US Defense Spending 'Cost vs Affordability'

Scott Kenny said:
That housing space is pretty limited, at least Navy side.

And let's not forget how horrible that huge amount of disposable income tends to make the spending habits of the junior enlisted...
Click to expand...
The navy is always under funded and naval bases are invariably in higher housing cost markets. Off base housing allowances can be well above market rents around Fort Middle-of-Nowhere as opposed to naval bases in desirable places like San Diego.

On the flip side of those stereotypical junior enlisteds, there are some extremely financially savvy senior NCOs. And I should point out that those generous housing allowances allow plenty of enlisteds and NCOs to buy their own homes. Not in Hawaii, though.
 
Scott Kenny said:
That housing space is pretty limited, at least Navy side.

And let's not forget how horrible that huge amount of disposable income tends to make the spending habits of the junior enlisted...
Click to expand...
The navy is always under funded and naval bases are invariably in higher housing cost markets. Off base housing allowances can be well above market rents around Fort Middle-of-Nowhere as opposed to naval bases in desirable places like San Diego.

On the flip side of those stereotypical junior enlisteds, there are some extremely financially savvy senior NCOs
 
In my opinion it is quite likely that the new political leadership will concentrate its efforts on calming the situation created by the previous administration, I would bet on an intense diplomatic activity focused on expelling Chinese economic influence from South America, adopting a series of saving measures that help eliminate taxes on the domestic economy. It does not seem a good scenario to increase defense spending, before that the new administration will most likely increase arms sales to Israel and Europe, perhaps creating incentives for those weapons to be necessary... and expensive.

In my opinion, this is what a good businessman who wants the growth of his country would do.

I don't think he accepts the game of being the firefighter and the policeman of the world no matter how many provocations his external and internal enemies make, that story no longer works.
 
The Senate might push for a $100B defense spending increase. If any part of this goes toward procuring Iron Dome rather than useful things like, you know, NGAD, shipbuilding, etc., I will be extremely sad.

breakingdefense.com

EXCLUSIVE: New SASC chair sets sight on $200B defense boost, major acquisition reform push - Breaking Defense

“I hope and believe that President Trump's pledge to restore peace through strength so that we can avoid conflict is going to be followed through with adequate funding,” Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Roger Wicker told Breaking Defense in an exclusive interview.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
 
joshjosh said:
The Senate might push for a $100B defense spending increase. If any part of this goes toward procuring Iron Dome rather than useful things like, you know, NGAD, shipbuilding, etc., I will be extremely sad.

breakingdefense.com

EXCLUSIVE: New SASC chair sets sight on $200B defense boost, major acquisition reform push - Breaking Defense

“I hope and believe that President Trump's pledge to restore peace through strength so that we can avoid conflict is going to be followed through with adequate funding,” Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Roger Wicker told Breaking Defense in an exclusive interview.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
Click to expand...

At this point I'm not sure how "useful" additional funding would be for American shipbuilding. Essentially, we have the equivalent of an annual "buy 2, get 1" sale on nuclear submarines.

NGAD is an incredibly nebulous program. Are we buying a handful of enormous fighters or a big fleet of smaller-than-F-35 fighters? Or is it just a drone program this week? And if a full sized demonstator flew years ago, why is it still hidden from public view?

Using the term "Iron Dome" as a generic term is incredibly inexact. Truth be known, if Tamir interceptors aren't involved, the term shouldn't be used. Perhaps the real issue is that American society had become cynical about the type of "Star Wars" missile shield thar was popularized by Reagan. Israel can protect against the convemrionally armed Iranian threat but if China scales up its ICBM numbers to peak Soviet levels, but with maneuvering glide bodies instead of MIRVs, there is no real way a system won't be overwhelmed. The "leakers" alone will be sufficient to end human life as we know it. That's not to suggest that we should try to for a credible missile defense, just that the stark realities aren't much better than in the era of Spartan and Sprint.

I wish "The Wickerman" the best of luck as there is a very real need for a major defense spending boost for "Cold War II." However, boosting defense spending from 3% to 5% of GDP will have an appreciable effect on inflation. Truth be known, Reagan couldn't have gotten away with 6% of GDP if it hadn't been for the 1982 recession and double digital interest rates. In 2025, we're in far worse shape in terms of defense procurement and existing force levels than in 1981. Wicker's 5% of GDP is just a partial down-payment.
 
TinWing said:
Israel can protect against the convemrionally armed Iranian threat but if China scales up its ICBM numbers to peak Soviet levels, but with maneuvering glide bodies instead of MIRVs, there is no real way a system won't be overwhelmed. The "leakers" alone will be sufficient to end human life as we know it. That's not to suggest that we should try to for a credible missile defense, just that the stark realities aren't much better than in the era of Spartan and Sprint.
Click to expand...

No, we definitely should not try for a credible missile defense. That would lead to nuclear armageddon.

Look at the SALT treaties from the Cold War. They were not just about limiting nuclear weapons, they were also about limiting ballistic missile defense. If either side were able to construct a credible missile defense system to defend against anything the other side could do, that would eliminate deterrence for one side.

Milestones in the History of U.S. Foreign Relations - Office of the Historian

history.state.gov 3.0 shell
history.state.gov history.state.gov

If the United States were to make a credible attempt at building a missile defense shield to protect from China and Russia, then both adversaries would be in a use-it-or-lose-it situation with regards to their nuclear weapons. Their own nuclear deterrence would be on the path to neutralization. With no credible nuclear deterrent, both the Chinese and the Russians would be vulnerable to a nuclear strike by the United States. This would incentivize a preemptive counter-force strike on the United States prior to the missile defense system being constructed.

Of course, as you mentioned, there is no way to actually construct a perfect missile defense system. The US could spend trillions on Next Generation Interceptors and localized THAAD. It wouldn't matter. A civilization-ending barrage from either strategic competitor would have enough leakers to kill millions of people. The trillions of dollars would be a waste of money.

So if we're not trying to defend against China or Russia, what would be the purpose of "iron dome?" Are we talking about more NGIs? To protect from Iran? Are we talking about short range systems to protect Dallas from Fort Worth, and Boston from Cambridge? There is no possible parsing of this "idea" that is not utterly moronic.
 
For the record, I'm glad Trump seems to be betting all in for a SDI re-run, but rather than articulating my own defense I'd just leave what others has commented on the "anti peer BMD" debate
fredymac said:
Hostility towards the idea of actually defending yourself is odd. Deterrence at its heart means I kill you if you kill me. You commit yourself to being a passive spectator watching incoming missiles destroy your population. You also have the macabre obligation to retaliate and kill the enemy population for no purpose other than post mortem revenge. A missile defense system working perfectly kills nobody.

The proposition of MAD requires rational actors, robust control over weaponry (accidents/rogue launch), and reliable intelligence over the disposition of the enemy's intent. The Soviets had almost convinced themselves that the US was committed to attack and were ready to act on the basis of a false sensor readings (Able Archer). Relying upon the mental stability and character of Kim Jong Un is not sound policy (unless you are professionally ignorant about his already known track record).

Statements that missile defense is impossible and no different than "alien defense lasers" are absurd and require impossible conspiracies involving thousands of people working on missile defense systems and tests.
Click to expand...
It's not like the rate of economic investment can continue to infinity. The USSR collapsed themselves by spending more than what they can actually handle and it's far more likely a combination of trade wars and forced over-investment into the MIC will beat China to its knees than nuclear armageddon.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom