What are your thoughts about dramatically reducing "defense" spending?

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

My major concern is the reliance on armed conflict in any number of "trouble spots" around the planet to keep the US armaments industry profitable.

Not just the US's.

It's an international thing.

Actually, I was surprised by the map....I had thought the US spent a higher percentage on defense.

But yes to the point.

1 Reply

@dlowan,

Quote:

Not just the US's.

It's an international thing.

Sure. But I thought most of the discussion so far had been about the US, so ...

1 Reply

@msolga,

Oh, indeed.

0 Replies

@msolga,

And all the other private companies who benefit from war -

Cost of the latest upgrade of Bagram Air Base (an old Soviet base that has become the largest American base in Afghanistan): $220 million.

Cost of a single recent Pentagon contract to DynCorp International Inc. and Fluor Corporation "to build and support U.S. military bases throughout Afghanistan": up to $15 billion.

Total funds for U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan, 2002-2009: $228.2 billion.

Cost of the State Department's five-year contract with Xe Services (formerly Blackwater) to provide security for U.S. diplomats in Afghanistan: $210 million.

Wage per day of an Afghani policeman - less than 4 dollars

source

Afghanistan by the Numbers
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175111/measuring_success_in_afghanistan

1 Reply

@Endymion,

I came across these stats in an article posted to hamburger's Afghanistan thread recently. These are only for US & UK costs & the amounts are in British pounds (not US dollars)..:

Quote:

Afghanistan in numbers

Troops

*US 62,000

*UK 9,100

Deaths

*US 742

*UK 212

Helicopters

*US 120

25-40 Chinook

50-60 UH-60 Black Hawk

25-35 Apache (non-troop carrying attack helicopter)

*UK 30

8-10 Chinook

6 Sea King

5 Lynx

8 Apache (non troop-carrying attack helicopter)

6 Merlin to arrive by end of 2009

Cost

*US £135bn

*UK £12bn

...........

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/we-pity-the-brits-the-view-from-the-marines-1782093.html

0 Replies

Since the military is now stretched to the breaking point in terms of personnel, it's not clear that the funding is excessive, although, of course, that is only a personnel issue. There certainly are threats in the world. Also, the level of military spending shouldn't be based on the conditions right now. At any moment something different could happen requiring a response. During 9/11, one of the reasons why airplanes couldn't be sent in pursuit rapidly enough was that military bases deemed non-essential had been closed. I would, though, carry out a very aggressive program of stamping out waste, including consequences for the people responsible.

0 Replies

That horseshit about pursuit on September 11th is conservative propaganda. No one was prepared for what happened, and you could have scrambled the entire New York Air National Guard and not stopped the attacks. Jesus, it's just sickening when conservative whackjobs try to wrap themselves in the September 11th tragedy the way they typically wrap themselves in the flag.

We are only "stretched thin" militarily because Rummy tried to do things on the cheap, and went into Iraq with insufficient force, setting up conditions which would cost us far, far more in the years which succeeded the invasion. We had a legitimate war on in Afghanistan, and we had no business going into Iraq in the first place. It was just the dream of world domination of the whacko ne0-cons at PNAC, and the Shrub fell for that **** hook, line and sinker.

And waste, inefficiency and corruption do nothing to ensure our national defense. Al Qaeda had attacked us from what they thought was the safe sanctuary of Afghanistan. They thought wrong. Iraq had not attacked us, had no plans to attack us, and lacked the means to attack us. We invaded them anyway because Cheney and company have had that wet dream since the 1990s when Pappy Bush told them to piss off. If the national defense is the criterion, we can save a bundle right now by pulling out of Iraq, and ignoring all subsequent brain-dead conservative claims about who or what threatens our national security--until its proven with legitimate intelligence.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

That horseshit about pursuit on September 11th is conservative propaganda. No one was prepared for what happened, and you could have scrambled the entire New York Air National Guard and not stopped the attacks. Jesus, it's just sickening when conservative whackjobs try to wrap themselves in the September 11th tragedy the way they typically wrap themselves in the flag...

No, it's actually the truth. From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5315883/&usg=ALkJrhgyxLLpdHsB_fSTiXlErLsZuktKfA#storyContinued:

Quote:

The two aircraft were based at the Air National Guard's 177th Fighter Wing at Atlantic City International Airport in Pomona, New Jersey. Throughout the Cold War, two scramble-ready jets had always been on alert in Atlantic City. But because of budget cutbacks beginning in 1998, the wing's mission had been changed. Instead of the jets being ready to take off on a moment's notice, they were both assigned to unarmed bomb practice. On September 11, 2001, the entire United States mainland was protected by just fourteen planes spread out over seven bases.

More bases might not have been sufficient to get the jets in a position to do something, but the reduced number certainly made it harder. Incidentally, all of your colorful adjectives and nouns are irrelevant.

3 Replies

@Brandon9000,

so was the air force in that situation B. irrelevant I mean.

(this is what makes terrorism so cool. you can't wage war on it)

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

Rockhead wrote:

so was the air force in that situation B. irrelevant I mean.

(this is what makes terrorism so cool. you can't wage war on it)

There were some cases during the 9/11 attacks where they knew which planes had been hijacked before they reached their targets. Perhaps no level of readiness would have been sufficient to get planes in the air in time to do something, but the shutting down of bases as a cost cutting measure can't have helped.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Bullshit, Brandon, what do you allege they could have done? Shot down every commercial airliner approaching Manhattan? You really don't think these things through before you post them, do you?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Bullshit, Brandon, what do you allege they could have done? Shot down every commercial airliner approaching Manhattan? You really don't think these things through before you post them, do you?

For some reason you seem intent on ignoring what I said. I said that no amount of readiness might have been enough, but that the numerous base closings couldn't have helped. A minimun requirement for debate is that you state your opponent's position correctly.

2 Replies

@Brandon9000,

But don't you think that if it wouldn't have been enough, then the notion that military reduction allowed 9/11 isn't substantiated by it?

There was very little time to act. A good chunk of it went by before the air traffic controllers even notified the military. Then the military was trying to find the planes when the first impact came. Even if they could have gotten there in time, without knowing that they planned to crash the planes they wouldn't have shot them down.

After 9/11 military spending was increased but it really does seem to me to be piggy backing on the tragedy, as I've seen no evidence that increased military spending would have prevented it, including what you've posted here.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

I said that no amount of readiness might have been enough, but that the numerous base closings couldn't have helped.

The first base to be notified was Otis Air Force Base in Massachusetts, 153 miles east-northeast of the World Trade Center. The two F-15 fighters that took off from Otis could have covered that distance in roughly 5 minutes.

However, after FAA Boston Center reached the conclusion that the first flight had been hijacked, it took them 18 minutes to notify NORAD. It took another 15 minutes until the two F-15 fighters took off.

To me, that seems to indicate that the problem wasn't that too many bases had been closed, but rather that nobody had anticipated that hijacked commercial airliners could be used as flying bombs, and that no protocol was in place to react to that kind of scenario.

2 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

To me, that seems to indicate that the problem wasn't that too many bases had been closed, but rather that nobody had anticipated that hijacked commercial airliners could be used as flying bombs, and that no protocol was in place to react to that kind of scenario.

T
K
Of course people DID anticipate it, and the report even made it to Bush's desk months before the attack.

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Sure. It just never translated into actual plans and protocols. The problem wasn't that the United States didn't have a large enough military budget, that too many bases had been closed or that intercepting the hijacked planes was impossible. The problem was that no protocol was in place to handle this kind of situation.

Virtually any country with a tiny military budget and a handful of fighter jets could have countered the attacks, provided it had been prepared to shoot down a hijacked commercial jet full of civilians.

3 Replies

@old europe,

Quote:

In sum, the protocols in place on 9/11 for the FAA and NORAD to respond to a hijacking presumed that
• the hijacked aircraft would be readily identifiable and would not attempt to disappear;
• there would be time to address the problem through the appropriate FAA and NORAD chains of command; and
• the hijacking would take the traditional form: that is, it would not be a suicide hijacking designed to convert the aircraft into a guided missile.
On the morning of 9/11,the existing protocol was unsuited in every respect for what was about to happen.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec1.pdf

source: 9-11 commission final report

0 Replies

@old europe,

Quote:

To me, that seems to indicate that the problem wasn't that too many bases had been closed, but rather that nobody had anticipated that hijacked commercial airliners could be used as flying bombs, and that no protocol was in place to react to that kind of scenario.

Bingo . . . somebody give that man a cee-gar . . .

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

brandon does make a decent point about preparedness.

but preparedness should include looking at 25 or so years down the line too. especially at the pace the world moves now.

consider the cell phone. most people i know "couldn't live" without theirs now. but it's really only the last 10 years that they are dead common. i got my first company issue in 1994. some people were amazed by the thing. and that was one of those brick sized Motorola things that got way hot after 3 or 4 minutes.

add in that we should expect a lot more going on in Earth orbit...

so i guess it's not just about cutting waste (always good), but also preparing ourselves for "a new kind of war" that has nothing at all to do with the current "new kind of war" while supplying afghanistan properly so we can keep an eye on pakistan. that's what this is all about now anyway, imho.

0 Replies

@old europe,

I wasn't disagreeing with you.

T
K
O

1 Reply

What are your thoughts about dramatically reducing "defense" spending?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know