The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Cutting the [US Military Budget]: Nothing is Sacred
Aeneas
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
With the economy in the slumps, what used to be considered unassailable, the US military budget, is now due for some cuts. We got a taste of this with the halt in production of the F-22, and there are many other future weapon systems that may face the chopping block (the new Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle for the Marines, the next gen destroyer for the Navy). Secretary Gates is also looking to save money by trimming down the bureaucracy at the Pentagon.
Though I don't agree with all the cuts, I for one applaud Secretary Gates for aggressively pursuing these measures. Funny thing is, many defense industry companies also seem down for budget reduction (their rationale being better to make some smart cuts now rather than something dramatic and painful later). The only question now seems to be what would be a prudent cut and what would drastically reduce our warfighting capability?
The US military budget is 40% of the world's total defense spending. On paper, that may seem like a lot, but the funny thing is, even with our massive budget, the US military is far from being some ultimate, unbeatable juggernaut. Other countries are catching up to, or even surpassing us, in many areas. Our legacy fighter aircraft are outmatched by new Sukhoi aircraft and modern European designs like the Eurofighter. China's navy has blossomed into a modern force with a ballistic anti-ship missile in the works that can completely negate a carrier's range advantage. Our infantry in Afghanistan are using the same battle rifle that was used in Vietnam. We're far from being at the top of the mountain, and care must be taken that any defense cuts we initiate do not bring us further down.
I think one area that could use some significant scrutiny is how we do business with private companies. Ask anyone in the military about ordering some part or component, and he or she could tell you how it was late, a generation or two behind what you can find in commercial stores, and ridiculously overpriced. I was recently onboard the USS Carl Vinson, an aircraft carrier that spent five years getting refurbished in the docks. I naively expected everything to be brand new, with gleaming p-ways and that delicious new car smell wafting through the air. Needless to say, my expectations were dashed as soon as I stepped aboard. According to some sailors I talked to, the ship wasn't even done, and they had to re-tile some floors as well as finish up some other work that we already paid some stupid company to do. It seems to me that there's a ridiculous level of corruption and inefficiency with private contractor companies, but how best to combat that when it seems so deeply entrenched and everyone's attitude is "Oh well, that's how it's always been"?
Besides fighting corruption, where else can the US military tighten its belt? Should we continue to chop new weapon system developments? Should we cut down bases or maybe even decrease our presence overseas? Though I know politics are deeply entwined with military ventures, please try to keep this discussion as apolitical as you can.
Though I don't agree with all the cuts, I for one applaud Secretary Gates for aggressively pursuing these measures. Funny thing is, many defense industry companies also seem down for budget reduction (their rationale being better to make some smart cuts now rather than something dramatic and painful later). The only question now seems to be what would be a prudent cut and what would drastically reduce our warfighting capability?
The US military budget is 40% of the world's total defense spending. On paper, that may seem like a lot, but the funny thing is, even with our massive budget, the US military is far from being some ultimate, unbeatable juggernaut. Other countries are catching up to, or even surpassing us, in many areas. Our legacy fighter aircraft are outmatched by new Sukhoi aircraft and modern European designs like the Eurofighter. China's navy has blossomed into a modern force with a ballistic anti-ship missile in the works that can completely negate a carrier's range advantage. Our infantry in Afghanistan are using the same battle rifle that was used in Vietnam. We're far from being at the top of the mountain, and care must be taken that any defense cuts we initiate do not bring us further down.
I think one area that could use some significant scrutiny is how we do business with private companies. Ask anyone in the military about ordering some part or component, and he or she could tell you how it was late, a generation or two behind what you can find in commercial stores, and ridiculously overpriced. I was recently onboard the USS Carl Vinson, an aircraft carrier that spent five years getting refurbished in the docks. I naively expected everything to be brand new, with gleaming p-ways and that delicious new car smell wafting through the air. Needless to say, my expectations were dashed as soon as I stepped aboard. According to some sailors I talked to, the ship wasn't even done, and they had to re-tile some floors as well as finish up some other work that we already paid some stupid company to do. It seems to me that there's a ridiculous level of corruption and inefficiency with private contractor companies, but how best to combat that when it seems so deeply entrenched and everyone's attitude is "Oh well, that's how it's always been"?
Besides fighting corruption, where else can the US military tighten its belt? Should we continue to chop new weapon system developments? Should we cut down bases or maybe even decrease our presence overseas? Though I know politics are deeply entwined with military ventures, please try to keep this discussion as apolitical as you can.
Hear about the cow that tried to jump over a barbed-wire fence? It was udder disaster.
Aeneas on
0
Posts
What a piece of shit. It's only like, 5 times larger than it actually needs to be, but hey, that means it's comfortable for a 6'5" goon with gorilla arms to aim.
And if you're not well then tough.
A good start is doing for members of the military what we should do for members of Congress as far as bans on lobbying jobs go.
I mean, seriously, where the hell is all that money going to? Anybody haves any charts or tables that outlines where all this cash is going?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
Of course, the DoD probably would argue it fails because we aren't spending ENOUGH.
I THINK it's counted separately but I'm not 100% sure.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Surely we dont need all those bases we have all around the world. I dont know how much they cost, but it cant be cheap to house 50,000 troops in Germany, and another 50,000 in Japan.
Germany has one of the best equipped armies in the world.
The US presence in Japan has cause a hilarious amount of political turmoil.
So yeah, bring them home.
Half of that is discretionary.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
But then those countries will fall to Communism and where will we be then?
Yay for 70 year old fallout.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
We're still fighting the Cold War in a lot of ways, and only recently figured out what "FUTUREWAR" will be like. But you can't just turn this around without a shit ton of people losing money/jobs/whatever.
Look at that damn chart. I couldn't tell you which parts of it are redundant, and I bet neither could the people who ultimately sign off on it. Plus, a Congressman who wants 'x' built in his district isn't going to care about all the other steps it takes to get it there, as long as he can smile for some cameras.
Then we get to live Red Alert!
That thingy in the front? It's for bayonets.
Yes, our guns can still attach bayonets. An NCO told me if you ever hear the command Affix Bayonets it's time to quit.
Those bases are huge strategic advantages. We wouldn't be able to pursue wars on the other side of the world without bases like those in Germany.
This. Germany is the gateway to the Area of Responsibility.
Didn't someone here tell a story about British soldiers charging the Taliban successfully after they ran out of ammunition?
I'm pretty sure it was somewhere here.
This is not exactly a winning argument to me. It is in fact, quite the opposite.
I just looked at that chart you linked and I got a major headache
But, aside from the ones that are helping elevate low income teens and such, we should maybe as ourselves if they're the kind of jobs we really want to be funding.
For decades now, that's just not a question that's gotten asked.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I read this in Leonard Niymoy's voice.
something like that.
MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
I knew my post was missing something.
Obviously.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
like the f-22 didn't need to cost so much
shit like spreading the production across 48 states to secure political support should not be tolerated
Even if we use it irresponsibly from time to time, the ability to project power is pretty important for world order, and once logistics lines are cut, they are exponentially more expensive to reinstate should we ever need them.
So basically out of the dozens of things we can cut, I'd rather it not be our ability to project ourselves. We can't afford to live like isolationists. But we can certainly afford to be more multilateral.
Also the Economist did a pretty great piece on the exponentially rising real prices in military technology
http://www.economist.com/node/16886851?story_id=16886851
On the black screen
gotta love the horse blanket!
to answer your question: none of it is 'redundant'
Even the TRR or TRA?
Those guys were scottish, and to be fair, they were fighting inside in urban conditions so they had an advantage there. Did I mention they were scottish?