Should My Job be Eliminated?
The folks at Cato have their knickers in a twist over defense spending. Their main argument is that since we no longer face a Cold War enemy, we do not require Cold War level defense spending. According to their big, flashy infographic, "The Cold War is over. We no longer face an existential threat. It's time to reduce military spending to reflect this reality."
I find the statement to be a bit of a non sequitur. While it is true that the Cold War is over (and won thanks to increasing military spending, by the way), it does not necessarily follow that we no longer face an existential threat. We don't face that specific existential threat, but nuclear Armageddon is not the only possible existential threat. We do, however, need to ask the question about the structure of our military.
In modern warfare, we can no longer arm up the farmers and lawyers, spend a couple of weeks teaching them to shoot straight, then march off to war. A nation either has a military that is effective right now, or has to build one up over time. Likewise, if a nation faces an existential threat that needs to be nuked into oblivion, it either has that capability ready and waiting, or it faces extinction before such a capability can be created and employed. We are a nation that has such a military and such a strategic capability. These things cost money. Buckets of it. This is where the title question comes in.
I operate the cranes that load big scary missiles onto big scary submarines so that our Navy can patrol silently and carry the biggest of big sticks. If any existential threat rears its ugly head, we have the capability to vaporize it within minutes; not months, weeks, days, or even hours. Minutes. That capability is part of what you get for $600 billion in defense spending. Some people even on the right (libertarian types) think the cost of such a capability is just too much for the benefit it provides. While I agree that our defense budget is perhaps bigger than it has to be, I don't think it follows, as Cato does, that our spending reflects a lingering Cold War mentality. But, I'm really close to the situation. My view of it could be skewed. I may not be able to see the bigger picture due to my proximity.
So I ask you, Ricochet, should we scale back our military so that such things as a strategic capability are no longer within our reach? Should we convert all the SSBNs into SSGNs? Should my job be eliminated?
- Comment (80)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (27)
Comments:
Mar '12
Re: Should My Job be Eliminated?
Now we play the sequester version of Russell Long's
Now it is,
Nobody wants to see your job cut and I hope it doesn't happen. But, whose job should be cut? (No fair answering Obama, Reid or Boehner)
Dec '10
Re: Should My Job be Eliminated?
My job is very secure for the foreseeable future, but should it be? Do we really need to be armed commensurate with the type of threat posed by the Soviet Union? Is it time to reevaluate our entire military structure? Does the right treat defense as a sacred cow because it's that important, or do we do it because our politicians are beholden to defense industry interests? We must honestly face these questions if we are to be sincere in our ideology.
Feb '12
Re: Should My Job be Eliminated?
It seems to me that China is easily as dangerous as the Soviets were. And of course there are others an order of magnitude less capable, yet more than just annoyances - No. Korea and Iran come to mind. None of these actors will wait in the wings while we rebuild defenses. Even smaller threats need attention -Taliban, and so forth. Do we need a Navy ? You bet! Same for all the other services. Do I want your children to have the finest tools to fight with? I will put my dollars on it.
Dec '12
Re: Should My Job be Eliminated?
You can tax me to pay for defense...no problemo. It ain't cowboy poetry, but it's ok with me. There's lots of stuff in DoD that can (and some should) be cut long before our sub fleet though. So, no, KP, you gotta stay employed.
Now, I love Cato. But, for them to take the position that US is spending for a Cold War fight is stupid and wrong. The DoD's spending, once the strategic stuff is secure, is all about asymmetric warfare. Special Ops, Cyber, mobility, COIN - this is where the money is going. This info is all public domain, they could look it up. I'm disappointed in them.
Nov '11
Re: Should My Job be Eliminated?
Central Scrutinizer: You can tax me to pay for defense...no problemo. It ain't cowboy poetry, but it's ok with me. There's lots of stuff in DoD that can (and some should) be cut long before our sub fleet though. So, no, KP, you gotta stay employed.
Now, I love Cato. But, for them to take the position that US is spending for a Cold War fight is stupid and wrong. The DoD's spending, once the strategic stuff is secure, is all about asymmetric warfare. Special Ops, Cyber, mobility, COIN - this is where the money is going. This info is all public domain, they could look it up. I'm disappointed in them. · 26 minutes ago
They're pointing out that
1. We don't face a threat like the Soviet Union and
2. So why are we spending like we do?
They point is perfectly valid. We literally can no longer afford to spend that much money. It's ridiculous that we do.
Nov '11
Re: Should My Job be Eliminated?
Incorrect.
They have two reasons never to pull the trigger on us: We trade with them and they hold our debt.
But suppose it were correct. We spend three times what China and Russia spend on defense combined.
Maybe we can get away with just twice what China and Russia spend combined?
Nov '11
Re: Should My Job be Eliminated?
Sequestration kicks us back to the dangerous scary budget level of 2006 for defense.
Question: Were the Chinese overrunning is in 2006?
Dec '12
Re: Should My Job be Eliminated?
Fred Cole
Central Scrutinizer: You can tax me to pay for defense...no problemo. It ain't cowboy poetry, but it's ok with me. There's lots of stuff in DoD that can (and some should) be cut long before our sub fleet though. So, no, KP, you gotta stay employed.
Now, I love Cato. But, for them to take the position that US is spending for a Cold War fight is stupid and wrong. The DoD's spending, once the strategic stuff is secure, is all about asymmetric warfare. Special Ops, Cyber, mobility, COIN - this is where the money is going. This info is all public domain, they could look it up. I'm disappointed in them. · 26 minutes ago
They're pointing out that
1. We don't face a threat like the Soviet Union and
2. So why are we spending like we do?
They point is perfectly valid. We literally can no longer afford to spend that much money. It's ridiculous that we do. · 11 minutes ago
Nnnnaaaahhh.
Regarding 1.....we do (in KP's domain). We call it Russia.
Regarding 2.... we're not. We are spending differently. And fighting 2 wars.
Dec '12
Re: Should My Job be Eliminated?
Fred, like I wrote...I'm a Cato fan. This is a poor showing on their part. They compare cold war spending to today spending and posit that since the cold war is over the world is safer so we should spend less. The cold war is over, the strategic threat from Russia remains, we have a whole host of different kinds of enemy, the American people, represented by Congress think that the world is at least as dangerous for the US as during the cold war and are spending accordingly. If Cato is going to argue that we should spend less on defense, they should (and certainly can) do it effectively.
Nov '12
Re: Should My Job be Eliminated?
I could accept deep cuts in the defense budget, because I suspect that we could make do with a leaner military. But I'd rather have a large military and not need it, than have a small military and find that we need it significantly larger.
I think the bigger problem is that our political leadership has misused the military. I supported the Gulf wars and the action in Afghanistan up to a point, but I've come to think that the attempt at so-called 'nation-building' was a bad mistake. (My foreign policy now includes the phrase, 'sowing the ground with salt.')
I believe the military should be used for direct punitive action against our enemies, and that force should be so overwhelming that any attack on us would be prohibitively costly to the aggressor. But our leadership, particularly the Left, sees the military as a social program to further their agenda; 'defense' is a by-product.
May '12
Re: Should My Job be Eliminated?
No, we should not eliminate your job or SSBN's and I am not saying that just because I admire your work on Ricochet and served in the Navy. I don't think it possible to put a $ amount on the deterrence of the silent service.
Should we be evaluating other parts of our military and missions, yes, absolutely?
Why are we still in NATO with all the personnel and equipment we have in Europe? Who is staying awake at night thinking Russia is going to march into Paris? Europe is a dying continent why is it our responsibility to man their barricades?
Why do we have 40,000 troops in South Korea? Air bases and troops in Japan? Are we planning on armed conflict with a country we owe $1.2 Trillion?
What is the endgame in Afghanistan? Their literacy rate is 28.1% This does not become a thriving democracy in my lifetime.
I pose the questions because we in the military fall into traps of doing things for no other reason than we have always done them that way. I think there is room for more critical thinking.
Dec '12
Re: Should My Job be Eliminated?
@Belt. Heh. Yes, DoD should definitely spend more money on salt. Hell yeah.
Dec '10
Re: Should My Job be Eliminated?
Fred, please name any (or several) military programs you would cut. Which ones specifically are unworthy of our tax dollars? This is the problem. Every program looks vital to those with a connection to it. Each Rep. and Sen. sees the bases in his state as the tip of the spear. How do we cut anything except to just slash and burn a portion from everything when no one is willing to lead and make the call on what is actually vital to our national security? Do we leave it to Obama to design our military? His lick spittle appointees like the newly confirmed Hagel? Until we get better leadership on this issue it's better to waste the money than to suffer the consequences of letting these bozos pull a Carter on our forces.
Jul '10
Re: Should My Job be Eliminated?
During the Cold War, Cato wanted to gut defense.
After the fall of the Berlin Wall, Cato wanted to gut defense.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Cato wanted to gut defense.
On 9/12, Cato wanted to gut defense.
When the Surge in Iraq was proposed, Cato wanted to gut defense.
When the Surge in Afghanistan was proposed, Cato wanted to gut defense.
When North Korea sent a missile flying over Japan, Cato wanted to gut defense.
When North Korea and Iran conducted nuclear testing, Cato wanted to gut defense.
Imagine my surprise on hearing that...
Jun '10
Re: Should My Job be Eliminated?
Identify the threats. Determine strategic posture to counter and defeat those threats. Identify capabilities necessary to fulfill requirements defined by that posture. Fund accordingly. No more, no less.
It should be simple, but never is. Technology isn't static, and neither should our capabilities be. And that costs money.
But that doesn't mean everything should be funded. Only what's necessary to meet the required posture. As to what that is now, or what it should be going forward, I don't know. But I'd much rather err on the side of strength.
Feb '12
Re: Should My Job be Eliminated?
Fred Cole
Incorrect.
They have two reasons never to pull the trigger on us: We trade with them and they hold our debt.
But suppose it were correct. We spend three times what China and Russia spend on defense combined.
I think of the tremendous waste in WW I, WW II - the live lost, all because we wanted to save $$$.
Dec '12
Re: Should My Job be Eliminated?
Where does Cato get the idea that we no longer face existential threats? The threat we face now is orders of magnitude larger than ever the Soviets were. In Islamofascism, we face a soon-to-be-nuclear-armed guerrilla enemy whose motto is "We love Death more than you love Life". The Soviets wanted to remain alive and kicking after they destroyed us. The Muslims are happy to send their children to Paradise in a bomb-vest (any culture that willingly murders its own children is just plain evil), and are quite happy to destroy themselves in destroying us. We cannot afford to cut any of our defense spending.
Jun '12
Re: Should My Job be Eliminated?
HHHmmmm . . . .
Bomb vest or garbage bag, maybe there are some stones
we shouldn't cast . . .
Not that I disagree.
Jun '10
Re: Should My Job be Eliminated?
In answer to your question KP, we absolutely need to reevaluate our posture. The Right is far too defensive of military spending, to the point that even basic cost savings are ignored. I'm not going to get into our insane contracting policies here, but take this as a case in point: FN just won the Army's service rifle contract.
How did they do it? They underbid Colt by roughly $550 per unit. That's half the cost of Colt's rifle, and it's roughly commensurate with what one would expect to pay for the same rifle at a gun store (before the latest round of panic buying, of course). There are quite literally tens of thousands of smallish, long-contracts just like this that could use the same review; $10 million here, $30 million there, $84 million over there... it all adds up to give us a terrifically bloated budget. And it makes no sense, given the pace of technology and the fact that most of what we use is readily available on the civilian market. Those of us who actually use this stuff regularly have been screaming this for years; hopefully we're finally being heard.
Edited on February 27, 2013 at 4:08amDec '10
Re: Should My Job be Eliminated?
From what I gather, roughly 20% of the Federal budget is DoD expenses. I'm okay with that percentage of the total if, and its a big if, the DoD could behave more like a private business in its operations. By this I mean competitive contracts for its suppliers like Casey mentions above and less bureaucracy at the Pentagon.
I know that's an insane request when it comes to government and Congress loves to protect the contracts in their respective districts but I understand the Marine Corps prides itself doing more with less. If the other branches could adopt a similar mindset, taxpayers would be better served.
Our world is becoming more unstable not less, and reducing readiness at this time seems illogical to me. I think a big blue-water navy is a good idea and eliminating a boondoggle like the F-35 is also a good idea.
Edited on February 27, 2013 at 5:39am