Thread: Military Spending

Well our defense budget is so big that every soldier can fire a handful of rounds per year to practise, and during military exercises they have to yell 'bang' to indicate that they intended to fire a shot. And some of our equipment like the mortars did active duty in WW2...

Then again, a tiny postage stamp sized country porbably has no need for a big army. If Russia or China invades, we'll just take comfort that we are strategically placed between 2 nuclear powers.

The only things worth mentioning about our army are the paratroopers (which are supposedly not bad) and our EOD and minesweeper units, which are supposedly very good at what they do. Other than that, our army is probably only good for parades on the national holiday or humanitarian missions. I say this not to speak bad about the people in the military, but simply to indicate that antiquated equipment is worthless in traditional warfare against an opponent who has better equipment, more experience, and vastly bigger numbers.

I do not have a problem with the military budget, but I would like the Military Forces of my country to focus now in what is more needed, other than the defence of the country which I understand is still necessary, but having thousands of people just doing training for most of all their lifes as soldiers does not make sense when there are other needs that could be covered by the military, like they do now in fighting fires, but there are more they could do, like increase safety in areas within the country that are quite dangerous, like big cities (collaborating with police, not just as a separate power) , or any other task they could do, as they are trained for many different things.

This is of course a completely different approach that the "traditional" vision of the military, but I think will benefit everybody, both taxpayers and the military (doing tasks that everybody will no doubt appreciate).

Just my opinion, of course...

some of you may not be aware of this, but a LOT of the money that gets spent on military stuff is actually funding R&D. and by a LOT I mean over a third.

so, you can take umbrage at how much money is spent, but think about this, do you enjoy using:

duct tape
joysticks
televisions
radar
microwaves
integrated circuits (which are in everything)
lasers
etc

all developed by R&D teams running under military funding. something to think about. the stuff I'm making right now is bleeding edge. none of you (unless you're in the military) will see it for 5-10 years. but 15 years from now, a lot of it will be in your home, making your life better.

That may be true, but that does not mean that the government should pour endless streams of money into the military with the argumentation that it might be useful, someday. there is such a things as a budget and tax money, and it should be spent wisely.

your reasoning puts no reasonable upper limit on spending. So why not spend a trillion more per year? Why not 2? why not cut other programs to funnel even more money to the military?

And it's not just how much money is spent, but also how it is spent. If military spending is anything like space spending, then there is gianormous load of money wasted and sluiced back and forth, compared to actual engineering cost.

"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."

Public Papers of the Presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960, p. 1035- 1040

Originally Posted by Bruno

And it's not just how much money is spent, but also how it is spent. If military spending is anything like space spending, then there is gianormous load of money wasted and sluiced back and forth, compared to actual engineering cost.

that's the nature of cutting edge R&D. when you are doing things that are currently thought to be impossible, it's not cheap. most projects are started 5-10 years before they will bear fruit, and some of them never do. it's a gamble.

and yes, I agree that money SHOULD be diverted from social welfare programs and spent on military R&D. I know you were kidding, but I find that historically, it's much more helpful to society to spent money on research than on welfare.

Originally Posted by JMS

I never suggested they were Bruno, but if X wishes to speak as he did don't you think he should come to grips with his nations shortfalls? As for the rest of your post, what does it matter? They have all the freedoms that anyone else has under our government.

I'm more than willing to be critical of my own government and encourage all people to do so. Any government which is not prepared for criticism is a dictatorship.

But really, how many people need to die so that I can have duct tape? The truth is that any kind of development can produce fantastic off-shoot products. Military spending does not deserve a by for this, not hardly.

Back on topic: America could easily stand to reduce military spending and probably by a wide margin and still retain global supremacy (because we all know that this is one aim). the problem is that the military industrial complex just wants more and more money now. I mean, they've got to pay for those fancy houses somehow don't they? Why should they settle for less just so America can actually end poverty in our time? Or how about this. If there must be so much money spent on weapons why not send some of those troops to Africa rather than Iraq? oh right, oil.

%$#@^#@^ it's been over 60 years since the mahnattan project and i still can't buy even close to the critical mass of plutonium at lowes!
talk about government inefficiency - they really should've contracted few companies and let the cut-throat competition on bringing the cutting edge technology back to the people who paid for it, work its way. nothing so motivating as the prospect for hefty profits for the winner...

Originally Posted by jockeys

and yes, I agree that money SHOULD be diverted from social welfare programs and spent on military R&D. I know you were kidding, but I find that historically, it's much more helpful to society to spent money on research than on welfare.

Having a stable society with low crime figures is also helpful for society.
But my point was not only about the amount. Efficiency also comes into play. I know from experience how much money is used to grease the wheels and pay exec overhead in space projects. I assume military spending works the same.

With the close ties between politicians, the military and the industry, I am willing to bet that a significant % of money could be saved.

Originally Posted by gugi

%$#@^#@^ it's been over 60 years since the mahnattan project and i still can't buy even close to the critical mass of plutonium at lowes!
talk about government inefficiency - they really should've contracted few companies and let the cut-throat competition on bringing the cutting edge technology back to the people who paid for it, work its way. nothing so motivating as the prospect for hefty profits for the winner...

Yes, and I have this abandoned mine that I want to use for dumping toxic waste. I don't live there anyway so I am going to get filthy rich and healthy. And screw the locals.

Damn that government.