USA Defence Budget Realities

To correct some gross misstatements of fact circulating in these
newsgroups, some facts:

The USA Defence budget for FY2004 is 3.4% of the USA GDP, one of the
smallest in recent history. Since the end of WW II the USA Defence
budget has averaged about 6% (ignoring the Korean war spikes of
10%-14%). So overall the USA Defence budget is down about -40% from Cold
War averages.

By other measures:
1990 2004 Change

Total Active Duty Manpower 2.065.000, 1.388.000, -33%
Air Force Active Duty Wings 24 12 -50%
Army Active Divisions 18 10 -44%
Navy Aircraft Carriers 15 10 -33%

Max annual time away from home is supposed to be no more than 120 days
per year. For many specialized units, it is over 180 and in some cases
over 210 due to budget cuts.

Many Air Force planes and Navy ships are as old as their crews (in some
cases, as old as their crews parents).


Opinion:
The USA (and the rest of the world) faces a significantly greater threat
than during the Cold War. Where the two superpowers once faced off over
nuclear fences, now the entire world is at risk from uprisings national,
tribal and religious; NGOs waging asymmetric warfare, and a return to
the generally chaotic world state more prevalant in the 2000 years
before the relatively stable "Pax Cold War" enforced by the USSR and the
USA between 1945 and 1989. This certainly requires someone in the world
to remain an effective force; neither the UN or the EU (i.e., France and
Germany) have the political will necessary to fund, train and maintain
an effective military, further they are lacking the political will
necessary to use force when necessary; rather, they revert back to the
1939 position of appeasement at any cost.

And yet the UN and the EU castigate the USA for continuing to maintain a
reasonable military when they themselves are unable gather the political
will to intercede anywhere, much less being able to field even a
minimally effective force.

If the UN or the EU wish to become world players again they must develop
the strength to do so; whining from the sidelines because they are
unable to influence world events due to lack of a military able to
project sufficient force to overcome even a third-world dictator who
cunningly refuses to roll over and die when threatened with being bored
to death with pronouncements instead of actions translates to a
second-rate place in the world.

In sci.military.naval Stop SPAM! wrote:
: To correct some gross misstatements of fact circulating in these
: newsgroups, some facts:

: The USA Defence budget for FY2004 is 3.4% of the USA GDP, one of the
: smallest in recent history. Since the end of WW II the USA Defence
: budget has averaged about 6% (ignoring the Korean war spikes of
: 10%-14%). So overall the USA Defence budget is down about -40% from Cold
: War averages.

But compare the total dollars spent by the US military with the
total dollars spent by the rest-of-world -- especially now that there is
no USSR stripping itself to build a military that can compete with ours.
Manpower is down (Rumsfeld wants it lower) and there are fewer 'units', but
the US has very intentionally been 'transforming' into much higher capability
and lethality units, even if it can't afford them in great numbers. In WWII
we had a lot more ships, yet, but the modern navy is very much more powerful.
And, to use a favorite tax argument, if the US economy grows then
you can have a smaller percentage of the economy and still have growth in
'real' terms. The diminishing of military budget in terms of percentage of
GDP might represent the growth of the budget more than any kind of disarmament.

regards,
------------------------------------------