I really worry about the defense of the US in coming decades. Huge issues plaguing the F-35 program [1]. Other programs that aren't going well with navy vessels. [2] Massive waste in general and "losing" a ton of equipment. [3] Plus this.
It's clear it is not about actual defense of the US, but about extracting as much wealth as possible from all of us; the tax payers.
This is simply not sustainable. Trillions of dollars spent on military programs that don't really give us "high-tech" weaponry and defense.
So what? That's one project in many. The F-35 program _will_ cost over 1 trillion. We spend ~$600 billion a year on the entire military. Trillions are spent on defense over the course of just a few years.
> It's clear it is not about actual defense of the US, but about extracting as much wealth as possible from all of us; the tax payers.
I wouldn't say that's what it's about. It's just that America's prevailing mindset about defense and weapon systems is 'performance at all costs' and 'if it's worth doing, it's worth overdoing'.
So they don't set out to develop a weapon system that will perform well on the battlefield at some level of risk in exchange for a reasonable cost, they set out to build a weapon system that is absolutely dominant to the point of negligible risk on the battlefield. So every system coming down the pipe gets loaded up with every bell and whistle possible.
Of course the defense industry actively lobbies for bleeding edge and expensive weapons systems. But the fact is that the military and congress are all about dominance, not competence.
It makes sense to a degree. If you've got stealth bombers and the enemy doesn't, they may not want to start a war at all. But at a certain point your next-gen stealth bomber becomes so expensive and complex that it may never work properly or you can't field enough of them to make a difference. Or you've built something extremely expensive to perform a job that a plane 1/20th the cost can perform at little to no risk.
> It's just that America's prevailing mindset about defense and weapon systems is 'performance at all costs' and 'if it's worth doing, it's worth overdoing'.
This seems to be plaguing a lot of areas of the American economy - areas where we basically write a blank check because we NEED x.
E.g., College Tuition, Health Care, Infrastructure, Jet Fighters. We spend a ton of money for rather unimpressive outcomes in all these areas.
This attitude makes sense to me, given the revealed preferences of the electorate. They exert a lot of political pressure per US soldier combat death, and very little per wasted dollar of military R&D and equipment purchasing waste.
Flip the incentives around, where war material is politically expensive and combat casualties are cheap, and you wind up with something much closer to what the Soviets did.
We've got the best defensive weapon you can think of: two oceans.
Realistically, unless we really piss off Canada or Mexico (okay, that part's not realistic...) or end up in a nuclear apocalypse, the U.S. isn't going to lose to any foreign power. The sheer logistics of bringing an invasion force across 3000+ miles of ocean make that basically impossible.
I'd be much more worried about the U.S. breaking up under domestic pressures, and then the various regions going to war with each other.
"the U.S. isn't going to lose to any foreign power"
I think what you're saying is that the US isn't going to be successfully invaded by any foreign power. Losing a war is a very different thing (and indeed, the US has lost more than one war that didn't involve being invaded).
Sure, but usually we "lose" because we shouldn't have been in there in the first place and then the public eventually realizes that. The consequences of our losses in Vietnam and Iraq were basically that we stopped spending billions of dollars and thousands of lives on wars that the average American saw zero benefit from. It wasn't that we had to live under foreign occupation, have all of our houses & industry bombed out, face down the barrel of a gun, and kowtow to imperialist oppressors.
It's worth noting the US didn't even actually lose Vietnam. When we left, the US + South Vietnam, held 80% of territory and 90% of the population base when the Paris Accords were signed. It was a civil war the US should have never been involved with, the South lost that civil war once the US pulled out. The sole difference, is that the South would have lost it dramatically faster had the US not intervened. The North was in the end more than happy to sign on to the accords, because they knew once the US was gone they could finally take the South with relatively modest resistance.
The complication is that the North took over and then within two decades had become intensely capitalist and a major trading partner of the U.S. So the U.S. did get what it wanted: it halted the spread of communism. It's just that this had nothing to do with anything the U.S. did, and communism just collapsed under its own weight. History is funny like that.
Personally, as long as I get to write code without fear of having a gun pointed in my face or my house bombed out (both of which actually happened to my dad...we take a lot for granted in America), I'll consider that a win for me.
The Zumwalt is dead. There will never be more than three. The Navy is focusing instead on continuing to incrementally improve the (relatively) proven Arleigh Burke class. They're building as many of them as they can churn out and modernizing the rest.
Maybe the US needs Musk to do to these programs what he's done to space. ie instead of going for the over-engineered super expensive option show how it can be done with the SV mindset of building things faster and cheaper. If you've read his biography it details numerous times when engineers at SpaceX would come up with ways of saving huge amounts by building the parts themselves or finding another much cheaper part that worked as well or better.
defense contractors like LM also employ smart people. The difference here is how incentives are structured - "building things faster and cheaper" on a cost+ contracts would be like saying "no" to free money, and that would be a breach of fiduciary duty :)
Imagine if there was no longer war not because we found peaceful means of resolution; but because the weapons systems became so complex and overwrought that they no longer functioned in war.
If you can find these mythical entities that are willing to fund research that has basically zero ROI (other than the NSF), you would be a hero in academia.
Otherwise, the MIC is one of the only good funding sources available.
The problems of the new weapons systems sound bad, but I recall all the V-22 and F-22 naysayers. They're both expensive, but they're also the best in the world and flying everyday.
It's hard to tell when a weapons system under development in is trouble, and when it's just working out its kinks. Compared to past projects, the Ford class isn't all that far outside the projected budget.
Why even have manned fighter planes? Self driving cars is a much harder problem than war drones, and everybody seems convinced the former's just around the corner.
Self-driving cars have enough of a problem to keep themselves from killing people. You are telling that adding a requirement of killing only the right people makes it easier? I doubt that.
Moreover, a lot of people are uncomfortable about making robots decide who to kill.
You just can't remotely pilot a fighter/bomber. You can't remotely pilot if you don't have an overwhelming air superiority. You can't remotely pilot if your adversary can deny you satellite connection (either through jamming or by destroying the satellite). Here are a few problems:
- the lag. Aerial fight implies split-second decisions, many of which are matter of life and death. Sat link is way slower than that.
- kiss your stealth goodbye. First, you need a radar-transparent dome and a satellite dish under that; it's hardly stealthy. Second, you need a downlink that can be detected in a large vicinity of its target - even if it's a "tight" beam, it's still kilometers across. Third, the uplink will still bleed some RF energy that can be detectable. Planes fly in a radio silence for a reason.
- very low "sensor bandwidth". Fighter pilot constantly receives tons of data using almost all of their senses, while drone pilot only sees a grainy glitchy videostream.
To put it in another way: F-35 is basically a multi-ton, hyper-technological shell for about a kilo of squishy brain mass. Unless we invent some form of undetectable, very-low-ping, multi-gigabit communication it will always be better to have that brain "locally" in an adversary environment.
I'm confused as to how this relates to my comment. My point was simply that military UAVs are 'easier' than autonomous cars because they are not autonomous. They are remote-controlled.
That's actually one of the reasons why the electromagnetic catapult became so important: it can adjust launch force with a lot more precision so it can provide the smaller forces needed for lighter planes and UAVs. The steam catapults (apparently) cannot do that.
INAGOA (I'm not a general or admiral) but aren't aircraft carriers essentially obselete? Van Riper destroyed nearly the entire U.S. Fleet back in 2002 in one day with small boats and Cessnas.
The short answer is "no". The ability to reach out and blow up things selectively anywhere in the world is a very serious power. That's what an aircraft carrier gives you. The number of powers in the world who can reach back and destroy a carrier plus defensive escorts can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Possibly less than that.
Plenty of countries don't have large banks of conventionally armed cruise missiles, like Riper used. Pretty much just the US, Russia and Maybe China could assemble something like that quickly.
Aircraft carriers are still useful, they just aren't invincible. They are supposed to stay out of harms way and project force with aircraft. That is something that Riper's enemies did not calculate well. They grossly overestimated themselves and underestimated him and his men.
If we could get more honest exercises we could see what that actual limits are. Those limits probably don't make Aircraft carriers completely useless and probably don't leave the de facto platform to launch all war activity from.
The Van Riper story is often told but not nearly as demonstrative as you might think. Much of what happened was just the simulator breaking in surprising ways that the participants didn't know about. A simple argument you might appreciate is that the UK, France, and China are all currently building aircraft carriers. They wouldn't be doing that if carriers were obsolete.
Van Riper's handling of his side of that exercise had plenty of problems, mostly related to him abusing the parameters of the simulation to create obviously nonsensical situations. For example, his victory came in part from launching 5,700-pound anti-ship missiles from 5,200-lb-displacement speedboats.
I feel like articles like this fundamentally miss the point of a peacetime military, which is:
1.) To sit there and look powerful, and ideally dissuade potential adversaries from forcing you to build a wartime military.
2.) To experiment with a bunch of new technologies, so that when you need to go to war, there is some report buried on a bureaucrat's desk detailing precisely the capabilities that the wartime military will have.
3.) To keep military industrial capacity alive, so that you don't have to build new shipyards & tooling from scratch if war breaks up.
4.) To keep military human capital engaged & employed, so that you don't need to train up a generation of engineers to build the tooling to build the war machines that you actually want.
5.) As a form of Keynesian stimulus & political welfare, to redistribute money from wealthy regions of the country to poor regions.
In basically every military conflict since the American revolution, people have found that military doctrine is going to be out-of-date, and all the best tactics & weapon systems you thought you had are largely useless. When Vietnam started, we thought that the war would be conducted through missiles, airplanes, and ICBMS; instead we had a long hard slog of infantry jungle warfare. When Korea started, we thought the next war would be nuclear and over in an hour; instead, jets & amphibious landings had a large place. When WW2 started, we thought we'd have a titanic clash of battleships; instead, the whole naval war was fought by submarines in the Atlantic and aircraft carriers in the Pacific. There's no reason to believe that the next war will be any different; for all we know, it'll be fought with drones in the sky, or hackers in cyberspace, or maybe we'll finally get the nuclear apocalypse that we thought Korea would be.
The point of a peacetime military is to keep options open so that when you find out just how the next war will be fought, there is some low-level engineer, somewhere, who has been experimenting with precisely the technology you need, and can be rapidly promoted and tell everyone else how to do it. Things like the Gerald Ford or F-35 fit right into that strategy. They aren't intended to be fighting machines in their own right; they're floating/flying R&D platforms for developing new technologies, most of which are useless but a couple of which will probably be crucial.
Exactly this. F-35 is a monumental software challenge, it's essentially AR built to military standards on and run on (relatively) weak computers. Throw in a need to invent UI and UX for that to allow the pilot process massive amount of information from the sensor suite.
I think the project warrants more respect just for its audacity. It's basically a moonshot project.
That's good considering it costs several times more than a literal moonshot ($400b vs ~$110b for Apollo in today's dollars). I would describe it as less a moonshot and more a transfer of wealth to military contractors.
The F35 hasn't cost $400 billion and probably never will (maybe over 40 years with upkeep, spread across all branches and ignoring any foreign sales). The number of planes to be ordered will be cut drastically over the next 10-15 years, as with just about every program from the last few decades. The notion that the US Air Force was ever going to actually purchase ~1700 F35s was a bad joke. They might buy 300 or 400 at a high cost. It's not a great comparison to Apollo anyway, as most of the cost of the F35 program will be spread over decades of maintaining the planes, Apollo's cost was far more concentrated to a short period of time. If we had to keep the Apollo program up to those former levels on a perpetual basis, adjusted to today's costs, the cost would be running in the trillions.
> It's not a great comparison to Apollo anyway, as most of the cost of the F35 program will be spread over decades of maintaining the planes, Apollo's cost was far more concentrated to a short period of time.
FWIW the $400b figure is to buy the planes, the Pentagon estimates a further $1 trillion to maintain them.
They're not going to ever actually buy all of those planes, and the maintenance cost will be far lower accordingly.
All you have to do is look at the F22 program to understand what's actually going to happen; there are numerous other recent examples of how they tend to slash & burn on ordering however. Ten years out they'll be on to the new new thing, and they'll be slashing the purchase program toward zero accordingly.
The planes are costing $93 million per unit currently, they'll buy less than 500-600 of them across all branches of the military, that's ~$60 billion, give or take $10-$15 billion on cost inflation over 10 years. Then reduce the maintenance cost accordingly for that number versus the laughable former numbers (thousands? ha ha ha).
It only deserves respect if you believe the military deserves respect. The US spends more on it's military than every other militarily significant country combined -- what are we defending against? Besides a drop in stock price for Lockheed Martin.
And yet, as a percentage of GDP, we're not that out of line. Maybe 50% more than the average developed country, but about 30% less than Russia, and 40% less than the U.S. spent in 1988 when Reagan was president.
Think of the military as the backdoor way to get basic science & technology research funded in the U.S. The American public isn't willing to directly fund basic research, but if you frame it as "We're defending you from evil threats out there", you can pay for things like computers, the Internet, GPS, rocketry, satellites, carbon fiber composites, robotics, the colonization of Mars, etc.
Your data likely only counts the line item budget alloted to the Pentagon under defense spending and doesn't include the hundreds of billions of additional special appropriation given out for our recent middle East adventurism.
The military industrial complex is largely fraudulent, only blind patriotism could believe otherwise.
> It only deserves respect if you believe the military deserves respect.
Yes.
> The US spends more on it's military than every other militarily significant country combined -- what are we defending against?
If women ran the world, I might agree with you; they seem to be more cooperative than men, and they don't seem to be as driven as men to prove their superiority and establish their power. (I know, it's a pair of sweeping generalizations.)
And certainly there's room for debate about specific defense expenditures, or whether overall we should cut them back or scale them up.
But there are wolves in the world; if you've read even a little history, you'll know that perceived weakness invites predation. A strong military can be a really handy thing to have around — as, sadly, the world keeps having to relearn, often at terrible cost.
Like it or not, the U.S. is the ultimate guarantor of the global order on which so much of modern life depends.
(And it's "The US spends more on its military ....")
"For scholars such as Steven Pinker, a psychologist, and Francis Fukuyama, a political scientist, these are grounds for thinking that a world run by women would be more peaceful."
"But European history suggests otherwise, according to a working paper by political scientists Oeindrila Dube, of the University of Chicago, and S. P. Harish, of McGill University. They studied how often European rulers went to war between 1480 and 1913. Over 193 reigns, they found that states ruled by queens were 27% more likely to wage war than those ruled by kings."
We have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined. Russia has one decrepit carrier, China has only one too. Our 10 biggest carriers are all twice the size of the next largest carriers in the rest of the world
Spending money on the military isn't a "stimulus", it's very a very damaging drain on the economy. The workers and engineers building those carriers and planes could be building commercial ships, cars, buildings, airliners, and developing new technologies for commercial use. We are sacrificing all those things to fund a military that is nearly irrelevant when we have the largest nuclear deterrent in the world.
(Now, if you'd said roads, bridges, dams, and basic research, you might have a point...ostensibly there is bipartisan interest in infrastructure repairs this term, we'll see if they get it done.)
The point of Keynesian spending is that as productivity increases, markets tend to saturate, and money ends up in the hands of those with a lower marginal propensity to consume. Redistribution - by any means, whether it's welfare, infrastructure, basic income, or defense spending - puts money back in the hands of those with a higher propensity to consume, which then raises aggregate demand and raises total economic output.
It's not so much a myth as that the saving/spending dichotomy is an oversimplification; the real distinction relevant to national policy is the velocity of spending induced in the domestic economy.
While even saving induces spending, it does so at a lower domestic velocity, on average, than consumer spending.
It's not about the number of carriers, it's about the ability to project enough power to reach political goals. In most cases you are not competing with other countries' carries, you are competing with land-based assets (airbases, railways, etc.). For that you may need a lot of very big carriers
We have 300 overseas bases. We don't need to be in Syria, Iraq, Afghsnastan, Africa, etc. I'd rather limit our power projection options to make it harder for politicians to use it at a whim.
It's not great, but this still worries me a lot less than other troubled programs.
- At the end of the day, the Nimitz class carriers are still the most advanced in the world by about 30 years. We have a lot of time to get the Ford class working properly.
- In the absolute worst-case scenario, the electromagnetic launch and corkscrew arrest systems can be swapped out for steam systems in a fairly straightforward manner. It won't be cheap, but it's not a big mystery.
There aren't major problems with the other new systems on the Ford class that I know of. It will have plenty of power needed for future weapon platforms (railguns, energy weapons, etc). You could argue that carriers will be obsolete etc, but that's a different question and fairly speculative. There's not really a scenario where the Ford class puts us behind the Nimitz class after 2025 or so.
Other programs are fundamentally a bit shakier and deserve more worry. The F35 doesn't have a single "bad" part you can swap out to fall back to the capabilities of a fourth-gen fighter. Unfortunately, we're basically stuck with them, because if we cancel the F35, the British navy and the marines will have a dozen totally useless carriers without a modern VTOL fighter to put on them.
United States military spending is unbelievably out of control. It is seeming more and more like a system to throw money at military contracting companies rather than provide working equipment to the military.
66 comments
[ 5.5 ms ] story [ 144 ms ] threadIt's clear it is not about actual defense of the US, but about extracting as much wealth as possible from all of us; the tax payers.
This is simply not sustainable. Trillions of dollars spent on military programs that don't really give us "high-tech" weaponry and defense.
[1] http://warisboring.com/the-f-35-is-a-terrible-fighter-bomber...
[2] http://www.thedailybeast.com/the-us-navys-expensive-new-wars...
[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/pentagon-burie...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning...
(I don't think that was your intent, it just ended up that way)
I wouldn't say that's what it's about. It's just that America's prevailing mindset about defense and weapon systems is 'performance at all costs' and 'if it's worth doing, it's worth overdoing'.
So they don't set out to develop a weapon system that will perform well on the battlefield at some level of risk in exchange for a reasonable cost, they set out to build a weapon system that is absolutely dominant to the point of negligible risk on the battlefield. So every system coming down the pipe gets loaded up with every bell and whistle possible.
Of course the defense industry actively lobbies for bleeding edge and expensive weapons systems. But the fact is that the military and congress are all about dominance, not competence.
It makes sense to a degree. If you've got stealth bombers and the enemy doesn't, they may not want to start a war at all. But at a certain point your next-gen stealth bomber becomes so expensive and complex that it may never work properly or you can't field enough of them to make a difference. Or you've built something extremely expensive to perform a job that a plane 1/20th the cost can perform at little to no risk.
This seems to be plaguing a lot of areas of the American economy - areas where we basically write a blank check because we NEED x.
E.g., College Tuition, Health Care, Infrastructure, Jet Fighters. We spend a ton of money for rather unimpressive outcomes in all these areas.
Flip the incentives around, where war material is politically expensive and combat casualties are cheap, and you wind up with something much closer to what the Soviets did.
Realistically, unless we really piss off Canada or Mexico (okay, that part's not realistic...) or end up in a nuclear apocalypse, the U.S. isn't going to lose to any foreign power. The sheer logistics of bringing an invasion force across 3000+ miles of ocean make that basically impossible.
I'd be much more worried about the U.S. breaking up under domestic pressures, and then the various regions going to war with each other.
I think what you're saying is that the US isn't going to be successfully invaded by any foreign power. Losing a war is a very different thing (and indeed, the US has lost more than one war that didn't involve being invaded).
It's worth noting the US didn't even actually lose Vietnam. When we left, the US + South Vietnam, held 80% of territory and 90% of the population base when the Paris Accords were signed. It was a civil war the US should have never been involved with, the South lost that civil war once the US pulled out. The sole difference, is that the South would have lost it dramatically faster had the US not intervened. The North was in the end more than happy to sign on to the accords, because they knew once the US was gone they could finally take the South with relatively modest resistance.
The US didn't get what they wanted; the north did get what they wanted. Sure sounds like a win for the north.
Personally, as long as I get to write code without fear of having a gun pointed in my face or my house bombed out (both of which actually happened to my dad...we take a lot for granted in America), I'll consider that a win for me.
but seriously, the gross fiscal negligence in this sector is appalling, and it's been the case since the start of the Military Industrial Complex.
Otherwise, the MIC is one of the only good funding sources available.
Who would be? I'm not aware of any. In fact, I got out of the industry partly because the money is total shit compared to the commercial world.
It's hard to tell when a weapons system under development in is trouble, and when it's just working out its kinks. Compared to past projects, the Ford class isn't all that far outside the projected budget.
Moreover, a lot of people are uncomfortable about making robots decide who to kill.
- the lag. Aerial fight implies split-second decisions, many of which are matter of life and death. Sat link is way slower than that.
- kiss your stealth goodbye. First, you need a radar-transparent dome and a satellite dish under that; it's hardly stealthy. Second, you need a downlink that can be detected in a large vicinity of its target - even if it's a "tight" beam, it's still kilometers across. Third, the uplink will still bleed some RF energy that can be detectable. Planes fly in a radio silence for a reason.
- very low "sensor bandwidth". Fighter pilot constantly receives tons of data using almost all of their senses, while drone pilot only sees a grainy glitchy videostream.
To put it in another way: F-35 is basically a multi-ton, hyper-technological shell for about a kilo of squishy brain mass. Unless we invent some form of undetectable, very-low-ping, multi-gigabit communication it will always be better to have that brain "locally" in an adversary environment.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_Aircraft_Launc...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
They don't have.
They don't have a massive salvo of cruise missiles.
They don't have an armada of small red boats.
If you're arguing "if they had" you might as well say "if they had magic". They don't have, barring few enough to count on the fingers of one hand.
Aircraft carriers are still useful, they just aren't invincible. They are supposed to stay out of harms way and project force with aircraft. That is something that Riper's enemies did not calculate well. They grossly overestimated themselves and underestimated him and his men.
If we could get more honest exercises we could see what that actual limits are. Those limits probably don't make Aircraft carriers completely useless and probably don't leave the de facto platform to launch all war activity from.
1.) To sit there and look powerful, and ideally dissuade potential adversaries from forcing you to build a wartime military.
2.) To experiment with a bunch of new technologies, so that when you need to go to war, there is some report buried on a bureaucrat's desk detailing precisely the capabilities that the wartime military will have.
3.) To keep military industrial capacity alive, so that you don't have to build new shipyards & tooling from scratch if war breaks up.
4.) To keep military human capital engaged & employed, so that you don't need to train up a generation of engineers to build the tooling to build the war machines that you actually want.
5.) As a form of Keynesian stimulus & political welfare, to redistribute money from wealthy regions of the country to poor regions.
In basically every military conflict since the American revolution, people have found that military doctrine is going to be out-of-date, and all the best tactics & weapon systems you thought you had are largely useless. When Vietnam started, we thought that the war would be conducted through missiles, airplanes, and ICBMS; instead we had a long hard slog of infantry jungle warfare. When Korea started, we thought the next war would be nuclear and over in an hour; instead, jets & amphibious landings had a large place. When WW2 started, we thought we'd have a titanic clash of battleships; instead, the whole naval war was fought by submarines in the Atlantic and aircraft carriers in the Pacific. There's no reason to believe that the next war will be any different; for all we know, it'll be fought with drones in the sky, or hackers in cyberspace, or maybe we'll finally get the nuclear apocalypse that we thought Korea would be.
The point of a peacetime military is to keep options open so that when you find out just how the next war will be fought, there is some low-level engineer, somewhere, who has been experimenting with precisely the technology you need, and can be rapidly promoted and tell everyone else how to do it. Things like the Gerald Ford or F-35 fit right into that strategy. They aren't intended to be fighting machines in their own right; they're floating/flying R&D platforms for developing new technologies, most of which are useless but a couple of which will probably be crucial.
I think the project warrants more respect just for its audacity. It's basically a moonshot project.
That's good considering it costs several times more than a literal moonshot ($400b vs ~$110b for Apollo in today's dollars). I would describe it as less a moonshot and more a transfer of wealth to military contractors.
FWIW the $400b figure is to buy the planes, the Pentagon estimates a further $1 trillion to maintain them.
They're not going to ever actually buy all of those planes, and the maintenance cost will be far lower accordingly.
All you have to do is look at the F22 program to understand what's actually going to happen; there are numerous other recent examples of how they tend to slash & burn on ordering however. Ten years out they'll be on to the new new thing, and they'll be slashing the purchase program toward zero accordingly.
The planes are costing $93 million per unit currently, they'll buy less than 500-600 of them across all branches of the military, that's ~$60 billion, give or take $10-$15 billion on cost inflation over 10 years. Then reduce the maintenance cost accordingly for that number versus the laughable former numbers (thousands? ha ha ha).
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?year_h...
Think of the military as the backdoor way to get basic science & technology research funded in the U.S. The American public isn't willing to directly fund basic research, but if you frame it as "We're defending you from evil threats out there", you can pay for things like computers, the Internet, GPS, rocketry, satellites, carbon fiber composites, robotics, the colonization of Mars, etc.
The military industrial complex is largely fraudulent, only blind patriotism could believe otherwise.
Yes.
> The US spends more on it's military than every other militarily significant country combined -- what are we defending against?
If women ran the world, I might agree with you; they seem to be more cooperative than men, and they don't seem to be as driven as men to prove their superiority and establish their power. (I know, it's a pair of sweeping generalizations.)
And certainly there's room for debate about specific defense expenditures, or whether overall we should cut them back or scale them up.
But there are wolves in the world; if you've read even a little history, you'll know that perceived weakness invites predation. A strong military can be a really handy thing to have around — as, sadly, the world keeps having to relearn, often at terrible cost.
Like it or not, the U.S. is the ultimate guarantor of the global order on which so much of modern life depends.
(And it's "The US spends more on its military ....")
"For scholars such as Steven Pinker, a psychologist, and Francis Fukuyama, a political scientist, these are grounds for thinking that a world run by women would be more peaceful."
"But European history suggests otherwise, according to a working paper by political scientists Oeindrila Dube, of the University of Chicago, and S. P. Harish, of McGill University. They studied how often European rulers went to war between 1480 and 1913. Over 193 reigns, they found that states ruled by queens were 27% more likely to wage war than those ruled by kings."
http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21722877-european-histo...
Spending money on the military isn't a "stimulus", it's very a very damaging drain on the economy. The workers and engineers building those carriers and planes could be building commercial ships, cars, buildings, airliners, and developing new technologies for commercial use. We are sacrificing all those things to fund a military that is nearly irrelevant when we have the largest nuclear deterrent in the world.
(Now, if you'd said roads, bridges, dams, and basic research, you might have a point...ostensibly there is bipartisan interest in infrastructure repairs this term, we'll see if they get it done.)
The point of Keynesian spending is that as productivity increases, markets tend to saturate, and money ends up in the hands of those with a lower marginal propensity to consume. Redistribution - by any means, whether it's welfare, infrastructure, basic income, or defense spending - puts money back in the hands of those with a higher propensity to consume, which then raises aggregate demand and raises total economic output.
While even saving induces spending, it does so at a lower domestic velocity, on average, than consumer spending.
- At the end of the day, the Nimitz class carriers are still the most advanced in the world by about 30 years. We have a lot of time to get the Ford class working properly.
- In the absolute worst-case scenario, the electromagnetic launch and corkscrew arrest systems can be swapped out for steam systems in a fairly straightforward manner. It won't be cheap, but it's not a big mystery.
There aren't major problems with the other new systems on the Ford class that I know of. It will have plenty of power needed for future weapon platforms (railguns, energy weapons, etc). You could argue that carriers will be obsolete etc, but that's a different question and fairly speculative. There's not really a scenario where the Ford class puts us behind the Nimitz class after 2025 or so.
Other programs are fundamentally a bit shakier and deserve more worry. The F35 doesn't have a single "bad" part you can swap out to fall back to the capabilities of a fourth-gen fighter. Unfortunately, we're basically stuck with them, because if we cancel the F35, the British navy and the marines will have a dozen totally useless carriers without a modern VTOL fighter to put on them.