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.

 

Interesting article regarding Ron Paul and the coming military budget cuts...

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   

The U.S. Department of Defense is deep into repetitive budget drills, trying to figure out what kind of force structure will remain if the Pentagon has to absorb $600 billion, $800 billion or even $1 trillion in cuts over the next decade. The White House and OSD are trying to be clever by requiring that each of the military services develop their own alternative force structures not only for that individual service but for the others as well. Undoubtedly, the hope is the services will engage in intramural warfare, competing with one another to save their own programs and force structure by savaging those of the others.

*snip*

The only alternative strategy to emerge has come from no less a source than Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul. As he made clear in last week’s Iowa debate and on his campaign website, Congressman Paul thinks our allies should be left to fend for themselves, rogue states should be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons, the United States should not fight long wars and we should bring our military back from overseas to guard our southern border. He alone among current politicians does not pretend that defense spending can be reduced by hundreds of billions of dollars without a corresponding change in national security and defense strategies. Actually, he does it the right way: articulate a vision of U.S. national security and associated defense policy and then adjust defense spending accordingly.

There are a number of strategy options available to DoD in the face of draconian budget cuts. One option would be to rely on other nations to defend U.S. overseas interests. Another would be to cut a deal with potential adversaries and rising powers. A third would be to rely on nuclear weapons to replace reductions in conventional forces (this is a replay of the 1950s strategy of Massive Retaliation). A fourth strategy would be to return to the pre-Cold War model for defense which relied on national mobilization in the event of a major conflict. Given the state of the world, none of these may be satisfying but they have the virtue of fitting a reality in which defense spending is reduced.

When individuals rely on magical thinking to solve real world problems or to deny the presence of real dangers it can be considered a form of mental illness. When government officials do it is it any different? Solemnly intoning the phrase “acceptance of risk” doesn’t make cutting defense without changing the guiding strategy any less crazy.
www.defpro.com...


This article may be interesting to the people who are saying they don't support RP, because of his foreign policy, and because he wants to bring the troops home. We can no longer afford to keep all these overseas bases and wars, we need to turn this boat away from the coming iceberg.

edit on 17-8-2011 by 27jd because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 



We can no longer afford to keep all these overseas bases and wars, we need to turn this boat away from the coming iceberg.

Exactly. Keeping military bases all over the world just isn't cool anymore.

That was soooo 1980's

edit on 17-8-2011 by Rockdisjoint because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockdisjoint
 


I would like to try and remain as positive as I can. If we're gonna go down, we can go down fighting.

www.hollywoodteenmovies.com..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

NO RETREAT, NO SURRENDER!



ETA: You changed your post, originally you had said we already hit the iceberg, and the sinking was inevitable...had to make that point in order to not look crazy in my response

edit on 17-8-2011 by 27jd because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   
If we back our military out of Japan and bring them home.....


Those Japanese might strike at us later on.....we really kicked their can bad in WWII...and rubbed their face in it for decades. Fire bombing cities was worse than the Nuclear Bombs.....Von Braun said the Nazi's gave America their nukes hoping a Christian Nation wouldn't use them....surprise...we used them.

Those Nazi scientists we brought to America to work for us....who do you think came up with allll those chemicals for the US military to use and we ended up poisoning ourselves and our own country?

Those Nazi's working for us...always hated us and plotted revenge every day.

They were allowed to keep killing Americans over the years to get it out of their system....problem is...it will NEVER be out of their system.


Either America keeps its big military.......or what went around will come around....wait...Do we even know who's for America and who's killing Americans in our own country now???

People who believe in the Constitution and 2nd Amendment are now "Domestic Terrorists" per the Federal Government......

The Boxer Rebellion it was Europe, Russia, and the US who gangbanged China and toppled them @ 1900, chopped off their heads, tortured them.....then made them pay vast amounts of silver for "reparations"....

It appears America is going to get gang banged next. Per from what's coming from the top in the Federal Government.

You're a "Domestic Terrorist".



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Pervius
 


Interesting perspective, thanks for the reply.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   
The US has become the most powerful civilization on the planet with only china I would say who could rival our miltary in might in one form or another.

The problem is with this issues is that our civilization is at its peak and looking over the top of the hill at the very steep grade on the other side. Whether we check our brakes or not before departing is up to the American people, not the government. We alone have the power to change our government and the policies that it enforces, not them alone.

Unlike the Roman Empire, we actually have a civilization (Rome) to look back upon and mirror our lifestyle almost verbatim in its rise and fall so that we can prevent the same mistakes that took the Roman Empire from glory to tribal chaos. Just as the US is doing now, so did the Roman Empire spread it's military thin and try to battle everyone all while letting internal conflict rip out its heart through greed and poor leadership.

We have had a spectacular run, but if we don't get some solid and sound leadership in place to wake up the American public from their distracted lives perusing facebook, twitter and the new "I" whatever, we are going to start coasting down that hill with no way to stop but a sudden slam at the bottom.

I fully support Ron Paul, and for the first time in my almost 32 years on this earth, he is the first man I would trust to run this country without an agenda, and to have the best interest of the people at heart, not the highest bidding corporate lobbyist.

King
edit on 17-8-2011 by Kingalbrect79 because: Fixed a couple errors for you grammar police monitoring threads.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Kingalbrect79
 


Totally agree. We can still maintain a strong military here at home, ready to meet any symmetrical threats to this nation. Asymmetric threats like terrorism, pirates, etc. can be dealt with asymmetrically, which can be done within the frame of the constitution.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 


I always thought that the idea of fighting "terrorism" was a completely ascinine and moronic ideal that too many people follow. You can't fight terror because it isn't tangible, it is not a combatant, it is an idea, and that can never truly be destroyed. Combatants you can fight, pick a country and a reason and you'll have a war over something, but to fight "terror" is equally as stupid as trying to wage a war on sadness.

Yet the public follows along with the morons in the white house running things and believes anything they say.

King



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 04:28 AM
link   
We have 220 military bases in Germany alone. The last time we were at war with Germany was 70 years ago. We have 1000+ in the world. Look at that number again...1000 American military bases in 120+ countries that we're not at war with.

That's almost $800 billion a year that we spend for what? Who's going to attack us? Canada? Mexico? We have the greatest defense on the planet with the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Our military is for defense of our country. We can't defend it when our military isn't present. We're busy defending other countries. They have their own military forces. They don't need ours.

/TOA



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 04:46 AM
link   
The US is the paranoid kid that made it to the top of the mountain
spining round constantly lwith fear, flailing his arms in every direction and lashing out with no focus due to paranoia instead of reserving the energy for when it is required.

Yes the threats are real, but wasting resources in the trying to defend youserlf from everyone and seeing everyone as a potential threat is pointless it just weakens your defense where it is needed.

Find your friends and give them reason to stick with you instead of barking orders and superiority and you will soon see the world does not have to be as scary a place as you are making it.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Kingalbrect79
 


Oh, you can fight it. Just not with conventional military forces meant to fight other conventional militaries.

After 9/11, Ron Paul introduced a plan to get Bin Laden the exact way they (allegedly) got him in the end. The Constitution has provisions for dealing with pirates, called the Letters of Marque and Reprisal. It allows the government to target a specific criminal gang that attacks us, by hiring bounty hunters to go after them. Those bounty hunters are usually ex special operators, that aren't bound by military ROE's, and would cost FAR less than any large military operation. They aren't working under the flag, or in our names. They're hired to do a job, and they can do it well. Strike terror in the hearts of terrorists, if they attack us. Wanna get em to talk, forget waterboarding, and go with pig blood transfusion instead. Take away the 72 virgins, and they'll sing like canaries. Private operators can use their religious extremism against them, without civilian casualties. But, it would likely rarely ever go that far, since if we're not meddling in other countries, they won't want to attack us.

edit on 18-8-2011 by 27jd because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join