Missiles or food, which is more important?

[Jannabear]

The ancients understood that you need weapons to secure food: you can't have one without the other. If the US retreats, the vacuum will be filled by other nations whose agenda is a lot more sinister than the US. Be content with the devil you know than the devil you don't know.

We're a part of the fucking un.
And we have a MASSIVE
MASSIVE military.
We could have a military half the size we do now and still no country could fucking compete with us.
It's
fucking
massive.
We have a 570 billion dollar budget per year, that's almost as big as the rest of the world's military budgets combined.
Yet we look at other countries as being militarized.
Pfft.

[Jannabear]

Exactly.  And I'd like to point out that the US produces enough of both for its own population and then some, so the "missiles or food" thing contains a false dichotomy.  At any rate, the main problem right now isn't production, but distribution.

But if you put money into it you can produce much more.
I don't know if you realize this, but money get's shit done, and we're wasting alot of it right now.
We have a military budget of 570 billion+ per year.

[pr126]

[Baruch]

Jannabear ... the Nato military outlay, is for the attempt to control the whole world, not just N American and W Europe.  It is a really big job, if you are crazy enough to want that objective.

[kilodelta]

That 534 billion is the defense baseline budget. OCO has been between 50-200 billion a year which is scheduled to stop in FY17. (though I have doubts about that) So, the total defense percentage of the federal budget is going down while the percentage of federal debt interest is on the rise. So, the defense budget is being cut due to the loss of OCO. Further cuts into defense will negatively impact installations which are essential to many areas' economies. The additional mission creep that has been leveraged on the DoD, such as defense support to civil authorities and the establishment of NORTHCOM would also be negatively impacted. So, FEMA would lose a large amount of capacity in emergency response. US support to international aid would also drop as the military would keep combat capabilities and capacities over those that are not linked to combat. The US military is not as combat focused as it was prior to 9/11 and the increased budget represents that.

Non-combat missions are one of the primary drivers of cost other than sustaining the new equipment developed for the recent wars. As an example, pre 9/11 flak jackets were cheep and could be thrown into storage and pulled out when needed. The public and military demanded bulletproof armor during OEF/OIF. The new armor presented additional costs to store and maintain. Flak jackets never had to be checked for microscopic cracks that could cause a loss of its bulletproof properties. Not only does the new armor cost more, it needs to be replaced more often than the old.

An additional cost driver to the DoD budget is driven by the number of personnel. Those numbers are currently being reduced to pre 9/11 levels.

My main point is that the defense spending is being cut more than 30 billion. But, it's not being used in the way the OP suggests. The problem with making a strait cut is that the budget normally does not drop missions. If real cuts need to be made to the DoD, then reduce the missions via cancelling National Strategies which require defense assets. Which National Strategies need to be adjusted to remove the military services?

Almost all of the National Strategies have a DoD role. Example: National Strategy for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria. It sounds like the DoD shouldn't be in there... but "As part of these efforts, the Department of Defense will maintain a repository of resistant bacterial strains and, as appropriate, will update procedures for specimen collection, storage, and data-sharing." "Antibiotics developed by DOD’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency-sponsored program will submit pre-Emergency Use Authorization package in 2015" Another one is the National Response Framework which causes a large amount of defense spending.

I am not recommending that we actually reduce DoD mission space. My point is that the services expected by the DoD need to be dropped to really reduce defense spending. Though, there is wasteful spending within the DoD like any other federal organization. That always needs to be addressed.

I personally think that we need to get rid of that federal interest payment, and invest in sustainable infrastructure and technology that would be stolen by the rest of the world thus increasing the average quality of life for everyone.

[PopeyesPappy]

You can't distribute food in some of the areas that need it the most without weapons and people trained to use them. Period. Otherwise other people with guns are going to take it away from you before it gets to the people that need it.

Having said that the US already contributes about 50% of the total food aid in the world. That's almost twice as much as the EU does on a similar economy. Step it Europe. You aren't doing your fair share.

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21279.pdf

[Baruch]

You can't distribute food in some of the areas that need it the most without weapons and people trained to use them. Period. Otherwise other people with guns are going to take it away from you before it gets to the people that need it.

Having said that the US already contributes about 50% of the total food aid in the world. That's almost twice as much as the EU does on a similar economy. Step it Europe. You aren't doing your fair share.

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21279.pdf

EU = it is expensive keeping the German standard of living higher than the rest of Europe, even if they are making the Latins and Greeks pay for it ;-)

[pr126]

Jannabear wrote:

We could practically end world hunger if we spent a portion of what we spend on our military helping those who are starving.
A small portion.
Around 30 billion a year.

A few questions:

• Is that a one off, or a yearly sum in perpetuity?
  Who would get the money, goods, food?
  How  would this be distributed (logistics, cost of distribution).
  How would you make sure that only the needy gets the food?
  How would you force corrupt governments to comply?
  Why are you only concerned with the USA military spending and ignoring what the rest of the world does? 
  

Finally, did you hear the saying:

Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.

[pr126]

[PopeyesPappy wrote:

Step it Europe. You aren't doing your fair share.

We are doing it too. Saving on logistics, we invite them to our countries by the millions for free living.
That is free housing, medical care, schooling, and a generous monthly welfare cheques.
They don't even have to work if they don't want to.
As a bonus, they can rape, plunder anyone they like.

In exchange we get the joy of diversity and multiculturalism.
Worth every Euro.

[Sylar]

30 billion is fucking nothing compared to our gdp.
We could cut 30 billion off of our MASSIVE
MASSIVE
MASSIVE
MASSIVE
......
MASSIVE
Military budget.
570 billion+ per year, pfft.

OK, let's say we gave 30 billion dollars to the government of Sudan. What guarantees do you have that Omar el-Bashir will not use the funds to buy more weapons and create a monopoly that will further impoverish the Sudanese population?

[stromboli]

1. Having worked for the DOD, I can tell you that more money is wasted on pet projects foisted on the Pentagon by relevant weapons manufacturers and implementing new weapons systems (Boeing f-35 is so far over budget and running into so much trouble I'm amazed they haven't scrapped it). Overall, from the upkeep side, a depot like Hill where I worked is more cost efficient and cheaper than manufacture maintenance. The money wasted is from procurement (golden toilet seat; the F-35 definitely fits that category) and probably enough bribery and "special interest" dollars that never gets seen on any tally sheet. Billions get wasted you never see. The irony is the fed gov run bases are genuine money savers in comparison to Boeing's overhead and other costs they pass on to the DOD. You could save billions just by reforming the accounting process and making everybody involved accountable.

2. There is more than enough food produced annually by countries than needed to feed the world. As I've pointed out previously elsewhere, the problem is not production, the problem is the political corruption that either stops food from getting where it needs to go or simply letting it sit and rot in railroad cars.  World poverty and hunger are actually in decline.

http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/288229/icode/

27 May 2015, Rome - The number of hungry people in the world has dropped to 795 million â€" 216 million fewer than in 1990-92 â€" or around one person out of every nine, according to the latest edition of the annual UN hunger report (The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2015 - SOFI).

In the developing regions, the prevalence of undernourishment - which measures the proportion of people who are unable to consume enough food for an active and healthy life â€" has declined to 12.9 percent of the population, down from 23.3 percent a quarter of a century ago reports SOFI 2015, published today by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and the World Food Programme (WFP).

A majority â€" 72 out of 129 â€" of the countries monitored by FAO have achieved the Millennium Development Goal target of halving the prevalence of undernourishment by 2015, with developing regions as a whole missing the target by a small margin. In addition, 29 countries have met the more ambitious goal laid out at the World Food Summit in 1996, when governments committed to halving the absolute number of undernourished people by 2015.

"The near-achievement of the MDG hunger targets shows us that we can indeed eliminate the scourge of hunger in our lifetime. We must be the Zero Hunger generation. That goal should be mainstreamed into all policy interventions and at the heart of the new sustainable development agenda to be established this year," said FAO Director General José Graziano da Silva.

It isn't as bleak as many people make it out to be. Get rid of all the political corruption and the problem will solve itself.

[PickelledEggs]

Torpedos are more important! Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
(it's a torpedo submarine sandwich. Get it? get it? eh? ehh??? ok. I give up... Sorry about the puns. I didn't get much sleep last night due to my friend's going away party)

[Nonsensei]

The idea that we could solve world hunger with some minuscule reduction to our defense budget is ridiculous. If that were really possible, some president with a hardon for making his legacy would have found a way to make it happen. Obviously its not just a matter of funding.

[drunkenshoe]

This is a very interesting thread. Except kilo's way of looking at it, I honestly can't understand the logic of people's perspective about the subject. I am just reading the thread but cannot place anything anywhere. It's like reactions are floating in the air.

First of all the title. It's a question. It's asking if food or missiles are more important and the aim of OP is telling that the ridiculous amount of money is spent on military can be used for the good of humanity...etc. OK. Yes. But, I don't think it is even valid in the context, only may be if you are expressing a sentimental wish for humanity -which I guess we all share-  in a frame of some US centered utopia.

You are discussing about help, aid for the world...related to the US military expenses. Every US policy, domestic or international, RUNS on the military power and the circulation of money/resources around the world to support that so it could expand the very process. It's the main US industry.

American culture is a militarist culture. Even the gun issue is directly related to this culture in a different level. The social paranoia in individual and societal scale is based on this. It is also a huge job sector in and out, from invasions to the most simple passive duties domestic or abroad. Student loans countless, militarised jobs...military research, engineering...tec.

Guys, what are you talking about? Yeah it sounds beautiful, pecaeful, progressive and all, but if you strip the USA from its military power; expenses there would be nothing left.

Also I hate to remind it, but doesn't matter how much you are not involved as an individual, this base for American culture and power is also the part of your very own identity. American identity. I don't mean you approve or disapprove; or you are this and that, I mean this is not something like a jacket that you could take off or exist outside of it. No monstrous budget, no monstrous army, no USA as you know it. I'm not trying to provoke anyone, it is just the idea is soaring in the air. It's fantasy.

Also, people of the world are not chickens to feed in some back yard and build shelters for them to protect and herd. It doesn't work. This very idea screwed up everything. Because as the idea of helping others without an agenda cannot become real, it's just another tool for control and dictate.

[Baruch]

Shoe - much more reasoned, less emotional compared to last Fall.  You are exactly correct, that Americans, at least since 1942, are militarized, on a permanent war footing.  Both internal war and external war.  Blame my parents and grandparents ... and the Axis and the Communists too.  Without them, we would have an Army of 100,000 in the US, practicing with wooden guns (as we did prior to 1942).  In the end, the need to defeat the Axis and stonewall Communism has twisted America out of recognition compared to the 1930s ... and some of that is good.  One of my great-uncles was still farming with a mule in the 1930s, and had his wheat hailed out two years in a row.  Ah, the good old days, when British colonialism etc reigned supreme, before the Royals committed suicide in Sarajevo.