[DonaldC]

I can see not totally shrinking gov by defence cuts, but given we spend more on military stuff than the next 20 countries combined (or something like that), there has to be some fat worth cutting.

[Monterrosa-24]

But remember that defense spending is constitutional...unlike all that wasteful counterproductive blatantly unconstitutional pork.

Defense is already just a shadow of what it was under Reagan. We need enough for deterrence via anti-missele systems, an overwhelming nuclear force, and the Heavy Brigade Combat Teams that can roll over anybody if the F22s are overhead.

[Sequoyah101]

We have a lot of very old, very worn out airplanes. The last decades of saber rattling, keeping the peace, protecting liberty and in general being the protector of all mankind have taken their toll on all of our hardware but mostly the stuff with wings and rotor.

Our men and women have done magical things to keep planes in the air and ships at sea. Ground hardware has been pretty well taken care of from what I can see. Thousands upon thousands of new, near new and blown up trucks litter the combat zones.

The first two numbers on the tail of USAF aircraft are the year of acceptance. Take notice of that.

[9YearLurker]

I agree. If we can’t defend our country spending less than we do, we must not be doing it right.

[jboot]

Although what you say about the size of our defense budget is true, defense spending falls under the discretionary budget. If we cut ALL discretionary spending, the government would STILL be running at a deficit, because the mandatory programs eat the entire pie and then some.

Defense spending isn't the problem. NASA isn't the problem. heck, PORK isn't the problem. Entitlements are the problem. Cut them first and then get back to me about the defense budget.

[andyk]

I’m sure we could cut our overseas commitments and installations by half and still be everywhere. Let Germany, Japan, South Korea and other rich allies foot their own defense bills.

[ex-snook]

"I can see not totally shrinking gov by defence cuts, but given we spend more on military stuff than the next 20 countries combined (or something like that), there has to be some fat worth cutting."

I'm with you. But I will wait until he tells us if he is going to increase taxes to pay for them or bill all the countries in the world that we are protecting.

[noiseman]

We are currently spending about 4% of our GDP on defense. We can afford it, and it is a moral (and constitutional) imperative that we maintain sufficient force levels to deter and if necessary defeat any enemy.

As for the fact that we spend more than the next 20 countries combined, that fact is irrelevant. We have forces that have global reach. Most other countries do not. Maintaining that capability is expensive, but necessary.

We also must be prepared to defend our interests against a wide array of potential enemies, while any single potential adversary does not have the same need. They are all arrayed against us, with a few exceptions, and to maintain our superpower status (a need that is not debatable in my mind) we have to be prepared to deal with a wide range of contingencies that lesser nations do not.

If we withdraw from the world, as those like Ron Paul would have us do, the world will become a much more chaotic and dangerous place. Just as an example consider what we spend to provide a defense umbrella, nuclear and otherwise, for allies such as Japan. By defending Japan we prevent it from acquiring its own nuclear weapons and thereby sparking an arms race in East Asia.

Four percent of our GDP (or even 6%, if we were to return to cold war levels) is a small price to pay for the stability and protection that it provides.

[Cringing Negativism Network]

BINGO.

Considering the F-22 is the best plane on the planet, it is inexcusable we have stopped producing it.