Neoconservative Hipster Thinktank: Politics Thread

by **jerseyhoya** » Sat Aug 16, 2008 18:52:11

Out of real countries, our spending as a percentage of GDP is pretty high.

by **TenuredVulture** » Sat Aug 16, 2008 18:55:45

mpmcgraw wrote:Our military spending is really not that ridiculous.

By % of GDP we are not even close to being one of top

By itself, that figure is misleading. Top countries based on that figure include economic superpowers such as Eritrea, North Korea, and Angola.

World average is 2.00%

Looking instead at industrialized and industrializing countries, you get the US at about 4% of GDP. Russia comes in at 3.9%, China at 4.3% Both countries also have lower GDPs than the US. Middle East nations come in pretty high, with 10% from the Saudis and 7.3 percent from Israel. Iran is scary, at 2.6%. Japan, which has to fight off Godzilla every now and then spends .8% of its GDP on its military. Georgia, recently invaded, probably should have spent more than .59%.

CIA data from 2005/6

Of the global military budget, the US spends almost half. The military budget takes up half of discretionary spending. None of this counts the costs of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

by **mpmcgraw** » Sat Aug 16, 2008 19:35:20

TenuredVulture wrote:
mpmcgraw wrote:Our military spending is really not that ridiculous.

By % of GDP we are not even close to being one of top

By itself, that figure is misleading. Top countries based on that figure include economic superpowers such as Eritrea, North Korea, and Angola.

World average is 2.00%

Looking instead at industrialized and industrializing countries, you get the US at about 4% of GDP. Russia comes in at 3.9%, China at 4.3% Both countries also have lower GDPs than the US. Middle East nations come in pretty high, with 10% from the Saudis and 7.3 percent from Israel. Iran is scary, at 2.6%. Japan, which has to fight off Godzilla every now and then spends .8% of its GDP on its military. Georgia, recently invaded, probably should have spent more than .59%.

CIA data from 2005/6

Of the global military budget, the US spends almost half. The military budget takes up half of discretionary spending. None of this counts the costs of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

My post was poorly worded but that was my point.

It was higher than that for most of the Cold War. Clearly our economy can function well with a high military spending and who knows if it could WITHOUT it.

by **steagles** » Sat Aug 16, 2008 19:41:09

mpmcgraw wrote:Our military spending is really not that ridiculous.

By % of GDP we are not even close to being one of the top countries.

we could be japan.

there is no imminent threat to our borders, and if russia attacks us by cuban proxy, it'll be our own fault for punting the last 50 years of diplomacy.

there's no need to spend as much money on defense as the US spends, unless you're gonna try to take over the world.

by **dajafi** » Sat Aug 16, 2008 20:42:09

The thing that bugs me is that we can't even have a serious debate on military spending, thanks to the political belligerence of the Republicans, the cowardice of the Democrats, and the indifference, short attention span, and conflict of interest (think parent companies) of the media.

If we did, the questions would be how to reach consensus on what an "ideal" level of expenditure might be; how to divide the military budget between armaments, human costs, research and so forth (and subdivisions therein); and how to impose the same kinds of safeguards against waste and fraud that exist in, say, social service expenditures.

But I don't think anyone could seriously assert that we don't spend too much, relative to both need and value, on "defense."

edit: The renaming of the War Department into the Defense Department, right around the time we became a serious empire, has to rank among history's more impressive Orwellian achievements.

by **mpmcgraw** » Sat Aug 16, 2008 20:46:03

Industrial military complex.

Never gonna happen.

Anyway I'd argue that as long as there are resource hungry authoritarian governments there is an eminent threat.

by **dajafi** » Sat Aug 16, 2008 20:52:33

mpmcgraw wrote:Anyway I'd argue that as long as there are resource hungry authoritarian governments there is an eminent threat.

Okay. Exactly how much do we need to spend to meet all those "eminent [sic] threats"? And who's threatened? Us? Even if you're talking about terrorism, you don't stop or deter that by paying billions for battleships and bomber fleets and new nuke development.

Also, if "resource-hungry" equals belligerence, we're as scary as China.

While we're on the subject, consider that the "authoritarian governments" generally identified as scary are on the supply end of the resource question--Iran, Venezuela, Russia--not the demand. That's us and China.

by **mpmcgraw** » Sat Aug 16, 2008 21:06:22

dajafi wrote:
mpmcgraw wrote:Anyway I'd argue that as long as there are resource hungry authoritarian governments there is an eminent threat.

Okay. Exactly how much do we need to spend to meet all those "eminent [sic] threats"? And who's threatened? Us? Even if you're talking about terrorism, you don't stop or deter that by paying billions for battleships and bomber fleets and new nuke development.

Also, if "resource-hungry" equals belligerence, we're as scary as China.

While we're on the subject, consider that the "authoritarian governments" generally identified as scary are on the supply end of the resource question--Iran, Venezuela, Russia--not the demand. That's us and China.

I certainly don't think matching their GDP spending is outrageous.

An incredible amount of Russia's economy is centered around oil, that makes them just as dangerous as China. (see South Ossetian War 2008)

We haven't built battleships for the past 65 years or nukes for the past 20. Just sayin...

by **pacino** » Sat Aug 16, 2008 21:11:10

You are very pro-conflict sir.

by **TenuredVulture** » Sat Aug 16, 2008 21:11:18

mpmcgraw wrote:
dajafi wrote:
mpmcgraw wrote:Anyway I'd argue that as long as there are resource hungry authoritarian governments there is an eminent threat.

Okay. Exactly how much do we need to spend to meet all those "eminent [sic] threats"? And who's threatened? Us? Even if you're talking about terrorism, you don't stop or deter that by paying billions for battleships and bomber fleets and new nuke development.

Also, if "resource-hungry" equals belligerence, we're as scary as China.

While we're on the subject, consider that the "authoritarian governments" generally identified as scary are on the supply end of the resource question--Iran, Venezuela, Russia--not the demand. That's us and China.

I certainly don't think matching their GDP spending is outrageous.

An incredible amount of Russia's economy is centered around oil, that makes them just as dangerous as China. (see South Ossetian War 2008)

We haven't built battleships for the past 65 years or nukes for the past 20. Just sayin...

Well, that's because battleships are useless against aircraft carriers, and you really can't use nukes except as a deterrent.

by **mpmcgraw** » Sat Aug 16, 2008 21:12:33

pacino wrote:You are very pro-conflict sir.

Not really.

No one is going to want to fight you if you outclass them in every area. i am pro spending now to save lives later.

by **TenuredVulture** » Sat Aug 16, 2008 21:13:46

mpmcgraw wrote:
pacino wrote:You are very pro-conflict sir.

Not really.

No one is going to want to fight you if you outclass them in every area. i am pro spending now to save lives later.

Two words: Asymmetric warfare.

by **pacino** » Sat Aug 16, 2008 21:14:31

Save lives? Where? For what? From what? You want to further build up the largest military in the world to win some theoretical conflicts which may or may not happen and may or may not be fought by conventional methods.

by **mpmcgraw** » Sat Aug 16, 2008 21:17:09

pacino wrote:Save lives? Where? For what? From what? You want to further build up the largest military in the world to achieve win some theoretical conflicts which may or may not happen and may or may not be fought by conventional methods.

Where did I say further build up?

And no the idea is to stay strong to avoid major conflicts thus saving lives. I think our military strength is a strong deterrent to future conflicts as long as you have balanced people running our country.

by **pacino** » Sat Aug 16, 2008 21:17:51

Anyone catch this?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew7A3s7n74c[/youtube]

by **FTN** » Sat Aug 16, 2008 21:22:22

The fear machine has already sculpted mpmcgraw's sense of reality.

Here's my solution to help ease budgetary concerns. This is a list, I think its complete, of US Air Force installations abroad, broken down into major facilities and minor facilities.

Major

Aviano Air Base AVB Italy
Incirlik Air Base ADA Turkey
NATO Air Base Geilenkirchen GKE Germany
Joint Force Command Brunssum Netherlands
Kadena Air Base DNA Japan
Kunsan Air Base KUN South Korea
Lajes Field TER Portugal
Manas Air Base FRU Kyrgyzstan
Misawa Air Base MSJ Japan
Morón Air Base OZP Spain
Osan Air Base OSN South Korea
RAF Feltwell United Kingdom
RAF Lakenheath LKH United Kingdom
RAF Mildenhall MLD United Kingdom
RAF Croughton United Kingdom
Ramstein Air Base RMS Germany
Spangdahlem Air Base SMP Germany
Yokota Air Base OKO Tokyo, Japan

Minor

* Ankara Support Element, Turkey
* Antigua Air Station, Antigua and Barbuda
* Ascension Island Base, Ascension Island, United Kingdom
* Bann Communications Station, Germany
* Batman Air Base, Turkey
* Bitburg Annex, Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany
* Buechel Air Base, Germany
* Camp Humphreys Communications Site, Korea
* Camp Lemonier, Djibouti
* Camp Red Cloud Communications Site, Korea
* Camp Zama Communications Station, Japan
* Canadian Forces Base North Bay, Ontario, Canada
* Chievres Air Base, Belgium
* Chik-do Range, South Korea
* Cigli Air Base, Turkey
* Comalapa Air Base, Comalapa, El Salvador
* Curaçao Airfield, Curaçao, Netherlands Antilles, The Netherlands
* Danish Air Station Karup, Denmark
* Eloy Alfaro Air Base, Manta, Ecuador
* Einsiedlerhof Annex, Germany
* Feidberg Radio Relay Site, Germany
* Florennes Air Base, Belgium
* Fuchu Communications Station, Japan
* Ghedi Air Base, Italy
* Ground–Based Electro–Optical Deep Space Surveillance Site Detachment 2, Diego Garcia, British Indian Ocean Territory
* Gut Husum Annex, Germany
* Gwang Ju Air base, South Korea
* Hochspeyer Annex, Germany
* Husterhoeh Communications Site, Germany
* Idesuna Jima Air Range, Japan
* Itazuke Auxiliary Airfield, Japan
* Izmir Air Station, Turkey
* Jever Air Base, Germany
* Kaiserslautern Annex, Germany
* Kalkar Air Base, Germany
* Kapaun Air Station, Germany
* Kimhae Air Base, South Korea
* Kleine Brogel Air Base, Limburg, Belgium
* Konya Air Base, Turkey
* Ko-on-ni Air Range, South Korea
* Kuchyna Bombing Range, Malacky Air Base, Slovakia
* Kume Jima Range, Japan
* Lajas Radar Site, Puerto Rico
* Landstuhl Annex, Germany
* Langerkopf Radio Relay Site, Germany
* Maastricht, The Netherlands
* Makiminato Annex, Japan
* Idesuna Jima Air Range, Japan
* Masirah Island MPT, Oman
* Morón Air Base, Spain
* Momote Annex, Japan
* Mount Fuji Air Station, Japan
* Mus Air Base, Turkey
* NATO Air Base Geilenkirchen, Germany
* Oberweis Annex, Germany
* Okuma Annex, Japan
* Owada Communication Site, Japan
* Pil-Sung Air Range, South Korea
* Polygone Range, France and Germany
* Pruem Air Station, Germany
* RAF Croughton, United Kingdom
* Ramey Air Force Solar Observatory Research Site, Puerto Rico
* Ripsaw Range, Japan
* Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site, Kwajalein Atoll, Marshall Islands
* San Vito dei Normanni Air Station, Italy
* Seeb MPT, Oman
* Sembach Annex, Germany
* Siegenberg Range, Germany
* Sola Air Station, Norway
* Soto Cano Air Base, Honduras
* Suwon Air Base, South Korea
* Taegu Air Base, South Korea
* Tama Annex, Japan
* Thule Air Base, Greenland, Denmark
* Thumrait MPT, Oman
* Tokorozawa Transmitter Site, Japan
* Tori Shima Range, Japan
* Tres Esquinas Air Base, Caquetá, Colombia
* Tuzla Air Base, Bosnia and Herzegovina
* Volkel Air Base, The Netherlands
* Von-Seydlitz Kaserne (Air Base), Germany
* Wake Island Airfield, Wake Island
* Wonju Air Station, Korea
* Yugi Communication Site, Japan
* Yumurtalik Annex, Turkey

If you close down 2 of the major bases in the UK (leaving us 2), one of the bases in Germany and Japan (leaving us 1 each), you remove 4 major foreign installations. The money required to operate these facilities every year could be much better spent domestically, including anti-terrorism mechanisms, but more importantly, addressing issues like education and healthcare.

Spangdahlem Air Base is smaller than Ramstein Air Force Base, accounting for only ~30% of our forces in Germany. I remember reading a Post article a few years ago about the poor conditions there, and needing a huge sum of money to upgrade the facilities. Do we really need to have 3 Air Force bases in Germany? Ramstein AFB is a NATO center, I wouldn't advocate closing it down. But making changes like this are a step in the right direction, in terms of trying to better allocate money with regard to defense spending.

by **mpmcgraw** » Sat Aug 16, 2008 23:07:19

World peace is about as likely as a society without drugs. That is reality. As long as we are here there will always be wars.

1. The planes would be moved else where thus much of the operating cost would still be on tab.

2. Military has nothing to do with education, it's not an either or type of thing.

3. You could literally make a thousand suggestions that would cut as much money without seemingly hurting anything. For example buy 1 less F22. That's 122 million right there. Welcome to the US military empire.

by **pacino** » Sun Aug 17, 2008 10:29:20

Why is South Park the only funny 'right wing' show/movie? Check this crap out:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CYSGCoflAA[/youtube]

by **Laexile** » Sun Aug 17, 2008 12:38:59

The film is actually funny. Granted the film is bad and really mean but there are laughs. It's so mean that it makes Republicans look really bad. I'm sure the filmmakers thought this film would help the Republican Party, but I think it'll do the opposite.

by **The Red Tornado** » Sun Aug 17, 2008 12:51:56

South Park is not right wing, it's libertarian

Archived

Neoconservative Hipster Thinktank: Politics Thread