Us military budget could be trimmed severely in next decade

[Einzige]

Task force seeks to trim $960 billion from Pentagon budget

Group eyes big-ticket weapons, force size to reduce costs over 10 years

By Christopher Hinton, MarketWatch

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- The Pentagon could save nearly $1 trillion over the next 10 years if would reduce the size of its fighting force and dump a handful of heavy-weapon programs that have long histories of trouble and cost growth, a bipartisan task force said Friday.

The Sustainable Defense Task Force, formed under the auspices of U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D, Mass.), said chopping back the procurement of dud projects could save the country $88.7 billion.

In the group's sights are the Marine's Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, built by General Dynamics Corp., Textron Inc. unit Bell Helicopter's MV-22 Osprey and the Lockheed Martin Corp. F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

"The development of the F-35 is rapidly going the way of the F-22 Raptor: late, over cost and less capable that promised," the task force said in its report. "However, even if the aircraft performed according to specifications, it would not be needed in order for us to defeat current and emerging challenges."

U.S. spending on its military far all outpaces its largest conventional threats such as China and Russia. For 2010, Congress approved about $663.7 billion for the military. That's more than seven times the combined military budgets of the next 14 ranking nations, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, under pressure to reduce spending in the wake of higher federal budget deficits and a weak economy, has said he is determined to cut defense spending in part through smarter procurement practices....

But the most savings could eventually come from rolling back the size of the U.S. military, according to the task force report. Reducing the U.S. nuclear arsenal to 1,000 warheads, on 160 Minuteman missiles and seven Ohio-class submarines would save the country $113 billion form fiscal 2011 through 2020.

Combined with a more limited modernization of nuclear warheads, selectively curtailing missile defense and space spending and a rational reduction in conventional forces, the Pentagon could pocket up to $638.4 billion over the next ten years.

"No other nation or likely combination of nations comes close to matching U.S. conventional forces," the task force said. "Our options in this area seek to match conventional force capabilities more closely with the actual requirements of defense and deterrence."...

Frank commissioned the study in cooperation with Rep. Walter Jones (R, N.C.), Rep. Ron Paul (R, Texas) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D, Ore.).

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/task-f ... _news_stmp

About Goddamned time. You want to talk about bloated government spending? The military, along with Social Security, is the example of it in the United States. Yet you hear nary a whit about slashing military spending from our self-proclaimed budget hawks here. Why is that? Because it's welfare for those sectors of the economy they show preference to?



We cannot continue this level of reckless and irrational spending on a programme that produces no tangible benefits and deprives the private sector of useful workers and wages.

[Mr Bean]

Drop the F-35? Well it was nice having an airforce but we can't keep 40 year old F-18's in the air unless we never fly them. Never mind the F-15's and F-16...
Well if the US wants to go Isolationist again then by all means lets keep a million man army with the flower of 1970's technology.

[Temujin]

I'll preface this by saying I don't consider myself a hawk, but neither do I consider myself a dove, as providing a proper defense is essential to a countries survival. That said:

The whole DoD and particularly its procurement process has become a joke. It is so bloated and inefficient and so much money is wasted on R&D only to see projects cut in an attempt to save money, leaving us with either a handful of modern systems or obsolete systems only. The entire process needs to be revised (hell, it should have been revised over a decade ago), but the way government is working lately that's about as likely as a snowball surviving its trip through hell.

While I'd prefer F-22s to F-35s, they've already screwed the pooch on that one; and are likely to screw it even more.

As for "Reducing the U.S. nuclear arsenal to 1,000 warheads, on 160 Minuteman missiles and seven Ohio-class submarines", why bother keeping the 160 Minuteman, when SLBM's are just as good and provide better survivability. Hell, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, who they refer to in the article mentioned in one interview about the nuclear triad that we should essentially choose two. Well why not keep the SLBMs and develop a new bomber that would provide a more flexible response as well as be able to be more than a one trick pony.

And again, "selectively curtailing missile defense and space spending", why are programs that are relatively inexpensive and provide a good cost to benefit ratio being targeted? It's been discussed on this board before about how missile defense provides a reasonable defense as well as peace of mind for a modest cost. And space programs are mainly related to things that serve as force multipliers for U.S. forces, again at a modest cost.

"And a rational reduction in conventional forces"; this is about the only thing I can agree with as we have far to many land forces than needed. We're not going to fight the Russians in Europe, and if intervening in places like Iraq means getting drawn into a never ending insurgency, the exact kind of warfare we should be avoiding, than we shouldn't even bother sending forces at all.

The U.S. really needs to take a long hard look at what its essential security needs are, which ones (like relying on foreign oil) are untenable and or inefficient (i.e, the cost spent does not equal the benefit), and which ones are realistic and affordable.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Not going to happen short of social-political revolution or economic collapse; Frank's Task Force will make recommendations which will be shouted down by the kept experts and shrill pundits belonging to the privileged sectors under risk. Furthermore, simply unilaterally slashing military spending is not seeing the forest for the trees. The U.S. maintains its military apparatus at such overwhelming scale as part and parcel of its consciously dominant role in the world politically and economically. One would need to radically restructure both the economy (which would greatly suffer without the quasi-fascist -- I mean in the economic policy sense -- role hypertrophic defense spending and planning plays in driving high-technology business) and U.S. foreign policy and international economic and diplomatic relationships. I'm afraid I have a low opinion of what I think is implicit in the OP: a low-rent version of Ron Paul-ism where "isolationism" (prey-tell, when was the U.S. ever "isolationist" on the American continents?) is magically matched by a flourishing of idyllic free market trade and spontaneous private economic growth. I'm afraid a more substantive answer to replacing the defense sector's significant role in our state-subsidized economy would be required.

The U.S. military is not a completely parasitic growth on the body politic; one may criticize its role, but that must come with an understanding of it as an integral component of modern American society and international relations. Therefore, criticizing it must be part of more systemic criticisms and alternative policy proposals. It cannot be removed with little impact across society and institutions.

[Guardsman Bass]

And again, "selectively curtailing missile defense and space spending", why are programs that are relatively inexpensive and provide a good cost to benefit ratio being targeted? It's been discussed on this board before about how missile defense provides a reasonable defense as well as peace of mind for a modest cost. And space programs are mainly related to things that serve as force multipliers for U.S. forces, again at a modest cost.

It's mostly because of myths about the program's effectiveness and cost. Take a look at the report they issue - they use the "Star Wars" label (even though ABM predates Reagan's SDI by decades), and talk about it as if it some massive, expensive boondoggle.

"And a rational reduction in conventional forces"; this is about the only thing I can agree with as we have far to many land forces than needed. We're not going to fight the Russians in Europe, and if intervening in places like Iraq means getting drawn into a never ending insurgency, the exact kind of warfare we should be avoiding, than we shouldn't even bother sending forces at all.

Same here, and I hope it comes with some re-assessment of our national security objectives. Plus, if what happened to the Powell Doctrine is any kind of indication, having a powerful, effective land army seems to fuel the fantasies of a whole crowd of interventionists (I'm not just talking about neo-conservatives).

My biggest worry is that we'll get cut-backs in R & D and procurement . . . but ultimately not in personnel or operations abroad, resulting in the US government and military trying to do a whole lot of different things (ranging from conventional warfare to counter-insurgency to peacekeeping) on the cheap.

Not going to happen short of social-political revolution or economic collapse; Frank's Task Force will make recommendations which will be shouted down by the kept experts and shrill pundits belonging to the privileged sectors under risk.

Don't under-estimate the political power of the people behind this. The same people you think will block it also tried to block the cancellation of the F-22 program, and lost.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Don't under-estimate the political power of the people behind this. The same people you think will block it also tried to block the cancellation of the F-22 program, and lost.

Bush was going to stop the F-22 at the same number of aircraft as Obama, so that's a complete red herring, the defense establishment had given up on larger procurement of that programme.

[Simon_Jester]

To some extent this is probably... if not a good idea, at least an unpleasantly necessary ones. Maintaining a steady military buildup during a recession is just not a good idea.

I'm not averse to reducing the size of the military at this point, because I'm not committed to having the US be a global hegemon. On the other hand, there's only so much flab to cut before we find ourselves hacking away at muscle and bone.

For instance, we can probably maintain an adequate nuclear deterrent while scaling back the total force to a point, but I'm not qualified to comment on where that point is and I'm skeptical of whether the Frank commission is either. And like it or not we CAN NOT AFFORD to eliminate the F-35, because we have absolutely nothing in the pipeline to replace it with. As far as I can tell, if we don't build F-35s, then within the next few decades we effectively lose the US Air Force because our jets will be so old and brittle that the wings fall off if we load bombs on them. We might be able to scale back F-35 production, but that doesn't recover sunk costs and greatly increases the per-unit cost, which means we get less bang (and zoom) for our buck- we pay 90% as much for 75% as many planes or something.

Hmm. Might it be better to build the planes and stick them in storage, saving on basing and manpower costs but giving us the capacity to produce a large number of units?

Likewise, cutting spending on missile defense is just dumb. If it's needed it'll be the best money we ever spent, because we'd be using a (hundred billion?) dollar ABM program to avert trillions of dollars of economic damage and casualties in the hundreds of thousands or millions. And it's simply not that expensive compared to many other major budget items.

What I'd really like to see is a graph of budget for national defense as a percentage of GDP; GDP in constant FY09 dollars has increased considerably since 1948, so the Reagan-era buildup is liable to be a lot smaller than the Korean War buildup in terms of GDP.

[Starglider]

In what way is the F-22 'less capable than promised'? As far as I know, it met all its performance targets. It had a few maintenance issues that essentially couldn't have been anticipated, you expect that when you push the envelope, but it was basically a successful program. Most of the 'cost overrun' was simply due to the production run being cut to a quarter of what it should have been.

[Iosef Cross]

What I'd really like to see is a graph of budget for national defense as a percentage of GDP; GDP in constant FY09 dollars has increased considerably since 1948, so the Reagan-era buildup is liable to be a lot smaller than the Korean War buildup in terms of GDP.

Here it is:
Source: http://www.truthandpolitics.org/militar ... .php#ref-1

Yep, in the Korean war the US mobilized very significantly. But today there is no cold war going on, and other economic powers invest a much smaller proportion of their GDP in the military.

For comparison, Germany invests only 1.3% of their GDP, Japan invests less than 1%. The US invests 4.3%. While these countries aren't global hegemons, while the US still is, the US could maintain a lead in total military expenditure even if they cut by more than half the military expenditure.

See military expenditures by country:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... penditures

[Lonestar]

Veterans stuff was also done under the DoD during the "10% GDP era" rather than the VA, and we were financing the French in Indochina. Kinda misleading.

[Sea Skimmer]

In what way is the F-22 'less capable than promised'? As far as I know, it met all its performance targets. It had a few maintenance issues that essentially couldn't have been anticipated, you expect that when you push the envelope, but it was basically a successful program. Most of the 'cost overrun' was simply due to the production run being cut to a quarter of what it should have been.

They fully well knew they'd have horrible maintenance issues, they just lie blatantly about reliability on every single new plane every since the 1950s when the US was routinely fielding new jet fighter and interceptor designs which were rushed out so quickly they had less then 50% serviceability rates. Plenty of reliability improvements do and did take place on the F-22, but since every new plane is just so absurdly more complicated then what came before it you need radical improvements just to keep even. If two planes have a 1:1000 hour failure rate for any given component, then the plane with 120,000 component instead of 40,000 components is going to break a whole lot more. The F-22 also failedon range, though the exact service figures are still unknown.

Anyway several hundred billion at least could be saved over 10 years just if we got rid of all the Army and Marine manpower we have added since 2001. Major budget cuts do have to happen, but the best way it will be accomplished is reducing force structure, not terminating R&D programs. The Air Force may loose upwards of 250 jets of the F-15/16/A-10 sort in the near future once our Predator-Reaper UAV capability is fully spammed in 2011. They'll likely never be replaced and F-35A production will scale down in step.

[Alyeska]

Of all assets to recommend cutting, the nuclear assets are the most absurd. They are among the most cost effective systems. And with no replacements down the line, they are literally all that exist right now. All you would save is maintenance costs if you cut them.

[Srelex]

Trim it, and trim it good. Considering the greatest threat the US faces right now is in Wall Street, shovel all that money that would have otherwise gone into yet more penis-envy jets that nobody really needs into things like education or infrastructure.

[Sea Skimmer]

Trim it, and trim it good. Considering the greatest threat the US faces right now is in Wall Street, shovel all that money that would have otherwise gone into yet more penis-envy jets that nobody really needs into things like education or infrastructure.

Yeah total disarmament was working really good as national policy back in the day the last time we had a major economic crisis. Too bad the Japanese didn't agree with the idea.

[SirNitram]

Never. Going. To. Happen.

I'm sure if we set the HAB and Mess loose on the military budget, there'd be stuff they'd say were stupid to keep funding.

But let's be honest with ourselves. The increase last year caused the war hawks to shriek and rend their hankies about how Obama was slashing the defense budget, making us less safe.

Deficit Hawks don't exist, not in the halls of power. There only exist people who use deficits to fearmonger slashing spending they don't like(Especially social security, medicaid, etc), but will never touch the sacred cow of US budgets. Social security was never a third rail. The military budget is.

[MKSheppard]

But let's be honest with ourselves. The increase last year caused the war hawks to shriek and rend their hankies about how Obama was slashing the defense budget, making us less safe.

His supposed increase in the NASA budget is all bullshit too.

You don't cut programs that are well along to producing actual hardware like ABL or have produced hardware (Missile defense) and then claim it makes us safer. I also love how he cancelled a lot of missile defense plans in favor of the NAVY SEA BASED SM-3 Plan --- which he did not give the navy extra funding to accomplish.

As for what gates will go after?

My prediction is the EFV. Gates made a big show of how we needed the F-35; and how much better it was than F-22; so he can't kill the F-35B (the one with all the problems holding the program back) without looking like a total tool.

So the EFV will be picked as his target for this year....but it won't die without a huge fight from the MARINES!!!

Hopefully, this will tie up gates for the remainder of his term so he can't do any more damage.

[Sea Skimmer]

The Navy has gotten extra funding for SM-3 now, but it will only show up after a couple year gap after ABL and KEI died. Also the SM-3 funding only goes into buying more warshots, which are much less effective now that they have no future MKV upgrade to look forward too. But god forbid we should roughly triple the effectiveness of the weapon everything is being bet on when it has a much smaller engagement envelope then the systems it must replace.

[JointStrikeFighter]

disband the mini army marines mini army

problem solved

[K. A. Pital]

Trim it, and trim it good. Considering the greatest threat the US faces right now is in Wall Street, shovel all that money that would have otherwise gone into yet more penis-envy jets that nobody really needs into things like education or infrastructure.

Yeah total disarmament was working really good as national policy back in the day the last time we had a major economic crisis. Too bad the Japanese didn't agree with the idea.

Total disarmament in the 1930s? What a load of bullshit - having the most powerful Navy on Earth and describing this as "total disarmament" is just preposterous.

Also, if you're not really supporting foreign adventurism or hegemonism, the US really doesn't need such a massive military. It's location provides enough protection against smaller nations; the homeland would rarely be threatened if ever (only by deterrence weapons like ICBMs and nuclear-armed bombers and submarines).

You only need the military if you still plan on invading other nations, blowing up shit in the Middle East, et cetera. For other tasks, you hardly need a military that large. In fact, if a large part of the US Navy's non-strategic component vanished overnight, almost nothing would've changed.

[Alyeska]

Total disarmament in the 1930s? What a load of bullshit - having the most powerful Navy on Earth and describing this as "total disarmament" is just preposterous.

Also, if you're not really supporting foreign adventurism or hegemonism, the US really doesn't need such a massive military. It's location provides enough protection against smaller nations; the homeland would rarely be threatened if ever (only by deterrence weapons like ICBMs and nuclear-armed bombers and submarines).

You only need the military if you still plan on invading other nations, blowing up shit in the Middle East, et cetera. For other tasks, you hardly need a military that large. In fact, if a large part of the US Navy's non-strategic component vanished overnight, almost nothing would've changed.

The United States did not have the most powerful navy on Earth in the 1930s. It was only during WW2 that the US Navy emerged as the most powerful.

At the beginning of World War 2, the USN was not yet a match for the Japanese. The Army was pathetically small. The Airforce? The US built 12,000 B-17s in WW2. The US had 155 B-17s when Pearl Harbor happened.

Before World War 2 the US had potential, but was not yet a powerful entity. Its strength lay in its Industrial base which had yet to be put to the test.

[MKSheppard]

Total disarmament in the 1930s? What a load of bullshit - having the most powerful Navy on Earth and describing this as "total disarmament" is just preposterous.

Skim's referring to the various naval disarmament treaties which kept the IJN at a near parity (or close enough) that the random loss of a few ships could swing the balance of power in favor of the Japanese.

Also; the treaties also prohibited us from fortifying our various pacific holdings -- same for the Brits and Hong Kong.

That worked out SO well...

[[R_H]]

His supposed increase in the NASA budget is all bullshit too.

You don't cut programs that are well along to producing actual hardware like ABL or have produced hardware (Missile defense) and then claim it makes us safer. I also love how he cancelled a lot of missile defense plans in favor of the NAVY SEA BASED SM-3 Plan --- which he did not give the navy extra funding to accomplish.

As for what gates will go after?

My prediction is the EFV. Gates made a big show of how we needed the F-35; and how much better it was than F-22; so he can't kill the F-35B (the one with all the problems holding the program back) without looking like a total tool.

So the EFV will be picked as his target for this year....but it won't die without a huge fight from the MARINES!!!

Hopefully, this will tie up gates for the remainder of his term so he can't do any more damage.

Gates and Co. to Axe Marine Corps EFV?

Yesterday at a reporter’s roundtable, House Armed Services Committee chair Rep. Ike Skelton said he expects SecDef Robert Gates and his merry band of program killers in OSD will try to terminate the Marine Corps armored amphibian, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV). Skelton said he’s pretty agnostic on the EFV and that the HASC would give the Marines time to conduct further tests on the vehicle. He did expect the Marines to fight tooth and nail to keep the program alive. I’m hearing the same thing from inside the Navy department; the Marines really, really want their EFV.

I’m also told that the Marines are embarking on a PR blitz in think tank land and among reporters to try to pre-empt Gates’ move and sell the EFV along with amphibious warfare writ large; for example, a couple of weeks back EFV program manager Col. Keith Moore did a “bloggers roundtable” (transcript here).

Gates told the Marines to explain how the EFV fits into the big strategy picture, I’m told, and, more importantly, he’s asking the Marine’s for their “vision” of how they fit into the overall force, beyond amphibious assault. He contends that the EFV is a gold plated “niche” capability designed for a highly unlikely repeat of the Inchon landing.

The Marines say… well here’s how Moore put it:
“o many of the capabilities that are in the EFV are specifically designed so you never have to do another Inchon, you never have to do another Iwo Jima, but you can still do that forcible entry mission when it’s required or provide a credible threat of a joint forcible entry so that you open up other opportunities for other capabilities that are within the suite of American military capabilities, whether that’s other surface means, aviation means or whatever, that by having a credible threat in one area you open up a window of vulnerability in another area that we can exploit.”

I’m told that planners in the Navy department are eyeballing the Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC) as a more versatile means of delivering troops and vehicles ashore. Obviously it doesn’t have the “forcible entry” capabilities of an armored amphibian, but the idea is to use recon to find an empty beach and land there, instead of into the teeth of enemy defenses.

The feeling is that the LCAC, which is due for an upgrade, can deliver more relevant troops and material ashore much faster (carrying up to 75 tons at 40 knots) than a gaggle of EFVs.

[Omega18]

The United States did not have the most powerful navy on Earth in the 1930s. It was only during WW2 that the US Navy emerged as the most powerful.

At the beginning of World War 2, the USN was not yet a match for the Japanese.

Actually, a strong argument can be made that for a significant portion of the 1930s the US had the most powerful navy in the world, the only one really close was the British Navy, with the US arguably having the edge due to its better carriers.

The US had 16 or 15 battleships depending on how you count them, Japan only had ten. The four Japanese Kongo Class ships also were somewhat limited in their direct hitting power, particularly when factoring in their armor. The US also had the flat out bigger navy in general. Its only in the late 1930s that Japan really built up its carrier force and the picture also changed as carrier based aircraft got increasingly capable. (Up to this point, the US pretty clearly would have the edge navally against Japan from the start of any war and would have to really screw up massively for this situation to really change.)

[Sea Skimmer]

Total disarmament in the 1930s? What a load of bullshit - having the most powerful Navy on Earth and describing this as "total disarmament" is just preposterous.

A fleet based around obsolete warships completed prior to or during the first world war, and with supporting forces which did not even reach the restrictions of the London Naval Treaty. A fleet so weak it could not deter Japan, a nation of 1/10th the industrial power. All US coastal forts except those in the Philippines and Panama were close down and had no garrison, some did not even have caretakers to prevent the guns from rusting. The US meanwhile had no real army at all, and no real air force at all in the interwar period. What little was on hand in December 1941 was almost entirely created in the brief window after the fall of France finally kicked the US into action. In the entire Philippine islands for example the US had just one regiment of ground troops, and that unit was a marine regiment withdrawn from Shanghai. I think you have no real conception of how much the units the US did retain were also nickel and dimed to utter death and ineffectiveness by having no budgets for training, ammo, spare parts or about anything else but food, and just enough paint to keep the barracks from rotting. That's a close to total disarmament as any large nation is ever going to come in this world. And it didn't fucking work one bit.

Also, if you're not really supporting foreign adventurism or hegemonism, the US really doesn't need such a massive military. It's location provides enough protection against smaller nations; the homeland would rarely be threatened if ever (only by deterrence weapons like ICBMs and nuclear-armed bombers and submarines).

You only need the military if you still plan on invading other nations, blowing up shit in the Middle East, et cetera. For other tasks, you hardly need a military that large. In fact, if a large part of the US Navy's non-strategic component vanished overnight, almost nothing would've changed.

Yeah if the US just threw its security to the wind and pretended to ignore the fact that it is completely dependent directly and indirectly on oil flowing through the worlds free shipping lanes nothing might change. For maybe about twenty minutes until people like Libya and Iran find out that nothing exists anymore to prevent them from attempting to assert control over the oceans. That would get real fun real quick. The fact is the world needs that kind of capability, the US has provided the overwhelming majority of it for a long time. Now everyone else wants to get in on the game, and its not for no reason that everywhere you look right now navies, including Russia, are investing in large deck aviation ships which exist to carry out the offensive carrier strike-amphibious group doctrine the US proved was the way to win at sea in WW2.

In the future the US may well be able to do without a large navy, if we develop energy independence and stop importing every last plastic trinket, but neither of those things is going to happen in any realistic budget planning time frame.

[Sea Skimmer]

Actually, a strong argument can be made that for a significant portion of the 1930s the US had the most powerful navy in the world, the only one really close was the British Navy, with the US arguably having the edge due to its better carriers.

The US had 16 or 15 battleships depending on how you count them, Japan only had ten. The four Japanese Kongo Class ships also were somewhat limited in their direct hitting power, particularly when factoring in their armor. The US also had the flat out bigger navy in general. Its only in the late 1930s that Japan really built up its carrier force and the picture also changed as carrier based aircraft got increasingly capable. (Up to this point, the US pretty clearly would have the edge navally against Japan from the start of any war and would have to really screw up massively for this situation to really change.)

That would be true if you ignore just how fucking insanely stingy the US military establishment had to be in that era. It robbed the forces of any real combat effectiveness. The British were not in a much better situation, but Japan was the utter opposite and built and prepared itself into a position in which they just could not fail, at least for the sweep to the south. Even if the US fleet was intact it wouldn't matter, because it had no bases and nothing able to support it west of Hawaii. If you read the reports and Morrisons on the early USN operations you'll see a steady pattern of a fleet which was unable to hit anything. Our cruisers in one instance failed to sink an anchored Japanese transport in a lagoon. Meanwhile in the Philippines US pilots could not intercept Japanese planes with what few aircraft they had, because they had no oxygen equipment. None had ever been produced. Even when you look at our great victory at Midway, we have a stark contrast an aircraft effectiveness even months into the war. US surface forces would get kicked around into 1943 until we just basically dominated the Japanese with radar equipped aircraft, preventing almost all further surface battles. That kind of advantage is not to be expected, all the more so if you want defense spending scaled back.

By the time the fall of France finally caused the US not to increase spending but order a full scale emergency mobilization it was basically too late to do anything. So we went into December 1941 with no choice but to let Japan overrun most of south Asia. Then we got to spend three years prying it back, and were damn lucky we could pull a fucking nuclear weapon out of our ass to avoid having to invade Japan. Spending some actual money on our defense would have let us ignore all of that bullshit and death. Probably shorten the war in Europe too.