Spending cuts in the military is the latest political issue.

military defense *IS* a constitutional responsibility

Keyword, defense. Policing the world and seeking to control other nations is not.

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.

While I agree with your assessment of Russia's military, the one factor that is omitted is the "will" to use it. One can have a superior military, but if the current leader is busy dismantling it, piece by piece, who wins in the long run? Just ask the North Vietnamese....

a reply to: roadgravel


The 'Department of Defense' was originally named the "War Department".

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: roadgravel


The 'Department of Defense' was originally named the "War Department".

Still defense. Although offense seems to be part of our country for a long time.

a reply to: crazyewok

In general, I agree. Russia's and China's actual costs are NOT published the way ours are and anyone thinks wither of these two don't have black projects and deliberately P.R. us with their numbers well....

Also, let's face it, it's more expensive to develop it than to steal it....

First things first, I have 18 years in the USAF, I am perfectly ok with budget cuts to DoD... but for F... Sake... stop telling the generals what to do assign people to look at where the big expenditures are and make the cuts there.

All these high dollar POS weapon systems that only exist because some political hack wanted to get some jobs into their district or... some general is looking at a sweet 6 figure a year consulting gig once they retire... take the axe to those, youll save a lot more money and likely keep people around that love the military life and have a passion for serving their country.

Instead of the stab your buddy in the back so you can get promoted so you can make 20... but then you have to depend on the same person you screwed over while deployed... anyone else see a conflict of interest with the current make up of the USAF.

Targeted cuts are whats needed... not the hatchet job congress and the general have been doing since clinton.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
First things first, I have 18 years in the USAF, I am perfectly ok with budget cuts to DoD... but for F... Sake... stop telling the generals what to do assign people to look at where the big expenditures are and make the cuts there.

All these high dollar POS weapon systems that only exist because some political hack wanted to get some jobs into their district or... some general is looking at a sweet 6 figure a year consulting gig once they retire... take the axe to those, youll save a lot more money and likely keep people around that love the military life and have a passion for serving their country.

Instead of the stab your buddy in the back so you can get promoted so you can make 20... but then you have to depend on the same person you screwed over while deployed... anyone else see a conflict of interest with the current make up of the USAF.

Targeted cuts are whats needed... not the hatchet job congress and the general have been doing since clinton.

Cool, you've just been named Sec of the Air Force....congrats....What cuts would you recommend? (I hope your not too far in Zaphod's camp.....

How much of this do you think technology itself is the reason for the decline in spending? Also, the money available is most likely being redistributed in many different ways, heavy on the technology side.

If the future is mostly a drone miitary, these are the kinds of things that are going to happen. As good as all of those aircraft are, they paved the way of what is about to happen. IMHO.

a reply to: nwtrucker

But it's a whole different world out there now compared to 40 or 60 years ago. What may have worked 60 years ago no longer applies.

Strength and stability are no longer determined by military might these days... it's now determined by how much a country has in its wallet.

The global market has drastically changed the landscape of the planet.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: nwtrucker

But it's a whole different world out there now compared to 40 or 60 years ago. What may have worked 60 years ago no longer applies.

Strength and stability are no longer determined by military might these days... it's now determined by how much a country has in its wallet.

The global market has drastically changed the landscape of the planet.

Some things change and some do not. I see zero evidence that human reaction has changed one whit in thousands of years, despite knowledge and technology.

As far how much is in your wallet, at any given time, you 72 hours away from a complete social break-down at which point he who has the gun gets your wallet....

originally posted by: snowspirit

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...

Let's not cut education......a heavily militarized country really needs to be well educated as well.

1) My proposal calls for equal % cuts. So a 10% cut to military = 10% cut to education.
2) Of course we want a well educated populace... but why would you want the government that is heavily militarized to decide what the curriculum for the children is?

a reply to: nwtrucker

At the end of the day, the military isn't going to see any real spending cuts. There may be some cuts to the defense budget but our economy is 50% military, 25% health care, and 25% starbucks. I've said before, the military is the biggest welfare program in the country. Everything from more soliders than we need, to millions of defense contractors. We're never going to cut military spending because doing so will kill the economy. It's the US's version of building ghost cities.

originally posted by: Vector99
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.

Cyber weapons probably give someone the capability. Stealth attack us, shut down the power grid for a week and we will be very weakened. No invasion is necessary. No one can invade us, but we aren't invincible.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Riouz


Oh sure, the entire military was left completely ineffective by 19 men.

Which just points to how weak our military is, and how we aren't invincible. Circumvent the military and strike soft targets. Make us spend trillions defending them from attacks the enemy only has to threaten rather than carry out. Who wins in the end?

a reply to: Aazadan

Good points. So what we need is a new outlook on defense. ( at least the attempt of a new outlook.)

Do we even need the philosophy of force projection with it's massive Carrier fleet? Yes? No?

Procurement? That seems an obvious consensus.

Weapon systems. Deterrent level or domination?

We've very strong constraints on our military. They're under the leash of civilians. Do the civilians controlling the military also need a leash?

As far as the economy goes, I suspect you exaggerate. L&M can go down, or at least be massively downsized without overall collapse. The same with Newport News. Boeing as well has massive commercial interests.

They can follow the successful switching to commercial applications as after WWII. The money save would be redirected elsewhere and stimulate that area of the economy as a partial balance.

a reply to: Aazadan


P.S.


It's not economic collapse that we'd face, IMO, it's more the fact that all those high-end scientists and tech people would be scooped up by a China offering equal, if not higher, pay packages and there goes our technological edge...

We've largely dominated by outspending potential adversaries. That has provided stability yet with fearful costs. Our economy has been the real edge. That's largely gone as well.


This really needs to be revamped from the ground up.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Don't forget all the support jobs created. Paying for a division at Boeing also creates jobs in people who supply them materials, professors to teach engineers, homes for the engineers to buy, services they use, and so on. There's a ripple effect on jobs created.

a reply to: Aazadan


That's true. I agree it would have an impact....

a reply to: nwtrucker

I think this is a collective memory issue more than anything else. Halliburton, one of those private military firms, was part owned by one of the political powerhouses behind the War on Terror. They are also one of the companies that has routinely shafted the taxpayers of the United States out of vast quantities of money. There are so many strings on that company bow, and all of them are dodgy.

That has bugger all to do with Obama, and this situation is nothing to do with who is in government at any one time. This has been going on, in one form or another, since my parents were babies, and before that no doubt. The problem is not who happens to be president at any one moment, but that who ever becomes president seems incapable or unwilling to dismantle the unchecked, unelected, largely invisible power structures which have allowed this sort of thing to occur for generations.

Obama is just another in a long line of presidents who have failed to take criminals to task for their misdeeds, take the power in the nation back to the people, and out of the hands of those who profit from war, who currently pull all the strings that pertain to whether or not there will BE a war to profit from.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Vector99
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.

Cyber weapons probably give someone the capability. Stealth attack us, shut down the power grid for a week and we will be very weakened. No invasion is necessary. No one can invade us, but we aren't invincible.

An attack on our power grid wouldn't disable our nukes. Especially not our active, deployed ones.

Cyber attacks happen constantly, as a matter of fact in the time it took me to post this reply millions have happened
cool website to track that

There isn't a cyber attack capable of shutting down our grid, or it would have already happened.