Considering a Cadre Augmented Army - RAND Corporation

-54- A Budgetary Analysis of Cadre
Army’s annual force structure expenditures both averaged over periods of peace and war and
in peacetime. However, some costs are ignored in this analysis. The cost of filling cadre units
(increasing recruiting, bonuses to RC personnel, etc.) and the cost of demobilization
(separation bonuses, etc.) are not included in these analyses. These costs were excluded
because they are difficult to estimate. Including these costs in our analyses would reduce the
cost savings from a cadre augmented force. The second paper of this dissertation discusses
these costs in more depth.
Another way to compare the size of the cost savings from cadre is to consider other
proposals to reduce defense costs. Recent proposals to achieve annual cost savings of the
same magnitude have included:
• cutting two air force wings, two navy wings, and two aircraft carriers (~$6 billion
annually) 59
• scaling down national missile defense (~$9 billion annually) 60
• restructuring the future combat system (~$5 billion annually) 61
• reducing the size of the strategic nuclear arsenal ($10-15 billion annually) 62
These are all significant proposals that require making major changes and would likely
increase military risk. A cadre augmented force also requires making significant changes and
increases military risk. The increase in risk relative to cost savings for any of these reform
proposals should be carefully considered by the DoD. A cadre augmented force is simply
another option that is worth exploring. This chapter has presented the tradeoffs for the
DoD to consider regarding this alternative.
____________
59 Conetta (2007b)
60 Tebbs (2007)
61 Tebbs (2007)
62 Korb and Bergmann (2007), p. 32