• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

SECDEF Gates proposes cuts in DoD budget

Wiseone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,550
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I have an huge amount of respect for this man, there's no one I can think better to lead the DoD. What he's proposing is a preemptive cut in DoD spending to both cut the fat off the military and the rest of the DoD, as that will eventually happen as these wars come to an end, while it can still be toned down progressively as opposed to Congress simply slashing the budget wholesale in one year.

Cutting the fat will also remove unneeded programs as well as overlapping command structures and other general wastefulness. Problem is military contracts and facilities are also big money makers for Congressmen's districts, they bring money and jobs into places which very well might need them. However regardless its causing our military to become pretty inefficient in some areas and downright wasteful in others. Its not a huge program, but the DoD as enough money to do its job at the moment and could use with a little more freedom in spending its budget in my opinion. But if we keep getting fatter then that money has to be spent somewhere, and odds are it'll simply be wasted because its been mandated that the DoD spend it.

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=59082

“For example, should we really be up in arms over a temporary projected shortfall of about 100 Navy and Marine strike fighters relative to the number of carrier wings, when America’s military possesses more than 3,200 tactical combat aircraft of all kinds?” he asked.

“Does the number of warships we have and are building really put America at risk when the U.S. battle fleet is larger than the next 13 navies combined, 11 of which belong to allies and partners? Is it a dire threat that by 2020 the United States will have only 20 times more advanced stealth fighters than China?”
I'm all for government fiscal responsibility and that includes the military.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
63,899
Reaction score
32,554
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
what i think he's missing is that total numbers are meaningless. it's the numbers on hand. of our naval fleet, at most only 1/2 are generally deployed, because the other half are on rest/refit back here in the states. that half of the fleet's responsibilities effectively spread world-wide; from keeping an eye on Iran to supporting anti piracy ops to south america, to taiwan, to helping protect Japan from Nkorea. the question is not whether we have 20X China's stealth fighters, it's how many stealth fighters and ships do we have off the coast of china?
 

Opteron

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
629
Reaction score
136
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I think these were more anecdotal examples and to provide context. I'm sure the generals, admirals, and the Secretary will ensure there are adequate forces available. At least that is expected what they should do. And I agree, this is a good move on Secretary Gates' part.
 

JohnWOlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
3,594
Reaction score
1,257
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I think it is a good move, as long as benefits are not cut from the military then cutting fat is fine. I think they need to invest much more into drones and CYPHER units. I heard that the air force uses just one kind of plane now that has the mobility of a harrier jet, the radar signal of a stealth bomber, and the durability of an F-14...forget what it was called but it apparently has been able to cut our budget for the long run, and moves like that make lots of sense.

I think the intelligence community needs to be sliced in half as well, because from what I understand it is so massive and insane that they run into eachother so much they can't get anything done.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
63,899
Reaction score
32,554
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I think it is a good move, as long as benefits are not cut from the military then cutting fat is fine. I think they need to invest much more into drones and CYPHER units. I heard that the air force uses just one kind of plane now that has the mobility of a harrier jet, the radar signal of a stealth bomber, and the durability of an F-14...forget what it was called but it apparently has been able to cut our budget for the long run, and moves like that make lots of sense.

I think the intelligence community needs to be sliced in half as well, because from what I understand it is so massive and insane that they run into eachother so much they can't get anything done.
frankly i think if we want to save money we could get rid of the Air Force as a separate branch alltogether. Fold its' functions back into the Army/Navy air side, and separate it's Space Missions into a SPACCOM which would include the parts of NASA that are left after we take an axe to that thing, too.

as for the intel community; i can tell you at least as far as what i've seen of the military side, we are understaffed, by quite a bit. we are in a fight where intelligence drives ops, and intelligence is one of those few fields where redundancy is actually preferred; i'd be hesitant to put any kind of major cuts the type you are talking about into it.
 

JohnWOlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
3,594
Reaction score
1,257
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
frankly i think if we want to save money we could get rid of the Air Force as a separate branch alltogether. Fold its' functions back into the Army/Navy air side, and separate it's Space Missions into a SPACCOM which would include the parts of NASA that are left after we take an axe to that thing, too.

as for the intel community; i can tell you at least as far as what i've seen of the military side, we are understaffed, by quite a bit. we are in a fight where intelligence drives ops, and intelligence is one of those few fields where redundancy is actually preferred; i'd be hesitant to put any kind of major cuts the type you are talking about into it.
Here I thought I was the only one that thought they needed merged. I think the Air Force and Navy could be merged and would make things much easier for everyone. As for the intelligence community, maybe not the army but from what I understand massive amounts of money are wasted in th intelligence community. If you want to talk about cutting fat and getting rid of bureacracy then the CIA, FBI, Homeland Security and anything the Patriot Act has allowed should be seriously looked at.
 
Top Bottom