Increasing US Military Spending

[gleem]

The US currently has a military budget of about $1T. It is larger than the next nine countries combined, three times larger than China, and six times larger than Russia and about 40% of the entire world. Yet from what we see/hear of the capabilities of China and Russia, we seem to be lagging. This may not be real, but our weapon systems have not been tested against a peer adversary.

Trump wants to boost the budget by another $500B. What will he spend it on? His Golden Dome has already begun under the Next Generation Interceptor program already financed. His battleship will probably die on the drawing board. This leaves his Dream Military, whatever that is. It's time for the Republican Party to stop raising the national debt.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

How can he do that without congress!?

 

[gleem]

How can he do that without congress!?

I don't think he can, but who knows what Congress will do. The GOP generally approved of his intervention in Venezuela and seems to be leaning towards his use of military intimidation. I don't know if they can say enough is enough.

EDIT: I just stated that he does not have to respect international law and that only his moral view is important. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/08/trump-power-international-law

 

[MindlessPieces]

I don't think he can, but who knows what Congress will do. The GOP generally approved of his intervention in Venezuela and seems to be leaning towards his use of military intimidation. I don't know if they can say enough is enough.

EDIT: I just stated that he does not have to respect international law and that only his moral view is important. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/08/trump-power-international-law

I'm sure if this was all going on in an England styled parliament system, the ruling party would have a vote of No Confidence and replace their leader with someone else that reflects the values and ethics of the party and the country.

The USA system has the party underlyings hostage to the elected President.
But, in saying that, each person stands up and is accountable for their own actions. If party members excuse what Trump says and does, and gives him power to continue doing this stuff. If they vote to give the President war powers (without Congress) abdicating their own responsibilities and becoming mere puppets with Trump's fist up their arses, then any ensuing war, be it with Greenland, Canada, Mexico, Europe, The Commonwealth, is on them too.

I do hope, if USA decides to use military force on Greenland, Canada or Mexico that the rest of the world would join forces to either sanction them or to join forces against them. USA is on the wrong side of history here.
It is disgusting to see Trump in a meeting with Oil companies trying to work out how to steal Venezuelan oil. I hope countries refuse to buy it.

 

[Rive]

from what we see/hear of the capabilities of China and Russia, we seem to be lagging.

That's been in play from the beginning of the Cold War. Both parties continuously cranked up military spending based on the assumed capabilities of potential enemies.

The issues brought forth by the later conflicts cannot be solved by those big projects announced so far. Limited ability to support allied forces in materials: lacking ability to keep troops and material operational on a modern battlefield - it's not about battleships and whatnot.

 

[Klystron]

it's not about battleships and whatnot.

So true. Billy Mitchel proved the uselessness, the existential vulnerability of battleships against aircraft even while Robert Goddard was developing practical rockets. Leave it to DJT and his ilk to pour taxpayer dollars into largely symbolic floating targets obsolete for over 100 years.

As always with weapon procurement, examine who benefits from the transaction.

 

[Rive]

existential vulnerability of battleships against aircraft

Just for the log: the term 'battleship' was some seriously got revised lately. It's not the same 'battleship' as it was.

 

[Grinkle]

I expect he did his homework on this advanced simulation platform.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_of_Warships

 

[gleem]

So true. Billy Mitchel proved the uselessness, the existential vulnerability of battleships against aircraft even while Robert Goddard was developing practical rockets. Leave it to DJT and his ilk to pour taxpayer dollars into largely symbolic floating targets obsolete for over 100 years.

Better to increase our fleet of missile subs, which are more difficult to track.
The Trump class battleship is a missile ship with might as well be a big target symbol painted on it.

 

[Klystron]

Just for the log: the term 'battleship' was some seriously got revised lately. It's not the same 'battleship' as it was.

Correct. Consider sea and air as fluids. Surface ships operate at the interface, vulnerable below by submersible weapons and attack from above.

Imagine DJT uses "battleship" in the traditional sense as a slow large gun platform with outsized cannons. My remark on obsolescence came from Trump's insistence that anti-radar warship hulls 'look bad' and must be removed to restore "big beautiful lines" to Naval vessels. Enemy electronic warfare operators rejoice at this moronic intervention.

 

[Klystron]

Better to increase our fleet of missile subs, which are more difficult to track.
The Trump class battleship is a missile ship with might as well be a big target symbol painted on it.

Absent the abhorent renaming from Admiral Zumwalt to some TV character, these surface missle platforms with VSTOL servicing capability have little connection to the obsolete 'battleships' seen in movies such as "Under Seige". Despite his braggadocio, Trump's idea of a navy can be viewed at the 'rusty ship graveyard' in northern Bay Area and, of course, old movies where a renegade lone warrior destroys the bad guys.