefit of reducing federal taxes by a few hundred billion dollars a year?

 

Note that I'm not really informed about this, so this is a genuine question. I'd really like someone to explain this to me. Because all I see from where I'm sitting is the military-industrial complex at its most malignant, absurdly overpaid contractors, bureaucratic entrenchment, inter-service politics, and big fat barrels of pork. Is that really what's happening, or is my liberal paranoia getting the better of me?[/quote']

 

The danger of an underfunded military is that you can't mobilize all that quickly if you need to, and you have to have sufficient strength to dissuade a potential enemy from making a military move by making it too costly and success uncertain. Trade with China is all well and good, but the fact is that we need them more than they need us, though that will change some as their economy grows and they consume more. We can't match the sheer size of their military, so we get the advantage with technology, and that isn't cheap.

 

Having said that, one thing that doesn't show up in the budget numbers is the internal shifting of the DoD budget, siphoning off money from infrastructure to pay for other things.

[Sisyphus]

So we're spending all this money so that nobody else does? Sigh.

[Jim]

How about a 50% increase in six years?

 

Given the level of commitments we have made abroad, I don't see why it is that surprising. We are fighting two wars.

[Phi for All]

We had a thread 6-7 months ago about US Military Spending and had some interesting figures and arguments.

[Jim]

So we're spending all this money so that nobody else does? Sigh.

 

We are spending this money because we are the same species that salted Carthage. It would be the ultimate in hubris to assume that American power is so invincible that we could not some day soon be vulnerable to similar aggression.

 

We are spending this money because you never know when some unanticipated set of circumstances will lead to war (see, e.g. the first half of the last century).

 

We are spending this money because as technology ramps upwards along an exponential curve, major shifts in military power are going to occur on a shorter time frame. Instead of measuring major shifts in military power by centuries we are now measuring it by decades and may come to measure such shifts by mere years. You never know where the next destabilizing technology will break out so the United States has to cover its bets. We are a small portion of the world's population and our power is a function of technology which is a function of economics and innovation. The economics are going to change in the next 50 years but hopefully western style democracies will continue to out innovate our potential adversaries.

 

Battles thirty years from now will almost certainly be fought in part with unmanned machines. Last year, DARPA paid $2MM to Stanford's unmanned vehicle which navigated 132 miles of desert terrain. This year Darpa's grand challenge is to build an autonomous vehicle able to complete a 60-mile urban course in less than six hours. Fifty years from how who knows? Will battles be fought with nano-machines? Mech warriors? The honest answer is that no one can predict and DARPA and other defense agencies must spend a lot of money to cover the roulette wheel.

 

Some of this money is being spent to fight two wars.

 

Some of the money is wasted, I'm sure, and we should work to spend every dollar more efficiently.

[Jim]

The danger of an underfunded military is that you can't mobilize all that quickly if you need to' date=' and you have to have sufficient strength to dissuade a potential enemy from making a military move by making it too costly and success uncertain. Trade with China is all well and good, but the fact is that we need them more than they need us, though that will change some as their economy grows and they consume more. We can't match the sheer size of their military, so we get the advantage with technology, and that isn't cheap.

[/quote']

 

Well said. This is a variation of a theme that caused WWI.

[Sisyphus]

I never said we shouldn't pour as much money into research as we can. We should, for all the reasons you said. But right now we are spending absurd amounts on stuff we aren't using, and not enough on stuff we actually are. You are absolutely right about the destabilizing effects of new technology. But such occurences require us to innovate in turn, yes? In other words, making the old technology useless. I'm reminded of the U.S.S. Monitor vs. wooden ships, the H.M.S. Dreadnought vs. traditional battleships, the machine gun vs. Napoleanic-style massed troops, etc., etc., etc. In other words, if anything, the acceleration of changing technology is an argument NOT to invest hugely in forces that are not immediately useful.

 

Of course, if it really is true that our large military is keeping potential rivals from bothering to build their own (and I can see how that might be), then I'm willing to concede that the situation is unenviable but necessary. Hence the sigh.

[Pangloss]

I know I've quoted this before, but it never ceases to amaze me the insight of this man, and this one speech in particular:

 

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

 

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

 

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

 

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

 

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial 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.

 

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 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.

 

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

 

That's an excerpt from Eisenhower's farewell speech, given January 17, 1961 -- forty-five years ago. He goes on to say that "must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow", and that in a world "ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect". It's a heck of a speech.

 

But getting back to the point, I think Ike answered some of the very questions posed in this thread. Do we need a "standing army" (or in today's terms, "a massive defense budget")? You bet we do. Has the budget spiraled out of control the way Ike warned us it might, in part due to the influence of the military-industrial complex? I believe the answer to that question is also "yes".

[drochaid]

It's frightening that so many supposedly intelligent people can hold such false views.

[Phi for All]

I don't question the need for a strong military. I question those who defend the current way the defense budget is allocated by saying we need a strong military. It's like saying you don't support the troops if you question why we're in Iraq.

 

I still think a cohesive defender force with a single command structure and a single administrative structure would insure the most effective military units with the most efficient use of funds. Spend the savings on bringing education up to global levels.

[Phi for All]

It's frightening that so many supposedly intelligent people can hold such false views.

Please go into a bit more detail because this sounds quite a lot like Flaming.

[Jim]

I don't question the need for a strong military. I question those who defend the current way the defense budget is allocated by saying we need a strong military. It's like saying you don't support the troops if you question why we're in Iraq.

 

I still think a cohesive defender force with a single command structure and a single administrative structure would insure the most effective military units with the most efficient use of funds. Spend the savings on bringing education up to global levels.

 

My only point is that the raw numbers tell us nothing. For all I know $500B is not nearly enough. I'm all ears if there is waste or ways to more efficiently spend our military dollar or if we want to debate particular weapons systems. If there is a way to encourage the garage innovator, I'd love to hear it. (However, if you saw the NOVA on the DARPA grand challenge last year, a $2MM prize seemed to be a pretty good way to encourage garage tinkering.).

 

However, the thread was focussed on the gross total of the budget.

[Jim]

I know I've quoted this before' date=' but it never ceases to amaze me the insight of this man, and this one speech in particular:

 

 

 

That's an excerpt from Eisenhower's farewell speech, given January 17, 1961 -- [i']forty-five years ago[/i]. He goes on to say that "must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow", and that in a world "ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect". It's a heck of a speech.

 

It is a heck of a speech and the dangers Eisenhower discussed are very real. OTOH, I'm not sure what he proposed to do about them other than for the citizenry to stay alert and knowledgeable.

 

The flip side of this dangerous dynamic Eisenhower described is the even greater danger that the next round of major military technological advances will occur from small scale innovations in garages instead of requiring Manhattan style governmental efforts. This is one of the the dangers Bill Joy warned about:

 

We are being propelled into this new century with no plan, no control, no brakes. Have we already gone too far down the path to alter course? I don't believe so, but we aren't trying yet, and the last chance to assert control - the fail-safe point - is rapidly approaching. We have our first pet robots, as well as commercially available genetic engineering techniques, and our nanoscale techniques are advancing rapidly. While the development of these technologies proceeds through a number of steps, it isn't necessarily the case - as happened in the Manhattan Project and the Trinity test - that the last step in proving a technology is large and hard. The breakthrough to wild self-replication in robotics, genetic engineering, or nanotechnology could come suddenly, reprising the surprise we felt when we learned of the cloning of a mammal.

[Pangloss]

That's a nice quote, thanks. Reminds me of James Burke's fascinating denouement at the end of "Connections".

[drochaid]

Please go into a bit more detail because this sounds quite a lot like Flaming.

Have you really led such a sheltered life you consider that flaming?

 

Ok here goes...

Given the level of commitments we have made abroad, I don't see why it is that surprising. We are fighting two wars.

Uhm, what two wars would those be? I know you can't be meaning Afghanistan Iraq as those wars were over a long time ago and have been a police action since.

Such an increase would be expected, I would think, in dealing with Afghanistan, adapting to terrorism

How much do you really believe has to do with "adapting to terrorism"? Be realistic here, the US has far fewer threats than many other countries including several in Europe, is the cause of much of agression and is, as usual, by far the most over the top when it comes to reacting.

 

Frankly the overall tone of the comments is what led to my initial reaction. I find it depressing that people can be so selfish and short-sighted in their views. "Yay, go guns, we have more than any of you, hahahahahaha" pathetic.

[Phi for All]

Have you really led such a sheltered life you consider that flaming?

Probably. But I appreciate your fleshing out your subsequent posts and helping us understand what you meant by "supposedly intelligent" and "false views". God forbid anyone should get the wrong idea and think you're an asshole.

[Jim]

Have you really led such a sheltered life you consider that flaming?

 

Ok here goes...

 

Uhm' date=' what two wars would those be? I know you can't be meaning Afghanistan Iraq as those wars were over a long time ago and have been a police action since.

 

How much do you really believe has to do with "adapting to terrorism"? Be realistic here, the US has far fewer threats than many other countries including several in Europe, is the cause of much of agression and is, as usual, by far the most over the top when it comes to reacting.

 

Frankly the overall tone of the comments is what led to my initial reaction. I find it depressing that people can be so selfish and short-sighted in their views. "Yay, go guns, we have more than any of you, hahahahahaha" pathetic.[/quote']

 

You think you're on a roll, don't you? Just so that you can be accurate about something, let me try this out for fun:

 

Yah, go guns, we have more than any of you, hahahahaha!

 

Oh, that SO felt good.

[Jim]

Probably. But I appreciate your fleshing out your subsequent posts and helping us understand what you meant by "supposedly intelligent" and "false views". God forbid anyone should get the wrong idea and think you're an asshole.

 

I think asshole gives him too much credit. I was leaning more towards the word "twit."

[swansont]

Have you really led such a sheltered life you consider that flaming?

I think the comment was more to the aimless nature of the post' date=' rather than the temperature of the comment.

 

 

Frankly the overall tone of the comments is what led to my initial reaction. I find it depressing that people can be so selfish and short-sighted in their views. "Yay, go guns, we have more than any of you, hahahahahaha" pathetic.

 

Methinks you missed the point by a wide margin.