It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Spending cuts in the military is the latest political issue.

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2016 @ 05:59 AM
link   
www.foxnews.com...

Recent calls for reactivating the F-22 line and deferring the 6th Gen fighter development. McCain dumping on the F-35 and calling for it's cut/shut down and questions about retiring the A-10 seem to point to the latest effort by Congress and politicians running for re-election to bring these issues to light.

There's no question an Air Force using 30, 40 and 50 year old aircraft is stretching capabilities to their limit and this subject is in dire need of exposure and discussion.

The truth is budget cuts, especially in the military only defers expenditures to a later date forcing massive budgets to repair the situation.

Not withstanding those that would see a huge cut in all things military, the military industrial complex and wars, in general, the fact is with a "world economy" being the dominant power, the need for world stability requires a strong and controlled military.

The pressure to maintain our military is growing due to that world economy. Stability becomes the issue rather than dominance.

While one can roll one's eye at the political expediency of individuals suddenly raising these issues in their election year, the issue requires clarification and exposure especially going into a Presidential election year.

The U.S., IMHO can still dominate over any nation, militarily. However, any multiple, concurrent 'issues' and it is highly doubtful that the U.S. can dominate.

If the world economy and TPTB are now calling the shots, perhaps they should be the ones paying for these needed upgrades rather than thee and me.

Thoughts?
edit on 14-5-2016 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 14 2016 @ 06:11 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker



The U.S., IMHO can still dominate over any nation, militarily.

Except Russia. We may be way more advanced technologically, but our military can't fight seven-thousand nukes.

I see a point in keeping our military adequate to a point, but not at the level it is now. It's insane how much we spend on it, and most of it is on equipment rather than personnel.

Why do we need an F-35? Why do we need Ohio class subs? Why do we need more aircraft carriers?

We spent less than 1/4 of our total military budget on salaries. WHY?!?



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 06:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99


The whole subject is a mess. That's why I figured the thread is necessary.


We've been the self-appointed policeman of the world for a while now and it has largely worked! It had given us an unprecedented stability, world-wide with growing economies in third world nations and "over-all" a fairly safe planet.


We fixate on the ME and the like, but the fact is never have more lived in the remaining portions of the world lived more peacefully!


Trouble is we can't afford it with this economy-and perhaps not even with a great economy- therefore something has to change but I'll be damned if I know what it is.....

edit on 14-5-2016 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 06:32 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

Why is the rest of the countries that you speak of, their middle class is growing and ours is decreasing?



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 06:34 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

Oh absolutely our "world police" status has benefitted our country immensely, but also at what costs?

Honestly, knowing exactly what our military has done abroad makes me ashamed to be a US American. We don't see it ourselves other than what our media decides to show us.

For example, watching desert storm when I was a kid was cool, I won't lie, I thought it was. It was like a movie, bombs blowing up and shlt. They wouldn't dare show a view from the streets of Baghdad though, because then we would have seen actual people dying from our cool explosions.

Our military has served one purpose only since the end of WW2. Domination. And not for the benefit of our country, but for the benefit of a few in power.

Our country is literally self-reliant. We produce the most oil, we produce the most food, we produce the most precious metals (I may be wrong on the metals one, but we've been tops for a long time), we have the best infrastructure, we have the largest military, we have the most force projection, we have the most global influence...yet we still keep blowing up the ME.

There is no need for it. USA could become isolationist and survive and thrive. We have been sold out over the last century to make certain families rich and powerful.

I could keep going on, but it's upsetting to think about the reality of our country.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 06:44 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

The issue, I think, is not the size and level of preparedness of the US military, but the huge amount of waste involved, some of it deliberate. Budgets justified by convoys of forty or more trucks deployed to carry the payload one would ordinarily place aboard just four, private military contractors skimming the pocket book of the US government and companies within it for asset protection abroad, back handers and dodgy procurement procedures...

It would probably help if certain units were taught to do a job with a single round, rather than throw an entire magazine at a target just in case. Might cut down the friendly fire ratios a bit, not to mention the cost of ammunition. All in all, the US military is easily one of the most wasteful organisations of its sort in the world, not because of the actions of its service members, but largely because it is run by a corporate underpinning, which has more power to effect its efficiency, than any uniformed officers, generals, admirals, marshals or any other ranking member of its service, leave alone the politicians and intelligence chiefs running the front facing services themselves.

In my opinion, the US military would be a cheaper thing to run, if it was responsible for all engineering, R&D, and equipment production that services its needs. Giving these things over to corporate entities, rather than handling them in house, means that the services are open to being fleeced for profit, rather than being purely run for effectiveness, efficiency, and lethality per dollar spent.

Every time you let a business handle the affairs of state, or affairs which affect affairs of state, you wind up loosing. The sooner this is understood, the better.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 06:47 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

maybe too many distortions in your view is why this subject is a mess for you




posted on May, 14 2016 @ 06:52 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

First of all, it would be GREAT if the Republicans could shift their focus to spending, military and more, rather than carry on pounding that Bible and peaching moralistic bs to the nation. This is what the US public needs, what it craves, what it will expect from its two primary political parties.

The Republican party needs to give up its religious bs and preaching, get rid of the Bible thumpers, stop telling people who is "better than" and "more deserving" - equality for all, focus on the REAL issues.

And military spending is a good place to start acting like adults.

I would be inclined to trust the opinions of military leaders and strategists who are capable of considering where future threats are going to come from.

We know that future threats militarily are going to come from either Russia or China. This is a fact regardless of people whining about it. The US government has a job to do and that is to protect the US and its interests from all threats foreign and domestic - exactly the same as any other nation. You elect your government to do this for you, you don't elect your government to do nice deeds for Russia and not put a shield in place to protect you because they might not like it.

The US will be able to defend itself against pretty much anything, and it will still be able to do that regardless of spending cuts. The US would have to decimate its military almost entirely before it would ever become risky and allow a foreign force to overwhelm it.

And it has Nato too, of course



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 07:00 AM
link   
I fully support sensible cuts to military spending, provided there are identical percentage cuts in social programs that are not found in the Constitution.

Because you know, military defense *IS* a constitutional responsibility while the following *ARE NOT*:

Healthcare
Food stamps/WIC/Child Nutrition Program
Housing Assistance/Energy Assistance/TANF
Cell Phones/Internet access
Education
etc...



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 07:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
I fully support sensible cuts to military spending, provided there are identical percentage cuts in social programs that are not found in the Constitution.

Because you know, military defense *IS* a constitutional responsibility while the following *ARE NOT*:

Healthcare
Food stamps/WIC/Child Nutrition Program
Housing Assistance/Energy Assistance/TANF
Cell Phones/Internet access
Education
etc...


Agreed.

Can't wait for the scathing attacks for condemning social entitlement programs.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 07:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
Except Russia. We may be way more advanced technologically, but our military can't fight seven-thousand nukes.


They could have ten thousand nukes and it's still meaningless when the moment they fire one they would have the nuclear power of several nations raining down on every Russian city.

Don't forget strategy and mutually assured destruction.


originally posted by: Vector99
I see a point in keeping our military adequate to a point, but not at the level it is now. It's insane how much we spend on it, and most of it is on equipment rather than personnel.


You need to keep pace with your enemies, that's the reality of it. The US has been doing that rather well for a hell of a long time.
I agree that you probably spend more than you need to on your military, but this is perhaps because the US is involved with several allies around the world and is there to offer security to friendly nations it deals with.

People seem to forget that having a presence around the world isn't just a friendly act, it's not just generosity or "policing the planet", it has helped to prevent large scale conflicts since the Cold War and the US has an interest in maintaining that peace for as long as possible.

If the US was not involved in the protection of South Korea do you really think North Korea wouldn't have invaded again and tried to claim that nation back? Do you really think such a thing would not have risked a larger war between the US and China?

The myth is that this is all the "US policing the world" when the US gets plenty out of preventing conflicts from beginning and then spiralling out of control.


originally posted by: Vector99
Why do we need an F-35? Why do we need Ohio class subs? Why do we need more aircraft carriers?


It depends where the threat is coming from doesn't it?
If you have a weakness in your defences then you see your potential future enemies preparing to take advantage of that weakness, so you develop a means to counter that preparation.

The US needs to be everywhere it can be internationally, and in order to counter the abilities of their potential enemies in the future it needs to upgrade those capabilities to be able to confront whatever the enemy can throw at it.

The US is doing this far better than the UK. We've spent years cutting back on our military capability on the belief that NATO and the US would be there to bail us out if we needed it, a kind of "fingers crossed" mentality. We also have a Labour leader who seems to think we could get rid or our nuclear weapons entirely and thinks we could sit down with a country like Russia and somehow convince them not to attack us, presumably using the remarkable powers of tea and crumpets.

When it comes to military capability I would prefer it if the UK was more like the US. We're currently in extremely volatile times and we all need to be able to defend ourselves. China is creeping out into the South China Sea and building new military bases which could ONLY be useful in a military assault on their neighbours, and Russia is deliberately threatening their neighbours too, and making threatening gestures toward the UK and other European nations.

Whether we like it or not, Nato and the US need to be strong in the face of these threats, and I wish the UK was a bigger part of that collective defence too.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 07:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: wdkirk
Can't wait for the scathing attacks for condemning social entitlement programs.


Social programs which have brought your country to being one of the leaders of the world?
Social programs which prevent mass outbreaks of disease?
Social programs which prevent mass crime and lawlessness?
Social programs which prevent mass deaths from entirely curable illnesses?

Let's not be silly now, go back just 100 years and take a look at life expectancy, disease, crime and then come back and debate how all that changed.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 07:20 AM
link   
It's funny how military spending works.

Politicians approve military budgets and make cuts,
Ten years later when equipment is falling apart or in short supply the current politicians blame the one in charge ten years ago.

The truth is that it's expensive to do the job that the military is expected to do. You can't cut the budget without cutting the mission.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 07:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
Except Russia. We may be way more advanced technologically, but our military can't fight seven-thousand nukes


Nukes aside, Russia's military is not that special. It's a shadow of its Soviet predecessor.

Oh, some fine kit for sure and the capability to of flatten cities like Grozny and Aleppo, not to mention whole nations like Georgia, as well as invasion "by stealth" of parts of Ukraine. However, don't overplay Russia's military prowess.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 07:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013



And military spending is a good place to start acting like adults.

$600+ billion dollars spent every year on our military, less than 1/4 of it goes to actual salaries.


I would be inclined to trust the opinions of military leaders and strategists who are capable of considering where future threats are going to come from.

There is no threat to America in the world. We have 7,000 nukes too. Actually about half of our active nuclear arsenal is parked just offshore of every "threat" we face. ICBM's? lol. SLBM's take minutes, not tens of minutes.


The US government has a job to do and that is to protect the US

Since pearl harbor when have we ever been attacked by a foreign military?


You elect your government to do this for you

This time around we pick Trump or Clinton...I'll leave it at that.

edit on 14-5-2016 by Vector99 because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-5-2016 by Vector99 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013




They could have ten thousand nukes and it's still meaningless when the moment they fire one they would have the nuclear power of several nations raining down on every Russian city.

Russia has been more than clear on their nuclear policy, they won't fire "just one".


You need to keep pace with your enemies, that's the reality of it. The US has been doing that rather well for a hell of a long time.

Keep pace with your enemies? What? They try to keep pace with us.


since the Cold War and the US has an interest in maintaining that peace for as long as possible.

Well, except in the ME. We did start going there right after the soviet union collapsed afterall.


If the US was not involved in the protection of South Korea do you really think North Korea wouldn't have invaded again and tried to claim that nation back?

I'll give you that one, that is for a good cause, North Korea is bat-shlt crazy.


Do you really think such a thing would not have risked a larger war between the US and China?

What, you mean we would have gone to war with China if we didn't get to set up our bases on their back door in South Korea? No, it never would have escalated then because even back then we had immense force projection. Remember, the war was in Asia, not North America. We went to THEIR house to fight.


potential enemies

Besides North Korea what country would in their right mind even try to attack the US all out? It would be the same as trying Russia. Thousands of nukes fly.


Plain and simple the US and Russia both are invincible, and not by any modern day tech. It's the 7,000+ nukes each country has. Either one would launch all of them if they were facing imminent military defeat.

MAD, no one wins.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 07:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
I fully support sensible cuts to military spending, provided there are identical percentage cuts in social programs that are not found in the Constitution.

Because you know, military defense *IS* a constitutional responsibility while the following *ARE NOT*:

Healthcare
Food stamps/WIC/Child Nutrition Program
Housing Assistance/Energy Assistance/TANF
Cell Phones/Internet access
Education
etc...


I'll start a new thread but I have an idea to curb the spending on those programs too... Ready? "Lump Sums" in lieu of paying and paying, the recipient gets a 'Lump Sum' Look at how Lottery winners give up the $100M over 20 years for $27M now? This would also stimulate the economy.. Then the Gov't. can close those programs.

I just don't know what forum to put the thread in??



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 07:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Vector99
Except Russia. We may be way more advanced technologically, but our military can't fight seven-thousand nukes


Nukes aside, Russia's military is not that special. It's a shadow of its Soviet predecessor.

Oh, some fine kit for sure and the capability to of flatten cities like Grozny and Aleppo, not to mention whole nations like Georgia, as well as invasion "by stealth" of parts of Ukraine. However, don't overplay Russia's military prowess.

Your entire air force can be casts of the wright brothers original flight airplane and you will never face a homeland threat from a major military when you have 7,000+ nuclear warheads with 1500+ basically armed and ready for fire (both nations have that approximate readied nukes)

Again, MAD no one wins.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 08:12 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker I work for the Air Force as a civilian. The issue isn't with buying assets. Its the blatant waste, fraud and abuse that goes on in the supply chain. You would choke if you saw what the military pays for #. I'm talking about thousands of dollars for an aluminum ring seal for example.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 08:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: AVtech34
a reply to: nwtrucker You would choke if you saw what the military pays for #. I'm talking about thousands of dollars for an aluminum ring seal for example.


Exactly the point I was trying to make regarding spending. Nearly 80% of the total military budget is spent on dumb shlt like that, while only about 20% is actually spent on you, the serviceman.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join