Pentagon Budget Set To Shrink Next Year

Good!!!

And that $525 billion wilkl still be around FIVE TIMES what our nearest adversary (China) spend. It will also still be more than the top 10 countries by dollars spend on their military budgets. How much is enough when you're outspending the rest of the world. Of course, when you're mainly using that money to play Team America: World Police, the answer is it's never enough. We need to stop being the defacto armed forces for the rest of the world.

The only thing I DO NOT want changed is any reduction in benefits and or wages paid to individual active duty troops or retirees. They deserve every single dime they get.

We will be at war with Iran within 2 years, need to justify the massive spending. JudeoChristian facism must be spread in the name of "freedom" and after all 9/11 was Iran's fault....

Good god, it's about freakin time.

Good, Lion, you given me my soapbox and thanks hvymtl for the chance to show the lack of analysis behind your post.

1) Maybe in 1788, when the Regular Army was under 1,000 Soldiers, we had no Navy and the defense of the US was left to undertrained, poorly equipped militia of variable morale and effectiveness (don't believe me, read up on the first two battles the new US Army fought against the Miami Indians of Ohio in 1793 and how the militia ran away at first contact), the average citizen had the knowledge and information to rationally discuss national defense issues. But probably not, given the tension with Native Americans, the British in canada and their posts still on American soil despite the Treaty of Paris and the SPanish in Florida and Louisiana, the French Revolutionary Wars and the exactions of the Barbary pirates just over the horizon.

I would suggest you go to your local university library and see if you can get the last years worth of back issues of Jane's Defense Weekly, Brassey's International Defense Review and the essays and studies from the Institute of Strategic Studies. Then read at least Clausewitz ( I prefer the Paret version) and Sun Tzu, the current National and National Military Strategy, the National Defense Appropriations Act and the testimony to Congress for this and the previous year. Then you might have the beginning of a basis for rationally discussing national security issues.

I'm going to use websites, though I don't really like them for data and information.

1) Let's start with the US budget for FY2011, as this is the last data available for the Chinese. The DoD budget for FY2011 was $692B, of which FY2011 was GDP was $15,079M. Population was 313.3M. Per capita income was $48,129. Military manpower, active - 1,477,896, reserve - 1,458,500. Major land weapons systems: 56,269, naval vessels (warships and auxiliaries): 2,384, military aircraft, including helicopters: 18,234 http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_budget_2011_3.html;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_armed_forces;http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=United-States-of-America

2) Now for the Chinese. News organizations place the Chinese "official" budget at $91.5B, a 13% increase over the previous year. The Chinese GDP was $7.4T, a 9.2% increase over 2010. Population in 2010 was 1,339.7M and projected to 1,446M for 2011. That would make the per capita income was $5,117 in 2011. The military manpower was active - 2,285,000 and reserve - 800,000. Total land weapons systems: 47,515, naval ships: 972 and military aircraft - 5,176. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China;http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-china-economy-20120117,0,6366233.story;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population;http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=China

So what's the comparison? US to China?

GDP: 2.04 to 1
Defense budget: 7.56:1
Population: 1:4.62
Per capita income: 9.41:1
Active manpower: .65:1
Reserve manpower: 1.82:1
Land systems: 1.18:1
Naval ships: 2.45:1
Aircraft: 3.52:1

This is very simplistic. But the driving economic impact on defense budget for the US is manpower costs. 51% of the base defense budget goes to pay, allowances, retirement and health care for Soldiers and civilians. The US pays $384B for 2,936,396 active and reserve personnel. China pays something less than $91.5B for 3,085,000 active and reserve personnel. That this should be obvious when you note that both armed forces are voluntarily recruited and the US per capita income is over 9 times that of China. If both countries maintained the same size militaries, China's defense spending would always be less.

But there's more. China has universal health care and health care costs are paid seperately from the defense budget in garrison. Then there's the fact that the Chinese military maintain farms and factories to provide life support items to their troops, where the US buys off the commercial market. Given the difference of GDP and per capita income, how much do you think China spends on clothing, equipping, housing and feeding those three million troops compared to the 2.9M US troops? The Chinese military sells the excess production of those factories and farms, which are staffed by troops, not workers, domestically and and the international market. Profits are plowed back into the defense budget. The Chinese government still owns its defense industries and centrally manages R&D and production. Where in the US, every component or part for a weapons system has added overhead costs attached as it moves toward the end item, the Chinese "sell" these parts between factories at cost. And of course, given their labor costs, these costs are significantly less than what it costs to produce a weapons system in the US. The Chinese save on R&D by buying what the can on the market, using military applicable commercial technology and stealing anything they can get their hands on. Look at their new carrier. Bought for scrap prices from the Ukraine as a "hotel and casino" by a Chinese front company for the Defense Ministry. Overhauled and completed in a navy yard. The systems either bought from Russia and the Ukraine at a discount or produced in China. End result, a carrier the size of the earlier US "Forrestal" class with modern Russian weapons and electronics systems. At rock bottom price.

That's why your argument, hvymtl is comparing apples to oranges.

For those sloppy thinkers blabbing about a war against Iran.

Please pay attention! Get a hold of the new National Strategy review being conducted by the Obama Administration and read it. Really read it. You won't see a thing about Iran or a war against Iran. The focus is on China and Asia.

Moreover, you don't need a war to reduce the Iranian threat to the US, the West and our allies. And if you don't think Iranian regional ambitions are not a threat, you've been asleep since 1979. And haven't noticed the continued build up of the Iranian conventional and unconventional forces since 1989. As Lion points out economic sanctions slow Iran's growth as a military power. They have a single petroleum products refinery at Bandar Abbas. Shut off exports of refined products to Iran and the entire country comes to a screaming halt. Iranian military power is sufficient to defend the country from Russia in the north and Turkey in the east and more than sufficient to defeat the Arab armies of Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf polities and occupy those countries. It is certainly enough to control its Kurdish and Baluchi insurgencies and the Communist underground. It is not sufficient to fully defend its coast line, ports or airspace. IF, big if, the US was compelled to reduce Iran's military capability to threaten its allies in the Middle East and the international waters at the Straights of Hormuz, the war would be almost entirely fought from the sea and in the air. Very little US ground force capability would be needed except to support the defense of their territory by US allies. No invasion, no occupation.

Continuing our previous thoughts.

hvymtl, if the Chinese had to pay US costs to sustain their current military forces, their 2011 defense budget would have been around $550B.

But let's take your comparison a little further.

Just for kicks and giggles, let's compare China with the UK, the thrid largest spender on defense.

GDP: $7,400B to $2,480B (2.98:1)
Defense budget: $91.5B to $73.7B (1.24:1)
Population: 1,446M to 62.6M (23.1:1)
Per capita income: $5,117 to $39,616 (1:7.74)
Active manpower: 2,285,000 to 224,500 (10.2:1)
Reserve manpower: 800,000 to 187,130 (4.3:1)
Land systems: 47,575 to 11,630 (4.1:1)
Naval ships: 972 to 99 (9.8:1)
Aircraft: 5,176 to 1,663 (3.1:1)

So on 124% of the defense budget, China has ten times the active manpower, four times the reserve manpower, four times the land weapons systems, almost ten times the naval vessels and three times the aircraft. Now either the Chinese costs are far lower than a First World capitalist nation's or the comparison your using, hvymtl, is useless to determine actual defense spending in comparison to other nations.

Just some more thoughts.

When I enlisted in the Army in 1975, the US spent (including the defense budget, veterans programs and other government agency work for DoD) the equivalent of 6.7% of its GDP. The active Army's end strength that FY was around 1.5M.

In 1980 when I got my commission, total defense spending for that year equaled the equivalent of 6% of the GDP and the Active Army end strength was about one million.

In 1991, at the end of the First Gulf War, defense spending was 5.3% and the Active Army was at 750,000.

In 2001, we spent 3.6% of the GDP on defense and the Active Army was at 490,000.

Just some more thoughts on Federal spending

Fiscal Year/GDP/defense spending including veterans programs and work by other agencies for DoD/% GDP/pensions, including Social Security/% GDP/health, including Medicare/Medicaid/welfare, including unemployment benefits/%GDP/education/% GDP/All "social" spending/% GDP

FY1945/$223B/$93.7B/42%/$.4B/.1%/$.3B/.1%/$.8B/.3%/$.4B/.1%/$1.9B/.8%
FY1950/$293.7B/$24.2B/8.2%/$1B/.3%/$1B/.3%/$1.6B/.5%/$2.8B/.9%/$5.4B/1.8%
FY1955/$414.7B/$47.2B/11.4%/$4.8B/1.2%/$.9B/.2%/$2B/.5%/$1.3B/.3%/$9B/2.2%
FY1960/$526.4B/$53.3B/10.1%/$11.7B/2.2%/$1.5B/.3%/$3B/.6%/$1.6B/.3%/$17.8B/3.4%
FY1965/$719.1B/$61.6B/8.6%/$14.5B/2%/$1.8B/.3%/$6.6B/.9%/$2.9B/.4%/$25.8B/3.6%
FY1970/$1038.1B/$94.7B/9.1%/$27.4B/2.6%/$12.1B/1.2%/$10.1B/1%/$9.6B/.9%/$59.2B/ 5.7%
FY1975/$1637.7B/$110.2B/6.7%/$66.7B/4.1%/$25.8B/1.6%/$36.9B/2.3%/$17.1B/1%/$146.5B/8.9%
FY1980/$2788.1B/$167.9B/6%/$129.3B/4.6%/$55.3B/2%/$59.9B/2.1%/$33.2B/1.1%/$277.7B/10%
FY1985/$4217.5B/$295.2B/7%/$200.1B/4.7%/$99.4B/2.4%/$90.4B/2.1%/$30.6B/.7%/$420.5B/10%
FY1990/$5800.5B/$342.2B/5.9%/$267B/4.6%/$155.8B/2.7%/$96.6B/1.7%/$40B/.7%/$559.4B/9.6%
FY1995/$7414.7B/$326.4B/4.4%/$367.3B/4.9%/$275.3B/3.7%/$157.9B/2.1%/$55.2B/.7%/$855.7B/11.5%
FY2000/$9951.5B/$358.7B/3.6%/$448.7B/4.5%/$351.6B/3.5%/$176.6B/1.8%/$60B/.6%/$1036.9B/10.4%
FY2005/$12638.4B/$600.1B/4.7%/$557.7B/4.4%/$549.3B/4.3%/$252.5B/2%/$106.4B/.8%/$1465.9B/11.6%
FY2010/$14508.2B/$847.2B/5.8%/$749.6/5.2%/$820.7B/5.7%/$502.3B/3.5%/$140.4B/1%/$2213B/15.2%

Just for furtherthought, let's compare the US to more centralized nations which don't have subordinate, autonomous tax and spend governments. The next line uses as government spending, Federal, state and local
FY2010/$14508.2B/$847.2B/5.8%/$939.2B/6.5%/$1028.8B/7.1%/$727.3B/5%/$887.3B/6.1%/$3582.6/24.7%

In other words, the US spent 4.22 time more on "social" services and spending than on national defense, including veterans programs.

all data comes from http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/

While we're at it, sit down and watch video of the major natural disasters around the world for the last ten years. Note the level and competence of response of those nation's defense forces.

Now take a look at natural disasters in this country and the level and competence of response by the national defense forces, in particular, the National Guard and Reserves.

Then think about how it helps that we as a nation have the wealth to create national defense forces that can provide trained, experienced medical, engineer, police, transportation, logistics personnel, equipped with trucks and aircraft. Then let's talk again about the defense budget.

Minan, please provide the analysis for your statement. This is a debate, after all, and unsupported assertions should not be posted.

Given that of the 1,477,000 active duty military personnel, less than 50,000 are assigned to foreign countries outside of Afghanistan, and there are less than 120,000 in Afghanistan, and that number should drawdown to around 20,000 by 2014 as we reduce the active force to less than 1.4M. Our foreign bases, those that can serve as power projection platforms, have been reduced by OVER 2/3d since the first BRAC back in 1995.

So tell me again about overseas stationing?

BTW, let's take your assertion. 2/3ds would reduce the baseline defense budget to $191.4B or the equivalent in FY2012 of 1.2% of our GDP instead of 3.5%. Ya, that really worked for us in the 1930s, didn't it.

For your information, the US defense budget between 1930 and 1939 never exceeded 2% of the GDP. During this time, Japanese militarists conquered Manchuria, northern and coastal China, the Italian Fascists helped the Spanish fascists win their Civil War in Spain, conquered Albani and Ethiopia, while the German NAZIs re-militarized the Rhineland, re-incorporated the Ruhr and conquered Austria and the Czech lands of Czechoslovakia. Also the Russian Soviets incorporated the Baltic republics and ripped land away from Romania. Oh, of course the US protested diplomatically, especially to the Japanese. The Japanese were not just League members, but signatories, with the US to treaties that guaranteed the soverieignty and territorial integrity of the China. Yet US protests were to no avail because the Japanes KNEW we had neither the will or military capability to do anything about their actions.

I have a few more minutes.

So according to this web site, http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=China

The US spends as much as the next seventeen countries combined in 2011, $692B to ~$700B. Wow, we're real war mongers. Look again. US vs. the world (or these seventeen nstions)

Active manpower: 1,477,896 to 8,717,085 (ratio 1:5.89)
Reserve manpower: 1,480,500 to 10,424,175 (ratio 1:7.04)
Land systems: 56,259 to 389,231 (Ratio 1:6.92)
Naval ships: 2,384 to 3,027 (Ratio 1:1.27)
Aircraft: 18,234 to 27,814 (ratio 1:1.52)

So why doesn't the numbers equal out. We're spending the same amount as these other countries, right? Or maybe it has something to do with ensuring our military has a technological edge to make up for shortage of numbers, the best combat equipment we can provide, and just as important, the best training we can afford. Maybe there are other factors in defense spending rather than pure numbers?