F-22Raptor
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2014
- Messages
- 16,980
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
President-elect Donald Trump believes the the Obama administration has weakened the American military. He campaigned on a promise of greater security, particularly against terrorism; although the vast majority of military spending has nothing to do with anti-terrorism activities, that should translate into a whole lot of military spending, especially when coupled with the Reagan-legacy view of Trump’s party that defense spending is the most legitimate form of spending to stimulate the economy.
In his campaign, Trump called for 90,000 more Army soldiers, a 350-ship Navy, 100 more fighters, and strengthened nuclear and missile defenses. That sounds like detail, but it leaves out quite a bit.
The best pre-election analysis of the expected Trump budget came from William Hartung, a veteran and insightful analyst, who is at the Center for International Policy, drawing on Ross Harrison of the Center for Strategic and International Studies:
"What we do know is that Trump has been drawing many of his defense proposals from the National Defense Panel and the Heritage Foundation. Both of these organizations have advocated for returning the defense budget to the levels proposed in the FY 2012 budget request (the so-called Gates budget). Without any other details from the Trump campaign, I think this is a good ballpark estimate for what Trump is aiming for in terms of the defense budget. The FY 2012 request is about $800-900B higher over ten years than the most recent president’s budget request.”
The call for a 350-ship Navy gives a concrete clue. Cost figures on such a naval buildup are elusive. However, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) has compiled studies of the different kinds of ships in a 350-ship navy. They don’t come cheap.
There would be increased spending on aircraft carriers and a big increase in attack submarines. In December 2008, the Navy signed a $14 billion contract with General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman to supply eight Virginia-class attack submarines. In round figures they might cost, in years to come, at least $2 billion apiece. The CRS study said that going to a 350-ship navy would mean 11 more of these. That’s $22 billion just on these subs. Congressional hawks – numerous and powerful – will pressure Trump to go that way.
And, Congress will be filling out, not cutting back, the Trump defense budget. Obama used his veto to balance defense and domestic spending. That balance is dead. Moreover, there is bipartisan support for big defense spending. So in the Senate, while there might be a unified Democratic filibuster on some kinds of extreme domestic legislation, there would not be one in opposition to defense spending. The Armed Services Committees basically will have freedom for a massive spending spree.
Buckle your belts for a steep climb of defense spending. My rough estimate is it means an additional $500 billion to $1 trillion.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/charles...ng-by-500-billion-to-1-trillion/#3fb372614108
It's looking like the US is headed for the largest defense buildup we've seen since the Reagan era.
In his campaign, Trump called for 90,000 more Army soldiers, a 350-ship Navy, 100 more fighters, and strengthened nuclear and missile defenses. That sounds like detail, but it leaves out quite a bit.
The best pre-election analysis of the expected Trump budget came from William Hartung, a veteran and insightful analyst, who is at the Center for International Policy, drawing on Ross Harrison of the Center for Strategic and International Studies:
"What we do know is that Trump has been drawing many of his defense proposals from the National Defense Panel and the Heritage Foundation. Both of these organizations have advocated for returning the defense budget to the levels proposed in the FY 2012 budget request (the so-called Gates budget). Without any other details from the Trump campaign, I think this is a good ballpark estimate for what Trump is aiming for in terms of the defense budget. The FY 2012 request is about $800-900B higher over ten years than the most recent president’s budget request.”
The call for a 350-ship Navy gives a concrete clue. Cost figures on such a naval buildup are elusive. However, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) has compiled studies of the different kinds of ships in a 350-ship navy. They don’t come cheap.
There would be increased spending on aircraft carriers and a big increase in attack submarines. In December 2008, the Navy signed a $14 billion contract with General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman to supply eight Virginia-class attack submarines. In round figures they might cost, in years to come, at least $2 billion apiece. The CRS study said that going to a 350-ship navy would mean 11 more of these. That’s $22 billion just on these subs. Congressional hawks – numerous and powerful – will pressure Trump to go that way.
And, Congress will be filling out, not cutting back, the Trump defense budget. Obama used his veto to balance defense and domestic spending. That balance is dead. Moreover, there is bipartisan support for big defense spending. So in the Senate, while there might be a unified Democratic filibuster on some kinds of extreme domestic legislation, there would not be one in opposition to defense spending. The Armed Services Committees basically will have freedom for a massive spending spree.
Buckle your belts for a steep climb of defense spending. My rough estimate is it means an additional $500 billion to $1 trillion.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/charles...ng-by-500-billion-to-1-trillion/#3fb372614108
It's looking like the US is headed for the largest defense buildup we've seen since the Reagan era.
