[W:224] In order to cut U.S. defense spending dramatically would you be willing to...

[joko104]

What capabilities will be crippled?

Maintenance personnel and spare components will be top of the list to cut. Enlisted will be cut, not officers.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Obama cancelled a host of programs for future tech on coming into office, ranging from new armored vehicles, to new weapons systems.

Which ones?

Many of those cuts now put us at a disadvantage against rival nations like Russia and China.

Like what?

The M1 Abrams, for example, is starting to look rather decidedly dated and shabby in comparison to the latest Russian tanks available, like the Armata.

No it isn't. Unless you're only talking about the original.

 

[Jredbaron96]

...make it the policy of the U.S. to use nuclear weapons liberally if necessary?

Across four separate political discussion boards I see the repeated whining about how the U.S. spends too much on its military. Some have even insisted the U.S. could cut its annual military by 50%.

One of the main things used as a basis for this is President Eisenhower's famed "military industrial complex speech" (actually military industrial governmental complex).

But what almost everyone ignores is that Eisenhower was a big supporter of using nuclear weapons if necessary as a response to conventional military attacks. And Eisenhower took it seriously. When he took office the Korean War was still going on. Eisenhower threatened the Chinese with the use of nuclear weapons. And Ike meant it. He ordered the dropping and detonations of several nuclear weapons across the North Pacific.

So in order to cut the U.S. defense budget by half, would you be willing to support the casual use of nuclear weapons by the U.S.? For example if North Korea attacks South Korea again would you support the U.S. conducted a wide ranging nuclear attack on the North? If Iran attacked Saudi Arabia or tried to close the Straits of Hormuz would you support the U.S. making selected nuclear strikes on Iran?

Don't pretend that if the U.S. cuts its defense budget that the other nations on Earth are simply going to "act nice".

You can trim the budget quite a bit without resorting to nuclear weapons.

 

[Rhakron90]

Which ones?

Like what?

Future Combat Systems

F22

He also cancelled a number of experimental programs, like using high-powered lasers for missile defense, replacing the M16/M4, and things of that nature.

The guy only slashed 150 billion dollars from the military budget over the course of his time in office, after all.

No it isn't. Unless you're only talking about the original.

Yes, it is. Upgrades like the TUSK program help, but the platform is absolutely starting to show its age. The M1 has some really glaring and easily exploitable vulnerabilities (*cough* front plate *cough*), and is coming damn near its realistic weight limits for its frame and engine. Again... That's to be expected with a vehicle that was developed 50 years ago, in the 1970s, and was primarily intended to fight things that were designed and built in the 1950s and 1960s, like T-64s and T-72s.

Literally the only advantage the M1 has against something like the Russian T-14 Armata is that we have a lot more of them. And against nations that aren't broken husks of their former selves, like China? Good luck.

 

[Dayton3]

You can trim the budget quite a bit without resorting to nuclear weapons.

How? Specifically please. How can the U.S "trim the budge quite a bit"....and you have to assume the U.S. keeps and maintains all the commitments it has made overseas.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Future Combat Systems

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Combat_Systems

Was over-bloated and behind schedule before Barack H. Obama even set foot in the White House.

F22

We have more stealth fighters than every other nation in the world combined, on top of more aircraft that any other power. There is no significant challenge to American air power on the horizon.

Yes, it is.

No, it isn't. There isn't anything particularly special about the T-14 compared to western tanks. The only thing that marks the Armata as radically different is its divergence from traditional Soviet tank design, which shifted towards a platform that emphasizes crew survivability above all else.

Literally the only advantage the M1 has against something like the Russian T-14 Armata is that we have a lot more of them.

The M1A3, which will be around in a short while and be available in far greater numbers than the T-14 ever will be, is enough of a match of anything fielded by the Russian Ground Forces.

And against nations that aren't broken husks of their former selves, like China?

China, who's combat vehicles are notorious for their mechanical unreliability and inferior design to even Soviet counterparts?

 

[Jetboogieman]

Before you even begin to consider cuts to the military in size and equipment, you would be better served to consider how much money is sucked up in the defense budget by inefficient policies regarding defense contractors and congressional district obligations and spending. There are plenty of opportunities to cut spending simply by improving efficiencies. And to be honest, we could lose 1/3 to 1/2 of our civilian work-force and not feel a single impact from the DOD mission side of the house.

The famous example is the army drowning in tanks they do not need, it's all about jobs in congressional districts.

Quite right.

Army says no to more tanks, but Congress insists

Built to dominate the enemy in combat, the Army's hulking Abrams tank is proving equally hard to beat in a budget battle.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Jredbaron96]

How? Specifically please. How can the U.S "trim the budge quite a bit"....and you have to assume the U.S. keeps and maintains all the commitments it has made overseas.

You'll have to specify; are you saying we can't close down a single base, or shift forces anywhere, or do you mean we just have to keep up some level of commitment?

 

[Evilroddy]

Do you consider this comment of yours to be an "attack on militarism"?

What "wars of necessity" is the US currently involved in?

What "wars of necessity" has the US been involved in over the last 50 years?

Antiwar:

Yes, it is an attack on militarism.*

The USA is involved in no wars of necessity right now.

The USA has not waged a war of necessity since WWII, so none of its wars were wars of necessity in the last 50 years.

* Militarism is an over-emphasis on or an addiction to using military force to solve state policy problems, both foreign and domestic. Anti-militarism attacks that proclivity to use military force. Anti-militarism still recognises a limited need for the role of military forces in self defence because it acknowledges militarism exists in many states. Anti-militarism should not be confused with pacifism. Pacifism is the desire to end all war, which is a utopian pipe dream but also a worthwhile ideal for anti-militarists to approach and to shoot for.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Rhakron90]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Combat_Systems

Was over-bloated and behind schedule before Barack H. Obama even set foot in the White House.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/obama-s-f-22-decision

We have more stealth fighters than every other nation in the world combined, on top of more aircraft that any other power. There is no significant challenge to American air power on the horizon.

This is the kind of thinking that got Germany and Britain steamrollered at the beginning of WW2.

The F-35 is a wonky platform at best. The F-22 was superior in basically every way.

Again... The M1, Paladin, and Bradley are all old as Hell, and beginning to show it.

No, it isn't. There isn't anything particularly special about the T-14 compared to western tanks. The only thing that marks the Armata as radically different is its divergence from traditional Soviet tank design, which shifted towards a platform that emphasizes crew survivability above all else.

Pretending to be an expert about this topic too, huh?

The T-14 is faster, more strategically mobile, hits harder, possibly has better armor, and is absolutely more survivable than even the most modern of M1s. It also includes a number of very innovative features, like an unmanned turret, meaning that all its got to do is hang out in a "hull down" position, and you essentially can't kill the thing.

Its coming paired with some new doctrine as well.

The M1A3, which will be around in a short while and be available in far greater numbers than the T-14 ever will be, is enough of a match of anything fielded by the Russian Ground Forces.

Will that be before, or after, the Dems slash military budgets again, and cancel another host of programs?

 

[Dayton3]

You'll have to specify; are you saying we can't close down a single base, or shift forces anywhere, or do you mean we just have to keep up some level of commitment?

I assume that if you want to cut U.S. overseas commitments in order to then cut U.S. defense spending that you need to specify the commitments to be cut first.

 

[Dayton3]

This is the kind of thinking that got Germany and Britain steamrollered at the beginning of WW2.

The F-35 is a wonky platform at best. The F-22 was superior in basically every way.

Again... The M1 and Bradley are both old as Hell, and beginning to show it.

The T-14 is faster, more strategically mobile, hits harder, possibly has better armor, and is absolutely more survivable than even the most modern of M1s. It also includes a number of very innovative features, like an unmanned turret, meaning that all its got to do is hang out in a "hull down" position, and you essentially can't kill the thing.

Will that be before, or after, the Dems slash military budgets again, and cancel another host of programs?

The F-35 was meant to be a money saver. Not a superior attack or air superiority platform.

 

[vegas giants]

I assume that if you want to cut U.S. overseas commitments in order to then cut U.S. defense spending that you need to specify the commitments to be cut first.

The only mission of the US military should be to defend US territory

 

[pamak]

Literal Communism... Yaaaayyyy...

Thanks, I'll pass.

Ohh, so when the government pays you for defense contracts is not communism but if the same government starts paying you for Green Deal contracts, it is communism.

Got it!

 

[Jredbaron96]

This is the kind of thinking that got Germany and Britain steamrollered at the beginning of WW2.

First off, what?

Second, that has literally nothing in common with this situation.

The F-35 is a wonky platform at best. The F-22 was superior in basically every way.

The F-35 is essentially a multi-role fighter, the F-22 is an air superiority platform. Two different roles.

Again... The M1 and Bradley are both old as Hell, and beginning to show it.

95% of the Russian Ground Forces get around on equipment that is just as old, if not older, than the M1 and the Bradley.

It's also irrelevant, because it's the Army's own stupidity on why the Bradley has not been replaced yet.

Pretending to be an expert about this topic too, huh?

lol

The T-14 is faster, more strategically mobile,

There isn't an army in the world more strategically mobile than the US Army.

hits harder,

Debatable.

possibly has better armor,

It is at best, on par with American armor.

It also includes a number of very innovative features, like an unmanned turret,

Unmanned turrets have been around a lot longer than the Armata.

meaning that all its got to do is hang out in a "hull down" position, and you essentially can't kill the thing.

First off, that's not what that means, second, if you encounter dug in tanks that are hull down, you either call in artillery or bypass them.

Will that be before, or after, the Dems slash military budgets again, and cancel another host of programs?

I can only pray the Democrats have the balls to find a way to cut our grossly wasteful and out of control military-industrial complex. How many billions are our defense programs over budget?

 

[Rhakron90]

Ohh, so when the government pays you for defense contracts is not communism but if the same government starts paying you for Green Deal contracts, it is communism.

Got it!

Ummm... Yeah. You are correct.

Government paying people, on a contractual basis, to do certain jobs is not "Communism."

Government forcibly taking control of industries, and then restructuring and setting directives for them, on the other hand...

 

[pamak]

Ummm... Yeah. You are correct.

Government paying people, on a contractual basis, to do certain jobs is not "Communism."

Government forcibly taking control of industries, and then restructuring and setting directives for them, on the other hand...

Same thing can happen with Green energy contracts. Nobody argues hee that the government will forrcefuly take control of your company. What will hapen is that in the absence of more defense contracts, YOUR company will WANT to get other types of government contracts.

 

[Rhakron90]

First off, what?

You're ignorant of history. Got it.

Britain, France, and the US all very deliberately allowed their military technology, and their doctrine, to stagnate after WW2.

Germany did not. Because of that, Germany absolutely crushed both France and the British Expeditionary Forces, in spite of - on paper - appearing to be the weaker force.

Second, that has literally nothing in common with this situation.

Doesn't it? In fact, today is a lot more dangerous, because literally every military on the planet is deliberately gunning for us in particular.

The F-35 is essentially a multi-role fighter

The F-35 is a very lackluster "budget model" jack of all trades, with a bucketload of technical problems.

The damn thing can't even reliably beat F-15s and F-16s, for God's sakes.

F-35s in Japan are still losing dogfights to F-15s sometimes — here's why

The F-35 was once trounced by F-16s in dogfights, but it just proved it can out-turn older jets

the F-22 is an air superiority platform. Two different roles.

You realize that the United States' entire doctrine for winning wars is built around air superiority, correct?

It's also irrelevant, because it's the Army's own stupidity on why the Bradley has not been replaced yet.

No, its because Obama cancelled the program that was supposed to develop a replacement.

There isn't an army in the world more strategically mobile than the US Army.

Not if you have anything to say about it.

Debatable.

No, its not. The Russian gun is better.

It is at best, on par with American armor.

"At best," it is superior, on a vehicle which is a substantially smaller and more mobile target than ours, and which lacks its obvious weak spots.

Unmanned turrets have been around a lot longer than the Armata.

Cool. Name an American or NATO MBT that uses them.

First off, that's not what that means, second, if you encounter dug in tanks that are hull down, you either call in artillery or bypass them.

Straight from the General's mouth, huh?

Gee! Who knew it was so easy! Clearly, we should have effeminate Leftist college kids plan all of our wars.

I can only pray the Democrats have the balls to find a way to cut our grossly wasteful and out of control military-industrial complex. How many billions are our defense programs over budget?

Can you not go five minutes without openly contradicting yourself?

"We're effortlessly superior, don't worry... Now, excuse me while I systematically dismantle literally everything that makes this the case..."

 

[Dayton3]

The only mission of the US military should be to defend US territory

Why? If I'm an American citizens overseas I still sure as hell expect the U.S. military to protect me and mine just as though I lived in the lower 48.

 

[swing_voter]

60% or more of the defense budget goes to salaries and benefits.

If you want to cut the defense budget, cut the personnel. Do it through attrition, not layoffs.

 

[Dayton3]

I can only pray the Democrats have the balls to find a way to cut our grossly wasteful and out of control military-industrial complex. How many billions are our defense programs over budget?

The reason most defense programs go over budget is because of government interference to begin with. I can site multiple examples.

 

[Rhakron90]

Same thing can happen with Green energy contracts. Nobody argues hee that the government will forrcefuly take control of your company.

"Green Energy Contracts" are not what the "Green New Deal" proposes. What it proposes, are "net zero emissions" within a decade, "guaranteed employment," and an absolutely MASSIVE program of infrastructure development.

Yeaaah... I'm sorry, but that's A ) just not possible (in fact, its insane - most of these goals are openly contradictory), and B ) the only way you could even attempt such a thing is through MASSIVE scale Government intrusion into the private economy. Which AOC has made pretty clear is exactly what she intends.

The GND is a lot more akin to a Stalinist "five year plan" than any proposal so far seen in American economic policy.

What will hapen is that in the absence of more defense contracts, YOUR company will WANT to get other types of government contracts.

What will happen in the absence of defense contracts is that my company will go out of business. Quite frankly, I doubt I could get a job on a "Green Contract," as none of those skills are related to what I do.

 

[dex4974]

Obama cancelled a host of programs for future tech on coming into office, ranging from new armored vehicles, to new weapons systems.

Many of those cuts now put us at a disadvantage against rival nations like Russia and China.

The M1 Abrams, for example, is starting to look rather decidedly dated and shabby in comparison to the latest Russian tanks available, like the Armata. It's only nearly 50 years old, after all.

Any how many of these new tanks does Russia have?

 

[pamak]

"Green Energy Contracts" are not what the "Green New Deal" proposes. What it proposes, are "net zero emissions" within a decade, "guaranteed employment," and an absolutely MASSIVE program of infrastructure development.

Yeaaah... I'm sorry, but that's A ) just not possible (in fact, its insane - most of these goals are openly contradictory), and B ) the only way you could even attempt such a thing is through MASSIVE scale Government intrusion into the private economy. Which AOC has made pretty clear is exactly what she intends.

The GND is more a lot more akin to a Stalinist "five year plan" than any proposal so far seen in American economic policy.



What will happen in the absence of defense contracts is that my company will go out of business. Quite frankly, I doubt I could get a job on a "Green Contract," as none of those skills are related to what I do.

The government has set different standards in every field of our economic activity from pollution, to construction (asbestos, etc) , to water quality to food production to federal aviation safety standards. Nothing of these things changes the fact that businesses operate in a capitalist environment where they compete for goveremnt contracts in all those diffeent fields.

 

[pamak]

You're ignorant of history. Got it.

Britain, France, and the US all very deliberately allowed their military technology, and their doctrine, to stagnate after WW2.

Germany did not. Because of that, Germany absolutely crushed both France and the British Expeditionary Forces, in spite of - on paper - appearing to be the weaker force.

Yes, but this does not apply to today's case because the US has by FAR the strongest military and is also a nuclear power.