Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 35

Thread: What should we spend on Defense?

  1. #1

    What should we spend on Defense?

    Don't go looking up facts and figures - I want gut reactions. What percentage of the Federal Budget ought to go to the military?

  2. #2
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,941
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;4475295]Don't go looking up facts and figures - I want gut reactions. What percentage of the Federal Budget ought to go to the military?[/QUOTE]

    National Defense and protection of the National Sovreighty is the primary purpose of the Federal Government.

    But simply picking a percentage? Not possible tbqh. Sorry.

  3. #3
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    18,374
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4475300]National Defense and protection of the National Sovreighty is the primary purpose of the Federal Government.

    But simply picking a percentage? Not possible tbqh. Sorry.[/QUOTE]

    Agreed but something around 40 percent sounds normal.

    My issue is we have treated our military, in some cases, as a bloated agency.

    We have way too many bases and they remain open due to political fear of any politician closing them.

    Why we have over 20 military bases in Japan, 6 in Engalnd etc.....

  4. #4
    We should focus on defending our own borders
    Border fences, Nuclear subs, aircraft carriers, fighter jets......whatever it takes but they should be on our coastlines instead of Afghanistan and all these other countries.

    Foreign adventurism never has worked and never will. It only further incentivizes foreign resentment of the US

    We could shrink the military significantly and be safer if we did this

  5. #5
    During wars 15-20%. Post war 30-35%.

  6. #6
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4475300]National Defense and protection of the National Sovreighty is the primary purpose of the Federal Government.

    But simply picking a percentage? Not possible tbqh. Sorry.[/QUOTE]

    An exact percentage? No. And at some level, there may be specific needs that require extra expenditures. But I think we'd all agree that, say, spending 95% of national revenues on defense is not prioritizing appropriately, and that spending 5% on defense is also not prioritizing appropriately, no?

    At what point would you say "that's too much" - just as a gut reaction? At what point do you say "that's too little", again as a gut reaction? Where's the sweet spot?

    For me, gut reaction? 15-25%.

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=cr726;4475344]During wars 15-20%. Post war 30-35%.[/QUOTE]

    Odd - why less during than post?

  8. #8
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;4475357]Odd - why less during than post?[/QUOTE]

    Percentage we should cut.

  9. #9
    I don't think its appropriate to attach a percentage to it. Why should the amount of defense spending be tied to the size of the welfare state?

  10. #10
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,941
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;4475356]An exact percentage? No. And at some level, there may be specific needs that require extra expenditures. But I think we'd all agree that, say, spending 95% of national revenues on defense is not prioritizing appropriately, and that spending 5% on defense is also not prioritizing appropriately, no?

    At what point would you say "that's too much" - just as a gut reaction? At what point do you say "that's too little", again as a gut reaction? Where's the sweet spot?

    For me, gut reaction? 15-25%.[/QUOTE]

    As stated, it's far too complicated to just give a percentage, gut or otherwise. The purpose of the Federal Govt., what it does, what it should do, etc. is directy tied into the question itself.

    For example, what if I said Defense is the main purpose of the Fed. Govt., and hence 75% is fine by me, it cannot be truly discussed fairly unless we include the related ideas of what I think Govt. should/should not be doing with it's revenue to start with outside of Defense.

    Not trying to be a pain Doggin, but we would ahve to reach some kind of semi-agreement of what Govt. should be doing before we could make any judgements on how much of it's total budget should be spent on what it's doing.

  11. #11
    If we generate 2.5 trillion in revenues I'd say anything from 500Billion to 600Billion should be more then adequate.

  12. #12
    I look at it like this.
    1. What is the objective? Let's say, the ability to wage a fairly major conflict in one area while conducting a minor one or two elsewhere.
    You have civilians too intertwined in the politics of this making stupid, self serving decisions i.e. what's good for war production in my home area.
    2. After agreeing on the objective, step two is to set strategy. What resourses in men and materiel are necessary? And what is a good mix of air, ground and naval forces. All must be included. All types of formations must be considered among the three main arms. As an example, this current fad is "Let's good withh really a lot of special forces". What a bunch of nonsenses. These type of troops by their nature are light and NOT sustainable in combat.
    3. After strategy is established, you actually form units and fit equipment to them. Balance is necessary. Traditional forced wuill always be necessary - that means infantry (light and mechanized), armor (tanks) and artillery.
    We do in fact have too many bases around the world. Obama just opened a new one in Australia to counter the Chinese. Really Mr. Pres? Have you looked at a map? Pretty far, huh? The Phillippines would have been more centrally located?
    Too much in Germany, Japan, everywhere. Consolidate.
    I'm swagging at 25-30%.
    Our equipment is fine. Generally cutting edge. We could uses a new rifle which has better range.

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4475376]If we generate 2.5 trillion in revenues I'd say anything from 500Billion to 600Billion should be more then adequate.[/QUOTE]

    LOL, yea um yea. :rolleyes:

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=cr726;4475399]LOL, yea um yea. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

    I don't get it?

  15. #15
    I think we should break the percentage down into two categories; defense.....and offense.

    We need to spend money to protect our homeland. We should not spend a penny more of our tax money on nation building foreign countries.

  16. #16
    [QUOTE=JetsCrazey;4475340]We should focus on defending our own borders
    Border fences, Nuclear subs, aircraft carriers, fighter jets......whatever it takes but they should be on our coastlines instead of Afghanistan and all these other countries.

    Foreign adventurism never has worked and never will. It only further incentivizes foreign resentment of the US

    We could shrink the military significantly and be safer if we did this[/QUOTE]


    I have always believed it is better to engage an enemy at a distance than on your own perimeter. I have some experience in this concept.
    If you allow an enemy to get to close he can be far more dangerous. Hence our bases throughout the word and a sizable aircraft carrier force.
    That said we have too many bases in too many places. Too much duplication and overlap. We are also WAY to heavy in high ranking officers just waiting around for their nice pensions. The officer to enlisted man ratio is way out of line high. There clearly can be efficiencies in what we do. And a lot less cronyism.

  17. #17
    [QUOTE=palmetto defender;4475463]I have always believed it is better to engage an enemy at a distance than on your own perimeter. I have some experience in this concept.
    If you allow an enemy to get to close he can be far more dangerous. Hence our bases throughout the word and a sizable aircraft carrier force.
    That said we have too many bases in too many places. Too much duplication and overlap. We are also WAY to heavy in high ranking officers just waiting around for their nice pensions. The officer to enlisted man ratio is way out of line high. There clearly can be efficiencies in what we do. And a lot less cronyism.[/QUOTE]

    what about when the enemy's MAIN INCENTIVE for attacking you is because you have military bases on their soil and intervene in their domestic affairs?
    by way of logic, further doing so only makes you less safe

  18. #18
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,094
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4475402]I don't get it?[/QUOTE]

    Join everybody else.

  19. #19
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,919
    Under the current government structure, I would say 15% of GDP.

    In an ideal situation where government roles and spending are fundamentally reformed and its size is reduced, I would say 30% of GDP.

  20. #20
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    18,374
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4475460]I think we should break the percentage down into two categories; defense.....and offense.

    We need to spend money to protect our homeland. We should not spend a penny more of our tax money on nation building foreign countries.[/QUOTE]

    Interesting..... that is a very shallow view of how the world works.

    No assistance to Japan, Israel and a few other strategic allies?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us