Trump + Nukes + Twitter = Lulz

[Skroe]

This is outrageous. How in the hell can so many nations be this irresponsible, to not have a viable military to protect their people? Didn't they learn ANYTHING from WWII?

A budget is a list of priorities, not a wish list. They spend what they spend in order to fulfill their defense strategy.

The United States defense strategy is global in scope. It encompass two oceans, outer space, cyberspace and every continent. We use al all volunteer force and maintain absolutely massive standing forces. That adds up. And even then, defense is under funded, probably by $100 billion a year. Trump will likely as for a $60 billion supplemental in March. Congress will approve it.

By contrast India or the UK maintain more regional defense strategies. The UK is mostly concerned with Europe and the North Atlantic. Their planed 2020 fleet comprises around 20 combat ships total (the US will be 308 at the time, on the way to 355). Russia mostly focuses on nuclear weapons, continental land power, and antiquated air power. Their naval forces are modest. Saudi Arabia spends a lot... just for the Middle East area.

Which gets to the crux of it. The US spends $620 billion for the entire planet. Europe, by contrast, oft criticized for underspending, spends $300 billion just for the European continent region, which dwarfs our spending there. But Europe isn't worried about the security of the South China Sea or something.

I've been saying it for ages now: the problem with European defense spending isn't how much they spend (though it could be more). That's and the 2% GDP number is a massive, unproductive distraction from HOW they spend it. Contrary to the nationalists anti-integrationist positions of the Trumpkins, you won't get must better defense spending out of Europe unless they do more continental integration of forces and of procurement.

If the US just focused on defending North America, it could probably get buy with about $200 billion. But that can and should never happen because the history of warfare is the history of the failure of reaction-minded territorial defense and the enduring success of pre-emptive-mined forward defense.

[Kryos]

So, all the suffering caused by Germany in WWII is just NO INCENTIVE to European nations to have a viable military, that can withstand the attack of 4 dudes in a rubber raft with lawn darts?

Nearly 515 nuclear warheads in France and UK is enough to defend yourself from every army. You can destroy several countrys with that.

This:

on the other hand is stupid.

[Vankrys]

This is outrageous. How in the hell can so many nations be this irresponsible, to not have a viable military to protect their people? Didn't they learn ANYTHING from WWII?

you do know that not every country has the same GDP as the united states. not even close.

[Skroe]

Now we are talking the same language, brother. You can cut govt waste all you want but, when 93% of the spending comes from three places that you aren't willing to address, the math gets tough, especially when you bring merely 60 cents of every dollar you spend.

However, if I have any hope for Trump doing something a career politician can't, it would be getting the public to address the reality that, there is mathematically no way to continue spending what we do on SS, Medicare/Medicaid/Obamacare, and the military.

I think Rick Perrys ire of the Dept of Energy has fuck all to do with taxes, and everything to do with pumping oil out of this bitch.

Yep. Except yet again, the DoE has basically nothing to do with oil (or wind, or solar) except for publishing some reports about how much oil we have in the country. It's the DoE's hobby. The DoE's job is nuclear weapons, naval reactors, the plutonium/uranium stockpile, nuclear clean up and arms control around the world, nuclear power plant oversight.

If Trump wanted to get America fracking, he should have put Rick Perry in charge of the Department of the Interior.

And i agree. The fault lies with the baby boomers. They started promising themselves $1.25 cents for every $1 put into entitlement,s and then doubled that with Medicare Part D, and funded it all on their children and grandchildren's credit card. Unless Medicare specifically, and eventually Medicaid and Social Security are hugely cut down to size, forget the military... you can cut away any function of government besides taking care of the old.

Not that that isn't important. But historically, the entitlements were put in place to take care of a person in the last 3-5 years of their lives. Then live expectancy went up and people went on those programs for 15 years+. There has to be a change. In my perfect world, I'd see Medicare at 73, Social Security at 73. Maybe even 75 for women since they tend to live a few years longer then men.

The 60s in the 21st century is ridiculous.

[Tijuana]

A budget is a list of priorities, not a wish list. They spend what they spend in order to fulfill their defense strategy.

The United States defense strategy is global in scope. It encompass two oceans, outer space, cyberspace and every continent. We use al all volunteer force and maintain absolutely massive standing forces. That adds up. And even then, defense is under funded, probably by $100 billion a year. Trump will likely as for a $60 billion supplemental in March. Congress will approve it.

By contrast India or the UK maintain more regional defense strategies. The UK is mostly concerned with Europe and the North Atlantic. Their planed 2020 fleet comprises around 20 combat ships total (the US will be 308 at the time, on the way to 355). Russia mostly focuses on nuclear weapons, continental land power, and antiquated air power. Their naval forces are modest. Saudi Arabia spends a lot... just for the Middle East area.

Which gets to the crux of it. The US spends $620 billion for the entire planet. Europe, by contrast, oft criticized for underspending, spends $300 billion just for the European continent region, which dwarfs our spending there. But Europe isn't worried about the security of the South China Sea or something.

I've been saying it for ages now: the problem with European defense spending isn't how much they spend (though it could be more). That's and the 2% GDP number is a massive, unproductive distraction from HOW they spend it. Contrary to the nationalists anti-integrationist positions of the Trumpkins, you won't get must better defense spending out of Europe unless they do more continental integration of forces and of procurement.

If the US just focused on defending North America, it could probably get buy with about $200 billion. But that can and should never happen because the history of warfare is the history of the failure of reaction-minded territorial defense and the enduring success of pre-emptive-mined forward defense.

I have a feeling dramatic changes are on the way. Trump wants to win, due to his massive ego. He can't win on the budget by spending a dollar for every 60 cents. Plus as no doubt you know better than I, the mission of our military is a bit outdated. I suspect at some point he will start pushing back hard at NATO for how much we are relied on.

- - - Updated - - -

European nations DO have a viable military.

LOL good one

- - - Updated - - -

Nearly 515 nuclear warheads in France and UK is enough to defend yourself from every army. You can destroy several countrys with that.

This:

on the other hand is stupid.

I mean, you could link a chart with the whole budget, not just discretionary spending. The military isn't even the most stupidly out of line program we have, if you can believe that.

[Skroe]

Nearly 515 nuclear warheads in France and UK is enough to defend yourself from every army. You can destroy several countrys with that.

This:

on the other hand is stupid.

No.

This is stupid.



Welcome to America. Where the old eat everything.

One of these years, we'll stop having people trying to pull the "defense is half of all spending" nonsense. It ain't. Just the $1.,1 trillion in Discretionary. The other $2.7 Trillion is in entitlements.

And that doesn't even cover State and Local Spending, which are all about entitlements, state/local level operations and infrastructure and basically nothing for defense (to put it another way, Arkansas doesn't buy F-15s, but it does buy roads).

[Tijuana]

you do know that not every country has the same GDP as the united states. not even close.

The issue isn't how much of YOUR GDP you spend on defense, the issue is how much of OUR GDP goes to your defense. It's becoming a contentious issue in the US.

- - - Updated - - -

No.

This is stupid.



Welcome to America. Where the old eat everything.

One of these years, we'll stop having people trying to pull the "defense is half of all spending" nonsense. It ain't. Just the $1.,1 trillion in Discretionary. The other $2.7 Trillion is in entitlements.

And that doesn't even cover State and Local Spending, which are all about entitlements, state/local level operations and infrastructure and basically nothing for defense (to put it another way, Arkansas doesn't buy F-15s, but it does buy roads).

Also of note, we basically borrow for all but the orange and blue slices of pie.

[Deleted]

The issue isn't how much of YOUR GDP you spend on defense, the issue is how much of OUR GDP goes to your defense. It's becoming a contentious issue in the US.

They can afford it.

[Tijuana]

Well, don't. Stop doing it.
Spend it on education and stuff, we all know the country really needs it.

I'm reasonably certain this is high Cheeto Jesus's to do list. It seems the EU nations are aware, if reports of actual defense budgets being increased are to be believed.

- - - Updated - - -

They can afford it.

Who is they? The US? Not really, not forever...

[Skroe]

I have a feeling dramatic changes are on the way. Trump wants to win, due to his massive ego. He can't win on the budget by spending a dollar for every 60 cents. Plus as no doubt you know better than I, the mission of our military is a bit outdated. I suspect at some point he will start pushing back hard at NATO for how much we are relied on.

You, and the Trumpkins, greatly underestimate what it is going to take to transform NATO. Donald Trump will be out of office for years, before it takes effect.

Let me put it like this. This will illustrate what I'm talking about.



This is an illustration of some... and not even close to all, the defense Industry consolidation that happened as the Cold War ended. The US ordered it at the so called "Last Supper", because the 1990s budget wouldn't support the sprawling defense industrial complex that grew during the Cold War.

This is also a picture of closed plants, industrial decay, lost jobs, and industry changes. Was it necessary? Absolutely. Was it overkill? To a degree for sure. But at the same time, the rate at which US bought say... submarines, was reduced by 2/3rds in the 1990s compared to the 1990s.

It's also notable how some of these were regional. Raytheon, for example, is one of Massachusetts largest employers and has a long history in my state. But it's enduring success to this day came at the cost of independence of Allied Signal and Hughes Electronics, which thrived elsewhere.

Why is this important? Because this process basically did not happen in Europe. The French jealously guard their defense industrial complex. The British guard theirs. The Germans guard theirs. They all make national versions of similar systems, but at huge cost and limited production numbers, because multi-national programs are few and far between, and when they are launched, are typically designed in such a way that everybody gets a slice of the pie (making it very inefficient).

Basically in the US, for our army, we use two tanks - the M1A1 and the M1A2, with minor variants on both. Europe uses over 30 different tanks. Each Army uses 1 or 2 types of course, but there are 26 armies. Why aren't all European countries using the the German Leopard 2 (the M1's cousin?) which is probably the best tank in the world? Because that would mean putting the French and British tank building factories out of work... and all the jobs that go with it. Their industrial concerns are every bit as legitimate as ours.

So for all the talk about NATO and budgeting... it's fluff. It barely matters. Until we live in a world where the British Army is using German tanks, and the French Navy is using British-Italian-German aircraft, and the German Navy is using British warships, the gross inefficiencies in procurement will continue. And that doesn't even address the huge national redundancies. 26 countries means 26 command staffs, 26 specialized units, 26 sets of equipment... it's ridiculous. That is like going back to the pre-World War I model where every US state had a militia and was responsible for equipping it. There _MUST_ be continent-wide equipping and standardization if the kind of NATO we'd all like to see is to come about.

That's going to take years, not only because of national pride, but because it means that at the other end we'll be able to produce a graph like the one I linked, which means in effect, the end of historic industries in many European countries. Who will be the British MP that votes to close a Shipyard that goes back to the 17th century? That is what NATO reform looks like.

Trump bullying will do nothing to speed that along. They need our help in doing this painful, shitty thing, not our ire. Because let's be clear: what I'm saying here will destroy people's lives, period. One day an electrician at a Norwegian shipyard will have a 20 year career. The next he'll be unemployed. That is what happened in the US. That is what must happen in Europe. Both continents need a defense industrial base that is efficient... not too big, but not too small. The US's right now is arguably too consolidated. But Europe's is overwhelmingly sprawling and nationalized. And it must change.

[JohnBrown1917]

Well, don't. Stop doing it.
Spend it on education and stuff, we all know the country really needs it.

No, you see, its Europa's fault that the US spends so much on its military.
Its why they can't have proper worker rights, have high healthcare costs and expansive eduction!

[Vankrys]

Welcome to America. Where the old eat everything.

in a society worth living in, people take care of their own. What would you do with your "old"? Shoot them? One day, even you will be "old".

[Skroe]

Well, don't. Stop doing it.
Spend it on education and stuff, we all know the country really needs it.

Education is mostly paid for by state and local taxes. Not federal taxes. The US has three levels of government.

My state, Massachusetts, when ranked alone, would be tied for first in reading and in second behind Singpaore for Math and Science.

http://www.capecodtoday.com/article/...ong-Best-World

We spend more on education than defense as a whole. Far more. But that's mostly in state-and-local spending, because education is managed mostly at that level (state election secretary's, local school boards). When my town wanted to spend more on education, they put up an override for a vote, and people voted on to be taxed more or not for it. In Massachusetts, spending more on Education almost always wins.



To the tune of $1.2 trillion a year for education, versus ~$600 billion for defense.

So basically you should catch up to us.

This is the difference between budgeting though in a 3 level system. The US Federal budget is $3.9 trillion per year, but when you throw in State and local spending, the total comes to about $6.7 trillion a year in spending.

[Tijuana]

You, and the Trumpkins, greatly underestimate what it is going to take to transform NATO. Donald Trump will be out of office for years, before it takes effect.

Let me put it like this. This will illustrate what I'm talking about.



This is an illustration of some... and not even close to all, the defense Industry consolidation that happened as the Cold War ended. The US ordered it at the so called "Last Supper", because the 1990s budget wouldn't support the sprawling defense industrial complex that grew during the Cold War.

This is also a picture of closed plants, industrial decay, lost jobs, and industry changes. Was it necessary? Absolutely. Was it overkill? To a degree for sure. But at the same time, the rate at which US bought say... submarines, was reduced by 2/3rds in the 1990s compared to the 1990s.

It's also notable how some of these were regional. Raytheon, for example, is one of Massachusetts largest employers and has a long history in my state. But it's enduring success to this day came at the cost of independence of Allied Signal and Hughes Electronics, which thrived elsewhere.

Why is this important? Because this process basically did not happen in Europe. The French jealously guard their defense industrial complex. The British guard theirs. The Germans guard theirs. They all make national versions of similar systems, but at huge cost and limited production numbers, because multi-national programs are few and far between, and when they are launched, are typically designed in such a way that everybody gets a slice of the pie (making it very inefficient).

Basically in the US, for our army, we use two tanks - the M1A1 and the M1A2, with minor variants on both. Europe uses over 30 different tanks. Each Army uses 1 or 2 types of course, but there are 26 armies. Why aren't all European countries using the the German Leopard 2 (the M1's cousin?) which is probably the best tank in the world? Because that would mean putting the French and British tank building factories out of work... and all the jobs that go with it. Their industrial concerns are every bit as legitimate as ours.

So for all the talk about NATO and budgeting... it's fluff. It barely matters. Until we live in a world where the British Army is using German tanks, and the French Navy is using British-Italian-German aircraft, and the German Navy is using British warships, the gross inefficiencies in procurement will continue. And that doesn't even address the huge national redundancies. 26 countries means 26 command staffs, 26 specialized units, 26 sets of equipment... it's ridiculous. That is like going back to the pre-World War I model where every US state had a militia and was responsible for equipping it. There _MUST_ be continent-wide equipping and standardization if the kind of NATO we'd all like to see is to come about.

That's going to take years, not only because of national pride, but because it means that at the other end we'll be able to produce a graph like the one I linked, which means in effect, the end of historic industries in many European countries. Who will be the British MP that votes to close a Shipyard that goes back to the 17th century? That is what NATO reform looks like.

Trump bullying will do nothing to speed that along. They need our help in doing this painful, shitty thing, not our ire. Because let's be clear: what I'm saying here will destroy people's lives, period. One day an electrician at a Norwegian shipyard will have a 20 year career. The next he'll be unemployed. That is what happened in the US. That is what must happen in Europe. Both continents need a defense industrial base that is efficient... not too big, but not too small. The US's right now is arguably too consolidated. But Europe's is overwhelmingly sprawling and nationalized. And it must change.

I don't think any US citizen with a brain gives a flying fuck. We feel no sympathy for others who would be bankrupt if we stopped doing what is bankrupting us. It's us or them, we will need to choose us. I don't want to share hardware with them. I want our stuff to wtfpwn theirs. I want them throwing rocks back at our Gatling guns. Sharing any tech with outsiders is a HUGE mistake.

[Skroe]

in a society worth living in, people take care of their own. What would you do with your "old"? Shoot them? One day, even you will be "old".

Of course we should take care of our old and everyone in it.

But getting $1.25 for every $1.00 you put in (so to speak) is not an equitable or sustainable arrangement. The Math doesn't care for the "feels".

Again a budget is a list of priorities. Taking care of the old to the tune of trillions per year means there isn't money for other things. CERTAINLY some of that should be spent on the old. But to the degree we do now? I disagree. It's gone too far in one direction. Way too far.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

So, that's going to be the next big mediatized thing? Trump want to work nuclear weapons!

And if it honestly get bad, as some people love to claim, well at least we'll live in Fallout. I always dreamed of being a Minutemen.

[Skroe]

I don't think any US citizen with a brain gives a flying fuck. We feel no sympathy for others who would be bankrupt if we stopped doing what is bankrupting us. It's us or them, we will need to choose us. I don't want to share hardware with them. I want our stuff to wtfpwn theirs. I want them throwing rocks back at our Gatling guns. Sharing any tech with outsiders is a HUGE mistake.

This is monumentally stupid.

First the US does not have a monopoly on potent military systems. There are many things Europe produces that is better than ours, or jointly produces with us. For example, in certain regimes of flight the Eurofighter Typhoon is superior to the F-22. The MBDA Meteor is arguably a better missile than the AIM-120D. The Leopard 2 is in many ways a better tank than the M1A2. Europe's latest diesel electric hybrid subs are stealthier than our nuclear attack subs... and the US Navy LOVES how they compliment our attack sub's endurance.

Hell Boeing's new T-X trainer, which to be clear, is a program that is a backdoor to a lightweight fighter to replace the F-16 in mass numbers in a pinch, is a joint Boeing-SAAB program, that takes elements of the F/A-18 and F-22 and merges them with elements of the SAAB Gripen.

Secondly the man surrounded by a large and reliable posse of capable friends is much better off than a crazed loner with a lot of guns.

We should feel sympathy for them. We need their friendship, partnership and access. We don't need their stuff.

Fundamentally your entire point is self defeating. If you want NATO to get to a better spot rather than just cause arson, then you should care about how it gets there and the US as the leader of NATO must be involved in getting them to that point. You want results, you don't care how it happens. In the real world that's not how anything works.

[Blur4stuff]

I agree that we spend too much. Especially on health care. That's why we should switch to a system more like countries that spend half of what we do per person and have better outcomes.

[Tijuana]

This is monumentally stupid.

First the US does not have a monopoly on potent military systems. There are many things Europe produces that is better than ours, or jointly produces with us. For example, in certain regimes of flight the Eurofighter Typhoon is superior to the F-22. The MBDA Meteor is arguably a better missile than the AIM-120D. The Leopard 2 is in many ways a better tank than the M1A2. Europe's latest diesel electric hybrid subs are stealthier than our nuclear attack subs... and the US Navy LOVES how they compliment our attack sub's endurance.

Hell Boeing's new T-X trainer, which to be clear, is a program that is a backdoor to a lightweight fighter to replace the F-16 in mass numbers in a pinch, is a joint Boeing-SAAB program, that takes elements of the F/A-18 and F-22 and merges them with elements of the SAAB Gripen.

Secondly the man surrounded by a large and reliable posse of capable friends is much better off than a crazed loner with a lot of guns.

We should feel sympathy for them. We need their friendship, partnership and access. We don't need their stuff.

Fundamentally your entire point is self defeating. If you want NATO to get to a better spot rather than just cause arson, then you should care about how it gets there and the US as the leader of NATO must be involved in getting them to that point. You want results, you don't care how it happens. In the real world that's not how anything works.

Your notion that it is immoral for us to seek actions that cause others bankruptcy, when not seeking those actions causes us bankruptcy, could not be any more asinine. We are not their keepers. Why should we starve to feed them?

[Nadiru]

We should feel sympathy for them. We need their friendship, partnership and access. We don't need their stuff.

Fundamentally your entire point is self defeating. If you want NATO to get to a better spot rather than just cause arson, then you should care about how it gets there and the US as the leader of NATO must be involved in getting them to that point. You want results, you don't care how it happens. In the real world that's not how anything works.

The problem lies not with American action but with European inaction, en masse and essentially unified in their protection. The US cannot cajole the uncajolable. As much as I'd like the US to be friends with Western European leaders, the price they want is too high, in my estimation. They want to be treated as equals, and frankly they aren't. Western Europe is the worst type of free-rider, culpable for the worst devastation this planet has ever seen, and they want us to forget about that. They want Americans to believe that Europeans have evolved from their baser instincts, but even a cursory glance at European history tells us this is horse hockey: They haven't evolved, they're just too tired to keep smacking each other. If you want NATO to get to a better spot, you may need to cut the Europeans out of the deal entirely. Which I suppose is also self-defeating.