- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,713
- Reaction score
- 35,494
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
You can throw up all the GDP numbers you want, but I prefer to reside in the real world.
Our armed forces have been cut in half over the past two decades.
You can throw up all the GDP numbers you want, but I prefer to reside in the real world.
The United States military fields half the combat power it did in 1990. You can through those GDP numbers in the enemy's face and he'll shoot your ass. You'll probably die, because the defense cuts didn't allow enough money for dustoff assets to evac you from the battlefield.
I bet you wouldn't be saying that if the KPA had just crossed the wire at Yujeong and were cruising down highway 3, through Jeongok and Dongducheon, headed straight for downtown Seoul, in the west and another column in the east going down highway 55, with their sights set on Taegu and then Pusan.
Let's face facts, bro, the ROKs won't be able to stop them, because when the Kocoms cross the 38th Parallel, they're not coming by the thousands; they're going come by the millions.
Things we could cut from the military with no ill effect:
Several aircraft carriers - We have as many as everyone else combined. I'm pretty sure we could get by with 5 or 6. It's not our job to police the world. That would also let us get rid of a corresponding number of other ships which make up carrier battle groups.
The majority of our tank forces - Tanks are useless against irregulars because all they have to do is hide, and air strikes are much more effective against other tanks.
Strategic bombers - Only useful for two things: Carpet bombing and dropping nukes. Neither of those things are things we really want to be doing.
Most of our nuclear arsenal - A single Ohio class submarine carries enough nuclear missiles to glass a good sized country. We have 14.
Overseas bases - Keep a few in unstable areas like Korea and the Middle East. Get rid of all the others.
A good percentage of our infantry - Increase the size of our special forces to compensate, since they're better at fighting irregulars.
As many of the pencil pushers at the Pentagon as possible.
Our armed forces have been cut in half over the past two decades. If we decrease it by another third, what will be left?
All these cuts will cost lives.
That's so undeniably incorrect and patently false I don't know where to begin.
In 1990 Defense spending was roughly just under 6% of GDP. "Two Decades" after it was just over 6% GDP. Even at its absolute lowest, around 98/99, it was still solidly more than 3% GDP so was not "half".
How about in straight dollars adjusted for inflation? In 1990 we would've been just shy of 500 Billion. In 2010 we would've been just over 800 Billion. That's not cutting in half, that's raising it by more than half and is actually double what it was at its lowest, which would've been a shade under 400 Billion in 98/99.
How about just flat out dollars, not even adjusted? You go from just over $300 billion to just over $600 billion.
You got numbers saying otherwise, please present them. But from what I've seen you're math isn't just wrong...its devastatingly wrong depending how you look at it. Best case scenario is that over the past 2 decades we maintained roughly the same amount of average defense spending as a percent of GDP.
As I said, I'd be happy to see numbers to the contrary, but right now it looks like you're just factually horribly incorrect. Also, interesting note. Cutting it by 1/3rd would bring it down to roughly 4% GDP. Still not close to "half" of its high of the past two decades of just over 6, and still higher than 1996 - 2002.
link
Agreed. The war of this age is the unconventional/irregular/asymmetrical warfare. Most of what you stated are useless in that kind of combat.
All the US needs aside from the weaponry for unconventional warfare are nukes. A few will keep countries like Russia and China in check.
deal with that when/if it happens. for now you could always take a break from spreading "freedom and democracy" when it suits.
think of all the money you will save in the meantime.
that only works if we are willing to use them. and one of the nations we would have to "keep in check" would be NKorea. How do you feel about thermonuclear devises going off a few miles from Seoul?
I wouldn't have to feel because that device, as like most NK products, will most likely be a dud
I think he meant us nuking NKorea. Our nukes usually work pretty well.
By ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we would cut $150 billion dollars a year in spending. By also cutting military spending by 50% we would save another $350 billion a year. That's a half trillion dollars annually in deficit reduction.
the DOD Budget for 2011 was $531 Bn On top of that, we spent $150 Bn on the wars. 1/2 of $531 is $265.5, not 350.
Things we could cut from the military with no ill effect:
Several aircraft carriers - We have as many as everyone else combined. I'm pretty sure we could get by with 5 or 6. It's not our job to police the world. That would also let us get rid of a corresponding number of other ships which make up carrier battle groups.
The majority of our tank forces - Tanks are useless against irregulars because all they have to do is hide, and air strikes are much more effective against other tanks.
Strategic bombers - Only useful for two things: Carpet bombing and dropping nukes. Neither of those things are things we really want to be doing.
Most of our nuclear arsenal - A single Ohio class submarine carries enough nuclear missiles to glass a good sized country. We have 14.
Overseas bases - Keep a few in unstable areas like Korea and the Middle East. Get rid of all the others.
A good percentage of our infantry - Increase the size of our special forces to compensate, since they're better at fighting irregulars.
As many of the pencil pushers at the Pentagon as possible.
No, he's got the right figures.
Military budget of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
To be fair, that's 2012, not 2011, but then again, the budget is supposed to be smaller for 2012. It also includes things like pensions and veteran's affair's, which aren't cutable. But that means that the entire $707.5 billion DoD budget is potentially on the chopping block. You could also probably knock off $15 billion or so from the Department of Energy budget in the form of nuclear weapons disarmament.
Specious argument since if this logic was applied to the US armed forces in general we either REALLY want to kill others and put our troops in harms way or if we do not then we should just do away with the military all together. After all do we really WANT to be doing war?
They can be eliminated for the same reason tanks can be eliminated: They're completely ineffective in fighting modern wars. The only thing carpet bombing anyone will do is make us more enemies.
You can throw up all the GDP numbers you want, but I prefer to reside in the real world.
The United States military fields half the combat power it did in 1990. You can through those GDP numbers in the enemy's face and he'll shoot your ass. You'll probably die, because the defense cuts didn't allow enough money for dustoff assets to evac you from the battlefield.
What about the next war that comes along?...and yes...there will be another one. It would be idiotic not to mention very dangerous to assume that there won't be.
Who exactly do you think we're going to be fighting?
What about the next war that comes along?...and yes...there will be another one. It would be idiotic not to mention very dangerous to assume that there won't be.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?