Many of us call for huge cuts in the DoD budget, but how low is reasonable?

[Stinky The Clown]

There is not no need for the military. (Yes, the sentence is grammatically correct). Bad guys and bad countries do, indeed, exist. But . . . . .

Do we need to occupy all the countries we occupy?

Do we need the biggest badass weapons on the planet?

Do we need a standing army as big as it is?

Do we need all the military fanboys, camp followers, court jesters, and various and sundry hangers on (all known, collectively, as the military industrial complex)?

I think we can get by with spending 10% of what we spend now. How low do you think we can go?

[grasswire]

1. how much of the budget is nation building...

...and how much is actual defense?

[sandnsea]

5. Nation building is not military occupation

A good amount of nation building is a good thing and should be done through the State Dept. Some of those changes have been made, but we need a lot lot more.

[ChazII]

13. I am thankful

that the DoD spends money on medical research. Neurofibromatosis receives a small amount but those millions help.

[Warpy]

2. 10% per year until we're on par with what other countries spend

is reasonable, forcing those old boys to do their jobs and make the decisions they should have made all along, deciding to go with old, proven technology that works and is rock stable instead of upgrading to overengineered crap every couple of years just to make the arms dealers happy. They'll have to decide which foreign bases are strategically necessary and which are nice resorts for generals but can be scrapped. They'll have to decide between being the world's policeman that the world doesn't want to pay for and being a crack defensive force the world won't want to mess with.

10% per year can be managed without compromising our safety. 10% per year is reasonable and doable.

It's also necessary if we want to survive.

[Odin2005]

3. I say cut it in half.

IMO there is so much pork in the DOD budget that it should not be that hard.

[defendandprotect]

19. Actually, didn't Bush double it -- ???

[cherokeeprogressive]

4. Personally, I don't think 10% is reasonable.

We can save untold billions though, with a few changes to the way our military operates.

Now; I can only speak for the Navy, having been there done that. The whole existence of the Navy today is wrapped around the Aircraft Carrier, which with its entourage of supporting ships is called a "battle group". We send "battle groups" to every ocean in the world, in order to have attack aircraft "forward based". Just imagine how much money it takes to support a "battle group" in the Med, Indian Ocean, North Pacific, or North Atlantic for the six to seven months between the time they leave San Diego or Norfolk. Two words: Supply lines.

There is no reason for the US Navy to have "battle groups" any farther than a few hundred miles off of our own shore. They can practice and train in 6 week stints right here.

Hundreds of billions of dollars. Right there.

Close EVERY military base on foreign soil. How many people realize that we LEASE the land we base troops on in order to keep others safe?

There is NO need to put people out of the military (start thinking "National Service") just because they come home. Put them to work doing things beneficial RIGHT HERE.

[eShirl]

26. +1

[leftstreet]

6. Keep the budget. All Americans join the military

Change the name... Department of People, or something

Ditch the war/weapons/occupation crap

National jobs program

Single payer healthcare

Emergency aid

etc, etc

The Department of Offense will NEVER give up their $.
We'll have to take it over as a Peoples' Program

:beer:

[elleng]

7. Ron Paul and Barney Frank Find Common Ground.

'Congressmen Ron Paul and Barney Frank joined together last week to propose a $100 billion a year reduction in military spending. If these icons from the political Right and Left can do it, what's stopping everyone else?'

http://uspolitics.einnews.com/article/889782-ron-paul-and-barney-frank-find-common-ground-and-there-s-a-lot-more-the-right-and-left-could-do-together-

[Cant trust em]

8. I don't think that any of us can give a really credible answer.

If we were serious about cutting the military budget without regard to political consequences it would be a laborious study to find out really where the unnecessary items are.

[Greyhound]

11. You kidding? Finding the necessary stuff would be harder. n/t

[FrenchieCat]

9. Can you recall a time when that budget has been cut?

and if so by how much?

Gates is talking about cutting 100 billion...which is about 14%.



It's not much, but again, when has it been reduced
in the past? (I actually don't know the answer to that
and would appreciate a response).

[Confusious]

16. Since the 1980's? It's never been cut.

Before that, I don't know.

[Leontius]

30. Cuts under GHW Bush and Clinton from 91 to 98

brought the defense budget down by about 40%. Clinton began increases the next year due to what was seen as an increasing threat to US interests around the world .

[HooptieWagon]

10. Yes to cuts, but 90% isn't reasonable.

Many of the foreign bases can be closed, given to the host country, or operated as a joint effort with the host country or NATO, etc. Probably easily at least a third of foreign bases can be closed. Costly offensive weapons systems can be drastically slashed - we have no use for more nukes, F-35s, tanks, carriers, etc. Research should continue on defensive weapons systems - anti missile systems, for example. Current equipment being worn out in Iraq and Afghanistan needs refurbishing or replacement. Research should continue in small arms and artillery - which will be the basis of any future conflicts for some time to come. I would argue for MORE military manpower, and a reduction of privatized forces. I think short term a 20-25% reduction in military spending is feasible, once forces are stabilized (equipment and manpower replaced, etc) after Iraq and Afghanistan another 20-25% is reasonable.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Actually our standing army is small

by percentage of the population.

The Budget needs to be cut, but going back to training for armor warfare using trucks disguised as tanks, and troopers practicing drill using brooms is not acceptable either.

But do look it up. If it was as large as people think it is, we would not have to hire Mercs, who are about 50-70% of the force in Afghanistan...

What we also need to do though, becauuse it costs a lot more, is to bring back certain functions into the armed forces, logistics comes to mind. It don't make any sense to pay private contractors to do maintainance for fighter squadrons... not only is it more expensive, but in case of actual shooiting war (more high intenstity conflicct) good luck deploying those civilians to a forward operations base, which you might have to do with a fighter squadron. Or for that matter, good luck sending cooks to forwards opearionaal areas who are civlians. But one reason we have the issues we have with logistics is that it is no longer done by US, but by Kellorg Brown and Root.

Oh and trust me, they haven't gotten any better from the early days when we were sending degtergent to my hubbie's submarine... which has a few issues with it. Like high suds, which are not good for the equipment on the sub. I wonder how many washing machines had to be replaced at great cost? They are like not standard?

[Old and In the Way]

14. 30% now and 20% more in 10 years.

A $600BB budget has to look for fights to justify itself. There's nothing "defensive" about it.

But what really is the role of the US military today? It appears to me that it provides muscle to protect the interests of Big Oil in the ME and maintain the shipping lanes to get the product here. Here's my question: Why isn't that functional cost dialed into the price of oil at the pump? We should be presenting the bill to Big Oil annually....here's our bill for services provided. Let them say, "well, we'll price this into the cost of oil and gas!". Good! Now we can finally get renewables and alternatives to compete on a level playing field.

Eventually, the bill will get smaller as we start finally breaking free of an oil based energy economy. Or we'll go broke in the process.

[Ganja Ninja]

27. At least 30% to start with over 5 years.

Cut the number of bases by 1/3 and across the board cuts in weapons and personnel.

[Hippo_Tron]

15. It's not just how much we cut but what we re-invest it in

The military industrial complex is essentially a jobs program for thousands (if not millions) of Americans. Part of the reason the system is so entrenched is that many working class people stand to lose their jobs if the system were changed.

However much we cut, we need to make sure that it is re-invested in a manner that will put all of those people back to work doing something else.

[Hannah Bell]

17. isn't us spending double that of all other countries combined?

if we cut half it would be equal to all other countries combined.

would that be enough?

[defendandprotect]

18. Toss the whole MIC . . . meanwhile we can save 28% simply by combining the services as

all other nations have done -- 28%!!!!

[SammyWinstonJack]

20. We have to be the biggest baddest bad boyz on the Planet!

USA! USA! USA! :puke:

Until we can't afford too be that is. :rofl:

[taught_me_patience]

21. 50% should be about right

We don't need to occupy any of the countries we currently do
We can cut 50% and still be the badasses of th world
Standing army is way too big... Cold war was over 20 years ago!
Militas are fun to laugh at.
10% of current spending is probably too low

[Usrename]

22. I agree with you. We could cut it by 90% without any risks.

Right now it isn't buying us any security anyhow. We should all know that the only reason we aren't being nuked right now is that the profits in it aren't quite high enough yet. But once it becomes profitable to the right people to nuke us, the people who have the capability, then we're toast. The military can't protect us from them any better than they protected the twin towers on 9/11.

[shireen]

23. but but but ....

who's going to support the military industrial complex and keep those multinational corporate CEOs wallowing in billions? Somebody's gotta do it ....

:sarcasm:

[unhappycamper]

24. Well, the military budget was $302 billion when dubya was selected.

Immediately drop the current one trillion dollar military budget to $302 billion dollars.

By law make sure the Veterans Administration is fully funded and their $$$ come off the top before you buy another airplane, ship, submarine, missile, bomb or bullet... Have fun with the rest, Guys.

[rucky]

25. 50% isn't enough

But it's likely to be a 2% cut, if any.

[wickerwoman]

28. If we cut it by 60%

we would still be spending more than the next four countries *combined*.

That sounds like a hell of a start to me.

[quaker bill]

29. If we spent just a bit more than our nearest competitor

the cut would be near 60 percent and still leave us spending the most on defense of any country on the planet.

The question is not just military expense, but the foriegn policy that goes with it. Our foriegn policy is out-sized, much too assertive and aggressive, this global posture requires a massive military. The notion that it is not our job to cure all the problems in the world with force, must of necessity, go hand in hand with force reduction. This means that bad things will happen, and we won't be fixing them, at least not without alot of partners.

Of course, having effective partnerships will also require a massive shift in thinking. Occasionally, other countries are not "with us" but are also not "with the terrorists", they are just pursuing their own interests, which curiously, are occasionally different than ours.

[Bandit]

31. We are not alone on this planet

We have NATO and United Nations and many other alliances. We do not need to shoulder all the expense. We could cut our Defense spending by eighty percent and still never have to worry except from terrorism and we could spend ten trillion dollars a year and still never be able to stop a determined terrorist. We are a very ignorant nation (spoiled rotten) that is like a child in a big toy factory who doesn't want to share a single toy..

[dionysus]

32. 10%, probably way to low, i bet getting rid of useless systems and fraud would almost cut it by 50%

then again all any of us can do is broadly speculate.