Maybe instead of hiring private contractors to invent new propulsion systems and then conceal them from the public good, we should give some of our ~$600 billion military budget to these agencies.
The official budget for 2023 was $773 B with ~$350 B going to contractors.
There are multiple elements to issuing grants. It's not simply moving money around from one line item to another. If agencies have been gutted or don't have the budget, then can't write requests for grant proposals or can't offer what they don't have.
I agree, this is a great time for a peace dividend. The geopolitical situation in Europe and Asia is more stable than ever before. The Soviet Union is gone, NATO seems like an irrelevant relic from the cold war, and China is rapidly liberalizing thanks to free market forces. The rules-based international order has won and history is finally over.
I am curious, let's say we wound down the military and gave all the money to something else... what do you think would immediately happen to us right after?
Defense contractors would start pulling out the cost-saving technologies, etc that they've been sitting on to win bids, now that there's less money in the pot. Cost-plus contracts are whack, man.
Source: Way back when, worked in industrial augmented reality, and some colleagues came from defense (ship building) because of exactly this issue. Their prior employer had (quietly) pioneered various uses of AR in ship assembly, which drastically reduced costs, but wasn't actually deploying it because cost-saving actually reduces their profits, so they only actually use them when it comes time to win bids.
Pretty sure you're fishing for "we get attacked" tho, which I neither agree with, nor have the background to coherently argue against.
I wouldn't be in favor of winding down the military. I would be in favor of giving private contractors a choice between subjecting themselves to meaningful oversight or we can reallocate their funding to entities that will.
Someone suggestions diverting some wasteful spending from the military and you jump to winding down the military and giving all of its money to something else?
Optimizing the DoD is very different from having all the money going to something else. To stop funding overseas wars as one of many many more example shouldn’t affect our ability to protect our country
Literally nothing. America is armed to the teeth. If the government deputized and allowed citizen militias to patrol its borders, there would be very low risk of invasion. Any invasion force would face tremendous logistical problems and irregular warfare by a well armed populace. Simply put, nobody can invade and control America. We would see a repeat of the Battles of Lexington and Concord.
How does a populace with small arms defend against a cruise missile? A bomber? A submarine?
Certainly there would be irregular war akin to any of the irregular warfare the US military has faced and control might never be completely established, but it wouldn't have to be for it to be the end of the US as we know it.
You don't. You pull a North Vietnam and never surrender to the occupation forces. Eventually the enemy cannot afford to sustain an occupation and withdraws. America has so many more guns than any other country on earth and people intelligent enough to use them well that an invasion force has NO CHANCE of success in the medium to long term. Never underestimate the amount of power and influence a small group of people with rifles and irregular warfare tactics can wield. Especially locals that know every square inch of their backyards by heart. Look no further than Ukraine for a recent example, which is somehow hanging on for over two years mostly with light arms, almost no training, while completely outgunned. America has geography strongly in its favor except Alaska. A successful adversary would need to fragment and manufacture American allegiances with divide and conquer tactics to succeed.
Ukraine seemed to do it with MANPADs and anti-tank equipment over small arms. Unless you're counting those, but that doesn't seem like the kind of weapons ordinary Americans have at home.
Unfortunately, at the moment, Ukraine lost more than 10% of territory under occupation, and other suffer from constant attacks on infrastructure, and sea export extremely limited, so we now very depend on grants from US and EU.
In foreseen future, if West will not give aviation and long range rockets, Ukraine will need revolutionary restructure of economy to survive.
For example, before war, Ukraine was one of the top food exporters, but now, with limited access to sea, have to use land routes, which are just add too much to cost of raw grain.
Yes I don't disagree with any of that, I was just commenting that Ukraine probably couldn't have resisted nearly so well with just small arms. I sincerely hope western govts continue to support them and wish they/we had done more and faster.
Sure. I’m not advocating for the US invading Vietnam.
But holding up Vietnam and Ukraine as examples of successful outcomes is also missing the horror and destruction wrought on those countries and their people in the process.
The commenter I replied to is using the fantasy of armed citizens valiantly repelling invaders in their backyards in guerilla warfare to support the idea that “Literally nothing.” would happen without the US military.
Any invasion force on land would have to attack either from Mexico or from Canada. I don't see it as remotely probable.
An invasion force with a slightest chance of success would have massive seaborne and airborne components, along with armor, and would start with a massive aerial and missile attack at the area of prospective invasion. This is not something a well-regulated militia with small arms would be effective against. If the current war in Europe is any indication, small arms are not even effective against armed consumer-grade drones.
What a militia might be efficient against could be e.g. short-term incursions by drug cartels, or similar.
Awesome - so we would live in a mad max world fighting irregular warfare across Asia, Europe, and the Americas, instead of developing open source software and playing video games? I think I’d rather be conquered if that’s the alternative and go back to playing video games and developing open source software.
Comments
Maybe instead of hiring private contractors to invent new propulsion systems and then conceal them from the public good, we should give some of our ~$600 billion military budget to these agencies.
The official budget for 2023 was $773 B with ~$350 B going to contractors.
There are multiple elements to issuing grants. It's not simply moving money around from one line item to another. If agencies have been gutted or don't have the budget, then can't write requests for grant proposals or can't offer what they don't have.
Citation needed.
I agree, this is a great time for a peace dividend. The geopolitical situation in Europe and Asia is more stable than ever before. The Soviet Union is gone, NATO seems like an irrelevant relic from the cold war, and China is rapidly liberalizing thanks to free market forces. The rules-based international order has won and history is finally over.
Yours truly, Rip Van Winkle.
I am curious, let's say we wound down the military and gave all the money to something else... what do you think would immediately happen to us right after?
(not OP)
Defense contractors would start pulling out the cost-saving technologies, etc that they've been sitting on to win bids, now that there's less money in the pot. Cost-plus contracts are whack, man.
Source: Way back when, worked in industrial augmented reality, and some colleagues came from defense (ship building) because of exactly this issue. Their prior employer had (quietly) pioneered various uses of AR in ship assembly, which drastically reduced costs, but wasn't actually deploying it because cost-saving actually reduces their profits, so they only actually use them when it comes time to win bids.
Pretty sure you're fishing for "we get attacked" tho, which I neither agree with, nor have the background to coherently argue against.
I wouldn't be in favor of winding down the military. I would be in favor of giving private contractors a choice between subjecting themselves to meaningful oversight or we can reallocate their funding to entities that will.
Someone suggestions diverting some wasteful spending from the military and you jump to winding down the military and giving all of its money to something else?
Optimizing the DoD is very different from having all the money going to something else. To stop funding overseas wars as one of many many more example shouldn’t affect our ability to protect our country
Literally nothing. America is armed to the teeth. If the government deputized and allowed citizen militias to patrol its borders, there would be very low risk of invasion. Any invasion force would face tremendous logistical problems and irregular warfare by a well armed populace. Simply put, nobody can invade and control America. We would see a repeat of the Battles of Lexington and Concord.
How does a populace with small arms defend against a cruise missile? A bomber? A submarine?
Certainly there would be irregular war akin to any of the irregular warfare the US military has faced and control might never be completely established, but it wouldn't have to be for it to be the end of the US as we know it.
You don't. You pull a North Vietnam and never surrender to the occupation forces. Eventually the enemy cannot afford to sustain an occupation and withdraws. America has so many more guns than any other country on earth and people intelligent enough to use them well that an invasion force has NO CHANCE of success in the medium to long term. Never underestimate the amount of power and influence a small group of people with rifles and irregular warfare tactics can wield. Especially locals that know every square inch of their backyards by heart. Look no further than Ukraine for a recent example, which is somehow hanging on for over two years mostly with light arms, almost no training, while completely outgunned. America has geography strongly in its favor except Alaska. A successful adversary would need to fragment and manufacture American allegiances with divide and conquer tactics to succeed.
Ukraine seemed to do it with MANPADs and anti-tank equipment over small arms. Unless you're counting those, but that doesn't seem like the kind of weapons ordinary Americans have at home.
Unfortunately, at the moment, Ukraine lost more than 10% of territory under occupation, and other suffer from constant attacks on infrastructure, and sea export extremely limited, so we now very depend on grants from US and EU.
In foreseen future, if West will not give aviation and long range rockets, Ukraine will need revolutionary restructure of economy to survive.
For example, before war, Ukraine was one of the top food exporters, but now, with limited access to sea, have to use land routes, which are just add too much to cost of raw grain.
Yes I don't disagree with any of that, I was just commenting that Ukraine probably couldn't have resisted nearly so well with just small arms. I sincerely hope western govts continue to support them and wish they/we had done more and faster.
I’m not sure being Vietnam in this scenario is particularly desirable.
Not being completely defeated during a bloody invasion isn’t the same as never being invaded.
Being Vietnam would suck, sure, but being in Vietnam also sucked and is avoidable.
(And who do you think has the resources to pull a Vietnam on the US?)
Sure. I’m not advocating for the US invading Vietnam.
But holding up Vietnam and Ukraine as examples of successful outcomes is also missing the horror and destruction wrought on those countries and their people in the process.
The commenter I replied to is using the fantasy of armed citizens valiantly repelling invaders in their backyards in guerilla warfare to support the idea that “Literally nothing.” would happen without the US military.
There'd be an excess of bored former soldiers and a barely secured excess of military hardware loose in a nation polarised and sharply divided.
If the FBI terror watchlists are in any way accurate it's not threats from beyond the borders that the U(?)SofA would be threatened by.
Any invasion force on land would have to attack either from Mexico or from Canada. I don't see it as remotely probable.
An invasion force with a slightest chance of success would have massive seaborne and airborne components, along with armor, and would start with a massive aerial and missile attack at the area of prospective invasion. This is not something a well-regulated militia with small arms would be effective against. If the current war in Europe is any indication, small arms are not even effective against armed consumer-grade drones.
What a militia might be efficient against could be e.g. short-term incursions by drug cartels, or similar.
Awesome - so we would live in a mad max world fighting irregular warfare across Asia, Europe, and the Americas, instead of developing open source software and playing video games? I think I’d rather be conquered if that’s the alternative and go back to playing video games and developing open source software.
TV used to be the opiate of the masses. Now it's video games and social media.
And open source software.