Let's Make America Strong Again

originally posted by: kendix1960
a reply to: Gryphon66

It is your reply that is amazing. I just directed you to the documentaries, and I certainly don't need you to tell me what this website is all about!

Apparently I do if you think this passes as cogent discussion here.

Links for your edification should you care to go beyond watching an unnamed TV documentary for your information:

Global Fire Power - America Ranked Number 1 by Objective Measures

How much stronger is the US military compared with the next strongest power?

1,000 times. Maybe more.

No other military or combination of militaries could even begin to inflict the slightest numbers of casualties on the United States military in a conventional war.

Consider: The U.S. spends close to what the entire rest of the world spends in defense. $711 billion. Per year. The next closest is China at $143 billion. The M1 Abrams tank has seen more combat than just about any other tank on the battlefield today. It has never been knocked out by enemy fire. (Completely killed). Ever.

China has less than 500 Type 99 tanks, that have just been developed, and are not even close to being as good as the Abrams. We have 8,700 Abrams.

We have 10 aircraft carriers. The good kind. Everyone else has 10. Combined. And they are mostly small ships that can launch helicopters.

There are 8,400 attack helicopters in the world. The U.S. has 6,400 of them.

The United States has engaged in every type of ground warfare in the last 20 years. From mountains to jungles, and from desert to urban, we have the some of the most experienced warriors in the world. No other country comes close to the amount of combat veterans that we have.

We own all the satellites that guide GPS systems. We have all the advanced stealth technology. The latest sensors? U.S. The latest information systems? U.S. An Abrams tank can see a target, the tank commander can instantly send that target to every tank in his company.

... but sure, it's "your opinion" that the American military has "withered" under Obama ... and I say that not only are you patently wrong on facts, that's a really preposterous and overt attempt at pure politicing.

Other resoruces:

Military Times - What would a war between the US and Russia look like?

RANKED: The Strongest Militaries in the World

Etc.etc.etc.

Here's this again:

Politifact, December 14th, 2015 - Military Spending Under the Obama Administration

The Navy is building 12 ballistic missile submarines to replace the current force of 14 beginning with the first hull in 2021. The Navy budgeted $1.4 billion for research and development in fiscal year 2016, but the challenge is funding the total of about $103 billion.

The Defense Department is in the middle of the largest aircraft procurement ever for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. In recent years, around 30 have been built a year, and that will ramp up to 100 a year around 2017. Plans call for acquiring 2,443 joint strike fighters over about 20 years at a cost of nearly $400 billion.

In October, the Air Force awarded a contract for the new bomber program, known as a long-range strike bomber. However, the bid is currently under protest by Boeing. The cost estimate is $21.4 billion for the engineering and manufacturing development phase and then $550 million per aircraft for the first 21 of 100. The 100 planes are expected to be done by the 2020s.

further ...

While the United States has reduced the number of warheads, the government is in the process of extensive nuclear modernization efforts. The United States has been spending billions to improve nuclear equipment, and there are plans to do more. "It is an ironic fact that the president who won a Nobel Peace Prize for his soaring disarmament rhetoric is the same president who has laid out $1 trillion plan to modernize every aspect of the U.S. nuclear arsenal over the next 30 years," said Matthew Bunn, an expert on nuclear proliferation and a professor Harvard University.

not to mention ...

Obama has cut the number of nuclear weapons by a smaller percentage than any American president since the end of the Cold War, according to an analysis by Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists Obama’s 10 percent reduction over six years trails even George W. Bush’s 50 percent.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I'm not a Sanders guy, Buz. I'm not a Cruz guy either, and I don't like Hillary. I can't stand Trump! Actually I'm for John Kasich.

a reply to: kendix1960

Actually I'm for John Kasich.

Fabulous. If it came down to him vs Hillary, I'd vote for him.

originally posted by: kendix1960
a reply to: Gryphon66
That is all fine and good, but the bottom line is that actual dollars allocated notwithstanding, we now have significantly less bombers, less warships, less submarines, and a deteriorating nuclear triad resulting from lack of proper maintenance.

That's all dependent upon which lens you chose to view those stats. It's pretty obvious that the goal is efficiency, not numbers. You'll note that the U.S. has also allowed its horse-drawn artillery to fall into serious decline. Hence that old nugget: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

Fact Checking Claims on Obama's Military Spending

Total spending for the modernization for major weapons systems actually has remained stable since President George W. Bush, left office in January 2009. The department’s “selected acquisition reports,” which detail past, current and future investments in dozens of weapons programs, show the value of the military services’ modernization portfolio in November 2008 was $1.64 trillion. The latest reports, from March 2015, show a value of $1.62 trillion. The armed forces are undergoing a transformation, according to the Defense Department’s budget strategy. The military services will no longer be sized for large, prolonged operations — a reference to the lengthy wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which involved massive reconstruction and humanitarian relief components. The focus now is on building a high-tech force that is nimble enough to defeat Islamic State militants and much more sophisticated adversaries.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

That is good, Buz!!

originally posted by: kendix1960
a reply to: Annee

Nope. Never have been. Nor is my only child. I'm a grandfather.

How nice. I'm a grandmother.

But, I don't understand your obsessive perspective on the military.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

I go by the only stat. that really matters, Johnny. Isis continues to wage their jihadist terror with more and more attacks all over the M.E. and Europe. Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea continue to grow stronger and bolder. These things aren't happening because our military is strong. These things are happening because our military is weaker. You can spin it anyway you like and look at it through any lens you desire. But for God's sake, man, take off the rose colored glasses!

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

In other words ...

"Oooga Booga"

/jeezlouise

a reply to: Annee

Obsessive because you don't agree, and that suits me fine, Anne! You call it what you like. I call it facing reality!

Fact after fact, easily pulled up from simple searches, demonstrably prove that not only is the United States Military stronger than any other nation's forces ... BY OBJECTIVE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE as shown here ... and also prove clearly that the Obama Administration has done more to advance and modernize our forces to meet realistic current world challenges than any recent Administration ... and still there are "opinions" that are being trumpeted here to the contrary.

Boggles the mind, it does.

a reply to: Gryphon66

A strong U.S. military doesn't encourage China to be near operational capacity on a nuclear missile that can be fired from their country and be able to strike any major city in America. Nor does a strong U.S. military encourage North Korea to continue testing their nuclear devices, or Iran to continue developing it's nuclear capacity in repeated violations of the Iran Nuclear Agreement

Finally, a strong U.S. military doesn't allow Isis to continue unchecked terrorism in the M.E. and in Europe.

Statistics can be interpreted any way you like, but the obvious results as indicated above are the only statistics that matter.

originally posted by: kendix1960
a reply to: Annee

Obsessive because you don't agree, and that suits me fine, Anne! You call it what you like. I call it facing reality!

I don't agree.

But, I'm not so obsessed to kick posters out of the conversation because they don't agree with me.

a reply to: Annee

Bring it on, Anne. I'm not kicking anything or anybody out.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
. . . advance and modernize our forces to meet realistic current world challenges . . .

That's the thing. Progression.

Body and machine counts are not a realistic measure of today's military.

Does ISIS have drones that can drop a bomb? If they did would they still send suicide bombers?

As I understand it, their biggest weapon is the Internet.

a reply to: Annee

Just ask the folks in Paris, Brussels, and San Bernadino if they cared about drones, or whether they cared more about the suicide bombers who inflicted horror and death on so many. Nobody ever said Isis jihadists were sophisticated murderers.

originally posted by: kendix1960
a reply to: Annee

Just ask the folks in Paris, Brussels, and San Bernadino if they cared about drones, or whether they cared more about the suicide bombers who inflicted horror and death on so many. Nobody ever said Isis jihadists were sophisticated murderers.

I really don't understand your obsession.

Yes, there are those in this world who want to force their will on others through violence.

There always have been, there always will be.

You want to live in a military state, I assume. We could be like the Watt's riots and park a tank in the intersections of residential neighborhoods.

What exactly do you expect?

a reply to: Annee

Nothing obsessive about wanting to defeat Isis, Anne! No one wants another terrorist attack to occur anywhere. Either we defeat them or we can expect more terror, more blood, and more tears. And there is no way to know where the next attack will happen unless we beef up shared intelligence and become part of a global coalition in a collaborative effort.