Russia displays military might

I offer an alternative story. Increasing spending may not be a lose-lose. The US has tasted dominance and will not give it up easily. But dominance is significantly more expensive than parity. By increasing spending moderately, Russia goads the US to increase spending by much more. Reagan claimed to have spent the USSR to collapse. Perhaps this time Putin is returning the favor.

interesting viewpoints, I know not which is correct.

Originally Posted by RedMercury

I offer an alternative story. Increasing spending may not be a lose-lose. The US has tasted dominance and will not give it up easily. But dominance is significantly more expensive than parity. By increasing spending moderately, Russia goads the US to increase spending by much more. Reagan claimed to have spent the USSR to collapse. Perhaps this time Putin is returning the favor.

Considering the state of the US civilian economy, it's probably a lot closer to the truth than some would care to admit.

Originally Posted by planeman

interesting viewpoints, I know not which is correct.

A look at the percentage of GDP being spent may reveal some answers. The US does outspend everyone else...no doubt. But it is a very small part of the entire GDP.

Despite whatever economic troubles going on now in the US (and I live here and am experiencing them), they are mild when compared to a lot of the world, and they are addressable as soon as the US public makes up its mind it wants to address them.

IMHO, the US has huge oil reserves in the Dakotas, in ANWR, off the Pacific and Gulf coasts and elsewhere. We have huge low sulfur coal reserves tied up in national monument areas, and certainly has the technology to excel in nuclear power plants.

The US is also very capable of building more refineries.

The American public simply has to reach a point where they are willing to commit to these things and force their political leadership through the ballot box to comply.

For whatever reasons (and there are several), the US public hasn't reached that stage yet...but the US has the resources to make good on it once they do.

Again, all of this is strictly my opinion.

Originally Posted by Jeff Head

A look at the percentage of GDP being spent may reveal some answers. The US does outspend everyone else...no doubt. But it is a very small part of the entire GDP.

Despite whatever economic troubles going on now in the US (and I live here and am experiencing them), they are mild when compared to a lot of the world, and they are addressable as soon as the US public makes up its mind it wants to address them.

IMHO, the US has huge oil reserves in the Dakotas, in ANWR, off the Pacific and Gulf coasts and elsewhere. We have huge low sulfur coal reserves tied up in national monument areas, and certainly has the technology to excel in nuclear power plants.

The US is also very capable of building more refineries.

The American public simply has to reach a point where they are willing to commit to these things and force their political leadership through the ballot box to comply.

For whatever reasons (and there are several), the US public hasn't reached that stage yet...but the US has the resources to make good on it once they do.

Again, all of this is strictly my opinion.

Very enlightening viewpoints. America's days of monopolization of power is only beginning if you think about the resources that lay untouched in Alaska and areas that you have mentioned. So the extent to which America is utilizing foreign oil and energy is probably a preconcieved idea to put off using our own resources as long as possible. Drain the Saudis and Russians of their oil.

Very enlightening information. thanks for sharing!

Originally Posted by Phead128

Very enlightening viewpoints. America's days of monopolization of power is only beginning if you think about the resources that lay untouched in Alaska and areas that you have mentioned. So the extent to which America is utilizing foreign oil and energy is probably a preconcieved idea to put off using our own resources as long as possible. Drain the Saudis and Russians of their oil.

Very enlightening information. thanks for sharing!

Don't mind Jeff he has some rather idealistic notions about the United States and its position in the world.

I don't think Russia alone can force the American empire to collapse. However, like the British the U.S. is trying to counter multiple threats throughout the world. Many of our imperial devices have grown beyond our control like the European Union and it seems we are trying to further limit our own superiority by encouraging Japan's militarization.

Ultimately the American empire will fall because of a combination of factors not just Russia. Of course, the Soviet Union itself didn't fall from increased defense spending so it's not like it is even a possibility.

Russia has been successful in limiting US power through diplomancy rather then relying on its weapons. Russia has an advantage they are not constrained by ideological beliefs. If Russia offered a nation like Congo, billions of dollars aid and the US did the same. I expect Congo to go with Russia because of less political baggage. Russia and also China are using the language of business to make inroads (politically) in foreign nations. Ironic, these semi-capatalist economies are out monevoeuring free market economies through language of business.

The military display is to show that they have the capability to have global reach with their ICBMs.

A common belief around the world is that if a nation only spends a very small percentage of its GDP on its military, then everything is OK. This is an incorrect belief.

When looking at the ratio of military budget over GDP, the Soviet Union spent a lot more money on its military than the US did. The Soviet Union was able to spend like this for many decades before facing economic collapse. It is amazing the Soviet Union was able to do this. The US built so many national and international business plans so the US was able to easily afford its large Cold War budget, and then watch the Soviet Union labor to keep up.

Now the US is still spending a little of its GDP on its military, but the US is NOT OK. Today the US is spending a little too much over a long period, so the sum result is the US is spending too much. The US needs to end its current Middle East military plans and completely restart new plans that focus more on sensible economics. Most people around the world disapprove of the US wars in the Middle East. Most AMERICANS disapprove of the US wars, too.

The US has ignored sensible economics for too long so now the US has large debts to many nations around the world right now. This what happens when the US focuses too much on military production and not enough on civilian production. The price of oil in the US is more or less at $3.80 per gallon (depending on where you live). The US is dealing with inflation of the US dollar and the falling international value of the US dollar. The US has a major banking and mortgage problem. The US is accepting lots of illegal immigration to depress inflation.

The US cannot pay for its current Middle East wars for an indefinite period. If the US extends the war into Iran, then the US will pay an even greater cost (including injuries and fatalities). If the US goes into Pakistan, then the US will have an even harder time with the snowballing costs. Keep in mind that the Afghan and Iraqi wars do not have clear good outcomes for the US despite all these US costs. Then there is the humanitarian cost in Afghanistan and Iraq . . .

Russia is able to easily afford this military parade, especially since Russia is a major energy supplier and weapons seller, but if Russia tries to return to former Soviet Union glory, then this "revived" Russia will collapse in a few decades again. If Russia learned from past mistakes, it would have a sensible military budget within its overall sensible economic framework. This is true for all nations.

Originally Posted by Jeff Head

A look at the percentage of GDP being spent may reveal some answers. The US does outspend everyone else...no doubt. But it is a very small part of the entire GDP.

Despite whatever economic troubles going on now in the US (and I live here and am experiencing them), they are mild when compared to a lot of the world, and they are addressable as soon as the US public makes up its mind it wants to address them.

IMHO, the US has huge oil reserves in the Dakotas, in ANWR, off the Pacific and Gulf coasts and elsewhere. We have huge low sulfur coal reserves tied up in national monument areas, and certainly has the technology to excel in nuclear power plants.

The US is also very capable of building more refineries.

The American public simply has to reach a point where they are willing to commit to these things and force their political leadership through the ballot box to comply.

For whatever reasons (and there are several), the US public hasn't reached that stage yet...but the US has the resources to make good on it once they do.

Again, all of this is strictly my opinion.

Jeff, I have to disagree with you on this point. I think America has to worry a lot more about paying the social security and retirement for public servants. These are long terms issues that people just keep on putting in the back burners and ignoring the entire time. Anyway, I'm going to have a post on this on my blog http://china-pla.blogspot.com pretty soon discussing the impacts of the monetary system and how it could prove to be a far bigger problem.

Anyway, sorry to the other mods for going so off topic.

Originally Posted by Jeff Head

A look at the percentage of GDP being spent may reveal some answers. The US does outspend everyone else...no doubt. But it is a very small part of the entire GDP.

Despite whatever economic troubles going on now in the US (and I live here and am experiencing them), they are mild when compared to a lot of the world, and they are addressable as soon as the US public makes up its mind it wants to address them.

IMHO, the US has huge oil reserves in the Dakotas, in ANWR, off the Pacific and Gulf coasts and elsewhere. We have huge low sulfur coal reserves tied up in national monument areas, and certainly has the technology to excel in nuclear power plants.

The US is also very capable of building more refineries.

The American public simply has to reach a point where they are willing to commit to these things and force their political leadership through the ballot box to comply.

For whatever reasons (and there are several), the US public hasn't reached that stage yet...but the US has the resources to make good on it once they do.

Again, all of this is strictly my opinion.

GDP is not the issue though is it Jeff? Its about the Federal Budget, the Federal Deficit and tax rates. To contain and shrink the deficit, Washington needs to reduce expenditure and raise taxation, not the opposite.

I stand with RedMercury on this. If the Federal Govt establishment in washington cannot understand these basic economic realities, maybe the American people need a new establishment. Maybe based in one or more different locations.

Originally Posted by SampanViking

GDP is not the issue though is it Jeff? Its about the Federal Budget, the Federal Deficit and tax rates. To contain and shrink the deficit, Washington needs to reduce expenditure and raise taxation, not the opposite.

I stand with RedMercury on this. If the Federal Govt establishment in washington cannot understand these basic economic realities, maybe the American people need a new establishment. Maybe based in one or more different locations.

I will not speak to the politcal statement other than to say that the American people are free to vote and change administrations in accordance with the constitution, either way, as they have been doing for over 200 years.

Having said that, a good measure of military spending and comparison between nations is in fact a percentage of GDP. Clearly the Federal budget establishes the exact dollar amounts, and how that budget is spolit up becomes a matter of politics as much as economics, as we all well know.

But in terms of what a people are able to produce, and what they actually choose to produce, the GDP has always been an effective measure.

I am not making any political statement by saying that, nor do I intend to. It is just a good means of comaprison between differing nations as regards their defense spending.

Originally Posted by Infra_Man99

A common belief around the world is that if a nation only spends a very small percentage of its GDP on its military, then everything is OK. This is an incorrect belief.

When looking at the ratio of military budget over GDP, the Soviet Union spent a lot more money on its military than the US did. The Soviet Union was able to spend like this for many decades before facing economic collapse. It is amazing the Soviet Union was able to do this. The US built so many national and international business plans so the US was able to easily afford its large Cold War budget, and then watch the Soviet Union labor to keep up.

Now the US is still spending a little of its GDP on its military, but the US is NOT OK. Today the US is spending a little too much over a long period, so the sum result is the US is spending too much. The US needs to end its current Middle East military plans and completely restart new plans that focus more on sensible economics. Most people around the world disapprove of the US wars in the Middle East. Most AMERICANS disapprove of the US wars, too.

The US has ignored sensible economics for too long so now the US has large debts to many nations around the world right now. This what happens when the US focuses too much on military production and not enough on civilian production. The price of oil in the US is more or less at $3.80 per gallon (depending on where you live). The US is dealing with inflation of the US dollar and the falling international value of the US dollar. The US has a major banking and mortgage problem. The US is accepting lots of illegal immigration to depress inflation.

The US cannot pay for its current Middle East wars for an indefinite period. If the US extends the war into Iran, then the US will pay an even greater cost (including injuries and fatalities). If the US goes into Pakistan, then the US will have an even harder time with the snowballing costs. Keep in mind that the Afghan and Iraqi wars do not have clear good outcomes for the US despite all these US costs. Then there is the humanitarian cost in Afghanistan and Iraq . . .

Russia is able to easily afford this military parade, especially since Russia is a major energy supplier and weapons seller, but if Russia tries to return to former Soviet Union glory, then this "revived" Russia will collapse in a few decades again. If Russia learned from past mistakes, it would have a sensible military budget within its overall sensible economic framework. This is true for all nations.

Sorry, we disagree.

In order to explain my position on this, topics reagrding the overall War against Islamic Jihad and teror would have to be discussed in detail...and I am sure there would be major differences and it is also, after all, not the purpose of this forum.

Bottom line is that the US has risen to the occassion when necessary and spent (in WW II for example) far more of its budget and GDP on the military and came out the other end fine, after doing what it (and its allies) perceived needed to be done.

This will be no different in the long run.

America's major economic issues revolve around its increasing burden for entitlement programs that are much more socialistic in nature and far afield from the free market economies the US was established on, and on its monetary policy which suffer from the same ill.

But then again...that drifts far afield from the purpose of this forum and I will go no further into it than that statemnt, which is, in any case, merely my own opinion.

Sorry mods for bringing politics into this thread. My original point was less about motives than about the cost of military dominance versus military parity. I believe dominance costs many times more than parity (in resources and opportunity costs), and thus if A is determined to achieve dominance over B, while B only aims to avoid dominance by A, A would have to spend many times more resources than B.

Originally Posted by RedMercury

Dominance versus military parity. I believe dominance costs many times more than parity.

On this we agree. Absolute military dominance will always cost more than military parity. Thi is true in terms of numbers of system acquired, and especially in terms of the overall technology and quality of the systems acquired if true dominance is desired.

Thanks for pulling the thread back to the topic at hand and away from the "abyss".