Time to Cut Pentagon Spending - Now

 

The Cold War against the Soviet Union has been replaced by the war on terrorism. Defense wise, that requires a much smaller - and different - armed forces. And it is likely that a near-term future war would be fought in response to cyber or biological attacks rather than soldiers, tanks, or airplanes.  

 

Much of our military spending is more about corporate welfare than it is about defense needs. Much is used to fulfill the neocon strategy of i intervening to protect "our" corporate and strategic interests abroad. The US strategic doctrine of "full-spectrum dominance - air, land, sea, space, cyberspace" is inherently opposed to cooperative-security doctrines that rely on building mutual trust, joint security for sea lanes, etc., and progressive disarmament.  

 

We pay to operate more than 700 military bases in more than 100 countries. Not even Rome at the height of its power came close to this. American taxpayers pay for the defense of Europe and Japan, countries that have the financial ability to pay for whatever defense they feel is necessary.

 

But my blood was boiling when I read the chapter on military spending in Ralph Nader's new book, The Seventeen Solutions.

 

Korb, former Assistant Secretary of Defense under Reagan, notes that the US "fields 11 aircraft carriers, while no other country has even one of comparable size and power." New carrier construction costs $15 billion. And while aircraft carriers were important in WWII (the last war), they are just sitting expensive ducks in the age of missiles, killer whales prowling the oceans with no enemies in sight.

 

Korb details myriad examples of how the various armed services waste tens of billions arming themselves with competing and duplicative copies of the same weapons (e.g., Joint Striker Fighter jets).  

 

Weapons are built not to meet defense needs but to reward military contractors and their Congressional supporters. The Pentagon informed Lockheed-Martin that it wanted to cut its order of F-22 fighter planes (replaced by F-35), so the cost per plane increased nearly 400% to $410 million.

 

The Pentagon gets rid of tens of billions of "surplus equipment", often in new condition, for pennies on the dollar, while spending enormous amount to replace the equipment. They were selling chemical-protective suits for $3 while other units were buying the same one for $200.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).