Do we need a huge military ?

[arepo]

This article makes a good case for cutting back on the Pentagon's budget..

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-band ... 76578.html

cliftwood

[jbuck919]

We need a huge military. I can hear the sound of Vladimir Putin drooling at the alternative clear from Moscow to Stony Creek. Our military is still the main guarantor of our own peace and peace in some other parts of the world very important to us. What we don't need, but probably will always have, is a military that is distorted by people who want the money spent on their interests rather than the nation's. That, plus bureaucratic bloat on which I have posted from experience in the past, allows for the possibility of considerable savings, but we will never have a compact or economical military establishment again. The last time we did was also the last time we were invaded.

[John F]

It's all very well to deride trying to police the world, but after 9/11/2001, I should think it's better to fight our enemies and those of our allies on their ground rather than ours. Of course we don't need rash adventures like our preemptive invasion of Iraq, or for that matter Grenada (remember that?), neither of which posed the slightest military threat to us, but not because of economics, it's about the abuse of power.

That said, we hardly need to increase our military strength, and the huge cost of upgrading our military technology when nobody in the world can match what we already have seems altogether wasteful.

[arepo]

That said, we hardly need to increase our military strength, and the huge cost of upgrading our military technology when nobody in the world can match what we already have seems altogether wasteful."

John Francis..

You are correct, of course. I propose we spend 200 billion less on the Defense budget this year, which would still leave 480 billion and use the 200 billion saved on the nation's infrastructure such as highways, bridges and transportation like railroads. I know I'd sleep soundly, without a concern that those entities that threaten our security would take advantage of our reduction in the military budget for 2016.

Perhaps we can upgrade the expenditures next year, if the threats to our safety change. Meanwhile, there would be some significant job opportunities for a lot of Americans who desperately need it.

The Cold War is over and China is no threat, so it's time to change our path to economic success.

Your thoughts?

cliftwood

[jbuck919]

I must disagree with much of what my two fellow members have posted. There is no substitute for overwhelming might in the US military. The assurance that they will be crushed is the only way to stay ahead of deadly enemies from abroad. We may never get around their cleverness at poking holes through our sense of security, but we will always hold over their head that we could annihilate them if we could humanely endure the collateral cost.

The guns and butter dichotomy is a false one. The US is rich beyond the dreams of any other country in any time. We can do it all. The reason that the "butter" is neglected is because we have a rapacious oligarchy that literally wants everything for itself and nothing for anyone else. Though there are prudent economies to be had, our pitiful state has little to do with spending too much on defense.

[John F]

I must disagree with much of what my two fellow members have posted. There is no substitute for overwhelming might in the US military.

But we already have overwhelming military might. No nation or alliance in the world could stand against it if they tried, and no adequately powerful nation has been threatening to try since the end of the Cold War. Who are these "deadly enemies from abroad?" The only belligerent nation nowadays is North Korea, and we can easily handle them with what we've got; for that matter, so can South Korea. Realistically, how much of the world must we be able to overwhelm with conventional military force before you would say, "We have enough"?

Our real enemies today do not pose the kind of threat that we could eliminate through conventional warfare. Spending hundreds of billions on new generation after generation of fighter-bombers, warships, tanks, and such hardware isn't going to buy us an iota more security than we now have. Terrorists abroad and in our midst kill with the most primitive, least expensive weapons: suicide belts, pressure cookers filled with explosives, car bombs, and guns, guns, guns. The World Trade Center was brought down and the Pentagon was attacked by a few dozen terrorists armed with box cutters. And military firepower is no use against cyberattack, a potentially deadly situation against which the only defense is applied brainpower.

Rich as we are, we can't afford to throw away even more hundreds of billions of dollars than we are already doing and that we don't have. If we're determined to borrow and spend that money, let it be on goods and services the nation actually needs and will tangibly benefit from. If, as you say, we lack the political will to do even that, let it be used to pay down the national debt, on which we will pay interest of $127 billion this year alone.

[jbuck919]

I must disagree with much of what my two fellow members have posted. There is no substitute for overwhelming might in the US military.

But we already have overwhelming military might.

I do not think it is sensible to minimize the threats as the article seems to do. Of course it is not a question of having more of what it took to win the last war. It is a question of keeping up to date so that we remain those many miles ahead of potential opponents, and that will never be cheap. Suppose, just suppose, that Russia reasserted itself into neo-NATO territory and it were not just lucky for them that Ukraine never joined. (Finland, which is scared, um, witless of the current regime in Russia, is still not a NATO member, and I have always suspected that the US put off Ukraine for NATO membership on purpose in anticipation of exactly what happened.) Eventually China will figure out drones, to take just one example, and we will have to defend against them being used against us across continental and oceanic boundaries. I imagine plans are already in the works for that--I hope so, at least. You yourself have posted on the relatively paltry nature of the threat posed by Islamicist extremism. Those parties are very clever at resorting to popgun tactics to puff themselves up, and certainly we must address the real danger they present, but their threat to us is as nothing compared to what we might face if we did not stay several steps ahead of the game in remaining the giants of the world in terms of true military power.

[John F]

"Keeping up to date"? That's only arguably necessary if there's an arms race against another nation or nations that are capable of doing likewise. Where in the world is any nation developing weapons systems that can challenge, let alone defeat, what we have now? Chinese research & development into fighter aircraft seems to consist of trying to steal our plans. To move on from one generation of planes or ships to another, at crushing expense, not because we really need to for our defense but merely because we can, is incredibly wasteful and buys us no greater security, just more debt.

You speak of drones. They are far cheaper to develop and build than fighter-bombers, and also far easier to defend against. Predator drones over Iraq were shot down by Saddam Hussein's air force as long ago as 2002, flying Russian warplanes of that vintage, and by ground-based missiles; drones have been most effective when used against undefended or weakly defended targets, as in the Islamic State and al Qaeda. (By the way, during the Gulf War Americans had a perfect record against Russian warplanes and Iraqi pilots: 48 killed, none lost.) No doubt r&d for drones will continue, as these have been proved effective against real enemies. That work would not be such a burden on the Treasury. But to be building new aircraft carriers at $10 billion a copy, when we already have 10 supercarriers and 9 others in active service with 3 more under construction, is really profligate. We're talking pork barrel here, not defense needs.

You also speak of "potential" opponents. By that I suppose you mean nations that are not our opponents now but might become enemies some day. That list is limited only by one's degree of paranoia. Russia has been using its military only against opponents too weak to strike back: the Ukraine, the Syrian resistance. If, as you suggest, "Russia reasserted itself into neo-NATO territory" - and why would they do that, knowing it would bring on World War III? What would they have to gain? - our present weapons systems and those of the other NATO countries are already more than strong and swift enough to fight that war. As for China, far from being a potential opponent they have become our largest trading partner; by attacking us they would ruin themselves. Of course these countries' leaders are not princes of virtue, nor for that matter have our leaders always been, but neither are they stupid or insane (as, for example, the leader of North Korea appears to be). And if some kind of maniac should come to power in Russia, we can deal with that threat when and if it arises.

You are right that the U.S. has war plans in the field for just about any contingency. When I was in the Army in Korea, I worked in my unit's S2 (Intelligence) section and saw the war plans for its role in the defense of South Korea, though of course I didn't read them. And during my time there, the 8th Army conducted major exercises to rehearse its plan. (These exercises aren't just to rattle sabers in the China Sea.) There's even a war plan to defend against an invasion by Canada, speaking of paranoia, though it probably hasn't been updated since the 1930s. The point of having 200,000 American troops and their weapons stationed overseas is precisely to be ready to meet whatever threat may arise.

[arepo]

I must disagree with much of what my two fellow members have posted. There is no substitute for overwhelming might in the US military.

But we already have overwhelming military might. No nation or alliance in the world could stand against it if they tried, and no adequately powerful nation has been threatening to try since the end of the Cold War. Who are these "deadly enemies from abroad?" The only belligerent nation nowadays is North Korea, and we can easily handle them with what we've got; for that matter, so can South Korea. Realistically, how much of the world must we be able to overwhelm with conventional military force before you would say, "We have enough"?

Our real enemies today do not pose the kind of threat that we could eliminate through conventional warfare. Spending hundreds of billions on new generation after generation of fighter-bombers, warships, tanks, and such hardware isn't going to buy us an iota more security than we now have. Terrorists abroad and in our midst kill with the most primitive, least expensive weapons: suicide belts, pressure cookers filled with explosives, car bombs, and guns, guns, guns. The World Trade Center was brought down and the Pentagon was attacked by a few dozen terrorists armed with box cutters. And military firepower is no use against cyberattack, a potentially deadly situation against which the only defense is applied brainpower.

Rich as we are, we can't afford to throw away even more hundreds of billions of dollars than we are already doing and that we don't have. If we're determined to borrow and spend that money, let it be on goods and services the nation actually needs and will tangibly benefit from. If, as you say, we lack the political will to do even that, let it be used to pay down the national debt, on which we will pay interest of $127 billion this year alone.

John Francis...

Precisely correct. Thank you for seeing the light.

Well said. Amen.


cliftwood

[jbuck919]

You are right that the U.S. has war plans in the field for just about any contingency. When I was in the Army in Korea, I worked in my unit's S2 (Intelligence) section and saw the war plans for its role in the defense of South Korea, though of course I didn't read them.

"Of course"? You had clearance to read something so interesting (which you probably could not divulge even to this day) and you did not take advantage of it? Where's your plain curiosity, man? (I once had a clearance myself to abstract classified documents for a NASA contractor, but it was pointless. They were all far too technical in the engineering sense for me to understand.)

I fear that our recent exchanges have us talking past each other. (The Germans have a wonderful word: Aneinandervorbeireden.) Since we are on the same side, I have no problem herewith resigning from both discussions.

[lennygoran]

The Cold War is over and China is no threat, so it's time to change our path to economic success.

Your thoughts?

cliftwood

Sure there's waste in military spending-still I'm not sure about the cold war-- Russia in the Ukraine, a possible no-fly zone--then there's worry about ISIS, Russia in the Ukraine, North Korea, the whole Middle East. Regards, Len

[John F]

The basic question is, who's a real rather than hypothetical threat to American security and that of our allies. South Korea and Israel seem quite capable of defending themselves militarily, we have no link to the Ukraine's difficulties with Russia, and our existing military forces are quite capable of doing what we choose to do about ISIS. We now choose to leave the ground combat to ISIS's Arabic enemies in the region, supporting them with air strikes, intelligence, and logistical support, rather than put thousands of American GIs in harm's way - and despite saber rattling on the far right, I believe this is the most the public wants. It's certainly what I want.

[lennygoran]

South Korea and Israel seem quite capable of defending themselves militarily, we have no link to the Ukraine's difficulties with Russia, and our existing military forces are quite capable of doing what we choose to do about ISIS.

I'm not so sure on any of these things-let's say N Korea--one of the largest armies in the world-- attacks with soldiers and nuclear material-I don't know if S Korea could handle this without help from us. On the Ukraine I don't think either Europe or we would be too pleased if Russia just completely marched into the Ukraine-it seems to me it would sure frighten the other Baltic countries. I do hope Israel could defend itself but don't really know. Admit that I don't know the military requirements for defeating ISIS-right now I favor Obama's approach.

Onb the Ukraine there's this:

"The West must stand up to Russia over Ukraine or Europe could descend into a major war for the first time since 1945, diplomats warned today as efforts to negotiate peace hung by a thread.

As the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, prepared to brief Barack Obama in Washington on Monday about the state of the negotiations, a former US ambassador to Ukraine predicted that Estonia and the other Baltic states – all members of Nato – could be Vladimir Putin’s next targets if he is allowed to hold on to territory won by force."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 32378.html

Regards, Len

[John F]

let's say N Korea--one of the largest armies in the world-- attacks with soldiers and nuclear material-I don't know if S Korea could handle this without help from us.

Of course they won't have to.

On the Ukraine I don't think either Europe or we would be too pleased if Russia just completely marched into the Ukraine-it seems to me it would sure frighten the other Baltic countries.

So what? We have no alliance with the Ukraine, and while it has great strategic importance for Russia it has none for the United States. Remember, the Ukraine hadn't been an independent nation since the middle ages and was part of the Soviet Union until 1990, yet not one responsible American voice was ever raised to "liberate" it. I'm not impressed by that editorial you posted; talk is cheap, and that kind of talk makes it appear we want to be the world's self-appointed policeman. As for a possible threat to the Balkan nations, they are now members of NATO; a Russian invasion of any of them would be met with overwhelming force and World War III would be on. Vladimir Putin isn't crazy enough to do that, when even Joseph Stalin didn't dare.

I do hope Israel could defend itself but don't really know.

Israel always has, even without using the nuclear weapons that everyone assumes they have, though they haven't admitted it. Surrounded by countries that deny its right even to exist, it hasn't had to fight a war in its own defense since the Yom Kippur War of 1973, when it defeated an alliance of Arab states in a mere three weeks. As for ISIS, it's conspicuous by its complete shying away from any attempt on Israel; in non-Islamic countries it's managed the occasional terrorist attack but no broad and lasting occupation of territory.

[lennygoran]

I'm glad you're so confident--still I don't agree with your last message. Regards, Len

[John F]

I see I made a mistake - it's the Baltic states, not the Balkan states, that the Independent article fears Russia may invade next. But my argument is the same. All three Baltic states are members of NATO, and if the Russians or any other nation attacks any of them, the NATO treaty obliges us and the other 27 NATO allies to retaliate, which would mean World War III unless the invader backed down fast. So Russia isn't going to do it, however tough Putin talks.

The Ukraine, on the other hand, voted repeatedly not to apply for NATO membership, choosing to go it alone. Last year they changed their mind and began making overtures to NATO; if they become NATO members, though a promised referendom hasn't yet been held, they would be entitled by treaty to assistance against foreign invasion.

I'm glad you're so confident--still I don't agree with your last message. Regards, Len

Which message don't you agree with, and why not? What's your thinking, not that of whatever random commentary you may Google on the Internet? Often it feels as if I'm not having a conversation with you but debating everybody else in the world.

Speaking of which, the fact of Estonia's membership in NATO seems to have escaped the author of the Independent article, though NATO successfully deterred the Soviet Union from invading nations outside its own bloc for 45 years. He wasn't thinking, unless he was deliberately sowing mischief; he quotes a former ambassador to the Ukraine in the Bush administration, which of course is known for invading a country that posed no threat to us. We can think better than that.

Generally speaking, do you believe the United States, with or without its NATO allies (and their agreement would have to be obtained), should come to the rescue of any nation that some other nation invades? If we are to be the world's policeman, then we would need an even larger military than in the days when official policy was to be capable of fighting two wars at the same time; we might have to fight three, six, a dozen. If not, how do we pick and choose which wars we should join in and which not? I'm asking for your opinion, not some random talking head's.

As for Korea, we have a treaty with South Korea which obligates us to come to their aid in case of an attack from the north. I haven't suggested that we break the treaties we're already committed to, and that's one of the oldest. And it's why I said South Korea wouldn't have to deal with such an attack without help from us. And that's why North Korea may talk big, but they don't dare start a second Korean War, and especially not with their pipsqueak nuclear weapons - not against the greatest nuclear arsenal in the world. South Korea alone would be a formidable enemy, with its active duty army of half a million well-fed soldiers whose loyalty is unquestioned and with state-of-the-art weapons and equipment acquired from us.

[lennygoran]

The Ukraine, on the other hand, voted repeatedly not to apply for NATO membership, choosing to go it alone. Last year they changed their mind and began making overtures to NATO; if they become NATO members, though a promised referendom hasn't yet been held, they would be entitled by treaty to assistance against foreign invasion...What's your thinking, not that of whatever random commentary you may Google on the Internet? Often it feels as if I'm not having a conversation with you but debating everybody else in the world. ...Generally speaking, do you believe the United States, with or without its NATO allies (and their agreement would have to be obtained), should come to the rescue of any nation that some other nation invades? If we are to be the world's policeman, then we would need an even larger military than in the days when official policy was to be capable of fighting two wars at the same time. If not, how do we pick and choose which wars we should join in and which not? I'm asking for your opinion, not some random talking head's...
As for Korea, we have a treaty with South Korea which obligates us to come to their aid in case of an attack from the north. I haven't suggested that we break the treaties we're already committed to, and that's one of the oldest. And it's why I said South Korea wouldn't have to deal with such an attack without help from us. And that's why North Korea may talk big, but they don't dare start a second Korean War, and especially not with their pipsqueak nuclear weapons - not against the greatest nuclear arsenal in the world. South Korea alone would be a formidable enemy, with its active duty army of half a million well-fed soldiers whose loyalty is unquestioned and with state-of-the-art weapons and equipment acquired from us.

You've asked many questions here and certainly they're serious ones-thing is in an hour I'm leaving to meet a friend for lunch--we do this every month when Sue has her garden club meetings-we sit down at a restaurant and solve all the world's problems over a 3 or 4 hour lunch-problem is we never seem to get past talking about art, music, food, wine, travel! Briefly though let me say I have to get help from the internet to at least try to get correct facts--I'm not helped by having a poor memory which is getting even worse-- -- but there are so many points of view. I don't think we should be the world's policeman and that's why I'm furious at Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, etc for the wmd slam dunk info that got us in to Iraq and that's why for the most part I praise Obama on how he's handled foreign affairs and how he was against that war. It would be nice if the Ukraine could become part of Nato-it should imo be their call and not Putin's. To defend Korea will require large amounts of money-seems to me they can't do it alone despite their well trained army-numbers count. To keep China from bullying us will also require money. To defeat ISIS the sums and time required will be imo very costly. Israel I'm sure relishes getting money from us-then Netanyahu comes over hear and insults our President-there's more money. Picking out where to throw all these resources is a job I'm just not prepared to be sure about-people with much more knowledge than I have are in sharp disagreement. I'm not saying I'm dismissing your message there but to respond more properly would require a lot more time and also use of the internet-hopefully my sources for info will be better than Rwet's! Regards, Len

[John F]

You've asked many questions here and certainly they're serious ones-thing is in an hour I'm leaving to meet a friend for lunch--we do this every month when Sue has her garden club meetings-we sit down at a restaurant and solve all the world's problems over a 3 or 4 hour lunch-problem is we never seem to get past talking about art, music, food, wine, travel!

That sounds like more fun than this conversation.

Briefly though let me say I have to get help from the internet to at least try to get correct facts--I'm not helped by having a poor memory which is getting even worse

You and me both. I get most of the facts I post from the Internet, Wikipedia more often than not; you have all the resources I have. All I've added to that is remembering that there's such a thing as NATO, and I'm sure you do too.

there are so many points of view.

No doubt, but this forum is about expressing our points of view. Of course we quote news stories and editorials, but we must either agree with them or criticize them - they either express our own opinions or they don't. I do my best not to agree with something that isn't true. And if, as I hope, something I post opens a discussion, I'm always ready to respond with my own opinion in my own words.

I don't think we should be the world's policeman and that's why I'm furious at Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, etc for the wmd slam dunk info that got us in to Iraq and that's why for the most part I praise Obama on how he's handled foreign affairs and how he was against that war. It would be nice if the Ukraine could become part of Nato-it should imo be their call and not Putin's. To defend Korea will require large amounts of money-seems to me they can't do it alone despite their well trained army-numbers count.

Not today. It's weapons technology that counts. At the time of our invasion of Iraq, they had about 100,000 more troops in their standing military than the invading allies combined, yet we wiped the floor with them in less than 3 weeks. In the air, American jets shot down 48 Iraqi jets (Russian MIGs) without a single loss. Iraq's military was far stronger and better armed then than North Korea's is now; and all those extra bodies carrying rifles in the North Korean army are essentially cannon fodder.

Even so, I've just said South Korea wouldn't have to do it alone, and explained why. Did you read that? Your comment suggests you didn't.

Whether Ukraine joins NATO is NATO's call, and it's a tough one because it would set the alliance immediately and directly against Russia. For that reason, I think it may be a bad idea. Russia is already in the eastern Ukraine, though they deny it; the invasion has already happened. Accepting Ukrainian membership might be tantamount to declaring war against Russia. Do we really want to do that, after living through decades of cold war without one soldier killed, over a country which as I've said, has no strategic importance for the United States? I sure hope not.

To keep China from bullying us will also require money.

China isn't going to war against us, or even against Taiwan, which we used to recognize as an independent nation but no longer do. The time when the Chinese might have done it is long past. Nothing in our current relations with China calls for spending more money on our military forces than we already do. What other expenses do you have in mind?

To defeat ISIS the sums and time required will be imo very costly.

That's not our war. It does not threaten our security. Islamic State terrorists certainly may do us harm, but they can't be stopped by conventional military force, only by superior intelligence and vigilance and police work here. If the countries in the region that oppose ISIS would get their act together, they could defeat ISIS's military units in pretty short order, as the Kurds have done in northern Iraq and the revitalized Iraqi Army is doing too. Our policy is to leave it to them, providing various kinds of support to the Syrian rebels and the Iraqi Army but no combat troops, just 3700 military trainers and helpers, and I think that's right.

Israel I'm sure relishes getting money from us-then Netanyahu comes over hear and insults our President-there's more money.

Let's keep our eyes on the ball. We're not talking about financial aid, we're talking about the size and cost of the American military and how it is to be used. 75% of the foreign aid we send to Israel comes right back in orders for American state-of-the-art military hardware; the net cost to the American economy is less than $1 billion. Thanks to this, the Israeli military is the most formidably armed force in the region, far stronger than the nations around it. No wonder that the only violence against Israel in decades has come in guerrilla action and occasional rocket attacks across its borders.

Picking out where to throw all these resources is a job I'm just not prepared to be sure about-people with much more knowledge than I have are in sharp disagreement. I'm not saying I'm dismissing your message there but to respond more properly would require a lot more time and also use of the internet-hopefully my sources for info will be better than Rwet's!

Take your time. You obviously have opinions, however well or badly you believe you're informed. But others do not necessarily have more relevant knowledge than you do, or have access to it, or think more clearly about it. You have Wikipedia and Google to help you fact-check what others say, including what I say. Read critically! You can do better than rwetmore. I believe you'll find that if you think it through, your opinion is as good as most you'll find from the loudmouths on the Internet.

[lennygoran]

That sounds like more fun than this conversation. ...No doubt, but this forum is about expressing our points of view. Of course we quote news stories and editorials, but we must either agree with them or criticize them - they either express our own opinions or they don't....
Not today. It's weapons technology that counts. Even so, I've just said South Korea wouldn't have to do it alone, and explained why. Did you read that? Your comment suggests you didn't... Accepting Ukrainian membership might be tantamount to declaring war against Russia. Do we really want to do that, after living through decades of cold war without one soldier killed, over a country which as I've said, has no strategic importance for the United States? ...China isn't going to war against us, or even against Taiwan...Nothing in our current relations with China calls for spending more money on our military forces than we already do. What other expenses do you have in mind?...That's not our war. It does not threaten our security. Islamic State terrorists certainly may do us harm, but they can't be stopped by conventional military force, only by superior intelligence and vigilance and police work here. If the countries in the region that oppose ISIS would get their act together, they could defeat ISIS's military units in pretty short order, as the Kurds have done in northern Iraq...Let's keep our eyes on the ball. We're not talking about financial aid, we're talking about the size and cost of the American military and how it is to be used. 75% of the foreign aid we send to Israel comes right back in orders for American state-of-the-art military hardware; the net cost to the American economy is less than $1 billion.
...You can do better than rwetmore.

Well I'm gonna do a little off the top of my head thoughts on your comments-I'll check the internet more closely another time.

1. I definitely heard you on us backing S Korea-still it seems to me that if suddenly N Korea marched in it would be a daunting job to repel them and cost plenty but probably could be done quickly-I can't say if it requires spending more money but it seems it would-I'd have to check our current status on that score.

2. I do feel it's important to keep the sanctions on Russia for the Ukranian intervention by Putin-who knows Estonia could be next. I don't think continuing to encourage the Ukraine for joining NATO has to lead to war--let's see how the sanctions work--It seems to me the Ukraine does have strategic importance for us.

3. On China one would hope they won't try any bullying-issues with Japan and those islands concern me-haven't we conducted quite a few extra military exercises and don't they cost money?

4. I have to disagree on ISIS-it is partly our war-of course we need a lot more cooperation from other Arab countries.

5. On arms for the Kurds and money to Israel I think I'd consider them as military costs so I don't quite understand what you're saying. Any money or arms we give to the Kurds or Israel can benefit the military contractors in the US but if it's for a good cause we have to do it. On the one billion that it costs for miltary aid to Israel I can think of Dirksen-a billion here, a billion there-pretty soon you're talking real money.

6. On the luncheon it was great but I admit no world problems were solved. We spent a lot of time discussing the merits and drawbacks of bringing home leftover food from restaurants.

Now the above reply may make you sorry I presented some of my own opinions off-the-top of-my-head-when I have more time I'll go back to googling for better info! Regards, Len

[John F]

1. I definitely heard you on us backing S Korea-still it seems to me that if suddenly N Korea marched in it would be a daunting job to repel them and cost plenty but probably could be done quickly-I can't say if it requires spending more money but it seems it would-I'd have to check our current status on that score.

A reminder, the topic is whether we need a huge military, more so than we already have. Not just "spending more money" in some vague way but exactly how it's spent. Often we send money to allies so they can make their military more powerful and won't need our boots on their ground.

2. I do feel it's important to keep the sanctions on Russia for the Ukranian intervention by Putin-who knows Estonia could be next. I don't think continuing to encourage the Ukraine for joining NATO has to lead to war--let's see how the sanctions work--It seems to me the Ukraine does have strategic importance for us.

Exactly what strategic importance is that? What do you think "strategic importance" is? It makes no difference to the security of America and its allies whether the Ukraine is independent or, as up to 1990, it is part of Russia/the Soviet Union. As for Estonia, you're ignoring the fact that it's a member of NATO, and by invading Estonia, Russia would bring on retaliation from the U.S. and 27 other nations, in effect starting World War III, our obligation under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which commits each member state to consider an armed attack against one member state, in Europe or North America, to be an armed attack against them all. (cf. Wikipedia) That's why I said they won't do it. Didn't you read what I said?

3. On China one would hope they won't try any bullying-issues with Japan and those islands concern me-haven't we conducted quite a few extra military exercises and don't they cost money?

Conducting military exercises with the armed forces we already have, does not constitute increasing the size of our military. See 1. above.

4. I have to disagree on ISIS-it is partly our war-of course we need a lot more cooperation from other Arab countries.

Explain why ISIS's occupation of territory in Iraq and Syria threatens our national security and we need to increase the size of our military to deal with it. The only increase now being considered is raising the number of American military advisers in Iraq from 3700 to 4500.

5. On arms for the Kurds and money to Israel I think I'd consider them as military costs so I don't quite understand what you're saying.

Again, the topic isn't spending money to make other nations' military stronger, it's whether our military needs to be even more huge than it is. I said, let's keep our eye on the ball. I say it again.

Now the above reply may make you sorry I presented some of my own opinions off-the-top of-my-head-when I have more time I'll go back to googling for better info!

Not at all. I don't even disagree with them, not all of them anyway. But you haven't said anything yet that is relevant to our topic, "Do we need a huge military?" That means, do we need as many soldiers, sailors, airmen, tanks, ships, bombers, missiles, etc. as we already have, in the active military and the reserves, on active duty and in reserve, let alone do we need even more? And if so, how do we get more soldiers - reimpose the draft? So far, it looks to me that your answers add up to "No."

[lennygoran]

"Do we need a huge military?" That means, do we need as many soldiers, sailors, airmen, tanks, ships, bombers, missiles, etc. as we already have, in the active military and the reserves, on active duty and in reserve, let alone do we need even more? And if so, how do we get more soldiers - reimpose the draft? So far, it looks to me that your answers add up to "No."

I guess a lot depends on how you define huge military-I'm sure not in a position to judge how large it should be. Definitely don't want to reimpose the draft. Regards, Len

[John F]

Fair enough.

[arepo]

Len..

Do you think spending $200 billion less on the Defense budget this next 12 months and using that money for investing in the nation's intrastructure is a sensible thing to do? It would still leave almost $500 billion to keep our military capability intact.

To me, it's a no-brainer. Imagine what good things could be accomplished with that money to help Americans.

[lennygoran]

Len..

Do you think spending $200 billion less on the Defense budget this next 12 months and using that money for investing in the nation's intrastructure is a sensible thing to do? It would still leave almost $500 billion to keep our military capability intact.

To me, it's a no-brainer. Imagine what good things could be accomplished with that money to help Americans.

I'm no expert but I'd be rooting for infrastructure. Actually there may be 2 issues-total spending and total amount of actual soldiers. My gut feeling is that within the defense spending there's gotta be some waste. I found this article but really don't know how reliable a source it is-Mother Jones criticized it but it didn't seem to for actual info-it seemed to be for a work practice:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internati ... ness_Times

"The contingency fund, also known as the war fund, is a limitless pot of money meant for fighting wars abroad like Iraq and Afghanistan without being burdened by the larger squabbles between the White House and Congress over domestic spending. The 2016 base budget would have provided the Pentagon with $534.3 billion, up $38.2 billion from the previous fiscal year. The Overseas Contingency Operations budget was $50.9 billion, a decrease of $13.3 billion from last year. In all, the Pentagon would have had about $25 billion more to spend than it did in fiscal 2015, according to the Department of Defense.

While Obama and Congress agree on the value of the overall bill for 2016, the president and the Pentagon are unsatisfied with how Congress came to its figure. Congress, which is currently led by Republicans, wants to keep the sequestration in place. However, they still want to spend more on defense, hence the use of the overseas contingency fund, which is unaffected by sequestration and has very little oversight."

http://www.ibtimes.com/military-budget- ... ct-2152233

Regards, Len

[John F]

there may be 2 issues-total spending and total amount of actual soldiers.

"The military" includes both manpower and materiel. You don't send soldiers into battle with slingshots.

Looks like you're still quoting indiscriminately from the Internet without checking what you quote. That piece looks incoherent. For example, if the so-called war fund is "limitless," as claimed, how can it be budgeted at $50.9 billion or $38 billion or whatever it's supposed to be? And how trustworthy is the International Business Times's reporting anyway? Also, it's out of date; the budget was passed last October.

[lennygoran]

there may be 2 issues-total spending and total amount of actual soldiers.

"The military" includes both manpower and materiel. You don't send soldiers into battle with slingshots.

Looks like you're still quoting indiscriminately from the Internet without checking what you quote. That piece looks incoherent. For example, if the so-called war fund is "limitless," as claimed, how can it be budgeted at $50.9 billion or $38 billion or whatever it's supposed to be? And how trustworthy is the International Business Times's reporting anyway? Also, it's out of date; the budget was passed last October.

Thanks I thought it included both manpower and material. On the budget I'll try to look around for the actual numbers being spent by the military-would you happen to know? Regards, Len

[lennygoran]

Thanks I thought it included both manpower and material. On the budget I'll try to look around for the actual numbers being spent by the military-would you happen to know? Regards, Len

Well I found this:

"After a period of belt-tightening in Washington — including automatic budget cuts imposed in 2013 — the spending measure for 2016 provides a notable $66 billion increase in federal outlays above previously agreed-upon limits, divided equally between military and nonmilitary programs."

Can't say if it is good or bad--at least it's pretty current? Regards, Len

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/19/us/co ... .html?_r=0

[lennygoran]

there may be 2 issues-total spending and total amount of actual soldiers.

"The military" includes both manpower and materiel. You don't send soldiers into battle with slingshots.

I'd have to say though that sending money to allies costs, conducting military exercises costs, developing more sophisticated weapons so we don't need to increase the amount of troops costs-if the military includes manpower and material it seems to me some of your statements will require a large amount of money-I sure can't say how much. Regards, Len

PS-your statement below:

"A reminder, the topic is whether we need a huge military, more so than we already have. Not just "spending more money" in some vague way but exactly how it's spent. Often we send money to allies so they can make their military more powerful and won't need our boots on their ground."


"Conducting military exercises with the armed forces we already have, does not constitute increasing the size of our military. See 1. above."



"Again, the topic isn't spending money to make other nations' military stronger, it's whether our military needs to be even more huge than it is. I said, let's keep our eye on the ball. I say it again."

[lennygoran]

Looks like you're still quoting indiscriminately from the Internet without checking what you quote. That piece looks incoherent. For example, if the so-called war fund is "limitless," as claimed, how can it be budgeted at $50.9 billion or $38 billion or whatever it's supposed to be? And how trustworthy is the International Business Times's reporting anyway? Also, it's out of date; the budget was passed last October.

I've looked at an article from the NY Times-can you explain how this article differs from what IBT said in the article I quoted? It seems to me the IBT article is a followup in Dec 2015 for what the Times reported in June 2015. What info did IBT get wrong? Regards, Len

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/19/us/po ... .html?_r=0

http://www.ibtimes.com/military-budget- ... ct-2152233

[John F]

Apropos:

The Pentagon’s Top Threat? Russia
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
FEB. 3, 2016

The Pentagon has put Russia at the top of its list of national security threats with its plan to increase the deployment of heavy weapons, armored vehicles and troops on rotating assignment to NATO countries in Central and Eastern Europe. In a speech on Tuesday, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter listed a hierarchy of threats to the United States, which included China, North Korea, Iran and finally, the fight against terrorism. But his primary focus was Russia.

While he makes a good case for deterring Russian aggression, his proposal to quadruple military spending in Europe in 2017 to $3.4 billion from $789 million seems excessive and raises questions about whether other immediate threats, like the Islamic State, are getting short shrift.

It is undeniable that Russia has become openly aggressive under President Vladimir Putin, who has violated sovereign borders by annexing Crimea and stoking civil war in Ukraine. A cease-fire in Ukraine was declared last year, but Russian forces still maintain a presence in eastern Ukraine, raising questions about whether Russia might try to extend its reach to the Baltic States. There are other concerns as well. Russia has built a web of complex missile defenses that increasingly threaten NATO’s military access to airspace in parts of Europe, including one-third of the skies of Poland. Similar Russian missile buildups are underway in Crimea and in Syria, where the Russians have beefed up their air campaign on behalf of the Assad government.

Given the Russian moves, it’s important that the United States and NATO allies reinforce their commitment to the common defense, especially at a time when Europe is under great stress from the flow of Syrians and other refugees and the rise of anti-immigrant right-wing political parties. Over the past two years, the United States has already increased its military exercises and rotation of forces in Europe. Mr. Carter’s new plan would ensure that the alliance can maintain a full armored combat brigade, roughly 5,000 troops, in the region at all times, including in Hungary, Romania and the Baltic countries. Under a 1997 agreement, NATO and Russia agreed not to permanently station troops or nuclear weapons on each other’s borders. The Americans say the plan would not violate this pledge because the troops will rotate, even though the effect will be a constant presence.

The increased American investment sends a message to Mr. Putin and provides leverage to demand that other NATO countries do more to increase their own defense budgets. But the sheer size of the spending increase seems like a return to the Pentagon’s blank-check ways during the height of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Even though the United States spends more on defense than the next seven countries combined, the Pentagon has been chafing under budget cuts. In fact, the increased money for European defense is supposed to come from a war account that pays for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which allows the administration to get around budget caps.

Deterring Russia is essential. But this initiative seems like a reversion back to what the Pentagon has traditionally done — prepare to fight big wars with ever more costly weapons against adversaries like Russia. Threats from the Islamic State and other terrorist groups are messier and harder to predict. America must be able to confront both, but it is unclear that Mr. Carter’s plan gets the balance right.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/03/opini ... ussia.html

[BWV 1080]

should we be surprised that the Pentagon prefers threats that justify spending on new weapons platforms? Europe can defend themselves, tired of our tax dollars subsidizing their welfare programs

[lennygoran]

Apropos:

The Pentagon’s Top Threat? Russia
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
FEB. 3, 2016

The Pentagon has put Russia at the top of its list of national security threats with its plan to increase the deployment of heavy weapons, armored vehicles and troops on rotating assignment to NATO countries in Central and Eastern Europe. In a speech on Tuesday, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter listed a hierarchy of threats to the United States, which included China, North Korea, Iran and finally, the fight against terrorism. But his primary focus was Russia.

While he makes a good case for deterring Russian aggression, his proposal to quadruple military spending in Europe in 2017 to $3.4 billion from $789 million seems excessive and raises questions about whether other immediate threats, like the Islamic State, are getting short shrift.

Wow, this brings back the Romney/Obama debate from 2012! Regards, Len

[John F]

Also, the Army and Marines are now saying that women should register for the draft. To me this looks like pushback after women were allowed to be assigned to combat roles, which the military (especially the Marines) objected to. But there has been no draft since 1973, it's an all-volunteer military. And this isn't Israel; there's no military or civil need to double the pool of possible draftees when and if, or to send women involuntarily to their deaths. Congress will never pass such a law. Even to suggest such a thing is futile and foolish. But it's consistent with pressure from the right to throw yet more money at the military.