Military Review

Which side cut the US military budget

From the beginning of the year flows from the United States come News that the Pentagon’s budget is undergoing serious cuts, as President Obama recently announced. Thus, the Conciliation Commission for the US budget published materials relating to overcoming disagreements over the phasing out or revision of certain military programs. Apparently, Mr. Panetta may not be counted in the near future in the budget of his department for several tens of billions of dollars. Or are all these cuts just bait for the public?

In Congress, when adopting numerous amendments to the military budget, they are trying to reach a common opinion: whether this will affect the security of the United States. Of course, among the congressmen there are enough of those who see the direct intervention of foreign special services in an attempt to cut down on military spending in order to “take America with their bare hands”. As we know, our witch hunters in the United States have always been enough, so there’s no hope that the budget "circumcision" will be quiet and peaceful.

Meanwhile, the plans of the ideological inspirers of reducing public debt and, consequently, military spending, are roughly as follows.
First of all, the Pentagon will have to stop sponsoring obsolete and ineffective projects and programs. Such programs include several programs to re-equip the US Navy, modernize command posts both inside and outside the States, refuse to buy F-22 fighter jets, and also projects to create a whole range of new weapons.

At the same time, Americans decide to focus on high-tech areas of military production. In particular, we are talking about the beginning of the operation of a communications satellite operating at microwave frequencies. This, in the opinion of the Americans, should make their communication channels absolutely closed for interception of information from the outside. The possibility of internal leakage, which existed at all times, for some reason is not considered ... In addition, plans are underway to create an absolutely new bomber - LRPB, which will have stealth technology and have a long-range action.

Enhanced focus will be on cyber security. In this regard, the Americans are bluntly stating that recently everything is not all right with cyber security in the United States. The main culprit in Washington is the People’s Republic of China. The report says that in recent years, the number of cyber attacks on Pentagon computer systems by hackers from the Middle Kingdom have reached unprecedented proportions. At the same time in Congress and in the White House the official authorities of Beijing accuse names, which, according to the American authorities, specially organize and finance such attacks in order to seize the confidential information contained on the Pentagon servers. You might think that the Americans themselves do not practice virus attacks on servers with military data in other countries ...

In addition, the Pentagon is now being urged to carefully check those electronic components that come from abroad as part of the contracts concluded. The US Senate Committee on the Armed Forces states that during 2010-11, the number of unlicensed and frankly poor-quality components from China, intended for American military equipment, amounted to a million units. Now even those components that are supplied from the territory of the main American allies, Canada and the UK, will be carefully checked by experts, since the same committee has information that the allies are frankly bogus, “slipping” to NATO partners the components “Made in China”, trying keep silent about the country of origin of this kind of electronics.

Do not forget the Americans touch and nuclear program. At the same time, overly optimistic people have already started drawing plans, as the United States suddenly decides to stop its further production of missiles with nuclear warheads, but the United States is going to go a different way. As a reduction of the military budget, it is planned to suspend funding for the Russian-American project on START (2011-2017). They say that US citizens need guarantees that if the contract is implemented, then their (citizens) security will not be threatened. There will be no funding until the Congress receives “exhaustive” information about the full-scale modernization of the existing potential. But such information he can never get - purposefully. And that means, and purposefully building up nuclear power “in one person”.

In this regard, one can only notice that for some time any treaties like START between Washington and Moscow have lost all meaning. There is a clear imposition of decisions for the Russian side and the systematic ignoring of the clauses of such agreements by the American side. Now, for this, a new argument may appear: they say, we simply have no money for reducing the strategic nuclear forces - we’re sequestering everything here and so ...

But at the same time, an amendment appeared in the bill, which says that the White House can safely continue to deploy the European missile defense system regardless of what other countries think about it. And here, you understand, no cuts are foreseen ...

Regarding the financing of personnel, here too the congressmen reduced everything in a strange way. At first, it was about what could be saved on the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, but then, reducing, as they say, the balance sheets, it turned out that the expenditures on the financing of personnel did not even decrease, but increased. It’s just that the first stage of the discussion was about active servicemen, and the United States has more than 1 million 422 thousand "bayonets", and then they remembered that there are almost 850 thousands of reservists who also need, you want - you do not want, to finance. It so happened that I had to allocate a billion dollars more on 4,4 than last year.

I had to look for the possibility of cuts in the military budget in other places. Found it possible to reduce funding for combat training of personnel on 7,7 billion dollars. Apparently, the American parliamentarians decided that with what, and with the combat training of the US military, everything is in order. The congressmen found another way to save money by adopting a project to reduce the funding of government anti-terrorism programs of such countries as those mentioned Iraq and Afghanistan. Here, too, everything is clear. It’s somehow unbecoming to give Karzai money to continue “exterminating the Taliban,” and at the same time negotiating with the Taliban themselves ...

After long and tedious calculations, it turned out that the basic budget for the year will be one billion 662 according to one data, and the other “just” 618 one billion. Apparently, calculations with a spread of fifty billion "back and forth" are not very confused by Congress. The main thing is that the buzzword "sequestering" for calming the world community sounded. And how to cut so that only increased, knows and Congress, and even more so, Mr. Panetta.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site:

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Igor
    Igor 31 January 2012 08: 30
    They are moving to a new concept of war, as in Libya, special forces and aircraft.
    1. esaul
      esaul 31 January 2012 08: 37
      Pentagon Budget for 2013 FY planned in the amount of 525 billion dollars. Another 88,4 billion dollars was spent on operations abroad, mainly in Afghanistan. This is lower compared to 531 billion dollars and 115 billion dollars, respectively, in the current financial year. In general, the plans of the US administration provide for a reduction in the budget of the US Ministry of Defense by 259 billion dollars over the next five years and by 487 billion dollars over the next decade.

      According to the information announced on January 26 at a briefing at the Pentagon, it is planned to reduce the acquisition of the Global Hawk RQ-4 "Block-30" reconnaissance UAVs. According to the Air Force, the expected financial benefit from using an unmanned system instead of the outdated U-2 reconnaissance aircraft has not been justified. The cost of the RQ-4 "block-30" UAV is comparable to that of the U-2.

      1. Sergh
        Sergh 1 February 2012 14: 40
        Valera, look, a good philbm about space!
  2. Igor
    Igor 31 January 2012 09: 15
    Quote: esaul
    Pentagon Budget for 2013 planned in the amount of 525 billion dollars. Another 88,4 billion dollars - for operations abroad, mainly in Afghanistan.

    You can’t say something that they will greatly reduce their budget.
    Quote: esaul
    it is planned to reduce the acquisition of the RQ-4 "block-30" reconnaissance UAVs of the Global Hawk.

    So they are developing a new "block-40".
    1. esaul
      esaul 31 January 2012 10: 01
      Quote: Igorek


      Fireworks, Igor! And I'm not saying that the reduction is cardinal. With their giant WB, this reduction is not very large (although, in addition to these articles, the reduction is made for others), but it is an indicator that "Not everything is all right in the Kingdom of Denmark." The Yusam have to curtail their appetites ...
      1. Igor
        Igor 31 January 2012 10: 18
        Salaam, Esaul!
        Quote: esaul
        Yusam have to cut back their appetites ...

        Of course they will cut them, but only a little.
        1. smirnov
          smirnov 31 January 2012 22: 38
          I do not think that America will be able to keep this situation under control for a long time without unleashing another "war." The gigantic external debt and the ostentatious scanty cost reduction will be understood by Yus' creditors differently.
  3. Ascetic
    Ascetic 31 January 2012 10: 05
    As Count Alexander Vasilievich Suvorov-Rymniksky used to say, “they fight not by numbers, but by skill”. This is precisely the idea advocated by US President Barack Obama, visiting the Pentagon.
    in 2012, the American army is waiting for the most serious, perhaps, for the entire post-war period, the reduction in the number of troops, as well as the narrowing of the range of operations. The need for austerity, most likely, can radically change the face of the US armed forces. America no longer wants to wage large-scale, super-expensive wars like the Afghan or Iraqi ones. Even the appointment last year of the new Minister of Defense Leon Panetta, a man who had no previous relationship with the troops, but was a professional intelligence officer, chief of the CIA, speaks for itself: the White House “prescribed” the army the path of small operations, sabotage groups, or, at best , small mobile units equipped with modern technology and stuffed with electronic weapons. In the end, it was precisely such operations that brought the U.S. military the greatest success in 2011: the mobile landing group of the Marines (Navy Seals) destroyed Osama bin Laden. It is assumed that due to the reduction of ground forces, the US Air Force and Navy will be partially strengthened.
    Thus, in the near future, the American army will not have the resources to conduct more than one large-scale ground operation - in other words, America will not be enough for two wars simultaneously. Nevertheless, the already mentioned US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta believes that we are not talking about weakening the army: "We will continue to be able to conduct simultaneous military operations against several opponents and defeat them."
    Alas, this statement, according to experts, is also nothing more than "sweet syrup in a bitter medicine." Military observers of the American press write these days that “America can still fight, but with only one enemy at a time. The rest will either have to be frightened by a formidable look, or asked to stand in line and wait ”(The New York Times).
    So what does Barack Obama expect in the near future to occupy the heads and hands of his military? It is assumed that the "focus of interests" of the United States will be shifted east - in the Asia-Pacific region. America plans to open a number of military bases there, troops will be deployed there. However, for the time being we are talking about a maximum of a couple of thousands of marines, while the Pentagon intends to remove at least ten thousand soldiers from Europe in the near future. Some of them will be placed in the USA, some will go to Australia and New Zealand, while the rest will be “shined” by a simple, banal resignation. It seems that their homeland no longer needs their service. Leon Panetta presents this, of course, in a milder form: “We will have to make some difficult compromises, he admits, and take a certain risk. But this risk is justified. ”
    Nevertheless, it is now clear that the future cut in the US military budget will, first of all, hit the representatives of the military-industrial complex. So, the largest US aircraft company Boeing has announced that in connection with the cancellation of several military orders, it will have to close at least one factory in Kansas, which still produced refueling aircraft. Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman also missed out on the largest military order - the military had to abandon the construction of F-35 Joint Strike Fighter combat aircraft. The construction of a new nuclear submarine and a new aircraft carrier, according to representatives of the Pentagon, was postponed for two years. So the new US military budget has already hit jobs in the country. "Well, one philosopher of the American Fox channel remarked philosophically, “the Nobel Peace Prize issued in advance to Barack Obama is worth several thousand jobs for Americans. In the end, you have to pay for the right to be proud of your president. ”
  4. Skiff
    Skiff 31 January 2012 12: 49
    The Pentagon continues to increase the number of secret programs. In fiscal 2010, the military will spend almost a fifth of the allotment to the US Department of Defense almost without control, without notifying the legislators of both houses of the US Congress. This conclusion was recently made by specialists of the independent Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA), which for many years have been analyzing the Pentagon’s financial documents and evaluating military spending on open and closed programs. In America, the latter are called "special access programs" and "black programs."

    Next fiscal year The US Department of Defense plans to spend on closed programs about 36 billion dollars, or 17% of the total military budget. At the same time, it is supposed to spend a little more than half of this amount on arms purchases, and the rest on R&D

    According to CSBA calculations, At present, real appropriations for secret programs have doubled in comparison with 1995. The Center’s specialists say that while absolute spending on “black programs” continues to increase
  5. dred
    dred 31 January 2012 14: 44
    let them further reduce and we increase.
  6. 755962
    755962 31 January 2012 15: 15
    Trim, yeah! It is expected that Panetta will make it clear that the interests of ensuring national security require the preservation and even buildup of a military presence in Asia. However, less attention will be paid to Europe, Africa and Latin America. In particular, as representatives of the administration pointed out, it may be proposed to withdraw another army brigade from Europe so that there are only two of them left.
  7. marmon
    marmon 31 January 2012 18: 18
    Obama doesn’t have to be at the helm for long, another Republican will come, and they have tougher tiles
  8. Tyumen
    Tyumen 31 January 2012 21: 24
    But the police in the United States bought semiautomatic devices * Saiga-12 *. Maybe also as part of the savings?
    APASUS 31 January 2012 21: 33
    All US policy is based on the conquest of political, economic space. Maintaining the dollar. And the Pentagon is the main instrument of power. It's like, bees against honey ????? HA-HA-HA-HA !!!
  10. Michael-rl
    Michael-rl 1 February 2012 05: 37
    zadolbal already fatten in debt. All the same, only third world countries can be intimidating.