www.ditl.org

Why not privatise the US military?

The US military budget is about 685 billion dollars. So why not simply charge charge US states 13 billion dollars each in return for guaranteeing them safety from attack? One might adjust the amount to reflect the population or physical size of the state, or have a risk factor - Hawaii and Alaska are obviously in more danger of invasion than say Colorado, so maybe should pay more for their defence.

Of course one could offset this hugely by hiring out for foreign operations. The US could guarantee a foreign nation a response to invasion in return for a yearly fee, said amount to be determined according to the perceived risk. If you had say twenty five countries paying an average of 10 billion each, that would offset over a third of your budget.

So why not?

Because then you end up with a military that is more interested in making money then protecting its people.

IDK, Deep. A lot of kids join up wanting to get college money. I recall one guy trying to get out of deploying because he "didn't sign up to go to war", he just wanted money for college.

Then he should go into the Job Corp or Salvation Army.

No joke.

GrahamKennedy wrote: Hawaii and Alaska are obviously in more danger of invasion than say Colorado, so maybe should pay more for their defence.

Hawaii and Alaska assures the U.S.'s supremacy over the Pacific ocean, and the impossibility to strike their east coast directly. That's why they owned parts of the Phillipines (until it's strategic importance was replace with Japan's).

Protecting and projecting power through these states guarantee a level of protection for the United States, sea-wise, that they could never achieve otherwise.

So, IMHO, it's the USA who owns more to these territory than these terrority who should be "thankfuk" for the U.S.'s protection.

Deepcrush wrote:Because then you end up with a military that is more interested in making money then protecting its people.

But protecting it's people would be how it does make money. If it doesn't provide an excellent service then nobody would pay. The free market at work.

I'm thinking I'm just extremely biased in this but if someone wants help from the Armed Forces then its the duty of the Armed Forces to provide it. Most of the countries that need our help can't afford it and most of the countries that can afford it are countries that I don't care about.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:Hawaii and Alaska assures the U.S.'s supremacy over the Pacific ocean, and the impossibility to strike their east coast directly.

Looks like someone needs a geography lesson.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:

GrahamKennedy wrote: Hawaii and Alaska are obviously in more danger of invasion than say Colorado, so maybe should pay more for their defence.

Hawaii and Alaska assures the U.S.'s supremacy over the Pacific ocean, and the impossibility to strike their east coast directly. That's why they owned parts of the Phillipines (until it's strategic importance was replace with Japan's).

Protecting and projecting power through these states guarantee a level of protection for the United States, sea-wise, that they could never achieve otherwise.

So, IMHO, it's the USA who owns more to these territory than these terrority who should be "thankfuk" for the U.S.'s protection.

Good point. States could negotiate with the military, like any big customer might with any company, and argue points like this. Indeed states could offset some of their fees by offering land for bases, ports, airfields, etc, with important locations worth more money. You could win reductions by allowing the military access to schools and colleges for recruitment drives, etc, as well.

I think the way our military operates now is fine. JROTC programs are growing and bases remain Federal property to avoid local issues.

If there was to be some kind of financial gains then I personally believe it should be limited to a nation under our aid to pay for or pay as much as they can towards the cost of the deployment of our forces. Beyond that, I don't like the idea of looking at our military as a pile of mercs.

If we privatized the military, whats to prevent it from going bankrupt, like all those banks? Honestly, a bankrupt military would be a disaster.

Tsukiyumi wrote:

SolkaTruesilver wrote:Hawaii and Alaska assures the U.S.'s supremacy over the Pacific ocean, and the impossibility to strike their east coast directly.

Looks like someone needs a geography lesson.

Oh, damn. Why do I never reread before posting?

But you get the gist of it

Deepcrush wrote:I think the way our military operates now is fine. JROTC programs are growing and bases remain Federal property to avoid local issues.

If there was to be some kind of financial gains then I personally believe it should be limited to a nation under our aid to pay for or pay as much as they can towards the cost of the deployment of our forces. Beyond that, I don't like the idea of looking at our military as a pile of mercs.

But think of all the advantages of the free market when applied to the military. Do you really think a private company would put up with fighter jets that take 30 years to design and cost 300 million each? None of this "oh we must have a base in Iowa to save jobs so the congressman can be re-elected" nonsense in the private military!

stitch626 wrote:If we privatized the military, whats to prevent it from going bankrupt, like all those banks? Honestly, a bankrupt military would be a disaster.

But bankrupt electricity suppliers, water suppliers, food suppliers... are okay?