Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

And There Are Those That Say Defense Spending Should Be Cut?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • And There Are Those That Say Defense Spending Should Be Cut?

    Seems that when one looks at the facts, the military is really hurting. For example
    http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...vy-a_160601.nl
    Too Much To Do Too Little Time

  • #2
    Our military is in sad shape. There's been plenty of stories over the past year, that when combined paint a frightening picture.

    Look at some of the recent situations with the Navy. Maintenance and leadership issues lead to US sailors taken prisoner, the USN embarrassed and major loss of prestige.

    The USAF has its problems. Wasting precious airframe hours to bomb empty hills. The same maintenance and leadership issues possibly leading to the destruction of a hospital.

    The USMC can't keep planes in the sky.

    We're running our planes into the ground, as conventional threats continue to grow. Our training for conventional warfare has suffered.

    And everywhere we turn, US prestige takes another hit. And the enemy watches.
    ALL LIVES SPLATTER!

    BLACK JEEPS MATTER!

    BLACK MOTORCYCLES MATTER!

    Comment


    • #3
      Or maybe the money is wasted? Your military budget is epic!

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by copenhagen View Post
        Or maybe the money is wasted? Your military budget is epic!
        It would certainly be a lot less if all of our overseas allies paid for all of their own defense, instead of having us do it for them.
        If they are not strong enough to take care of themsevles now, when will they ever ben?
        Yes, I am looking and S. Korea and Japan now, but they ain't the only ones.

        IMHO, we would do better selling arms to them than we would stationing our own men there.
        MUCH better.

        And our overseas bases should be reduced to 50. That's still too many, but I like nice, round numbers.
        "Why is the Rum gone?"

        -Captain Jack

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
          It would certainly be a lot less if all of our overseas allies paid for all of their own defense, instead of having us do it for them.
          If they are not strong enough to take care of themsevles now, when will they ever ben?
          Yes, I am looking and S. Korea and Japan now, but they ain't the only ones.

          IMHO, we would do better selling arms to them than we would stationing our own men there.
          MUCH better.

          And our overseas bases should be reduced to 50. That's still too many, but I like nice, round numbers.
          I don't know about selling arms. It seems like sooner or later, they use the arms we sold them against us.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Biscuit View Post
            I don't know about selling arms. It seems like sooner or later, they use the arms we sold them against us.
            Like who?
            "Why is the Rum gone?"

            -Captain Jack

            Comment


            • #7
              There is also the choices made in procurement. The LCS? The Zumwalt? These ships had serious overruns and the rule of thumb for years is to take overruns out of spare parts and maintenance funds. No Admiral or General is ever fired if there are not enough of either. We are also spending money in the Middle East we were not supposed to be spending.

              The military is also driving up overruns by constantly changing specifications on designs.

              Retire a few guys wearing stars and maybe we will feel better?

              Pruitt
              Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

              Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

              by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Biscuit View Post
                I don't know about selling arms. It seems like sooner or later, they use the arms we sold them against us.
                We won't - promise.
                "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
                Samuel Johnson.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
                  It would certainly be a lot less if all of our overseas allies paid for all of their own defense, instead of having us do it for them.
                  If they are not strong enough to take care of themsevles now, when will they ever ben?
                  Yes, I am looking and S. Korea and Japan now, but they ain't the only ones.

                  IMHO, we would do better selling arms to them than we would stationing our own men there.
                  MUCH better.

                  And our overseas bases should be reduced to 50. That's still too many, but I like nice, round numbers.

                  South korea could defeat north korea with out the USA. The USA wants the influnce and control.
                  you think you a real "bleep" solders you "bleep" plastic solders don't wory i will make you in to real "bleep" solders!! "bleep" plastic solders

                  CPO Mzinyati

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by andrewza View Post
                    South korea could defeat north korea with out the USA. The USA wants the influnce and control.
                    Of course. South Korea has a secret shield wall against NorkNuke.
                    Flag: USA / Location: West Coast

                    Prayers.

                    BoRG

                    http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/8757/snap1ws8.jpg

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PtsX_Z3CMU

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
                      It would certainly be a lot less if all of our overseas allies paid for all of their own defense, instead of having us do it for them.
                      If they are not strong enough to take care of themsevles now, when will they ever ben?
                      Yes, I am looking and S. Korea and Japan now, but they ain't the only ones.

                      IMHO, we would do better selling arms to them than we would stationing our own men there.
                      MUCH better.

                      And our overseas bases should be reduced to 50. That's still too many, but I like nice, round numbers.
                      The problem is that post ww2 American foreign policy often actively discouraged nations including mine to pursue independent military and foreign policy.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
                        (...) IMHO, we would do better selling arms to them than we would stationing our own men there.
                        MUCH better.
                        Your overseas bases sell weapons.

                        In the debate about which new fighters to buy for instance just about the only argument pro F35, is the presence of your bases and assorted arms here.

                        Basically - your foreign policy supports your arms industry instead of the other way around.

                        http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...e-mission.html
                        Major Atticus Finch - ACW Rainbow Game.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
                          It would certainly be a lot less if all of our overseas allies paid for all of their own defense, instead of having us do it for them.
                          If they are not strong enough to take care of themsevles now, when will they ever ben?
                          Yes, I am looking and S. Korea and Japan now, but they ain't the only ones.

                          IMHO, we would do better selling arms to them than we would stationing our own men there.
                          MUCH better.

                          And our overseas bases should be reduced to 50. That's still too many, but I like nice, round numbers.
                          Our basing should be reduced to divisional support assets in the Europe/Africa theater to allow for deployment as needed to meet our treaty obligations. Combat troops should be smaller than a regiment. Asia should receive the same for the same reasons. That cuts out a lot of expense there.

                          R&D programs should be overseen by a Lt. Colonel with plenty of time left in, and it be known that his decisions regarding the program will have substantial effects on his promotability....IE: Mismanagement, or failing to cancel a bad program or white elephant will basically ensure he's terminal.

                          The number of Generals/Admirals should be cut in HALF, and work down from there. Divisions need only 1 2 star and maybe 2 brigadiers. There only need be 2 4 stars in each service, that of Service Chief and Service member of the Joint Chiefs.
                          Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            We are in the middle of the appropriations process. EVERYTHING you here from DoD will be a cry about how poor off they are.

                            Let's look at the Army:

                            http://www.defensetech.org/2011/07/1...lled-programs/

                            Future Combat System, the replacement of our Tanks and IFV etc.

                            Total cost 46 Billion. Project cancelled in 2009. No new vehicles.

                            Artillery replacement.

                            http://www.army-technology.com/projects/crusader/

                            In August 2002, prime contractor United Defense and major sub-contractor General received the formal termination that ended all further work on the $11bn programme.
                            11 Billion $, nothing fielded.

                            Scout Helo Program:

                            http://nation.time.com/2012/05/25/re...al-helicopter/

                            After spending 22 years and $6.9 billion, the Army cancelled the Comanche program, having received precisely zero helos. Reasons for the cancellation abounded.
                            7 Billion $$ and two prototypes delivered.

                            Other services have the same problem.

                            Oh, NO one was ever fired for managing these failed programs. Not the uniformed project manager, usually a 1 or 2 star, not the civilians.

                            Congress needs to FIX the broken system THEY'VE put in place. Now.

                            Military needs to hold people accountable for failures like this. Fire them, immediately when they are not performing.
                            “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                            “To talk of many things:
                            Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                            Of cabbages—and kings—
                            And why the sea is boiling hot—
                            And whether pigs have wings.”
                            ― Lewis Carroll

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              The American military is techno-gadget happy, despite which we still can't defeat a bunch of lo-tech Afghans. Same story as Viet Nam,Somalia and a host of other places.

                              Hi-tech is useless unless fully employed with intent to win.

                              While we're considering military budgets, what is the actual cost of a single Predator/Hellfire mission to blow up one bad guy, as opposed to...say...one sniper team with a Barret .50?

                              What is the cost of a single M1A2 Abrams or a Stryker compared to a Toyota truck mounting a heavy machine gun and a bunch of ISIL's with RPG's and AK's? And guess who often wins that one.
                              Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X