Pentagon’s Black Budget Tops $56 Billion
-
By Noah Shachtman
- February 1, 2010 |
- 3:57 pm |
- Categories: Spies, Secrecy and Surveillance
The Defense Department just released its king-sized, $708 billion budget for the next fiscal year. Much of the proposed spending is fairly detailed — noting exactly how many helicopters the Pentagon plans to buy and how many troops it plans on playing. But about $56 billion goes simply to “classified programs,” or to projects known only by their code names, like “Chalk Eagle” and “Link Plumeria.” That’s the Pentagon’s black budget.
Cobbling together this round figure for the military’s hush-hush projects is easier than it seems. The Pentagon’s separate ledgers for operations, research and procurement all contain line items for “classified programs.” Add those to the nonsensically-named programs, and you’ve got yourself an estimate for the Pentagon’s secretive efforts.
Last year, that budget grew to more than $50 billion – ”the largest-ever sum,” according to Aviation Week’s Bill Sweetman, a longtime black-budget seer. A few more billion were added for wartime operations, for a total of $54 billion. This year’total would be $2 billion higher, a 3.7 percent increase.
Not all of the Pentagon’s secret projects got a budget boost, however. Funds for the Cobra Judy missile-watching radar system were cut nearly in half, from $61 million to $36.5 million. Similar, money for the Navy’s Link Evergreen project was cut to $41 million, from $123 million.
Photo: Marcin Wichary / Flickr
– Noah Shachtman and Katie Drummond
$700 billion??!! WTF
.
We are fighting terrorists, that has a CIA, Interpol, Special Forces, and maybe, maybe drones solution.
.
Good to know Obama is fine with accelerating the pace in which we flush our money down the toilet.
Setting aside the morality issue, one defense (no pun intended) of the shockingly large military budget is that a great deal of it goes to support a large number of American workers, from working class ordinary soldiers to upper-middle-class aerospace engineers.
.
The big problems are (1) high profit margins at many suppliers translate to big pay for executives and returns for investors rather than spreading the wealth around, and (2) that money could be used for much more worthy purposes like health care or education that would have a greater and wider return on the public investment.
If Obama tried to cut this by a $1.00 the Right Wing would be all over him along with a lot of Democrats for being “soft on terrorists” even though the vast bulk of the weapons purchased have no role in the so-called Gobal War on Terror. Also if any jobs were lost from cutting back big ticket items he and Gates would catch hell for that too. Consider it part of the Stimulus Package. Defense Contractors have mastered the art of spreading the money through as many congressional districts as possible so big ticket programs are almost impossible to cut. Gates and Rummy found that out in the Bush Administration. I am amazed Gates was able to limit the F-22 Raptor as much as he did.
I hate to say it but defending against another 9/11 is not worth $700B of our tax dollars. I would rather see $500B of that go to a universal health care system like England has and suffer a couple hundred american deaths a year from terrorists. The lives saved due to the fact that people could afford good medical care would MORE than offset the losses from terrorist attacks.
“But about $56 billion goes simply to “classified programs,” or to projects known only by their code names, like “Chalk Eagle” and “Link Plumeria.” That’s the Pentagon’s black budget.”
and that is as it should be! What does Wired propose, that we broadcast all of our scientific and military secrets to the world? I’m sure AQ, China, and others would just luv that.
Xylenz | 02/1/10 | 5:46 pm - “I would rather see $500B of that go to a universal health care system like England has and suffer a couple hundred american deaths a year from terrorists.” What kind of libtard are you? Okay, lets start those deaths with YOUR family first, OK? Also, how do YOU know it would be merely a “couple hundred?” Your comment has to be the absolutely stupidest one on this, and perhaps, any other BB.
@Xylenz Where the fuck do you get off sensibly comparing numbers? Where is your cultivated fear? Get off of the internet if you are so willing to sacrifice people just to save a greater number of people.
Black budget, black hole, same thing.
curio50: Dumping money down a drain to protect against something that happened years ago, compared to spending money on a problem that is occurring now (in what the rest of us call the real world) is stupid. 911 was a one-time event; people dying everyday from lack of healthcare is not. Someone with half a brain would be able to do the math that your ten fingers and ten toes would find very challenging, but in the end, you would hope that our government would spend money on real threats, not imagined ones.
It’s still less as a percentage of GDP than the Saudi Arabia, Oman, Yemen, Jordan, and many other majority-Muslim countries expend on their militaries:
See http://moneyjihad.wordpress.com/tag/military-spending/
@curio50 Xylenz was in simple terms describing what is essentially a cost benefit analysis, which is not stupid. I don’t know what the ideal mix of military spending vs social spending is in terms of reducing total deaths but it’s something that has to be considered. Its sounds a little cold-hearted but governments and businesses do it every day. We have thousands of deaths on the nations roads every day so we obviously choose to spend less than it would cost to make our highways perfectly safe. Babies die because their mothers didn’t get adequate prenatal care. Soldiers died because they lacked adequate body armor or were driving in poorly protected vehicles and so on. Real life is all about trade-offs
BigBill - “9/11 was a one time event” so in addition to being intellectually gifted YOU can also predict the future, eh? It’s arrogant and stupid a-holes like you that allowed 9/11 to happen in the first place. I’m sure that if the idea was mentioned BEFORE the “event” a smart guy like you would have said that is was simply an “imagined” threat. God, it is truly scary to think there are people as foolish as you that vote - but then again, we now have a president who cares more about the legal rights of terrorists than the safety of his own country - so I guess you have some company.
@American_Delight
“It’s still less as a percentage of GDP than [...] many other majority-Muslim countries expend on their militaries”
Uh … so what? A bullet kills however rich or poor the owner. Somalia, no government so GDP zero is awash with weapons but to suggest that somehow that makes them comparable with the United States who outspend the rest of the world combined, is facile.
Link Plumeria sounds like connecting the plumbing or underground tunnels between underground military bases. One geologist who worked on building these tunnels deep underground said that one train was known as the “UN Prisoner Transfer Train” which contains hundreds of shackles in each car. Does anyone know more about this black ops program?
mwilk - “curio50 Xylenz was in simple terms describing what is essentially a cost benefit analysis, which is not stupid.” Yes, it is stupid b/c Xylenz has no idea of how many would be killed in future terrorist attacks, but given their past performances I would say that “a few hundred,” is highly likely a conservative estimate. Are you so stupid as to think that if we dumbed down our intelligence and military systems so that people could have “better medical care” terrorist victims (killed) would stay in the “few hundreds?” The premise of his “cost/benefit analysis” is highly unrealistic given past events, thus his comments are s-t-u-p-i-d. You libtards luv to try and sound intelligent, but your arguments belie your true lack of common sense as well as IQ.
@curio50 I meant to say deaths/year. So how much do we spend per year in defense? Why is 700 billion enough? Why not spend $7 trillion? We had a pretty big defense budget 2000 and they still hit us on 9/11. Would they have still hit us if we spent 50 billion more? Even 200 billion is far more than any other country on earth spends on defense. I frankly don’t know the right number and neither do you. My point is you have no right insulting people just because you don’t like their opinions.
mwilk - There is a BIG difference between not knowing a fact versus taking an EDUCATED guess via past actions, trend analysis, etc. What you said, or what you claim you “meant” to say, shows no indication of even the slightest attempt to make an educated guess. To then build an argument based on such a premise is, sorry to say it, but stupid. Bringing down just ONE jetliner would likely result in the death of hundreds, or very close. I ‘m sure you get the idea at this point - I hope. Also, people that talk so casually about the death of others deserve to be insulted…Xylenz is stupid and very likely highly immature as well.
Curio,
your idiocy is belied by this statement:
“we now have a president who cares more about the legal rights of terrorists than the safety of his own country - so I guess you have some company.”
If you weren’t so dull, you’d realize the amount of ill-will we generate by hypocritically railing on the “rule of law” in “lawless failed states” such as Afghanistan provides SCORES more recruits to those “terrorists”.
thus, by treating our enemies with respect, we marginalize their recruitment propaganda, and treat people fairly at the same time.
any idiot recognizes this, the fact that the concept escapes you speaks volumes more than you ever could.
awgee - don’t see how this connects with creating a faulty premise, however,”If you weren’t so dull, you’d realize the amount of ill-will we generate by hypocritically railing on the “rule of law” in “lawless failed states” such as Afghanistan provides SCORES more recruits to those “terrorists”.
please define what you mean by “railing on the rule of law in lawless failed states” and how this connects with terrorist recruitment?”
@curio50 Thousands die every year in traffic accidents the exact number is not the point. You continue to make insults and present no argument. Nobody wants to see an airliner blown up, but did 2 wars and trillions of dollars stop the underwear bomber? That was more dumb luck than anything. The idea that we can totally prevent attacks is totally unrealistic no matter how much we spend. I talk casually about death because it happens every day.
ImmortalSoFar, measuring militarism by raw dollars and numbers of weapons rather than as a portion of GDP is a very misleading statistic. If that’s your standard, then we spend more on poverty alleviation than every other country too. You can’t slam the U.S. both ways.
mwilk - “the exact number is not the point” I think so b/c you (Xylenz? are you guys twins?) chose to create and defend an entire argumment on exactly that. “I would rather see $500B of that go to a universal health care system like England has and suffer a couple hundred american deaths a year from terrorists.
Now you try and change your arguments focus when you are called on it (”exact number is not the point”) you must be a future politician in training! If you wish to continue making arguments based on fantasy that’s you’re decision, but it only makes you appear pathetic. …good luck Mr. casual death.
@ curio50
.
Aircraft carriers, destroyers, submarines, fighter jets, bombers, these things are not keeping us safe from a terrorist attack.
.
It has been speculated that the well dressed man that got the underwear bomber on the plane despite having no passport and being on the watchlist was an American agent. That America had been been watching the underwear bomber and wanted him to enter America so they could see who he was going to go meet and talk to. This idiotic decision almost cost a planeful of people their lives.
After the Soviet collapse, being the only superpower went to the heads of American hawks, but w/o the cold war for focus, they’ve become as paranoid as the soviets & they’re making the same mistakes: more secret super weapons, big prison population, less accountability, more isolation. They see democracy as an impediment rather than a moral consensus.
curio50: Completely aside the idea of cost/benefit analysis you are missing an important point. What stops 9/11 type attacks is good intelligence and Dept of Homeland Security. Neither of which is covered under this budget. Moving DoD budget marker up and down could have implications for the GWOT on foreign territory, but it would have very little impact on potential terror attacks at home.
If you are so worried about another attack at home you should be advocating more budget for CIA and DHS, not hurling insults for people who can see the DoD budget isn’t directly tied to what you are talking about or necessarily the best receiver of funds on a purely dollars per life saved basis.
Again you hurl insults and don’t argue your case. I could look up the exact # of automobile deaths but what does it matter? Why is 200 billion of defense and 500 billion toward health care unrealistic? Again I don’t know what the right numbers would be but it isn’t automatically stupid to think that it might make more sense to spend more money on something else. You haven’t supported your arguments only personally insulted people who disagree with you. By the way military officers, whom I assume you admire, use cost benefit all the time, this operation may cost me 10 of my troops but will kill 100 of the enemy and so forth. That’s the way war works. If doesn’t mean they like seeing there own men killed.
Bursar - I only “hurl” insults at those who make the most bogus and specious arguments I’ve ever heard, and then rather than defend when challenged try and change the subject. Perhaps YOUR family can die via terrorist attack to help pay for XYlenz and mwlik’s health insurance, but I value my own families lives far more than health benefits. As far as “seeing” the pros and cons of the DoD budget, I think you can do a bit better than trying to convince me that people who cannot even defend their own assertions can somehow see consequences of the DoD budget. However, I get the impression that you are likely the most mature person in this line of argument.
mwilk - “again you hurl insults” what are you? … a parrot perhaps? Clearly you are someone who has a problem developing original thoughts and language for that matter (-: Finish High School, and check out this BB again sometime down the road.
awggie? Where are you boy?
“I value my own families lives far more than health benefits”
The chances of survival of your family is almost certainly most improved, on a dallar by dy dollar basis, by more spending on health care, infrastructure, education, DHS (general), FEMA, local law enforcement, and other areas than spending on DoD. The odds of major illness, local crime, or natural disaster impacting your life is far higher than being harmed by a terrorist, even disregarding that DoD has little to do with stopping a terrorist strike on home soil.
.
I say this out of logic rather than any bias against DoD - as a defense contractor employee I derive 100% of my income from their budget so am more than happy to have it increase.
Bursar - “the odds of major illness, local crime, or natural disaster impacting your life is far higher than being harmed by a terrorist, even disregarding that DoD has little to do with stopping a terrorist strike on home soil.” Agreed! But who can say exactly when sacrificing a few lives to terrorist for the greater good will turn into more and more lives? Do you really want to be the one to begin that trend? As far as DoD stopping attacks on American soil, I suppose so…but that Predator program sure paid off didn’t it (-:
@ curio50
.
Stop being such a yellow paranoid coward. Your chances of dying in a terrorist attack are smaller than your chances of getting struck by lightning.
.
Government money would be far better spent on other programs or not spent at all and kept by the people.
.
For some people, the mortality salience response overrides ALL rational logical thought. That appears to be the case with you.
rfrancis1980 - First, if you take the time to read the postings, I don’t believe I ever mentioned my personal demise, but rather I talked about my FAMILY! and second, what do you know about death? Were YOU ever in the military? I can guarantee that judging by your response you were never even in the Boy Scouts. Oh yes, if you were, what Unit, what country,where and when? Quick now, go and Google boy!
rfrancis1980 - still Googling for a unit? Or perhaps you were “Agent Orange” in the nam? (-:
Jeez little boy, I mean “rfrancis1980-” is it that hard to find a military unit on Google?
rfrancis1980 - pathetic
“how many troops it plans on playing.”
Your typo makes war sound like a sporting event.
@American_Delight
“measuring militarism by raw dollars and numbers of weapons rather than as a portion of GDP is a very misleading statistic.”
No, poverty has a relation to your own GDP whereas the military capabilities of your opponent do not. It doesn’t matter whether their military force consists of 5% or 100% of their GDP, it has no effect on the outcome. Iraq probably spent more of its GDP on weapons than the US but it was still overwhelmed by the same number of units.
Put another way, if your GDP doubled and your military spending remained static then your military situation has not worsened - it’s the same.
“You can’t slam the U.S. both ways.”
And you can’t choose the analytical method that gives you the answer you want.
@ curio50
.
Why would I make up being in the military? I am not a liar. Your chances of dying in a terrorist attack, your family’s chances of dying in a terrorist attack, are smaller than the chances of getting struck by lightning.
.
What do I know about death? That in the end we are all just food for the worms so we might as well live life to the fullest and not worry about remote possibilities of being killed.
.
Wasting hundreds of billions in an attempt prevent the extraordinarily low chances of being killed by a terrorist attack is stupid and cowardly. Your family is far more likely to die in a car accident, falling in the shower, slipping on ice on the sidewalk, etc. You can try to justify your stance by referring to your family all you want but at the end of the day fear controls you.
curio50 - You clearly have no problem affording healthcare, or you wouldn’t be making such a stupid argument.
For the many americans who can’t afford healthcare, the threat of death by disease is alot more real than that of being blown up by terrorists.
For all the fans of universal health care, have you ever had to deal with a healthcare system run by the government? Make a friend from Canada or the UK, then ask them to tell you about thier healthcare systems.
700B can’t even kill a couple men hiding in a cave ? Sounds like money would be better spent elsewhere. Science, Medicine the number of lives saved would be staggering.
Why is the left so fucking myopic when it comes to defense? Not everything is related to “preventing another 9-11″ or “stopping the terrorists”. We’re not spending $50b on the war on terror alone, there are plenty of other legitmiate threats from rogue nations that we need to consider. Also not all of that money is for weapons, there could be surveillance sats, advanced communication gear or even training. I’m sure there’s some ‘pork’ in that budget and many palms will be greased but that’s par for the course, I’m sure there’s 10x more in the health bill they want to pass.
It’s hilarious to me that the same people that lambast our government on defense spending, foreign policy and education are advocating a proposed health care system run by the same people.
Name one department in our over-redundant bureaucratic clusterfuck of a government that’s run effeciently. Social Security is bankrupt, medicare is overburdened, the VA struggles to take care of our soldiers and the post office can’t even get my mail right. We want these people running health care!??
I disagree with it on every level. We already have government programs for the disadvantaged, private charities and the like and now people are advocating a government run system that we don’t even know the specifics of because our president simply told congress to “figure it out” effectively. When’s the last time congress got something like that right?
Apart from that I feel that universal health care is bad for us as a country and a species. Nature has never intended for everyone to live full healthy lives, the dynamic requires balance to work. We already live in a country full of people that feel entitled even tho they have nothing to contribute. There will always be people with drive and those without who will gladly suckle the teat for life if it’s provided. Despite the critics America is still a land of opportunity, anyone can make it here if they’re willing to try. If not having universal health care is going to keep the ignorant, lazy, drug-addled dreggs of society from continuing to burden this country I’m against it.
When did we as a nation decide to put things in neutral and just coast?
100 years ago you know what happened if you didn’t want to work? You didn’t eat. Now we coddle the lowest rungs of society in the hopes that our touchy-feely approach will turn lives around and that people will become productive members of society with just a little help. Guess what, we will be outbred by the lazy, immoral, idiots of this world and we’ll be come a nation not of innovators or leaders but of fat, lazy consumers who can’t support themselves as individuals or as a country.
@gimmebeer “For all the fans of universal health care, have you ever had to deal with a healthcare system run by the government? Make a friend from Canada or the UK, then ask them to tell you about thier healthcare systems.”
Ok, I’m from the UK. Our NHS is not as good as a private clinic in Switzerland no doubt, but it is by far the best thing that we ever developed. No-one ever has to worry about paying for the misfortune of getting sick, and polls regularly show a widespread support for the NHS across the political spectrum. Only for the well off in the US would this be the case I’ll bet. Of course the richest of both our countries can afford to toddle off to the world’s best clinics when they get sick, the difference is that that in the UK 99.9% of the poorest are looked after aswell.
@orbit
Wow! First time reading wired (bugmenot account), are you and similar posters for real? Could you tell me where you live so I can ensure I stay 10 miles away at all times please? Way to go in confirming the rest of the worlds views about americans! I mean, slashdot is full of geeks who hate Bill Gates and live with their parents, but is wired full of people who hate all other humans (apart form their dear old family) and live only with their hatred as company?..
@gimmebeer I’m from the UK and if I ever had the misfortune to fall ill or become injured while in the US I would rather crawl home than be treated under the US healthcare system. The world is laughing at you people.
As for CDN healthcare its wonderful to have..i broke my leg 2 years ago,if i was in the States,my broken leg would have cost me over $3500+ not including other associated costs that go with it,our TAXES pay for our healthcare..Now,in Canada our last military budget was about 30 billion,we have no problems defending ourselves with that pitiful sum of money..And don’t talk about the 911 terrorists coming thru canada,either,because they got student visas from the state department,yes its true the U.S Gov’t allowed these people,to come in the country,from Europe and the Middle East,not from Canada..
For the record the last thing we in the US need to do is model our policies on anything the UK is doing. If we do, soon enough we’ll be pulling children out of school for racist comments, placing cameras in people’s homes (for their own good) and otherwise exerting control over every facet of our lives. No fucking thanks. I LOL at all the people that thought “V for Vendetta” was about the US. Fuck no, that’s a snapshot of Brittain in a few years.
i invite you people to watch the movie loose change, terrorists didnt fuck your county up you did it yourselves by electing self serving idiots, im amazed how much of your tax money gets pissed down the drain on the military when the average american can lose everything he has because of getting sick or being injured, im proud to say im canadian ive been sick and injured plenty of times and i havent had to pay a dime, and as far as i can recall planes with sand nigs dont fly into our towers