Originally Posted by HercDriver130

people forget that the military... and defense contractors and OTHER companies that provide services to the military support hundreds of thousands ..nay...well north of a million well paying jobs in this country.

Originally Posted by rickair7777

But fundamentally all that economic gain is a command performance, paid for by taxes. I think the local pain of a few mom-and-pops going out of business pales in comparison to the potential greater gain.

All of that economic capacity, converted to civilian use, will contribute to an improved economy, higher per capita GDP, and better QOL. Bases, runways, warships, tanks, fighters, and guns are things you have to have when you need them, and they have a cost. But if you don't need them, they don't contribute to QOL...those resources applied to civil housing, infrastructure, education, healthcare, etc have a potential for significant QOL improvement.

There are some management issues...

-First and foremost, you can't get rid of military capability unless you truly no longer need it. This requires a national discourse because "need" is a subjective sliding scale: global cop, defense of select allies, homeland defense...where do we want/need to be? If you guess wrong, the result could be regional or even global instability with enormous economic consequences (and not the good kind). While I'm pointing out the benefits of transitioning defense economic capacity to civil focus, I'm not advocating that we do so lightly or carelessly.

-The transition, if not paced and controlled, will cause temporary pain. Us older guys saw that in the early 90's...but we also saw the subsequent economic boom a few years later.

-Defense spending emphasizes high-tech, R&D, and education. If you allow those to fall by the wayside during a transition to a civil economy, you will pay a big price...maybe bigger than the peace dividend you seek in the first place. But that can managed.

Originally Posted by Fluglehrer

I'd be careful about the cause/effect relationship with this. Military spending as a portion of GDP has actually declined since Vietnam, even with the Reagan build-up and the GWOT:


File:US defense spending by GDP percentage 1910 to 2007.png - Wikimedia Commons

The break-up of the Eastern Bloc/Iron Curtain and the new markets that blossomed there and in the USSR former client states, along with the ramp-up of trade with China, along with the "gridlock" of a GOP Congress/Senate and a Dem President all contributed to the 90's boom. To name any single stream as having the primary influence is difficult to substantiate.

Originally Posted by Sixty N Two

..right now [our military] it is probably the only component of the federal government which could (if push came to shove) be relied upon to stand by the people rather than those shoveling...

Rick...I've heard this too and it concerns me. Either people don't trust their civil leaders (seems to be common place these days) and/or that Americans believe our good natured red, white, and blue small town military heroes will discern between civil leaders proper/improper use of the Insurrection Act to circumvent the Posse Comitatus Act and then if they disagree will somehow stand by their civilian brothers/sisters. I have my doubts.

Some sort of check an balance is a MUST. The draft may work for the Army, but as for the AF our systems are too complex and training takes too long and costs to much get ready for conflict. The Guard and Reserves for all the ad-hoc ways of hacking the mission (and they do) frustrate AD military leaders but stand as our best way, at present, of retaining some sort of connection between the govt, military and civilian sectors and serve a that check to unrestricted conflict.

I also concur with the author that taxes are a HUGE check and balance. It will wake up America more than most options absent the draft. So conspiracy theories on this then go to who doesn't want America to wake up?

Originally Posted by rickair7777

That's the point I'm making...there are valid reasons to assess and adjust defense spending, but fear of short-term economic pain in a few sectors or locales is not a good one.

Originally Posted by rickair7777

The real problem with an all volunteer force is not the force itself, it's the reduction in military experience in the general population....which is the pool from which voters and elected officials are drawn.

Originally Posted by Fluglehrer

I agree with your statement here. My point is only that expecting any subsequent stimulus in the economy is not probable. The money saved will not be returned to the taxpayer. More likely it will go to unnecessary programs that kill individual initiative and responsibility in favor of dependency on government (to use just one possible redirect of the spending).