• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Reductions In Force

cpwill

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
81,985
Reaction score
45,055
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Article in the Marine Times says they are looking into bringing in Voluntary Separation Pay - which they suggest would range from 1.5 to 4x Involuntary Separation Pay.

I gotta say, if they offer me 30K to get out, I am gone.

getting down to the new numbers will still have the serious effects for global security discussed elsewhere, but may not be too terribly difficult.
 
145,000 Marines. from 202K. yeesh.

Sequestration really does a number on us

Thiessen-Defense-Figure-1.jpg


Thiessen-Defense-Figure-3.jpg


Thiessen-Defense-Figure-4.jpg
 
This sounds like someone is trying to weaken our military. Subversion from within, a Marxist concept. Two guesses on this one.
 
Is this really a plot to weaken the military or to shrink it back down to pre-Iraq war size?

Figure 2 in post #3's link is confusing, as it doesn't give the budget comparisons year to year in dollars spent adjusted for inflation (which would be helpful), but rather as Defense Department Spending as a Percentage of Total Budgeting Authority, a term which I frankly don't understand.

How much heavy metal, boots, beans and bullets do we really need for the future? I have now come to believe that Afghanistan might have been handled differently than a full scale invasion, and that Iraq was a pointless war of choice inflated by post-9/11 hysteria (which I bought in to) and cowboy diplomacy. Frankly, we need real international cooperation for world security, and we need to start it now. Then our large standing military would not be necessary.
 
coolwalker said:
This sounds like someone is trying to weaken our military. Subversion from within, a Marxist concept. Two guesses on this one.
Click to expand...

Maybe someone is trying to live within their means. It's a radical concept for the US military, but we're all in this together. Everyone is lacking a flat bladed instrument to propel us out of this ordure filled small waterway.
 
coolwalker said:
This sounds like someone is trying to weaken our military. Subversion from within, a Marxist concept. Two guesses on this one.
Click to expand...
:funny:cuckoo::lamo
youve got to be fist ****ing me?
So when you have no standing army are you a Marxist state?
 
ChuckBerry said:
Frankly, we need real international cooperation for world security, and we need to start it now. Then our large standing military would not be necessary.
Click to expand...

:lamo


that's cute :mrgreen:


yeah, we'll just leverage the awesome military might of our European allies. :D


or maybe the Russians - they're really well-behaved international actors. :lol:
 
Last edited:
Manc Skipper said:
Maybe someone is trying to live within their means. It's a radical concept for the US military, but we're all in this together. Everyone is lacking a flat bladed instrument to propel us out of this ordure filled small waterway.
Click to expand...

the problem comes when your economy is dependent upon global trade, and the thing you are cutting is precisely the force that provides the security necessary for global trade. we risk sawing off the branch we are sitting on.
 
A couple of my friends in the military have said several times that there are just too many people in it. They've been turning away volunteers for years. I'm not surprised that they want to shrink it a bit.
 
Its only natural as Iraq has ended, and according to the plan Afghanistan will end soon, for the military to get smaller. I'm already of the opinion that we can do the same job with less troops, especially in staff positions and by changing Army culture. A quick and small example would be the "News Letter" our Battalion and Brigade has a digital newsletter, both have a full time officer and a small staff to create this thing every month. In addition every unit is required to send up a power point slide called a "story board" with pictures and a story of what we are doing, a huge waste of time but it makes our BN CO and Brigade CO look good when it comes to evals. I'm not even blaming them, thats just Army culture when it comes to evals sometimes.

However all these news letter sections could disappear tomorrow and nothing would change, except I wouldn't get the news letter in my email every month which I just delete anyway without ever reading. People already have a good way of knowing whats going on in the BN, its called all our training-meetings and simply normal day-to-day conversations.

On top of the wars ending there's the simple fact that government spending, which INCLUDES DEFENSE, is becoming unsustainable. You can make every argument you want about how we need the military at the size it currently is, you can be right about every single point, but if you can't afford it then it won't happen, right or not.
 
we could definitely shrink a bit without harming mission. we cannot shrink this much without harming mission. it is the difference between going on a diet, and anorexia.
 
cpwill said:
:lamo


that's cute :mrgreen:


yeah, we'll just leverage the awesome military might of our European allies. :D


or maybe the Russians - they're really well-behaved international actors. :lol:
Click to expand...
Since you started this thread, why don't you address my questions?
 
ChuckBerry said:
Since you started this thread, why don't you address my questions?
Click to expand...

The US and the UN does not exactly have an exemplary record for cooperating with each other. NATO sat on its ass during Libya, and US forces vastly outnumber the combined number of other allied troops in/were at Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, etc...
 
That's precisely the point I was trying to make PSK...right now, of course the U.S. has to maintain the posture of world policeman, but it's a role we could phase out of...IF we start taking steps now.
 
Paschendale said:
A couple of my friends in the military have said several times that there are just too many people in it. They've been turning away volunteers for years. I'm not surprised that they want to shrink it a bit.
Click to expand...

It's not that there are too many people in it - it's that they just don't have anything to do.

I vote for starting more wars - we're not present in South America . . . why not I ask you? Are they superior in strength and numbers or something?

(sarcasm)
 
Anything projected through 2021 has to be based on assumptions and speculation.

Of course, the military budget is going down now. The wars are winding down.
 
shrinking our forces saves us money in the short term but costs us alot in the long term.everytime forces are reduced and budgets are cut it lasts only until the next war in which it costs alot to quickly rebuild those forces and train new soldiers.its like financing a car throwing it away 3 weekes later because you decided to walk then financing another while your still paying the old one because your new job requires it.if we werent in a war the smart thing would be to shut down unused bases and keep them on standby incase they are needed in the future,focus spending on repairing our old equipment arsenal and maintaining training and numbers.

just keep in mind it costs less to maintain a soldier and keep him trained then it does to train a new one.no matter how much we reduce forces a later buildup is inevitable,so why sell ourselves short and save a couple bucks now just to spend alot more a few years down the road.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Anything projected through 2021 has to be based on assumptions and speculation.

Of course, the military budget is going down now. The wars are winding down.
Click to expand...

No - they're just being redirected. Obama's heartfelt initiative is to save African nations from their own tyrany so I feel that's where we'll head if he gets a 2nd term.
 
We should close all overseas military bases and bring the troops home. While we're at it cancel all foreign aid.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk
 
Aunt Spiker said:
No - they're just being redirected. Obama's heartfelt initiative is to save African nations from their own tyrany so I feel that's where we'll head if he gets a 2nd term.
Click to expand...

Surely, this must be satire.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Surely, this must be satire.
Click to expand...

I pay attention a lot to military goings-on and what he says about it (has said about it before his presidency as well) . . . I feel it's quite true. If we weren't so tied up in the Middle East we'd be involved deeply in Africa right now - haven't you been paying attention to the pleas for involvement and the Democratic party's directive to become involved with countries such as Darfur?

Obama and many like him feel it's quite unfair that we involve ourselves so much with some countries - and not enough with others who have just as much - if not more - suffering going on.
 
coolwalker said:
This sounds like someone is trying to weaken our military. Subversion from within, a Marxist concept. Two guesses on this one.
Click to expand...

The harsh reality that even the U.S. economy has its limits in regard to defense spending?
 
samsmart said:
The harsh reality that even the U.S. economy has its limits in regard to defense spending?
Click to expand...

I'm going to put aside math, numbers, and reality and go with international communist muslim conspiracy on this one, final answer regis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom