Iraq War smackdown - for mvpel

[Caleb]

In 1801, the United States federal government faced internal threats (since the French still controlled the Louisiana territory until 1803, and the nation faced the omnipresent threat of attacks by the Indian tribes.)  The government also faced external threats, particularly from the superior European powers of England and France which took turns opposing the new republic.  The nation had recently come out of a quasi-war against France, and faced continued threats from the superior European powers.  There was also the barbary threat against Muslim extremists that would result in the Barbary Wars of 1801-1805.

Defense budget in 1801: a little under $1,000,000

In 2007, the US sits alone as the world's only superpower.  None of our neighbors are hostile to us, and those nations which are hostile to us do not have the resources to deploy any weapons to our shores.  The only threats are internal threats from a small group of terrorists.

Proposed defense budget 2007:  $440,000,000,000

2007 budget adjusted for inflation in 1801 dollars:  $11,000,000,000

That means that we spend today a little over 1.1 Million PERCENT more than they did in 1801, adjusted for inflation!

Is there a possible way you can defend this and still maintain the facade that you are a fiscal conservative?

[penguins4me]

I'm not mvpel, but this is the Interweb and here's my say! ;) I can't vouch the amount of wasted funds initially given to the US military, but I tend to imagine that, for instance, carrier groups are likely to be much more expensive, even in inflation-adjusted dollars, than their counterparts of the early 1800s.

Then realize that some of those "non-hostile" nations not mentioned (such as China, Russia) *do* have the capability to inflict sudden, massive damage to the continental USA, something supposedly largely held in check by rare - expensive - nuclear ballistic missiles of our own (and yes, I am aware of the Hiroshima/Nagasaki irony).

Aside from those high-dollar items, consider the cost of developing and deploying the other equipment which allows the US to hold the title of 'hyperpower' (according to France): fighter, bomber, rotary-wing aircraft; guided munitions; cryptographic communications gear; infrared/night-vision sensors and goggles; armor technologies for both vehicles and individuals; training and maintaining individual soldiers and sailors... and the granddaddy of 'em all: ARPAnet, aka the Internet.

I'm not defending military spending so much as I'd love to see the completely and totally useless, rotten bits of gov't pared first, such as that ~$500,000,000,000.00/year spent on *ahem* "social welfare" programs.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Carrier groups and most of what you have mentioned here are not defensive weapons. Tanks and bombers are not necessary for defending ones borders.  Everything that floats is, essentially, just a target.
We need a missile defense system.  Presently, our best defense against any missile attack is our Ballistic Missile submarines.

[penguins4me]

Not to hijack (anymore than I already have), but a weapon's purpose, for offense or defense, is up to its wielder. For example, I re-read a bit of early US history lately regarding the Barbary pirates - a US navy was formed to go and attack the northern African countries involved because those same African countries were ruled by or host to pirates who were preying on merchant ships flying the US flag. I do concede the point that the US is currently not using its weapons solely for defense.

Good point about the submarines, true, though I wanted to highlight the extreme monetary costs involved with "modern" military hardware and as such plucked the low-hanging fruit. ;)

[Lloyd Danforth]

Going after the Barbary Pirates was, I believe the US's first act of aggression (Whiskey Rebellion?).  The merchant ships should have provided their own protection and passed the costs on to their customers.

[penguins4me]

The merchant ships should have provided their own protection and passed the costs on to their customers.

I don't currently agree with that viewpoint, but I'll have to ponder it a bit more.

I still stand by my statement that a weapon's purpose (offense, defense) is determined by the wielder. Even with that said, there is such a thing as wasteful excess, and I'm not claiming that $400 billion/year is required strictly for the defense of the US.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Lets review:
Tanks. Designed for going somewhere, not the US.  You wouldn't be defending the country with Tanks unless you, already, suffered a border breach and were chasing the enemy around or back into Mexico or Canada.  Fighter jets would be quicker and better than Tanks.

Aircraft Carriers.  Designed for going somewhere not the US.  We have adequate land bases for launching Fighters in the case of an assault on our shores or borders.

Land based ICBM's.  Do I have to repeat the second sentence?  Because they are land based, they can be taken out and present a danger to all who live near them.

I can go on.

I'm just saying that if you wish the Department Of Defense to defend the US, all you need is a good electronically based system of observation, an ability to rapidly, respond to border, coast breaches, and a Missile Defense Response system.

If  You wish the Department Of Defense to:

Defend the world from: Pirates, Communism, Islam, Dictators, etc.

Defend: Israel, Europe, Oil, Democracy Everywhere!

Believe that: 'we're fighting them there so we won't have to fight them here'

Then you can justify all that other War stuff.

[penguins4me]

I agree whole-heartedly with "speak softly and carry a big stick" philosophy, inasmuch as it applies to self-defense only. Tanks, ICBMs, and even carrier groups can indeed be used defensively:

Tanks are the kings of a ground war, and their nemesis, aircraft, can be dealt with by an overabundance of modern, passive-seeking MANPADS.

Aircraft can indeed be powerful, but are fragile and must contend with both air and ground threats, of pretty much any tech level beyond WW2.

Carriers contain aircraft, which carry one of the most potent naval weapons to date: sea-skimming anti-ship missiles.

ICBMs (even land-based ones, simply because it is easier to have more available than on a bitty submarine) are a very strong deterrent against sane nations with like weapons who might be considering their use against our own nation. The state I hope to live in one day is currently host to a large number of these.

There's more to it, but even though the Founders did NOT want a standing army, at this point in time I do believe that a powerful military is a good thing, if it were to be used as a deterrent and for defense only, even to the point of having "world-wide force projection power".

A more pragmatic way to explain my ideal philosophy would be eloquently explained by this picture: "leave us alone, and no one gets hurt - mess with us, you'll wish you were dead."



-edit
changed attachment to an img