09 Jun 11
Originally posted by Hugh GlassI was more thinking someone who served a short time and received a punitive discharge.
I seriuoulsy doubt that you ever served a lick of time in the military, and are probably some lame assed kid who gets his kicks playing first shooter internet games, and has let his imagination run wild
09 Jun 11
Originally posted by AThousandYoungHere is an idea. Why not pull out of the Middle East and stop starting wars over there? 😲
What specifically would you, as the senior person In Charge of making these decisions, stop funding?
Strategic nuclear weapons?
Carrier battle groups?
Amphibious Attack?
F-35?
Drones?
Smart Weapons?
Computers and Communications?
EDIT - No1marauder's response in the other thread with respect to the Navy: almost everything. We don't need any ...[text shortened]... we could get by with mothballing about half our aircraft carriers. That would be a good start.
09 Jun 11
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe military budget needs to be cut approximately in half. Half the men, half the tanks, half the carriers, half the planes, half the overseas bases, half the nukes.
What specifically would you, as the senior person In Charge of making these decisions, stop funding?
Strategic nuclear weapons?
Carrier battle groups?
Amphibious Attack?
F-35?
Drones?
Smart Weapons?
Computers and Communications?
EDIT - No1marauder's response in the other thread with respect to the Navy: almost everything. We don't need any ...[text shortened]... we could get by with mothballing about half our aircraft carriers. That would be a good start.
We wouldn't even notice the difference in our security.
Individual services can of course make trade offs: cancel the Ospreys and keep more helicopters, etc. Forget the Littoral attack craft and keep a carrier group.
09 Jun 11
Originally posted by spruce112358We agree on something.
The military budget needs to be cut approximately in half. Half the men, half the tanks, half the carriers, half the planes, half the overseas bases, half the nukes.
We wouldn't even notice the difference in our security.
Individual services can of course make trade offs: cancel the Ospreys and keep more helicopters, etc. Forget the Littoral attack craft and keep a carrier group.
09 Jun 11
1 edit
Originally posted by spruce112358You are passing the buck! You don't decide how much gets cut - Congress does that - you decide what gets cut!
The military budget needs to be cut approximately in half. Half the men, half the tanks, half the carriers, half the planes, half the overseas bases, half the nukes.
We wouldn't even notice the difference in our security.
Individual services can of course make trade offs: cancel the Ospreys and keep more helicopters, etc. Forget the Littoral attack craft and keep a carrier group.
So you recommend cancelling Ospreys, LCS, mothballing most of our carriers (we do have two coasts you know, one carrier group is obviously not enough).
Korean and Chinese civil wars would likely go hot, for starters. We'd lose Diego Garcia. Japan would have to remilitarize.
09 Jun 11
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWe have 11 carrier groups, not two.
You are passing the buck! You don't decide how much gets cut - Congress does that - you decide what gets cut!
So you recommend cancelling Ospreys, LCS, mothballing most of our carriers (we do have two coasts you know, one carrier group is obviously not enough).
Korean and Chinese civil wars would likely go hot, for starters. We'd lose Diego Garcia. Japan would have to remilitarize.
The rest is hysterical nonsense.
09 Jun 11
4 edits
So let's see... what would the world be like if US military budget were halved, and this led to the following cuts:
Less pay for military personnel
No LCS (smallish, high tech warships for near the coast)
Six or fewer supercarrier battle groups
Very few "boomers" (subs that launch nuclear missiles)
No Ospreys (transforming helicopter-airplanes)
Few overseas bases
Mothball the B-1 Lancers
Cut F-15 force in half
What about the Army?
09 Jun 11
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe size of the military is dependant on what the US gov decides it needs to be operationally effective. Today, the gov has decided they need to be able to fight 2 large scale wars in 2 separate areas of the world.
What specifically would you, as the senior person In Charge of making these decisions, stop funding?
Strategic nuclear weapons?
Carrier battle groups?
Amphibious Attack?
F-35?
Drones?
Smart Weapons?
Computers and Communications?
EDIT - No1marauder's response in the other thread with respect to the Navy: almost everything. We don't need any ...[text shortened]... we could get by with mothballing about half our aircraft carriers. That would be a good start.
For that you need x amount of troops, x amount of fighter jets, x amount of carriers etc.
If you want to shrink the military you have to decide that you don't want to be able to fight 2 large wars at the same time.
The cuts are easy after that.
09 Jun 11
Originally posted by uzlessThat decision has already been made.
The size of the military is dependant on what the US gov decides it needs to be operationally effective. Today, the gov has decided they need to be able to fight 2 large scale wars in 2 separate areas of the world.
For that you need x amount of troops, x amount of fighter jets, x amount of carriers etc.
If you want to shrink the military you have to ...[text shortened]... on't want to be able to fight 2 large wars at the same time.
The cuts are easy after that.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7140418/Pentagon-abandons-two-war-doctrine.html
09 Jun 11
Originally posted by AThousandYoungand if you read the article you'll see some of the cuts being proposed.
That decision has already been made.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7140418/Pentagon-abandons-two-war-doctrine.html
Nice how the news of the day can hammer home the obvious.....
09 Jun 11
1 edit
Originally posted by uzlessAs the Man In Charge, it is your decision, and you recommend what given the fact that you've read the article?
and if you read the article you'll see some of the cuts being proposed.
Nice how the news of the day can hammer home the obvious.....
Never mind, you're obviously just trolling.
09 Jun 11
Originally posted by AThousandYoungHalve the carriers -- so 6.
I read "keep a carrier group" as only one in total.
Imagine we had only 60 B-52s and 20 B-2s -- we got rid of 17 B-52s and 66 B-1s. Would you notice that? Would our ability to carpet-bomb and stealth bomb be that much diminished? Not a lot.
Only 245 F-15s instead of 490. Impact? Think our borders would be threatened? Invasion imminent? I don't think so.
Etc.
10 Jun 11
Originally posted by AThousandYoungJesus dude, if you think anyone here on rhp is qualified to give you specific military budget cuts you're in lala-land.
As the Man In Charge, it is your decision, and you recommend what given the fact that you've read the article?
Never mind, you're obviously just trolling.
It's not just a case of "okay let's cut 40% of defence spending" and then ask people what they think they can cut to add up to 40%. The budget process doesn't work like that. Ok, it works like that if you are a republican i suppose but most normal business and governments operate much more sanely.
You first ask yourself what your "needs" are, figure out how much it costs to provide those needs, and then tax your citizens to that amount. If you're a republican though, you say, "okay to get elected we're going to cut everyone's tax rate by 10%. And then when they get elected they determine what the "needs" are and then realize that after they've figured out how much it costs to provide those needs that they haven't taxed their citizens enough and must run a deficit in order to pay for all those "needs".
Your proposal to first cut the budget without determining your needs first is crazy.