Disregarding bang for your buck (because there is no way to really tell how effective one troop in combat will be until it comes to actual combat); doesn't the US outspend the next 10 countries combined, and those countries are mostly US allies?Octavious wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 11:19 pmThe EU and UK spend a little over 300 billion, and get considerably less bang per buck than the US does. China spends a little under 300 billion, and gets considerably more bang per buck than the US.
The US is bigger, but we aren't talking different orders of magnitude in spending compared to similar / rival entities. In terms of capability, the US does indeed require that level if it hopes to keep its nose ahead. And ultimately the belief in US dominance is their most effective deterrent, as such beliefs need a lot of funding.
If the military is overspending and filled with white supremecists should you support the troops?
Forum rules
1.) No personal threats.
2.) No doxxing/revealing personal information.
3.) No spam.
4.) No circumventing press restrictions.
5.) No racism, sexism, homophobia, or derogatory posts.
1.) No personal threats.
2.) No doxxing/revealing personal information.
3.) No spam.
4.) No circumventing press restrictions.
5.) No racism, sexism, homophobia, or derogatory posts.
Re: If the military is overspending and filled with white 00 should you support the troops?
-
- Posts: 3870
- Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:16 pm
- Location: The Five Valleys, Gloucestershire
- Karma: 2632
- Contact:
Re: If the military is overspending and filled with white supremecists should you support the troops?
No way of providing a complete evaluation, perhaps, but a great many useful indicators.
Take the example of Greece with it's contingent of national service conscripts who serve for a year. A regiment of these soldiers will be utterly outclassed by a US regiment, even without taking into account differences in equipment. Not that there isn't some value in the Greek system. Whilst these people make substandard troops, it does provide Greece a massive reserve of emergency troops that, in a Ukraine style situation, can be mobilised far more rapidly than in nations without subscription. Of course Greece hasn't been at risk of a Ukraine style situation for several decades, so it's a complete waste of time and effort.
Moving away from conscription and national service, perhaps the largest factor is the realistic expectation of recruits. A British or American military recruit signs up knowing that there's a strong chance of seeing military action and a realistic chance of death and injury. A Japanese military recruit signs up believing that the odds are heavily in favour of him spending a good few years polishing boots, looking good in uniform, playing war games, and occasionally participating in humanitarian exercises. It should be fairly obvious that these differing types of militaries draw recruits from very different pools of people. I put it to you that one such pool makes for far more effective troops than the other.
As there aren't close to being 10 countries with comparable populations and economies to the US I don't see this as a remotely useful yardstick
I eat cookies to improve my snacking experience
Re: If the military is overspending and filled with white supremecists should you support the troops?
That cost of training and conscripting 100,000 Greek each year may considerable more combat power in any future war where they are called up than the same amount of money spent on US weapons/training.Octavious wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2023 3:16 pmNo way of providing a complete evaluation, perhaps, but a great many useful indicators.
Take the example of Greece with it's contingent of national service conscripts who serve for a year. A regiment of these soldiers will be utterly outclassed by a US regiment, even without taking into account differences in equipment. Not that there isn't some value in the Greek system. Whilst these people make substandard troops, it does provide Greece a massive reserve of emergency troops that, in a Ukraine style situation, can be mobilised far more rapidly than in nations without subscription. Of course Greece hasn't been at risk of a Ukraine style situation for several decades, so it's a complete waste of time and effort.
Moving away from conscription and national service, perhaps the largest factor is the realistic expectation of recruits. A British or American military recruit signs up knowing that there's a strong chance of seeing military action and a realistic chance of death and injury. A Japanese military recruit signs up believing that the odds are heavily in favour of him spending a good few years polishing boots, looking good in uniform, playing war games, and occasionally participating in humanitarian exercises. It should be fairly obvious that these differing types of militaries draw recruits from very different pools of people. I put it to you that one such pool makes for far more effective troops than the other.
But without considering where they will be fighting (Greek troops will be less likely to be projected abroad and thus able to deal with any conflicts outside of their borders/immediate neighbourhood) it is hard to say these cheaper troops will be more useful (if never used). So a straight $ vs $ comparison is very limited in usefulness
As there aren't close to being 10 countries with comparable populations and economies to the US I don't see this as a remotely useful yardstick
[/quote]
So you are saying there is no-one capable of competing with the US so no reason to compare US spending at all? Just keep the military industrial complex bloated and spending more money (getting very effective weapons which despite this may cost 1000s of times more than buying a cheap commercial drone and attaching a grenade to it... ie might actually be of less use in a real war) is perfectly fine?
I don't understand your argument. US military spending ends to he so high because horses of Canadians are gathering on the border??? Maybe their hit and run tactics means you have to defend every single spot (very expensive) while they only need to find one undefended spot to strike (rraltively cheap?)
-
- Posts: 3870
- Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:16 pm
- Location: The Five Valleys, Gloucestershire
- Karma: 2632
- Contact:
Re: If the military is overspending and filled with white supremecists should you support the troops?
Perhaps, but we weren't doing that. We were comparing effectiveness
No. What a very strange thing to say. I must remember to write to Djokovic and tell him the good news that because there aren't 10 players comparable to him he has no real competition, and Federer and Nadal must be some sort of illusion
Are you drunk?orathaic wrote: ↑Thu Jun 08, 2023 6:24 pmI don't understand your argument. US military spending ends to he so high because horses of Canadians are gathering on the border??? Maybe their hit and run tactics means you have to defend every single spot (very expensive) while they only need to find one undefended spot to strike (rraltively cheap?)
I eat cookies to improve my snacking experience
Re: If the military is overspending and filled with white supremecists should you support the troops?
Not drunk, but so many typos there it is night illegible.Octavious wrote: ↑Thu Jun 08, 2023 8:26 pmPerhaps, but we weren't doing that. We were comparing effectiveness
No. What a very strange thing to say. I must remember to write to Djokovic and tell him the good news that because there aren't 10 players comparable to him he has no real competition, and Federer and Nadal must be some sort of illusion
Are you drunk?orathaic wrote: ↑Thu Jun 08, 2023 6:24 pmI don't understand your argument. US military spending ends to he so high because horses of Canadians are gathering on the border??? Maybe their hit and run tactics means you have to defend every single spot (very expensive) while they only need to find one undefended spot to strike (rraltively cheap?)
There is a question over US spending, why it is so high.
You could argue that it doesn't need to be, because there is no threat of Canadians ón the border.
But you could likewise argue that it is high and also the least cost effective in the world.
You may have been comparing effectiveness of the US military, but the OP of this thread was talking about spending.
So let's assume that the extreme cost is a fact of life and not a result of corruption in the tendering process which results in a very small number of companies doing R&D and projects coming in massively over budget.
For the same effectiveness, the US spends maybe ten times the amount as China (even if that is 5 Chinese soldiers effective in China itself, while the US gets 1 soldier which can be sent anywhere in the world).
**All numbers pulled out of thin air for illustrative purposes**
Is it a good thing that the US has such a large military, and is it the case that they need to fight two near peer opponents in different part of the world at the same time? (Nothing that the US has the largest airforce in the world - the US airforce - and the second largest airforce is part of the US Navy).
Sure massive spending is a political decision, getting jobs for voters in local districts (even when the spending might be better focussed in one place rather than over 50 states...) But is it a good thing? And why does the US need to be so far ahead of everyone else (especially when the closest technological comparison all comes from allies).
-
- Posts: 3870
- Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:16 pm
- Location: The Five Valleys, Gloucestershire
- Karma: 2632
- Contact:
Re: If the military is overspending and filled with white supremecists should you support the troops?
How could you argue that without looking rather silly? Threats to the USA include known and unknown of both the present and future, and literally no one puts Canada in such a category. It would be as ridiculous as arguing that there's no need for a big military because the dinosaurs have died out.
It is undeniably high, but but it is also undeniably effective. The US hasn't been at risk of invasion for generations, and had enjoyed unrivalled political influence on the world stage.
The European Union has military spending around the same order of magnitude, albeit somewhat smaller, and for its investment enjoys a lesser guarantee of protection (although one could argue that it's good enough) and a great deal less political influence.
Or maybe not? Figures I've seen suggest that it's closer to 3 times as much, and that's from a variety of different sources
Depends on who you are. Western Europe has undoubtedly benefited a great deal as it has helped guarantee their security. South America will have strong views that will be both very pro and very anti. Russia and China will undoubtedly say no.
One hopes not, as I doubt they have that capability.
I don't think it is so far ahead.
I eat cookies to improve my snacking experience
- Jamiet99uk
- Posts: 29810
- Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:42 pm
- Location: Durham, UK
- Karma: 18616
- Contact:
Re: If the military is overspending and filled with white supremecists should you support the troops?
It appears Ora is closer to the right answer, based on both Governments' own figures.
Chinese defence budget for 2023: $224 billion (1)
US defence budget for 2023: $2.01 trillion (or $2,001 billion) (2)
On this basis, as at this year, the US defence budget is 8.93 times larger than the Chinese defence budget.
1: Source: Official announcement by the Government of China, reported by Associated Press - https://apnews.com/article/china-defens ... e99b7c9ee7
2: Source: Official US Government figures - https://www.usaspending.gov/agency/depa ... se?fy=2023
This signature is hard to read in dark mode.
Re: If the military is overspending and filled with white supremecists should you support the troops?
Wow, Chinese spending has increased dramatically over the past decade, hasn't it?Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2023 2:50 pmIt appears Ora is closer to the right answer, based on both Governments' own figures.
Chinese defence budget for 2023: $224 billion (1)
US defence budget for 2023: $2.01 trillion (or $2,001 billion) (2)
On this basis, as at this year, the US defence budget is 8.93 times larger than the Chinese defence budget.
1: Source: Official announcement by the Government of China, reported by Associated Press - https://apnews.com/article/china-defens ... e99b7c9ee7
2: Source: Official US Government figures - https://www.usaspending.gov/agency/depa ... se?fy=2023
That said, the last decade of spending is probably more useful for estimating the current investment (considering all older investments will start to depreciate, so you could roughly estimate the current 'worth' by ignoring depreciation for the first 10 years and then assuming it is 100% in year 11) - though again, that is not going to get you all that far, since the US has spent the last 20 years investing in the needs of the 'War on Terror' rather than planning for a near-peer conflict.
(I think discussed here: https://youtu.be/-A31fegpaAI)
I am pretty sure that is the target or goal of US military spending, to be able to fight two and a half conflicts anywhere in the world and compete with the next best enemy power.One hopes not, as I doubt they have that capability.
As to the US's security needs, the fact is that since the Pacific was reached and peace with both Mexico and Canada has been guarenteed, there has been nó threats to US sovereignty at all. Neither Germany nor Japan in World war 2 posed any serious threat... The Soviet Union did pose a threat after, but only one of nuclear eradication which would have killed everyone, and it turns out (despite fear-mongering) neither Side wanted that.
But by and large the investment in military hardware and training has had nothing to do with the width of the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans... Natural barriers (which Russia has always lacked) have guarenteed US security for generations... And it is weird that you would not know this.
As for EU spending, the EU is not a military alliance, so you should really think in terms of NATO spending... And that just serves to increase the lead the US has sitting at the head of that alliance.
- Jamiet99uk
- Posts: 29810
- Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:42 pm
- Location: Durham, UK
- Karma: 18616
- Contact:
Re: If the military is overspending and filled with white supremecists should you support the troops?
It's funny that you keep talking about Canada as if anyone would even have the idea of Canada invading the USA. Silly talk.
1
This signature is hard to read in dark mode.
Re: If the military is overspending and filled with white supremecists should you support the troops?
The war of 1812 is still a defining moment in the formation of Canada, but yes, they are now a NATO ally, and another reason the US doesn't need to spend so much on military budgets...Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2023 5:29 pmIt's funny that you keep talking about Canada as if anyone would even have the idea of Canada invading the USA. Silly talk.
But the point is security.
China has a disputed border with India, and lost territory to the Russian Empire which they may still want back. Indian has the dispute with Pakistan over Kashmir.
Europe has mostly agreed to settle their borders, so only in the last 70 years have have conflict in the Balkans and Soviet->Russian threats to national integrity (well really only since the fall of the Soviet Union has central and Eastern Europe had national security.
The US is the most secure of all these large economic/population blocks and thus the least reason to maintain a large standing military.
A few nuclear deterent bombers/subs and ICBMs should be enough, combined with a tiny special forces team (maybe 300 of the best?) And the US could sit pretty secure - because, what is Canada going to do exactly?
-
- Posts: 3870
- Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:16 pm
- Location: The Five Valleys, Gloucestershire
- Karma: 2632
- Contact:
Re: If the military is overspending and filled with white supremecists should you support the troops?
The Department of Defense (DOD) is responsible for the military forces needed to safeguard the United States’ vital national interests. The President’s 2024 Budget for DOD provides the resources necessary to sustain and strengthen U.S. deterrence, advancing vital national security interests through integrated deterrence, campaigning, and investments that build enduring advantages. The Budget supports America’s servicemembers and their families, strengthens alliances and partnerships, bolsters America’s technological edge, preserves economic competitiveness, and combats 21st Century security threats.
The Budget requests $842 billion in discretionary budget authority for 2024, a $26 billion or 3.2-percent increase from the 2023 enacted level. This growth enables DOD to make the investments necessary to execute the Administration’s 2022 National Security and National Defense Strategies.
The Budget requests $842 billion in discretionary budget authority for 2024, a $26 billion or 3.2-percent increase from the 2023 enacted level. This growth enables DOD to make the investments necessary to execute the Administration’s 2022 National Security and National Defense Strategies.
I eat cookies to improve my snacking experience
-
- Posts: 3870
- Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:16 pm
- Location: The Five Valleys, Gloucestershire
- Karma: 2632
- Contact:
Re: If the military is overspending and filled with white supremecists should you support the troops?
Source: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/u ... fy2024.pdf
(official US government figures)
(official US government figures)
I eat cookies to improve my snacking experience
-
- Posts: 3870
- Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:16 pm
- Location: The Five Valleys, Gloucestershire
- Karma: 2632
- Contact:
Re: If the military is overspending and filled with white supremecists should you support the troops?
Bully for them. The goal of the Bengali navy is to be "invincible at sea" in both peacetime and war, but that doesn't make it true. You have a habit of being extremely skeptical about American propaganda except for when it happens to suit your purposes, at which point you accept it without question
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_e_wink.gif)
What is weird is that you consider the oceans a natural barrier that stops Russia and China et al threatening the US, but not the US threatening Russia and Chinaorathaic wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2023 3:40 pmBut by and large the investment in military hardware and training has had nothing to do with the width of the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans... Natural barriers (which Russia has always lacked) have guarenteed US security for generations... And it is weird that you would not know this.
Seriously???
Mutual defence clause (Article 42.7 TEU)
If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power
I eat cookies to improve my snacking experience
-
- Posts: 3870
- Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:16 pm
- Location: The Five Valleys, Gloucestershire
- Karma: 2632
- Contact:
Re: If the military is overspending and filled with white supremecists should you support the troops?
Ora, mate, Canada isn't the winning point you think it is. Every time you mention Canada you are not dazzling us with your wit and insight, but instead risk coming across as a bit of an idiot.
You cannot have 300 of the best in isolation. The best have to be the best of something, otherwise they are the only. The Swiss Guard is the best of the Vatican, and there is nothing special about them.
But the biggest error you are making is in the belief that defence is purely about American soil. America is a trading nation that depends on global trade and influence to maintain its standard of living. This cannot be achieved with a few nukes and a couple of regiments
I eat cookies to improve my snacking experience
Re: If the military is overspending and filled with white supremecists should you support the troops?
I accept that that is their aim. Of course i do. Whether they can actually do so, the question remains should they be spending tax payers money to attempt to achieve this, when the justification is to meet this goal?Octavious wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2023 7:57 pmBully for them. The goal of the Bengali navy is to be "invincible at sea" in both peacetime and war, but that doesn't make it true. You have a habit of being extremely skeptical about American propaganda except for when it happens to suit your purposes, at which point you accept it without question![]()
It doesn't matter if they utterly fail* to meet their own aims;(and it will not be found out unless and until the US goes to war with a near peer adversary) the money is already spent!
Re: If the military is overspending and filled with white supremecists should you support the troops?
Trade is actually something other people want, so why do you need a world class navy, airforce and particularly army to do it?Octavious wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2023 8:20 pm.
But the biggest error you are making is in the belief that defence is purely about American soil. America is a trading nation that depends on global trade and influence to maintain its standard of living. This cannot be achieved with a few nukes and a couple of regiments
Also, given that the US is currently a next exproter of energy, I'm not sure they are as interested in globalisation as they use be.
Though Peter Zeihan maybe lying for national security reasons:
https://youtube.com/shorts/yB3hnR6iy8Y?feature=share
Re: If the military is overspending and filled with white supremecists should you support the troops?
Maybe you should learn what words means:
As Ireland and three other EU member states are not part of NATO, the provision of humanitarian aid which does not violate our sovereignty is not really much of a military alliance.theEUExternalActionService wrote: This assistance can, for example, range from diplomatic support and
technical or medical assistance to civilian or military aid, among others. ...
Article 42(7) TEU is consistent with commitments under NATO, which is and
will remain the foundation of collective defence for its members.
-
- Posts: 3870
- Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:16 pm
- Location: The Five Valleys, Gloucestershire
- Karma: 2632
- Contact:
Re: If the military is overspending and filled with white supremecists should you support the troops?
I am confident that I understand what the words "all the means in their power" means.
What part of that are you struggling with? Are you seriously telling me that you believe that if Egypt, say, were to invade Malta that there wouldn't be a European military response?
I eat cookies to improve my snacking experience
Re: If the military is overspending and filled with white supremecists should you support the troops?
Ireland would not send troops to invade Egypt, no.Octavious wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 11:59 amI am confident that I understand what the words "all the means in their power" means.
What part of that are you struggling with? Are you seriously telling me that you believe that if Egypt, say, were to invade Malta that there wouldn't be a European military response?
Contrast that with the NATO campaign in Afghanistan, when the US was attacked on September 11th, the NATO coalition formed and sent troops into the middle of Asia...
The meaning of those words has been explaining. I actually quoted from my source, i suggest you read it.
-
- Posts: 3870
- Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:16 pm
- Location: The Five Valleys, Gloucestershire
- Karma: 2632
- Contact:
Re: If the military is overspending and filled with white supremecists should you support the troops?
You're trolling now, aren't you?
I eat cookies to improve my snacking experience
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 260 guests