Military Spending

[3278]

It is the height of naivete to simply and baldly state that we need to cut military spending. Of the various governmental functions, national defense must surely rank among the most important. Certainly during peacetime the expense can look unwarranted, but the military, of all agencies, must plan for the worst of times, and not the best.

But in today's modern world, in which much national defense is effectively supplied by the threat of force from the UN [which, unfortunately, currently means our military], in which armed conflict is increasingly not the way conflicts are dealt with, in which military conflicts are typically small-scale, and not industrial, we need to revisit our valuation of military expenses like this one.

This is a weapon for a time long past, and while this particular example might have justifications, there's an awful lot of World War II thinking going on in military research, and it's a giant waste of money. No one on the planet is coming close to our level of military technology; couldn't we take a few years off, spend the money on necessities, and then get back to it? Yes, that kind of interruption comes with costs, but we have to incur some of these costs if we're going to recalibrate our military for the times in which we live, and the role we should be playing in it.

Some of this is happening, certainly. The US military is becoming much more flexible - militaries by their nature being conservative - and working on more flexible tactics and less expensive solutions. We're looking at infantry armor, rather than tank armor: good. I'd hate to get caught with my pants down in a tank war, but who do we seriously think is going to be doing that to us?

Short of UN action - where the US is overused, to everyone's detriment - the US military is not being used anywhere they ought to be. So let's taper off our UN service - get others to stand up as we stand down - get our troops home to guard our nation, and turn our research to our military's new role: defense of the nation against all reasonable threats. Yes, this means we still need some tanks, or at least need to keep an eye on the world to make sure we don't need more of them, but we've got to get out of the shadow of the industrial wars of the 20th century, and adapt to the times. Not doing so is crippling us.

[paladin2019]

China

[Bonefish]

China

Not so much a worry for me. China's major territorial disputes seem to be with India and Taiwan.

Russia, on the other hand, does bother me. They've had a very "grabby" behavior towards their former subject states, and have shown the willingness to go full retard to get what they want. If them and the Ukraine come to blows, I see Poland jumping in right away. And that drags in NATO. Which drags us in.

And unlike the Chinese, the Russians actually are close to our level.

[Nicephorus]

After the reduction in Iraq and Afghanistan is fully implemented, if we were to push for more real multinational cooperation (as opposed to a token company from a dozen nations but 90% of it done by the U.S.), our spending wouldn't be too bad as long as we don't get a tea party president demanding 20 carrier task forces and everything else. We already account for nearly half of all military spending (though China lies about their true spending) so war mongering rings hollow to me. We could slow down research but I really wouldn't want to stop it because then qualified people would drift away and it would be hard to restart.

Iraq showed that we were still not immediately prepared for an ongoing occupation or peace keeping role. Destroying an army from 5 miles away is not the same as having to go face to face with people. I don't know how things stand now.

China is still a concern. They are very closed mouthed and hard to read. A crisis could push them into thinking that they need to invade Taiwan. I would expect us to intervene immediately. We need to keep abreast of their abilities. Taiwan has a decent military so I don't think they could win at this point - they'd need to move 100,000+ troops and keep them supplied. I assume that they'd use their huge civilian fleet but it would be hard to mask prepping that. I assume that we always have a sub in the area to impair an invasion. Perhaps as older leaders die, China may decide that they are not threatened by an independent Taiwan but I don't know how much it's been drilled into everyone's head that it's important.

If North Korea would cleanly implode, that would reduce our long term commitment by ~50,000 (assuming some reduction in Japan). The cost would probably be big in the short term.

As our ability to strike specific individuals/groups improves, the overall size of our forces can be reduced somewhat. But it's not going to be a magic super reduction and the cost per soldier will remain high or increase.

Yea, Russia is troubling. I'm glad that they have far fewer nukes now. The current regime uses anti-western propaganda to the point that much of the populace might welcome conflict with us.

[3278]

After the reduction in Iraq and Afghanistan is fully implemented, if we were to push for more real multinational cooperation (as opposed to a token company from a dozen nations but 90% of it done by the U.S.), our spending wouldn't be too bad...

This is important. We really can't cut our spending until the UN member states step the fuck up and start doing their share. I'm less worried about actions by China and Russia than some people, but ultimately, global peace is largely maintained by the threat of force from the UN, and without our military, that couldn't function.

So let's accept it as a given condition of massive military cuts that the UN would pick up the slack. Until they do, we really can't.

China is still a concern.

I'm just not worried about them, but I see our economic ties as being [currently] too strong for them to consider invading us or otherwise pissing us off too much [and visa versa]. And of course I don't worry about them and Taiwan because the UN should take care of that.

As our ability to strike specific individuals/groups improves, the overall size of our forces can be reduced somewhat. But it's not going to be a magic super reduction and the cost per soldier will remain high or increase.

It's actually amazing that we don't do more of the Seal Team 6 stuff, more of the CIA hit squads. I guess it's gotten us in trouble in the past, and it also encourages people to do the same sorts of things to us.

Yea, Russia is troubling.

Maybe I'm just feeling insulated in my post-Cold-War shell, but I really don't feel threatened by any nation in the world. If we kept nothing but the military we have now, maintained properly and used properly, I wouldn't foresee us having any difficulty defending ourselves against any nation on earth in 10 years. Particularly if all we had to do was keep ourselves safe until the UN helped out and/or we spooled our production to wartime proportions.

[Bonefish]

Yea, Russia is troubling.

Maybe I'm just feeling insulated in my post-Cold-War shell, but I really don't feel threatened by any nation in the world. If we kept nothing but the military we have now, maintained properly and used properly, I wouldn't foresee us having any difficulty defending ourselves against any nation on earth in 10 years. Particularly if all we had to do was keep ourselves safe until the UN helped out and/or we spooled our production to wartime proportions.

Let's be honest here, we could do an inter-war thing(as in between WW1 and WW2) where we downsized our army to basically provide Cadre for conscription, and keep our navy at it's current levels, or lower them, and NO ONE will be able to fuck with us. Our two lakes are the best defenses we have.

However, we'd have a big problem with projecting force. And like I said about Russia: they are increasingly anti-western(well, nicie said this), militaristic and pushy/grabby with their former subject states. And depending on what they do(bullying the Caucaus states for oil, for example), that could come back to bite us in the ass. Like I said, if they got overly pushy with Ukraine, that could cause a big scene, as Ukrainian Nationalism is such that the Ukrainians don't want to submit to Muscovite rule. And if russia Invades Ukraine or starts a war with them, Poland will most likely jump to Ukraine's defense. Probably not from any sense of "solidarity", but from a paranoid view that if they don't do something now, then who is gonna back up Poland when the Russians come knocking? I don't think they trust the Germans, French and Brits to do it.

We're going to have to cut defense spending, that's true. But if we cut too much, then some of the "major" powers out there(Read: Russia) are likely to see it as a cue that they can step up their efforts at intimidation. And I don't know if we really want to get in a prolonged ground war in eastern europe. It's got historically bad success rates.

[Nicephorus]

Maybe I'm just feeling insulated in my post-Cold-War shell, but I really don't feel threatened by any nation in the world. If we kept nothing but the military we have now, maintained properly and used properly, I wouldn't foresee us having any difficulty defending ourselves against any nation on earth in 10 years. Particularly if all we had to do was keep ourselves safe until the UN helped out and/or we spooled our production to wartime proportions.

It depends on what you mean by threaten. Certainly, we are under no real territorial threat except for the extremely slight chance that Russia decides on a full nuclear war. The idea of a foreign invasion is beyond conspiracy theory laughable. But suppose Taiwan or South Korea were conquered and stopped trading with us. Our economy would suffer. The prestige hit would hurt our ability to negotiate favorable business deals. Several such events would erode our ability to maintain our lifestyle.

So the question is how much of a threat do we need to maintain to keep the world order the way we like it. Does it have to be a "we could conquer you in a week" level threat or would "we could really fuck you up" threat enough?

The tricky bit about China is that not all of their thinking seems to be in terms of business, though they have swung that way hugely in the last couple decades. So, they could do something that is obviously economically disastrous but sensible from another view. Plus, their society is probably under a great deal more stress than ours. Despite a huge system for repression, riots and demonstrations happen on a weekly basis. The divide between rich and poor is huge and occurs regionally as well, many rich are also leaving and taking their money with them. Pollution and corruption are high. If things took a turn for the worse, a nice war might seem appealing.

[Raygun]

As long as the oil is over there, and other significantly populated countries are developing and using more of it, we need to be able to defend the resources and infrastructure we've built over there. Unfortunately, it's a long way away. So we need to be able to move there and fight quickly because there's no way the people who run the US are giving up that cash cow until it's fully depleted. I don't see us getting away from having a large, mobile military until that issue is resolved via other technologies, but I don't see any significant development in other technologies being accomplished until oil becomes much less profitable for the industry, an extremely powerful lobby in our country.

The only way I really see China being a problem for us is something like civil unrest or war. Socially, things seem extremely fucked up over there, so I wouldn't put it past people to eventually have enough of the closed society bullshit and start rebelling en masse, meaning a potentially serious disruption in manufactured goods to us. Then who knows what happens regarding the money we owe them. For now, things between China and the US seem pretty symbiotic.

I don't think Russia can do much of anything without pissing off pretty much everyone, so I don't feel particularly threatened by their posturing.

As much as I would very much like to see other UN/NATO countries start stepping up defense so we can cut some of ours and stop acting like world police, I don't see it as being all that practical at this point.

[paladin2019]

And unlike the Russians, the Chinese actually are close to our level.

Fixed it for ya.

[Bonefish]

And unlike the Russians, the Chinese actually are close to our level.

Fixed it for ya.

Well, why exactly?

[3278]

However, we'd have a big problem with projecting force.

Well, okay, but why would we - as the United States - need to do so? If we can defend ourselves, and even be capable of supporting surgical preemptive strikes if necessary, why do we need the ability to conquer Europe in a land war?

...then who is gonna back up Poland when the Russians come knocking? I don't think they trust the Germans, French and Brits to do it.

Well, I would hope that Poland would rightly trust the UN to do it, but if Poland has concerns about Poland's ability to defend itself, then with all due respect to Poland, perhaps Poland should do the military spending. I'm not blind to the benefits of helping out our allies, but I no longer feel the US has to do that in the proportion that we're currently doing it. After World War II, it had to be that way: no one else had the economy or military, and the Marshall Plan was a good one. But it's stupid now.

We're going to have to cut defense spending, that's true. But if we cut too much, then some of the "major" powers out there(Read: Russia) are likely to see it as a cue that they can step up their efforts at intimidation.

The other UN member nations - including Russia - will obviously need to fill the gap we leave.

[3278]

It depends on what you mean by threaten. Certainly, we are under no real territorial threat except for the extremely slight chance that Russia decides on a full nuclear war. The idea of a foreign invasion is beyond conspiracy theory laughable. But suppose Taiwan or South Korea were conquered and stopped trading with us. Our economy would suffer. The prestige hit would hurt our ability to negotiate favorable business deals. Several such events would erode our ability to maintain our lifestyle.

Right, but again, shouldn't the UN be responsible for making sure its member nations don't get conquered by their neighbors?

[3278]

As long as the oil is over there, and other significantly populated countries are developing and using more of it, we need to be able to defend the resources and infrastructure we've built over there. Unfortunately, it's a long way away. So we need to be able to move there and fight quickly because there's no way the people who run the US are giving up that cash cow until it's fully depleted. I don't see us getting away from having a large, mobile military until that issue is resolved via other technologies, but I don't see any significant development in other technologies being accomplished until oil becomes much less profitable for the industry, an extremely powerful lobby in our country.

In practical terms, I agree with everything you're saying, but I don't think it should be up to the United States military to defend oil infrastructure in someone else's sovereign nation; either they need to do it, or the companies that own that equipment need to do it.

More significantly, I agree that the best way to solve that entire issue is to turn to technologies for which the US does control the resources, like solar, wind, nuclear, tidal, geothermic and, yes, natural gas and coal. I haven't played a lot of Civilization, but it seems to me that hanging your national industries on a resource controlled by unstable governments is probably a bad tactic. I just don't understand why we should be going to war in the region instead of spending that crazy war money on a long-term investment that will actually see a return, and which would actually benefit the US' standing in the world.

As much as I would very much like to see other UN/NATO countries start stepping up defense so we can cut some of ours and stop acting like world police, I don't see it as being all that practical at this point.

Well, I think the thing that makes it impractical is that there's no UN military. As screwed-up as the current system is, what system would take its place? How would we require member states to provide the military for the world? Tell them to provide 10 percent of their GDP in military goods and services? What about personnel?

I've thought about solutions to this, and something I've considered is that member nations really would contribute some percentage of GDP toward the UN, and the UN would then buy military technology on the open market from whichever member nations it chose [which would be exciting]. Then it could hire personnel - including Peacekeepers - from around the world, and train them to be the UN military. And then we'd have One World Government, which everyone would hate, even though right now what we have is One Nation Army.

If I wanted to take over or just ruin the US, or invade the crap out of my neighbor, I'd quietly funnel money into violent revolutions around the world, forcing the US military to over-extend itself, and then start a direct military action, whatever I wanted that to be: my neighbor, the US, whatever. The US acting as sole military for the world - seriously, Germany doesn't need to research and build new tanks, because the US will do that and then defend Germany if something happens - is actually a major security risk, both for the US and for the world.

[Nicephorus]

The UN is really barely functional and fairly corrupt - I don't see relying on any world entity for a generation or two. NATO plus a few others such as Japan and Australia is about as close as we can get right now.

The U.S. spends ~5% of GDP on the military. Most NATO countries are 1.5-2.5%. I think we could drop to 3-4% with little impact on our security if paid more attention to diplomacy.

[Bonefish]

Do we still need the USMC? Why can't we just fold it into the army?

[paladin2019]

the companies that own that equipment need to do it.

Blackwater.

[paladin2019]

Do we still need the USMC? Why can't we just fold it into the army?

Specialist function the Army doesn't do. There are also consitutional issues here. Technically, we don't have a standing army; the defense authorization bills re-hire everyone laid off at the expiration of the last bill. Because Constitutionally, we can't have an army raised and funded for more than two years. The Navy, whose department and service secretary the USMC falls under, are under no such restriction. So no, without amending the constitution, we cannot effectively fold the USMC into the Army.

[Salvation122]

Do we still need the USMC? Why can't we just fold it into the army?

A better question is why we need the air force, when long-range strategic bombing is now mostly handled via cruise missile.

[WillyGilligan]

I never really paid attention to the funding and such. That just blew my mind.

And the current wars have really broken what the Corps is supposed to be about. They do it partly because they've never been this well funded. I've talked to Marines that haven't drilled an amphibious assault in years.

[Bonefish]

Do we still need the USMC? Why can't we just fold it into the army?

Specialist function the Army doesn't do. There are also consitutional issues here. Technically, we don't have a standing army; the defense authorization bills re-hire everyone laid off at the expiration of the last bill. Because Constitutionally, we can't have an army raised and funded for more than two years. The Navy, whose department and service secretary the USMC falls under, are under no such restriction. So no, without amending the constitution, we cannot effectively fold the USMC into the Army.

I for one don't support the idea of folding the USMC into the Army, but it's a topic people have brought up a great deal, and it's one that I wanted some information from someone in the know(aka...you!). Because it's my understandign that the Marines are America's premier fast response force: we can have a MAGTF anywhere in the world in a short notice. Marines also excell at combined arms, especially air-ground co-operation due to their organizational structure, or so I think.

IS that somewhat accurate?

[paladin2019]

Do we still need the USMC? Why can't we just fold it into the army?

A better question is why we need the air force, when long-range strategic bombing is now mostly handled via cruise missile.

Split off from the Army via the Defense Reorganization Act of 1947. If you read betwee teh lines, it's because the A stands for Atomic, not Air, as all atomic weapons of teh time were delivered via long range bomber. Apparently, a strategic end was seen in having one service dedicated to handling these and the rest of the Army's fixed wing combat aircraft must have seemed a reasonable fit to disguise the true purpose of the new force. This has been heavily diluted since, but that's my story.

[WillyGilligan]

Do we still need the USMC? Why can't we just fold it into the army?

A better question is why we need the air force, when long-range strategic bombing is now mostly handled via cruise missile.

Hey!

[paladin2019]

I for one don't support the idea of folding the USMC into the Army, but it's a topic people have brought up a great deal, and it's one that I wanted some information from someone in the know(aka...you!). Because it's my understandign that the Marines are America's premier fast response force: we can have a MAGTF anywhere in the world in a short notice. Marines also excell at combined arms, especially air-ground co-operation due to their organizational structure, or so I think.

IS that somewhat accurate?

More or less. Marine (or naval infantry) missions are traditionally boarding actions (including defense against), maritime raids and, particularly in US service, diplomatic functions (ie Marine guards at US Embassies.) But these are functions of Navies, as their nations' most visible external face. Armies exist to conquer, navies have definite diplomatic and law enforcement functions equal to their military capacity.

Strategically, yes, the Marines can deploy fairly rapidly if a Marine assault ship is already in the neighborhood. The main difference between this and dropping the 82d, who have at least comparable force projection capabilities, is the paratroopers' lack of armored protection.

[Bonefish]

Andy: thanks. I've been having this debate(this VERY SAME debate) over on the SJgames forums, and a host of guys seem to be oblivious to what the difference between the Marines and the Army do. They seem to be of the idea that one or the other branch is "better" than the other, so drop the inferior branch, and take the superior one. I've been trying to pound into their skulls that Marines do things differently than the army, not better*.

If you want light infantry who can rapidly deploy, aggressive close with the enemy and destroy them, while combining armor, infantry and airpower(ok, I ignore Artillery, but it's there), then Marines are who you wanna grab. If you want a slower build up, but a more sustained offensive, with heavier support options and a logistics network that isn't tied to the Navy, you want the Army.

I think our current conflicts are leading people to see the two as interchangeable, because of the nature of the conflict. And Marines are certainly great infantry, I don't think we'd dispute that, but that's not ALL they do.


*In the sense that Marines do some things better than the army, yes, I think that's true. However, the Army does things better than the Marines in some ways. For long term occupations, I think the Army is probably better, because it's got a better logistic network aimed at sustaining larger forces. Because, you know, it's the GODDAMNED ARMY. That's what it does.

[3278]

The U.S. spends ~5% of GDP on the military. Most NATO countries are 1.5-2.5%. I think we could drop to 3-4% with little impact on our security if paid more attention to diplomacy.

This is the other issue: we probably shouldn't just dump our military research and then change nothing else. The reason we can do this at all is modern economic and diplomatic connectedness, and the new world order; we'd probably want to put more eggs in those baskets before we do anything drastic militarily.

[3278]

Do we still need the USMC? Why can't we just fold it into the army?

A reorganization makes some sense to me, as many of these structures are redundant, but there are limits. To some degree, even if you folded the Navy, Air Force, and Marines all into the Army - hell, Coast Guard, too - you'd just end up having to force many of the same functional distinctions and chains of command, anyway. But yeah, it's getting weird how all four/five branches of the military will buy different versions of some warplane, and you think, well, if you're going to be flying your own warplanes, why do we even have an Air Force? It's definitely not as simple as all that, but a reinvention of the basic military structure wouldn't be a terrible idea.

[3278]

the companies that own that equipment need to do it.

Blackwater.

Just spitting out one exception doesn't really make your point very well. China! Blackwater! Scabies! When you've one exception - or few exceptions - it typically doesn't mean you should abandon the idea, it means you'll have to address that exception. Definitely, if something like what I'm proposing were to take place, we'd need to take a careful look at how issues like the security forces of US companies behave in other people's sovereign nations, but I think by and large, we can just treat them the way we would a security guard in a French oil refinery in Texas: they have to obey the laws of the nation in which they're operating, and they're subject to the laws of that nation. If companies don't find those conditions acceptable, they're welcome to simply work domestically.

[paladin2019]

RE: the importance of navieshttp://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news ... trial-navy

RE: Blackwater. They are the most obvious example of the symptom. Military capability is not something that should be profit driven. I could have said Triple Canopy or Executive Outcomes or Sandline but I think they are less topical. Mercenaries are a problem if we believe in American style representative democracy.

[Bonefish]

Do we still need the USMC? Why can't we just fold it into the army?

A reorganization makes some sense to me, as many of these structures are redundant, but there are limits. To some degree, even if you folded the Navy, Air Force, and Marines all into the Army - hell, Coast Guard, too - you'd just end up having to force many of the same functional distinctions and chains of command, anyway. But yeah, it's getting weird how all four/five branches of the military will buy different versions of some warplane, and you think, well, if you're going to be flying your own warplanes, why do we even have an Air Force? It's definitely not as simple as all that, but a reinvention of the basic military structure wouldn't be a terrible idea.

Well, some of that "different model warplane for everybody" makes sense. The air Force, for example, doesn't really give a damn for naval operations, so any modifications for that are useless for them. On the other hand, the Navy wants that and better IFF capability, because they don't have AWACS. And the Marines are going to want the same plane, but geared for close air support.

Things I don't understand are why the Army uses the 240B and the Marines use the 240G.

[3278]

RE: Blackwater. They are the most obvious example of the symptom. Military capability is not something that should be profit driven.

Does private security for oil infrastructure need to be necessarily military?

Now, this is all kind of assuming Ray's pragmatic view rather than my more ideal one, but still, I wonder if there's not something to be said for turning military security for foreign assets over to those foreign militaries, police security for foreign assets over to foreign police forces, and if you don't think either of those groups can do the job, then don't open facilities there. Basically, if we treated other nations' sovereignty the way we'd expect ours to be treated.

Mercenaries are a problem if we believe in American style representative democracy.

Interesting. I'm not sure I follow. Why?

[Bonefish]

Interesting. I'm not sure I follow. Why?

I think the idea is that it can lead to American Corporations starting wars in foreign countries that would be contrary to our actual desires, and without any sort of oversight.

[Raygun]

In practical terms, I agree with everything you're saying, but I don't think it should be up to the United States military to defend oil infrastructure in someone else's sovereign nation; either they need to do it, or the companies that own that equipment need to do it.

And ideally, I agree with this. While I believe the cost of defending corporate resources shouldn't fall at the feet of the taxpayer, I'm not very keen on the alternative prospect of corporations being in control of their own armies (Shadowrun coming at you). With that and the oil industry lobby being so firmly plugged in to our federal government, I just don't see any practical way around the problem.

More significantly, I agree that the best way to solve that entire issue is to turn to technologies for which the US does control the resources, like solar, wind, nuclear, tidal, geothermic and, yes, natural gas and coal. I haven't played a lot of Civilization, but it seems to me that hanging your national industries on a resource controlled by unstable governments is probably a bad tactic.

Agreed. Which is why you would (and do) have a chunk of your military close by. The spice must flow. When it starts to run out, you find something else.

I just don't understand why we should be going to war in the region instead of spending that crazy war money on a long-term investment that will actually see a return, and which would actually benefit the US' standing in the world.

Also agreed. Unfortunately, there's that giant oil industry lobby well-connected to our government presenting a significant practical obstacle.

Well, I think the thing that makes it impractical is that there's no UN military. As screwed-up as the current system is, what system would take its place? How would we require member states to provide the military for the world? Tell them to provide 10 percent of their GDP in military goods and services? What about personnel?

Governments and militaries generally speaking need to be smaller, not larger. It's difficult for me to imagine a worse thing for the world than the UN with direct military power.

If I wanted to take over or just ruin the US, or invade the crap out of my neighbor, I'd quietly funnel money into violent revolutions around the world, forcing the US military to over-extend itself, and then start a direct military action, whatever I wanted that to be: my neighbor, the US, whatever. The US acting as sole military for the world - seriously, Germany doesn't need to research and build new tanks, because the US will do that and then defend Germany if something happens - is actually a major security risk, both for the US and for the world.

Again, in principle I agree, but I'm sure the rest of Europe has its reservations about Germany rearming, whether they're developing and manufacturing the hardware themselves or not. That said, there has to be a fairer way of spreading these duties out amongst us all than the current system.

[Bonefish]

Lawd, how did I miss the Civilization reference?! So many wars get kicked off over oil in that game that it is just silly. "Yay! I can build tanks, now I'm going to kick Monetezuma's warmongerin' ass...hey, what's this? I need oil? Oh, hey, Victoria, you have Oil, and redcoats. Make your peace."

[Salvation122]

Do we still need the USMC? Why can't we just fold it into the army?

A better question is why we need the air force, when long-range strategic bombing is now mostly handled via cruise missile.

Split off from the Army via the Defense Reorganization Act of 1947. If you read betwee teh lines, it's because the A stands for Atomic, not Air, as all atomic weapons of teh time were delivered via long range bomber. Apparently, a strategic end was seen in having one service dedicated to handling these and the rest of the Army's fixed wing combat aircraft must have seemed a reasonable fit to disguise the true purpose of the new force. This has been heavily diluted since, but that's my story.

Well, the fixed-wing aircraft were there to escort the bombers (and kill invading bombers.) Like, I understand why it grew up the way it did, but big chunks of it seem mostly superfluous now.

If I were God-Emperor of Mankind, I'd sign a treaty with Russia to reduce our nuclear arsenals significantly (say, to roughly the level China has - enough to secure second-strike capability), put 'em all on submarines and in silos, build the Army another thousand A-10s and AC-130s for close air support and let them run them, and axe pretty much everything the Air Force does outside of Space Command. Of course, I'm not an expert, and I'm sure there are reasons to have it around.

[paladin2019]

RE: Blackwater. They are the most obvious example of the symptom. Military capability is not something that should be profit driven.

Does private security for oil infrastructure need to be necessarily military?

Looking at the expected threat, yes, they do need this capacity for action.

Now, this is all kind of assuming Ray's pragmatic view rather than my more ideal one, but still, I wonder if there's not something to be said for turning military security for foreign assets over to those foreign militaries, police security for foreign assets over to foreign police forces, and if you don't think either of those groups can do the job, then don't open facilities there. Basically, if we treated other nations' sovereignty the way we'd expect ours to be treated.

I agree to an extent. But if the facilities are there, what do we gain from leaving them open to attack? Second and third order effects here point to lack of revenue for the recognized government -> lack of government capability to perform governmental functions (stability/security, utilities, etc) -> destabilization of the country -> US/UN militarily involved in stability and nation building operations again.

What's the answer? Some combination of capacity building on the front end? Make sure the "right people" are in charge? This is where we need to focus policy discussions.

Mercenaries are a problem if we believe in American style representative democracy.

Interesting. I'm not sure I follow. Why?

Mercenaries are simply paid. If an executive branch has the discretionary budget to pay for them, they can conduct unilateral military action without other governmental oversight. Congress controls the POTUS's ability to conduct military adventures through defense budgets (remember the Constitutional limits on standing armies) and exclusive power to declare war (debate: has Congress abdicated this power?). Mercenaries are a perfect vehicle for bypassing tis oversight, and have been used on many occasions to do just that.

And then you have outfits like Sandline International and Executive Outcomes who negotiated payment for suppressing insurgencies in perpetual mineral rights....

[DrunkenMaster]

In order to define a budget for what you want, you have to define your strategic vision. We haven't really had a strategic vision since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Once we figure out where we want to go, then we should define how we'll get there and what resources we'll allocate to various institutions.

Also, the military should only be used for a very narrow set of problems. The military can take on additional roles, but only in a transitory phase with clear entrance and exit guidelines. The military, in general, is a hammer. You use it to break shit. It has taken on additional roles at different times with varying degrees of success, but using it as a screwdriver fucks up its hammerness and pisses off the union reps. It also diverts resources away from institutions which were created to handle those additional roles and can do them much more effectively and efficiently than the military.

If you don't clearly define those start and end conditions, you get mission creep. Mission creep is bad. Especially in an institution which prides itself on never saying no to a job.

This video does a pretty good job of showing the division of labor I'd like to see: http://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_barnett ... peace.html

[paladin2019]

This video does a pretty good job of showing the division of labor I'd like to see: http://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_barnett ... peace.html

I often forget I've been doing this as long as he had when he made that speech. I don't really have much to add to Mr. Barnett's plan.

[Bonefish]

Wow. That's fuckin' smart.

[3278]

RE: Blackwater. They are the most obvious example of the symptom. Military capability is not something that should be profit driven.

Does private security for oil infrastructure need to be necessarily military?

Looking at the expected threat, yes, they do need this capacity for action.

Yeah, sorry, but I just don't buy this. If you want to open a facility in a part of the world so unstable that their military and police forces are insufficient to the task of protecting your assets, then you should either accept the risk or dig elsewhere. I don't think it's reasonable for these companies to hire their own militaries - not security forces - to operate in sovereign nations.

Now, if those nations don't mind, and the security forces are willing to obey the laws of that nation, then by all means, hire yourselves a military, but that military will be subject to the laws of the host nation, and should be able to be prosecuted under those laws.

Now, this is all kind of assuming Ray's pragmatic view rather than my more ideal one, but still, I wonder if there's not something to be said for turning military security for foreign assets over to those foreign militaries, police security for foreign assets over to foreign police forces, and if you don't think either of those groups can do the job, then don't open facilities there. Basically, if we treated other nations' sovereignty the way we'd expect ours to be treated.

I agree to an extent. But if the facilities are there, what do we gain from leaving them open to attack?

Well, that's the point: we wouldn't leave them open to attack, they would be guarded by that nation's forces, just like a French oil well in Texas is protected by ours. If the risk is too high, then dig elsewhere. If there's nowhere else to dig, then find something else to do. We'd all be a lot better off if they'd stop pumping oil out of the ground, anyway.

What's the answer? Some combination of capacity building on the front end? Make sure the "right people" are in charge? This is where we need to focus policy discussions.

Yeah, see, I view sovereignty very differently than you do! I don't think it's any of our business who is in charge, or what capacity they have, any more than I think Iran should take actions to determine who our military and civilian leadership will be so they feel safe opening an iron mine here. I think we need to focus policy discussions on actions that don't treat other nations' sovereignty differently than we would expect those nations to treat ours.

Mercenaries are a problem if we believe in American style representative democracy.

Interesting. I'm not sure I follow. Why?

Mercenaries are simply paid. If an executive branch has the discretionary budget to pay for them, they can conduct unilateral military action without other governmental oversight.

Oh, you mean mercenaries hired by that representative democracy are a problem. Well, I don't know that I agree in the most general sense, but in the specific case of the US, where as you point out, it allows the executive to make an end run around separation of powers. This, as well as prolonged non-declared wars, really needs to stop.

[3278]

In practical terms, I agree with everything you're saying, but I don't think it should be up to the United States military to defend oil infrastructure in someone else's sovereign nation; either they need to do it, or the companies that own that equipment need to do it.

And ideally, I agree with this. While I believe the cost of defending corporate resources shouldn't fall at the feet of the taxpayer, I'm not very keen on the alternative prospect of corporations being in control of their own armies (Shadowrun coming at you). With that and the oil industry lobby being so firmly plugged in to our federal government, I just don't see any practical way around the problem.

There's not going to be a magic bullet. We definitely have to restrict the influence of lobbyists, without restricting the expression of views from the citizenry, for instance, which is a whole problem unto itself. But yeah, there's not going to be a single rule we could change that would fix everything: it'd be impossibly complicated, and would be the action of a generation or two to change our direction.

Is that practical? Well, I'm not sure reconfiguring the nation to only have one men's bathroom - instead of regular and colored ones - wasn't practical at the time, and it was a huge mess, and it caused a lot of problems while we adjusted. Something like this would be much, much worse, but I also think it needs to be done.

Governments and militaries generally speaking need to be smaller, not larger. It's difficult for me to imagine a worse thing for the world than the UN with direct military power.

What's the alternative? The UN with our military power? I'm not sure that's better for the world, particularly when you see things like Iraq, where the US invaded a sovereign nation and the UN couldn't possibly stop us because the UN military is our military, and because the Security Council veto power makes SC members effectively untouchable.

Again, in principle I agree, but I'm sure the rest of Europe has its reservations about Germany rearming, whether they're developing and manufacturing the hardware themselves or not.

I always think it's completely insane, this worry some Europeans have about Germany starting another war, but I probably would have thought the same thing in 1935! Now, I think the days of Western European wars are over, but the concern isn't that ridiculous: it although it seems like it's been a long while since there's been one, it actually hasn't been that long at all, relatively speaking.

[Nicephorus]

We definitely have to restrict the influence of lobbyists, without restricting the expression of views from the citizenry, for instance, which is a whole problem unto itself.

I think that's about the single biggest problem with the government as a whole. But things have been going in the opposite direction with corps allowed to spend as much as they want, often anonymously.

[3278]

This SuperPAC business is the latest in a long line of expressions of such problems. I don't know what the solution is, but I think a good start would be ruling that "money" isn't "expression." No, actually, while I like that solution, it's not a fair one, because "how I spend my money on political campaigns" is "expression." So what I would like to see, instead, is elimination of campaign contributions, and instead give each candidate [with more than X signatures] a fixed amount of money with which to campaign. This wouldn't eliminate "soft money," but it would do a lot to bring our elections under control, and to eliminate the stranglehold wealth has on elections.

[DrunkenMaster]

In order to control the outlandish spending, you might also be able to restrict the campaign cycle. Instead of starting campaigns years out, you can reduce it to a couple of months. This can present its own set of problems, but it brings the cost of doing business down to a more reasonable level, lessens the political news fatigue and allows voters to retain some sense of who is who, and forces campaigns to be very focused, ideally on the issues which define their campaigns from the opposition.

[3278]

This is done in a number of other countries, and seems to work well: they get a couple month election season, and they're done changing the sheets. With us, as soon as you get elected, you're running for re-election.

But this is America, the source of scientific- and industrial-scale campaigning. The same techniques we apply to steel production, we apply to electioneering, and it's allowed us to forge some very strange electoral metals. Even if we make a new law that election season is two months long, all you'll see is people doing end-runs, just as Palin has been doing all summer. "Oh, I'm not running for anything, I'm just touring America...in a giant tour bus followed by the press."

America is too good at this. It's like a conversation on Bulldrek: we're great at finding holes in structures, but building structures? Not so much. I would like to find a way to turn these brilliant minds toward construction, rather than evasion, but I don't know a way to do that. Money's in evasion, not construction.

[Bonefish]

This SuperPAC business is the latest in a long line of expressions of such problems. I don't know what the solution is, but I think a good start would be ruling that "money" isn't "expression." No, actually, while I like that solution, it's not a fair one, because "how I spend my money on political campaigns" is "expression." So what I would like to see, instead, is elimination of campaign contributions, and instead give each candidate [with more than X signatures] a fixed amount of money with which to campaign. This wouldn't eliminate "soft money," but it would do a lot to bring our elections under control, and to eliminate the stranglehold wealth has on elections.

Surprise, it's something I think you're definitely spot on with.

But back to some other things: I really think you and I won't agree on is the idea of how we should use our force around the world, which means that we're not going to agree on how much spending and capability we do need. I for example, think there is some weight to the argument that being able to whup anyone's ass at the table makes everyone sit down and play nice. Imagine, for example that we're all sitting around a table, and you keep taking my peanuts. I ask you not to. You don't sotp, me and you get into a brawl, knock the table over, eveyone's upset, some girl's(Dennis, actually) shirt gets stained, and everybody loses. Now, we add a new play, say, Paul. We all know paul can kick our asses, even my and your ass together. And Paul's got a vested interest in us not knocking over the table: it's where we're playing HIS game. So when you start taking my peanuts, Paul tells you to stop it. You don't, paul slaps you a good one, and no body takes anyone's peanuts anymore. The sad part about it is that since Dennis doesn't get his shirt stained, we don't get him barechested, well not untill a few drinks, anyway.

Withdrawing to our Borders, well, it may have been wise when we were on the frontier of the world. But the frontiers are all gone now, and we have to deal with the fact that we are not 3 months distance from anywhere else in the world, and we are much more dependent on the rest of the world than we ever were at any other point in history. So I don't think isolationism can work in our favor. We Dismantle NATO, get out of the UN's peace keeping force, downsize our military dramatically(probably the safest places we can hit are the army and airforce), and everything is good. For now.

What do we do when the next expressionistic power decides to jump up and start fighting? One reason I like to mention Russia a lot is that there are pretty plausible reasons for Russia to act up: Russian cargo ships are detained in Ukrainian waters, Russia demands their release, Ukraine doesn't back down(Because it's the Ukraine, and that is Russia), and Russia jumps on Ukraine. Poland obviously backs up the Ukraine. Do the poles trust the Germans enough to let them help? Do the French and Germans trust each other enough? Do The Germans have the will to actually do anything about it?

Such a war could brew up rather effortlessly, and spread and become a big drain on the Global economy.

Or the Epic final showdown between India and Pakistan when the US pulls out from supporting Pakistan. What happens there? About the best worst case scenerio is they nuke each other to hell and back, wiping out their countries, and we're left with hundreds of millions of refugees to stream... somewhere. Then what happens?

[Salvation122]

You actually couldn't pass a law restricting "campaign season." Free expression and all.

Europe gets away with it because they very often don't know they're having elections until two months prior. Woo parliaments.

[3278]

You actually couldn't pass a law restricting "campaign season." Free expression and all.

Well, I often feel that way about, say, campaign finance, but the fact is, we put all kinds of limits on expression. It's not an absolute restriction, just another consideration.

[3278]

But in today's modern world, in which much national defense is effectively supplied by the threat of force from the UN [which, unfortunately, currently means our military], in which armed conflict is increasingly not the way conflicts are dealt with, in which military conflicts are typically small-scale, and not industrial, we need to revisit our valuation of military expenses like this one.

Which went slightly better than last time. So basically, it's an expensive failure of an idea I think is of pretty dubious utility, in any case. I feel like the military and the defense contractors have a vested interest in inventing new ways to wage war, whether we really need that new way or not.

[3278]

I for example, think there is some weight to the argument that being able to whup anyone's ass at the table makes everyone sit down and play nice. Imagine, for example that we're all sitting around a table, and you keep taking my peanuts. I ask you not to. You don't sotp, me and you get into a brawl, knock the table over, eveyone's upset, some girl's(Dennis, actually) shirt gets stained, and everybody loses. Now, we add a new play, say, Paul. We all know paul can kick our asses, even my and your ass together. And Paul's got a vested interest in us not knocking over the table: it's where we're playing HIS game. So when you start taking my peanuts, Paul tells you to stop it. You don't, paul slaps you a good one, and no body takes anyone's peanuts anymore.

Well, this idea sounds valid, certainly, but what if Paul just decides to be a dick, and beat the shit out of you for some arbitrary reason? What if Dennis brings a bomb to the table, and suddenly the physical size of the combatants is no longer proportionate to the damage they can do? Wouldn't it be more fair and stable if each of us chipped some percentage of our winnings into paying an impartial defender - call him, say, "the police" - to protect all of us equally, without regard to how big each of us might be? Then we can all be equals, and can play the game without fear that someone will come along and upset the table.

Withdrawing to our Borders, well, it may have been wise when we were on the frontier of the world. But the frontiers are all gone now, and we have to deal with the fact that we are not 3 months distance from anywhere else in the world, and we are much more dependent on the rest of the world than we ever were at any other point in history. So I don't think isolationism can work in our favor.

We don't need to be isolationist [although there are times I like this idea] in order to bring our military home. We would and should still trade, and engage in diplomacy, and so on, but we'd stop being the UN's army.

What do we do when the next expressionistic power decides to jump up and start fighting?

The members of the UN take a vote on whether or not to take military action, or, better yet, long before Russia gets adventurous, we all vote on a set of criteria that would result in armed intercession on the part of the UN, so if Russia invades a neighbor, we don't even need a vote: the UN simply starts sending Peacekeepers to the invaded nation. Essentially, we create one enormous network of allies with mutual defense pacts.

Or the Epic final showdown between India and Pakistan when the US pulls out from supporting Pakistan. What happens there?

Again, the UN steps in, just as you'd like the US to do so. The difference is that instead of a sovereign nation stepping in, a union of sovereign nations to which India and Pakistan are both signatories steps in. Their membership gives the UN the right to step in, and to defy their borders, and then the economic, material, and human cost of the intervention is spread proportionately across all member nations, rather than just on the shoulders of one nation from halfway across the globe, which has its own biases and alliances.

[Bonefish]

Well, this idea sounds valid, certainly, but what if Paul just decides to be a dick, and beat the shit out of you for some arbitrary reason? What if Dennis brings a bomb to the table, and suddenly the physical size of the combatants is no longer proportionate to the damage they can do?

They you just described the current state of affairs.

Wouldn't it be more fair and stable if each of us chipped some percentage of our winnings into paying an impartial defender - call him, say, "the police" - to protect all of us equally, without regard to how big each of us might be? Then we can all be equals, and can play the game without fear that someone will come along and upset the table.

And this would be Ideal. How do we get there from here, is the question? I kinda like Mister Burnett's approach.

We don't need to be isolationist [although there are times I like this idea] in order to bring our military home. We would and should still trade, and engage in diplomacy, and so on, but we'd stop being the UN's army.

We arn't the UN's army. We just like to use that as a cheap cop-out when we feel like shaming other powers. "well, if you'd step up to the plate and DO something, we wouldn't have to be the army". We are the largest contributator, sure, but it's not like we're actually using that power for good.

The members of the UN take a vote on whether or not to take military action

Shades of Poland, 1939.

or, better yet, long before Russia gets adventurous, we all vote on a set of criteria that would result in armed intercession on the part of the UN, so if Russia invades a neighbor, we don't even need a vote: the UN simply starts sending Peacekeepers to the invaded nation.

Yeah, this would requrie the UN to not be pussiefied, and it's also too late: Russia is already making the sort of rumblings that are terrifying. South Ossetia should be seen as a wake-up call and a warning, instead, it's just a blip and business as usual. When Russia threatened to NUKE poland, we should've realized something was up. When they told the Ukraine that the Ukraine's national waters were russian, we should have said something.

Essentially, we create one enormous network of allies with mutual defense pacts.

Been down this road before...

Again, the UN steps in, just as you'd like the US to do so. The difference is that instead of a sovereign nation stepping in, a union of sovereign nations to which India and Pakistan are both signatories steps in. Their membership gives the UN the right to step in, and to defy their borders, and then the economic, material, and human cost of the intervention is spread proportionately across all member nations, rather than just on the shoulders of one nation from halfway across the globe, which has its own biases and alliances.

The problem is, I don't WANT the US to step in. If we have to actively intervene or take sides in the Paki-India showdown, we're all fucked. But so long as we can keep it from happening, it gives a chance for peaceful resolution. But when we stop propping up Pakistan? We're going to see India start pressuring them. And that pressure could mean some very bad things for the region.

See, the problem with UN peacekeepers is that they keep the peace, they don't actually fight. Multi-national coalitions have big troubles with unity of command, which makes them ill suited for the sort of conflict resolution I'm talking about.

When the US military downsizes, it will leave a power vacuum. China may eventually step up to it, in 20 years. In the mean time, the usual Suspects(UK, France and Russia) are going to step up. And those guys all have terrible track records at this sort of thing. Even as badly as America does what we do, we do it better than anyone else.

Basically, the UN is fucking worthless for the role we're asking for: The UN NEEDS one large power that can go in and kick ass and take names, then it needs to send in the multi-national force behind that large power and keep the peace. Right now we have a fucked up disconnect where we go in, kick ass, and then don't know what to do.