“Are the current economic problems significant enough to make the economy America’s #1 security problem and warrant substantial reductions in defense spending?”

Absolutely. I mean, I don’t know about “#1,” but it certainly is a security problem. Foreign powers hold about a third of the total U.S. debt, with the Chinese and Japanese leading the way. Japan is an ally, but what of China? We currently owe both countries over one trillion dollars. That said, In Fiscal Year 2008, the U. S. Government spent $412 Billion of your money on interest payments to the holders of the National Debt. That’s just servicing the debt – not paying it off. Think of how much money that is. It’s almost the budget for the entire DoD. Think of what we could do with that money. We funded NASA at $15 Billion, Education at $61 Billion, and Department of Transportation at $56 Billion – to cite a few examples – so many lost possibilities there. Had we handled our government spending differently, I bet we’d have humans on Mars by now.

“Does the crashing economy and essentially bankrupt federal government warrant substantial reductions in defense spending?”

I think I’ve made my point regarding this matter in the Which Child Do You Sell First? comments. In my mind, the only question is: will Navy leadership be on point leading the way with measured, deliberate action, or will they be at the point reacting to the sharp knife of crisis management and massive cuts they no longer have any control over? I believe we should lead the way and show the nation how the Navy still produces the finest leadership.

And the question really is in three parts. “Are the current economic problems significant enough,” is its own question. The answer: Yes! As I asked before, how are we as a nation going to fund the unfunded $40 to $55 trillion in obligations our government has committed us to over the next 25 to 35 years? How? You think we have problems now, wait until military retirement checks don’t go out, or go out virtually worthless due to hyper-inflation. Same with Social Security. That Ponzi scheme is coming due – quickly. So what do we do? Raise taxes to 75% of income? In this current economy – in any economy?

Folks, we really are sitting on top of a massive, ticking time-bomb. It’s time to acknowledge it and prepare accordingly.

“Does the current plan to build the end strength of the Army and Marine Corps need to be reconsidered?”

Yes. Keep in mind how the following is my opinion, and is what I would like to see done to handle the “reconsidered.” It’s time to bring the troops home and convert them to what our founder’s envisioned. A massive standing Army gives politicians too much of an opportunity for meddling in the affairs of other countries. Whether or not we think the meddling is a good idea is quickly becoming irrelevant. We can no longer afford to do so.

The troops can be returned to reserve status with some troops remaining active to handle training the reserve militia, and others helping to finally secure our borders and ports. Some of the savings can be used for training and organizing the military into the militia force the founders envisioned, and the rest can be used to begin to repay our massive debt, and to help fund the unfunded obligations we carry. It is time for the U.S. to look after the U.S.

It may help you to know that I look at the world in the way I do, because of the way I conduct my own life. I keep very little debt. I am able to feed my family if the grocery stores close. I can supply power to my house if the grid goes down. If my fuel storage runs low, I can live without power. I am able to defend myself in several different ways, but I do not go looking to fight with or interfere in the lives of my neighbors. No man is an island, and each of us must depend on somebody else or the natural environment for survival, but I believe we, the U.S., have become too dependent on foreign countries for our survival. In other words, I’d like to see us as a nation conduct ourselves more like I conduct myself as a private individual. We need to be independent and able to stand on our own. At one time we were. Was the country better off then, or is it better off now?

“Should defense dollars be reallocated among the services to give higher priority to resurgent naval threats and maritime security initiatives?”

Not to belabor the point I’ve made elsewhere, but isn’t the Navy the only constitutionally authorized standing military force? I don’t need to tell anyone here why the founders wrote that into the constitution – we have thousands of miles of coast, and we are dependent upon open sea lanes for efficient trading with other nations. We need a strong Navy. But again, I ask, do we need ten times more CVBGs than any other nation?

That’s my two cents.

I just read the update link. Interesting, but it’s going to get much worse than that. My prediction is the 2010 defense budget will be the last of the budgets that look anything like what we’re used to seeing. Money printing is only good for so long.

Not to mention, that during unstable times (and Lord knows there’s plenty of that to be had) you don’t slash your nations defense force. If he were alive, I’d suggest you ask Admiral King what his opinion might be on the subject.

That damn political issue again. YS, I just read your post on comment doctrine. I have a question not only related to that but it is particularly import for how I am going to proceed with my comments in this post. I need to establish your particular context in regards to your knowledge concerning economics. As an example, have you read Jean-Baptiste Say’s treatise on economics titled?

A Treatise on Political Economy

What, a treatise on politics and economics How are we going to separate the two?

My questions are important because Say also has a particular attitude towards using statistics in ones analysis concerning economic issues.

Thanks in advance.

As to question #1 – yes. The state of the economy has been the most significant security risk – and overall risk to the nation – for a couple decades. Given the overall lack of domestic savings combined with the increasing rate by which the U.S. is dependent on leverage by foreign financiers (China, Gulf States, Japan, EU), our overall ability to make political decisions has been significantly constrained. (Peterson Institute for International Economics has several interesting articles describing the phenomenon and it’s risk to our economy http://www.iie.com/publications/papers/paper.cfm?ResearchID=704)

Ultimately, the ability to establish security — whether through military force or otherwise — is derived from the ability to be flexible when making political choices. I just don’t see how we have the same degree of flexibility at this point, due to the leveraged economy, that we did almost 40 years ago.

The recent economic downturn will ultimately also have a significant ‘strategic communications’ effect. Keeping in mind that Islamist ideology, at its base, is being offered up as an alternative political/social arrangement than Western democratic capitalism, the potential failure of DemoCapitalism will likely send a few more folks into the arms of Al Qaida (I don’t think it will be droves, but AQ will pick up on the ‘failure’ of the U.S. economy as part of its message, if it has not already).

The PRC has deliberately pursued an economic policy that supports — if not truly the basis — its grand strategy. The investments the PRC has made in Taiwan, Southeast Asia, and Africa all serve to support its economy and security. Ulimately, the PRC’s economic choices have constrained the US’s political choices in the event of a conflict with Taiwan or regarding US involvement in the PRC’s sphere of influence. Have we done the same?

For Q#2 – No. The DOD budget was not what got us into this plight in the first place, and the security threats that exist justify a standing military in the name of providing the U.S. with credible diplomatic flexibility. All elements of the DOD were drastically undersized. Does anybody recall the deployment of nearly 500,000 troops in 1990/1991? We only have about $160,000 troops fielded currently between Afghanistan and Iraq and are struggling to maintain that force.

Q#3 – We continue to throw good money after bad with both services. Even with a great economy, I’m curious about the threat estimates used to drive the production of systems such as the F/A-22, LCS, and ABM systems. How do these items support our grand strategy? Are there lower-cost alternatives?

YS,

I wasn’t completely clear on my comments about Samsung, they will also be relevant to what I have to say in this post so bear with me. This is a complex issue and I won’t be able to cover it all in one single comment.

After my meeting tonight and my comments tomorrow, I think I will be able to clear some of the confusion centered around my posts.

YS – No luck with the Rickards link, but I navigated to your blog. Yes, the doomsday scenarios are bleak, with the most credible being the piling on a bad situation by an international terrorist organization. I’d argued that Rickards discussion of the threat posed by the PRC is shallow — I’ll summarize to say that the PRC has almost as much to lose as we would if they devalued U.S. treasuries (the U.S. economy is also strong enough going forward that devaluation would actually result in U.S. treasuries being bought by other governments also capable of holding the debt, and the diversification would be an advantage of sorts).

That said, I think the important thing to note is that the stage has been set for decline – serious economic decline – that correlates to less political flexibility to conduct the types of combat operations that we have become accustomed to in the past few decades. The root causes of this phenomenon have been the trade deficit and lack of national savings. Our current economic predicament is only one layer of that same ring of devilish economic inferno.

Yes, it’s the economy.

I agree with Rickards central argument concerning the threat of international terrorism: for the Islamic fundamentalists — they win if they can fundamentally shake the globalized economy and discredit its major proponents.

VR

Yankee Sailor says: I pooched the link, but it’s fixed now.

I was thinking more along the lines of smaller contractors, as that was what a former coworker told me when he got his general contractors license and got his DUNS number to be a federal contractor. I know the big kids can get away with a lot.

Does it necessarily mean if the US if going to compete in the global market that we must perforce lower our standard of living?

“CF- We get it- “Country boys can survive” ho-hum…With a government check for incidentals!”

That’s what you think my posts are about?

And what does the comment “With a government check for incidentals!” mean. I’d like you to clear that up for me, because right now, I’m seeing that as an unprofessional personal attack. Tell me why I’m wrong.

Anyhow, I’m happy you have plenty of faith in Americans and the military – and zero on politicians. We see that the same.

Where’s the money going to come from? 50 trillion. Where will that come from? We can revisit this matter in the future. In other words – time will tell. In the meantime, I’ve said my bit and done my duty as I see it.

So the first part of the sentence is directed at me, and then after some ellipses it becomes about him?

I don’t think so. I think he’s attacking me, my position, and my opinion.

Basically, he dismissed what I had to say by calling me, in a subtle but unmistakable way, “A government dependent Hillbilly.”

URR,

I have a couple questions and a comment concerning your Silver lining analogy.

1. What is the difference between a ‘REAL economic collapse versus the “US Economic collapse” version’? In other words, what are thier causes and their effects?

2. What facts of reality need to be identified in order to recognize the difference?

Finally, my comment concerns the idea that “three emerging economies collapsing” as a result of the U.S. economic meltdown is somehow good. This instantly reminded me of the fallacy of the broken window and the following excerpt in particular which is taken from “Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics by Henry Hazlitt. .

“Chapter III: The Blessings of Destruction

SO WE HAVE finished with the broken window. An elementary fallacy. Anybody, one would think, would be able to avoid it after a few moments’ thought. Yet the broken-window fallacy, under a hundred disguises, is the most persistent in the history of economics. It is more rampant now than at any time in the past. It is solemnly reaffirmed every day by great captains of industry, by chambers of commerce, by labor union leaders, by editorial writers and newspaper columnists and radio and television commentators, by learned statisticians using the most refined techniques, by professors of economics in our best universities. In their various ways all dilate upon the advantages of destruction.

Though some of them would disdain to say that there are net benefits in small acts of destruction, they see almost endless benefits in enormous acts of destruction. They tell us how much better off economically we all are in war than in peace. They see “miracles of production” which it requires a war to achieve. (p. 25)”