4
4
0
The Presidential candidates all have their catch-phrases about strengthening the military, or making it strong, or cutting and decreasing the military - but do any of them have any idea what the military actually looks like now? Do we?
What do you think the "right size" military is? How big is the budget? How many troops? Aircraft? Ships? Tanks? Subs? ICBMs? What is the right number? What is too many? What is too few?
We have a lot of smart people here, I hope we can come up with something good!
What do you think the "right size" military is? How big is the budget? How many troops? Aircraft? Ships? Tanks? Subs? ICBMs? What is the right number? What is too many? What is too few?
We have a lot of smart people here, I hope we can come up with something good!
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 6
3
3
0
Break it down (Barney Style).
There's A LOT of Ocean. You need a number of Fleets capable of patrolling that amount of Ocean. That's 7. 7 Carrier Groups, with 4 in Reserve for 2 up, 1 down philosophy. Use that same methodology for the entirely of the Naval Services (including USMC).
There's A LOT of Air. You need an Air Force capable of covering that amount of Air Space. As technology improves, you actually end up needing "less" to a certain point, just because we can places faster, but you still need a methodology similar to that of the USN/USMC.
Ground forces are where things get complex. Assume our presence World Wide is stabilizing, and therefore our Bases World Wide are stabilizing. Those bases support Global Stability and therefore are the absolute minimum amount of troops we can have. Add in the Training installations and those which directly support them. That gives us a fair idea of our minimum. We can of course "divert resources" but Contingencies, Humanitarian Aid, and National Emergencies don't pop up when you want them to.
So that gives us a size, but not a budget.
For Budget, my response is simple. "Do we as the American People have the Capability to Produce the items needed?" If so, cut the check. Don't worry about the number on the paper. The number is imaginary at this point and it really doesn't matter. It's all about Ability and Need. Do we need it and can we actually do it. If the answer to both questions is yes, cut the check.
There's A LOT of Ocean. You need a number of Fleets capable of patrolling that amount of Ocean. That's 7. 7 Carrier Groups, with 4 in Reserve for 2 up, 1 down philosophy. Use that same methodology for the entirely of the Naval Services (including USMC).
There's A LOT of Air. You need an Air Force capable of covering that amount of Air Space. As technology improves, you actually end up needing "less" to a certain point, just because we can places faster, but you still need a methodology similar to that of the USN/USMC.
Ground forces are where things get complex. Assume our presence World Wide is stabilizing, and therefore our Bases World Wide are stabilizing. Those bases support Global Stability and therefore are the absolute minimum amount of troops we can have. Add in the Training installations and those which directly support them. That gives us a fair idea of our minimum. We can of course "divert resources" but Contingencies, Humanitarian Aid, and National Emergencies don't pop up when you want them to.
So that gives us a size, but not a budget.
For Budget, my response is simple. "Do we as the American People have the Capability to Produce the items needed?" If so, cut the check. Don't worry about the number on the paper. The number is imaginary at this point and it really doesn't matter. It's all about Ability and Need. Do we need it and can we actually do it. If the answer to both questions is yes, cut the check.
(3)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
MAJ Bryan Zeski - Keep in mind that "Global Stability" as opposed to "National Defense" has been out real mission for a LONG time. Keeping other nations and the world "stable" means that we don't get caught up in "world affairs" on a BIG scale (like WWI and WWII) but we are constantly engaged on a SMALL scale. It's like doing periodic maintenance on your car to prevent major repairs.
OIF/OEF can arguably the result of us NOT doing our oil changes properly.
OIF/OEF can arguably the result of us NOT doing our oil changes properly.
(2)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS - If that's who the United States has decided its role to be in the world, I think we've underestimated what we really could have been.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
MAJ Bryan Zeski - "decided" isn't the right word. We sort of evolved into that role. After WWII we were a superpower. We stayed a superpower. We could have drew down, but we let ourselves get caught into the philosophic battle of Capitalism vs Communism and Russia vs US which occupied our time for the next 50~ years.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS - Even if we didn't consciously decide, we still made the decision through the allocation of our resources towards that capability instead of other capabilities.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
The right sized military is the one that offers a peaceful deterrence to conflict. Too small and we get ISIS or Kim Jong Un or < insert any other tin-pot dictator >. Too large and we get an anti-military liberal bent in policy and press.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
We currently spend close to $600 billion - over 50% of the discretionary budget - on "defense." If that isn't enough, what is? $1 trillion? $2 trillion? How come the rest of the world, combined, can spend 10x less than we do and still pose that kind of serious threat? Are we just that terrible at allocating our funds? And if we are, is the answer really to keep dumping money into a broke system?
(0)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
How about we stop sending money to countries like pakistan where the government doesn't really like us. How about we stop supporting freeloaders who CHOOSE not to work. How about we stop spending millions on the stupid research projects like a World of Warcraft study at UC Irvine or the billions spent on maintaining empty buildings or the 2 billion given to farmers to not farm. How about stopping the lifetime benefits of members of congress and force them to go back to work in the economies they create. Why are you in the military that you think is bloated. Why aren't you doing your part to reduce the size and scope of the military.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
It is pretty easy to get information about the size of our military both current and historical. It is available on line and in many military related web sites.
The real question is what should it be and that was defined, historically, by what type of missions/tempo/conflicts we needed/expected to be able to support. That is not the case as much these days. It is now a budgetary item that gets pulled like a tug of war rope.
This, of course, is not just about how many people it is also how many tanks, aircraft, ships etc we will have deployed around the globe. How many bases/installations/outposts etc.
I think the concern is that the numbers have been shrinking in the face of ever increasing danger and threats to us and our allies.
The real question is what should it be and that was defined, historically, by what type of missions/tempo/conflicts we needed/expected to be able to support. That is not the case as much these days. It is now a budgetary item that gets pulled like a tug of war rope.
This, of course, is not just about how many people it is also how many tanks, aircraft, ships etc we will have deployed around the globe. How many bases/installations/outposts etc.
I think the concern is that the numbers have been shrinking in the face of ever increasing danger and threats to us and our allies.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
We spend as much as the next 10 countries combined. Are we just that bad with money, or is there a bigger problem here?
(0)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
MAJ Bryan Zeski Depending on the list you consider the most accurate, we spend as much as the next 8 or so. Another way to look at this is a % of GDP as well as what the mission is. If you look at % of GDP we are number 4 or so (depending on the list). The Russians and Chinese are also number 2 and 3 on the list. Combined, they spend about 1.2 the dollars but similar % of their GDP.
One of our missions is to ensure we are not fighting the next conflict on our shores so we have to project power and create buffers. That is not a cheap endeavor but when you look at the lives lost in two major word wars in the last century it may not be a bad deal. If you believe in peace through strength and that projecting power keeps us safe then our spending has been largely successful over the last 75 years.
One of our missions is to ensure we are not fighting the next conflict on our shores so we have to project power and create buffers. That is not a cheap endeavor but when you look at the lives lost in two major word wars in the last century it may not be a bad deal. If you believe in peace through strength and that projecting power keeps us safe then our spending has been largely successful over the last 75 years.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google