OUR military is FAT !! What can we trim?

[OrphanSlug]

But is that what keeps us out of major conflicts and in control of global policy? If we scale down our presence what effect will it have on the world, and our own security and ability to respond?

Major conflicts? I would ask you to define that given that the two most recent wars under our belt happen to be among the longest wars in our history with plenty of lives lost and plenty of cost. Now that we are sticking around in Afghanistan until at least 2016 it happens to knock Vietnam down to the #2 spot, only to see Iraq coming in 3rd. The strain on our military is easy to document including strain on our VA system. The costs of these wars has been extraordinary only made worse by the realizations of the effects on these nations, only amplified by the arguments related to our confusing and hypocritical foreign policy entirely based on unrealistic expectations.

And speaking of your last questions, where (as in exactly) is it stipulated in our Constitution that we are the world's police department?

 

[jonny5]

Major conflicts? I would ask you to define that given that the two most recent wars under our belt happen to be among the longest wars in our history with plenty of lives lost and plenty of cost. Now that we are sticking around in Afghanistan until at least 2016 it happens to knock Vietnam down to the #2 spot, only to see Iraq coming in 3rd. The strain on our military is easy to document including strain on our VA system. The costs of these wars has been extraordinary only made worse by the realizations of the effects on these nations, only amplified by the arguments related to our confusing and hypocritical foreign policy entirely based on unrealistic expectations.

And speaking of your last questions, where (as in exactly) is it stipulated in our Constitution that we are the world's police department?

Those were all wars of choice though. Will reducing our military might eventually get us in a war without a choice? Thats what Im asking.

And speaking of your last question, no where in our constitution does it say we are the worlds policemen. The question is, is our relative security BECAUSE we act as one. Though you could argue that the requirement by the Constitution for the govt to protect the states from invasion might allow for the Policeman strategy.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Those were all wars of choice though. Will reducing our military might eventually get us in a war without a choice? Thats what Im asking.

And speaking of your last question, no where in our constitution does it say we are the worlds policemen. The question is, is our relative security BECAUSE we act as one. Though you could argue that the requirement by the Constitution for the govt to protect the states from invasion might allow for the Policeman strategy.

We do not have enough evidence to support the idea that a reduction of our military might, or even switching from an interventionist policy to a domestic protection policy, will yield us being more likely to a war fought domestically.

The argument you have put forth in the Constitution allowing us to be the world's police department is the thinking that got us into this mess in the first place. That mentality of looking at the Constitution in terms other than a government restriction tool is what allows for costs, all over the place, that are out of control.

 

[blackjack50]

Let's keep a10s and update them. Scrap the f35 as a ground support weapon. Focus on increasing small unit effectiveness against larger forces so we can do more with less later. Make our military a long term economic fighting force. Basically our military shouldn't need a massive budget to win and that should be the goal.

We don't really have any enemies right now. This isn't the Cold War. We can't justify a massive military. We should be conserving resources in case we DO need one. It is much harder to manage a peacetime military than a wartime one. The reason is that you can bankrupt yourself trying to build up to something and never using it.

 

[fmw]

Two things we could get rid of would be the $43 million gas station and the blimp that crashed in Pennsylvania.

 

[blackjack50]

But is that what keeps us out of major conflicts and in control of global policy? If we scale down our presence what effect will it have on the world, and our own security and ability to respond?

You don't need a military to control foreign policy. You need money. You need resources. We don't NEED to control global policy. We need to profit from global policy. Our military should reflect that. It should be our goal to be an EFFECTIVE military on a low budget. We should AVOID conflict and the BEST way to do that is to be the money bags.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Have you ever heard of deficit spending? The government IS out of money. It's this mindset that got us into this mess. :roll: Good ****ing grief.

Yeah, I've heard about deficit spending. Have you ever heard of an actual government running out of their own currency? Me neither.

When we spent untold trillions on Iraq and Afghanistan, did you worry that the U.S. was running out of dollars? Did you feel any hint of a pinch here at home?

When we were in the Depression and entered WWII, did spending wild amounts of money bankrupt the country? Or did it instead pull us out of the Depression?

Use your head, CB. Look around you - do you see any evidence that the federal government is unable to operate?

 

[countryboy]

Yeah, I've heard about deficit spending. Have you ever heard of an actual government running out of their own currency? Me neither.

When we spent untold trillions on Iraq and Afghanistan, did you worry that the U.S. was running out of dollars? Did you feel any hint of a pinch here at home?

When we were in the Depression and entered WWII, did spending wild amounts of money bankrupt the country? Or did it instead pull us out of the Depression?

Use your head, CB. Look around you - do you see any evidence that the federal government is unable to operate?

That's the thing, I am using my head. But I cannot educate the willfully ignorant.

Way to go doubling down on the fiscal irresponsibility though. Textbook example of just why libs shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the reins of power. Thanks.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

That's the thing, I am using my head. But I cannot educate the willfully ignorant.

Well, try reading, and maybe someday something will sink in.

 

[jonny5]

We do not have enough evidence to support the idea that a reduction of our military might, or even switching from an interventionist policy to a domestic protection policy, will yield us being more likely to a war fought domestically.

The argument you have put forth in the Constitution allowing us to be the world's police department is the thinking that got us into this mess in the first place. That mentality of looking at the Constitution in terms other than a government restriction tool is what allows for costs, all over the place, that are out of control.

But its much harder to argue for domestic spending which isnt mentioned, as opposed to defense, which is. Not really the point here though. While we may not have evidence that switching policies would result in more war, we dont have any that rebuts it either. Furthermore, it wont neccesarily be domestic. WW2 was not a domestic war, but we didnt really have a choice to get in it. What happens when we step back, and China expands? Are we better off because we stopped Russia from dominating policy in the 80s?

 

[jonny5]

You don't need a military to control foreign policy. You need money. You need resources. We don't NEED to control global policy. We need to profit from global policy. Our military should reflect that. It should be our goal to be an EFFECTIVE military on a low budget. We should AVOID conflict and the BEST way to do that is to be the money bags.

Without force you cant back up your policy. For example defending shipping from piracy. Defending economic allies like Taiwan or South Korea. And with a global economy, money is temporary. We're always one competitor away from depression.

 

[blackjack50]

But its much harder to argue for domestic spending which isnt mentioned, as opposed to defense, which is. Not really the point here though. While we may not have evidence that switching policies would result in more war, we dont have any that rebuts it either. Furthermore, it wont neccesarily be domestic. WW2 was not a domestic war, but we didnt really have a choice to get in it. What happens when we step back, and China expands? Are we better off because we stopped Russia from dominating policy in the 80s?

To the bottom...

Let them expand as long as it is towards each other. We should set ourselves up to let them fight it out. Not fight them.

 

[OrphanSlug]

But its much harder to argue for domestic spending which isnt mentioned, as opposed to defense, which is. Not really the point here though. While we may not have evidence that switching policies would result in more war, we dont have any that rebuts it either. Furthermore, it wont neccesarily be domestic. WW2 was not a domestic war, but we didnt really have a choice to get in it. What happens when we step back, and China expands? Are we better off because we stopped Russia from dominating policy in the 80s?

I presume you are still talking about the Constitution, which I do not regret bringing up. If national defense means being the world's police department, then there is no limit to how far we should be going in the infliction of our will onto other nations. And that creates a bigger military spending headache than we already have.

BTW, we did have the risk of a domestic war during WWII and it happened the moment Japan attacked.

It stands to reason that if we "stepped back" that China and Russia would stake more claim, but that does not mean we are headed for domestic war. Further, the USSR imploding during the 80's had to do with quite a few factors including their own lack of economic ability to support their ambitions. It would be foolish, and a rewrite of history really, to suggest the USSR being no more was exclusively because of our wanting to be the world's police department. They had just as many issues at home as we caused internationally.

China on the other hand has an additional problem, our economies have so much link it would be foolish for them to upset that too much over their own ambitions of control over the Sea of Japan, the East China Sea, the South China Sea, and parts of the Pacific. It would be overly paranoid to suggest that China (or Russia) would seek so much exertion of military presence as to upset the sheer number of nations we have upset since WWII using our foreign policy to date, only accelerated post the Cold War.

 

[soot]

The question is, is our relative security BECAUSE we act as one.

Define "relative security".

We're not dealing with enemy bombers laying waste to coastal cities or fending off Mass Tac seizures of our Capitol but beyond that how "relatively secure" are we in light of the trillions of dollars we spend on our bloated military?

We've spent the better part of the past decade and a half at war with mud hut dwelling sand people in various locales around the world and have been soundly beaten on every front despite our enormous strategic and tactical advantages.

We've got China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea doing essentially whatever they want with impunity.

Our "best effort" in Iraq led to "democratic" rebellions against the puppet despots who were keeping a lid on what essentially amounts to an enormous powder keg which is now about to blow. And, oh yeah, we also laid the groundwork for a super-terrorist organization that is 1000 times more deadly than the sum of its previously disparate parts.

We've got our economy falling apart at home because our global "peacekeeping" makes it at least safe enough for our multinational corporations to off-shore hundreds of thousands of jobs every year to nations that, at best, aren't exactly our friends and those same not-exactly-friends are amassing great wealth due to our trade imbalance which they are now turning toward modernizing their own military forces which will be on par with our own, if not exceeding our own in technological sophistication, within my lifetime.

We have a military which is capable of dominating the entire world, but we don't even have the political will to win the fights we start of necessity.

We're like a woman who owns a gun for self defense, but really only wants it to "scare" the bad guys because she doesn't have the will to kill.

Much like her our military is proving to be our undoing.

 

[Soho gator]

https://www.facebook.com/BillGates/...16311481960/10153056365851961/?type=3&theater

Imo - subs are irreplaceable, sats are irreplaceable, logistics (C5 and C17s) are irreplaceable, Special Forces (JSOC, SOCOM, DevGru, SOAR, Delta, Rangers), same as body armor, and Cyber Warfare. I place these in the Tier 1 category. Cannot be trimmed. In fact - expand their capabilities. Everything else (tanks, frigates, F-35s) can be discussed. Free up capital, give it to energy. Green. Clean up the grid.

What do you guys think?

We need to follow Sweden's model on submarines. Diesel electric and a quarter of the price. Virtually undetectable so much so that the US Navy got its hand on one to test it out.

 

[blackjack50]

We need to follow Sweden's model on submarines. Diesel electric and a quarter of the price. Virtually undetectable so much so that the US Navy got its hand on one to test it out.

I'm sure we have some very quiet subs that nobody knows about lol

 

[GoNavy]

We need to follow Sweden's model on submarines. Diesel electric and a quarter of the price. Virtually undetectable so much so that the US Navy got its hand on one to test it out.

Electrics are incredibly quiet. True. But you know how Nukes flush 'em out? They sit. And wait. Nukes can stay underwater as long as there is food. That is the limiting factor. Food. Electric boats' limiting factor - their BATTERIES !! And staying underwater uses up a sh!t ton. You have to provide propulsion, fresh water, and air EVERY second !! Our Virginia classers are nothing to balk at. This isn't the noisy USS Los Angeles SSN-688 at time of commissioning.

 

[GoNavy]

I'm sure we have some very quiet subs that nobody knows about lol

Our newest Virginia classers and the USS Jimmy Carter SSN-23 Seawolf Class are our best boats in the water. We (Sub Fleet) don't talk about 'em. You can find info. ... but we try our best to keep 'em out of the press.

 

[blackjack50]

Our newest Virginia classers and the USS Jimmy Carter SSN-23 Seawolf Class are our best boats in the water. We (Sub Fleet) don't talk about 'em. You can find info. ... but we try our best to keep 'em out of the press.

Well dedicated researches learn a lot (Clancy lol)...like some are so quiet one would look for the quietest parts of the water for a sub. I've seen them described as sound black holes

 

[GoNavy]

Well dedicated researches learn a lot (Clancy lol)...like some are so quiet one would look for the quietest parts of the water for a sub. I've seen them described as sound black holes

Absolutely, 100% correct. Coming from a Nuke ET Reactor Operator who trained on a Nuke boat.

 

[jamesrage]

https://www.facebook.com/BillGates/...16311481960/10153056365851961/?type=3&theater

Imo - subs are irreplaceable, sats are irreplaceable, logistics (C5 and C17s) are irreplaceable, Special Forces (JSOC, SOCOM, DevGru, SOAR, Delta, Rangers), same as body armor, and Cyber Warfare. I place these in the Tier 1 category. Cannot be trimmed. In fact - expand their capabilities. Everything else (tanks, frigates, F-35s) can be discussed. Free up capital, give it to energy. Green. Clean up the grid.

What do you guys think?

Our military is not fat.So the premise of the thread is false.

 

[blackjack50]

Our military is not fat.So the premise of the thread is false.

I disagree. It uses a lot of cash and like any government agency has a lot of waste. In fact...no audits are allowed and they have the biggest budget. They are FAT and they need to operate on less. Why? Because they might have to.

 

[FlyingHippos]

The waste is in what is contracted and not in the military itself, for example we are still building tanks to fight the Soviet Union. When we really should be spending that money on things relevant to the enemies we actually face like ISIS, and not on a hypothetical future war with Russia or China, where we need to use thousands upon thousands of battle tanks.

 

[Napoleon]

What do you guys think?

The DOD hasn't been auditable for years and last anyone could tell 25% of their expenditures couldn't be accounted for either because there was no record of where the money went or there was a record that turned out to be a lie (ex. spent on items that only existed on paper and did not physically exist in any inventory). So, I suggest slashing their budget by 25% followed by jail terms for those who are violating federal law by failing to maintain financial records and ending their practice of falsifying financial reports to hide the fraud and waste. People need to be thrown to the lions over things like the natural gas station in Afghanistan; the contract was only for $3 million and the DOD claims it has no records of why it allowed the contractor to exceed that by $40 million, what the money was spent on, or who approved those additional expenditures.

 

[jonny5]

Define "relative security".

No enemies on our borders, no world wars or stronger powers in the world, no constant terrorist attacks at home.