Here's the FY2009 Outlays (in $ millions):
MILITARY PERSONNEL
ACTIVE FORCES 108,555
RESERVE FORCES 20,019
TOTAL MILITARY PERSONNEL 128,574
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 212,733
PROCUREMENT 112,897
RESEARCH, DEV, TEST & EVAL 76,352
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 14,113
FAMILY HOUSING 3,354
REVOLVING AND MGMT FUNDS 3,725
DEFENSE-WIDE CONTINGENCIES 200
DEDUCT FOR OFFSETTING RCPTS -1,561
TRUST FUNDS 296
ALLOWANCES 547
INTERFUND TRANSACTIONS -126
TOTAL DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 551,105
The two heavy hitters are personnel and O&M, at 44%.
Procurement is 21%. (I assume that is systems, not beans and bullets).
RDT&E is 14%.
Those three account for 79% of the budget.
As the force grows, one of three things will happen:
- Personnel cost increases will be covered by cuts to O&M
- Personnel and O&M cost increases will be covered by increasing the budget
- Personnel and O&M cost increases will be covered by (.9999 probability) shifting funds from one of the other two.
I expect a combination of 1 and 3.
Which leaves less than $189B available for budget reductions. Maybe, big maybe, 10% of that can be trimmed, for any reason, without crippling national capability to design, develop and produce major weapon systems.
The consequences I foresee are:
- Training and readiness deteriorate.
- The ability to develop and produce new systems deteriorates, including recapitalizing existing systems.
- The level of military power available begins a steady decrease.
- US ability to project power deteriorates.
Your big question is: "...if the US's military capacity collapses under the weight of its financial profligacy, how do you thing that will change the wars she fights?"
I think the answer is that we will lose the ability to effectively fight any. Think in terms of 18th and 19th century Spain.
Bookmarks