comment: >
  
  I don’t have direct answers to a lot of your questions, but I want to provide some context that I usually don’t see surfaced in discussions like these. No one fact of these has been overriding on my opinion, but it has definitely helped me see the issues as more complex and nuanced than most of the public discussions.
  
  
  To start, it’s important to recognize that even with a high absolute level of military spending, the relative amount is not unreasonable. Before the Ukraine crisis, we were already at the lowest military spending as a % of GDP since pre WWII. The last projection I know of had it falling to 2.7% by 2032 and we have commitments to allies to keep that above 2%. Certainly one of the easiest paths forward is to simply continue the slow relative draw down which would see us hitting our obligatory minimum by perhaps 2050. That’s not a terrible “baseline” result for essentially no extra action required.
  
  
  For all of the extremely valid criticisms of the military industrial complex, there is less awareness of the defense production advantage. Essentially, there is a significant value to the economy/country just in keeping the US at the top of the world in so many different areas of the defense world. For one, the direct costs of spending are actually lower than the headline numbers because spending within our own economy results in clawbacks through taxes of both profits and salaries. It’s a pretty unique and advantageous position in the world to be able to buy locally and get some of the best equipment in the world. 
  
  
  Furthermore, having so much of our own spend essentially subsidizing that industry in the US brings in massive economic benefits in having many/most other countries buy our equipment too, further cementing our production advantage and also giving the US extra political capital in being able to pick and choose where we allow our top of the line weapons to be exported. Granted, we don’t always make the best choices there, but the political leverage does enhance our negotiating position relative to what it would otherwise be without such a strong and dominant defense industry. These are benefits that are hard to buy/replace at any cost if we were to dramatically decrease our defense spending priorities.
context: I think the biggest issue is just getting a proper accounting of how things are spent. They’ve been working on it but it hasn’t been going great. I’m it’s current state we couldn’t do a. Real audit even if we wanted to. >
  
  Given the, uh, current geopolitical climate, I can't imagine US and Russia agreeing to anything, much less nuclear disarmament. >
  
  One easy way to help with the budget would be to get rid of a lot of the military contractors and let military members do that work. When I was in the Navy as an IT when we were out at sea I could do the work but in our home port a contractor was to come on and my job then was to babysit them. >
  
  It would take decades to rebuild that force structure. 
  Add in that recruiting is already having massive challenges in meeting numbers, then add in a need to recruit more recruits into the specialized (high ASVAB, long training time) rates and MOSes and it’s even more a problem. >
  
  Just because it would take decades doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it. There are disgusting amounts of fraud, waste, and abuse in military contracting. Should we continue using this model just because any alternative would be difficult? >
  
  Having the same tasks performed solely by "1 and done" 19 & 20 year old E-4s isn't going to really provide better quality or save costs. 
  I've seen what happens when you leave everything to AD sailors, some of it works but a lot is garbage and requires massive rework. Basic PMs, sure depot level maintenance is often better done by a civilian professional that does that job day in and day out. >
  
  My brother, I was a “1 and done” E4 who left the Army at 22 years old and immediately took a job with a contracting company overseas for $100k salary and I don’t have a college degree lol I’m not bragging here, I’m just demonstrating the absurdity that takes place in contracting today.
  These “civilian professionals” you speak of are not so different from the AD sailors you once knew. Often, they are the same people. >
  
  Cool story. 
  I was a “1 & done” E-6 and had to deal with a work center of E-4s & E-5s that maybe 1 in 10 could do much more than the bare minimum 
  PMs without destroying whatever pump or valve they were working. I had, at any given time 2 or 3 people that I could trust to actually run a QA package on an actual repair job. 
  If you’re making that on the back end, good for you. I guarantee you that most of your cohort weren’t capable. >
  
  My point is that the contracting companies ARE hiring many of those 9 idiots who break pumps/valves. I worked with a lot of idiots in my contractor office who never should have been hired in the first place. Certain contracting companies don’t even have interviews for their entry level positions, but those entry positions still pay 90k to 120k. How does that make any sense? >
  
  I’ve heard about these contractors for twenty years, but have never heard of how one becomes one. I’ve got friends that are DoD employees, but they aren’t really paid very well compared to private sector employees. 
  I’m in the commercial world and haven’t ever worked for the feds since I took my uniform off in 2005. 
  I think it could possibly work if we really expanded the reserves. Most AD squids while they have a repair and operational function, and let’s face it, operations is a bigger issue than the ability to maintain gear. Especially for corrective repairs. Hell, if the USN would let me, I’d like to do maintenance one weekend a month, as I never really turn wrenches anymore. >
  
  You just have to reach out to a recruiter at a contracting company. It is stupidly easy to get hired by a company like KBR, CACI, Dyncorps, etc.
  And yes, I agree that it would work if we expanded Reserves, but the DoD can’t even do that. The Reserves in every branch are having difficulty with recruiting and retention because being in the military sucks and the DoD won’t treat its troops fairly. >
  
  Hell, I tried to go in after I got out and was told they weren’t taking any prior service, only new recruits. Apparently the budget is allocated differently between the two pools. Now I’m either too old, to broken, or both, depending on the branch I’ve inquired with. 
  I apparently can work in the civilian sector, doing basically the same thing I did in the USN, but not once a weekend. 
  Anyway, I’m happy enough with my current position. I make plenty of money and get to travel whenever I want and I’m 100% WFH.