quote:

Pentagon Set to Slash Military to Pre-World War II Levels

Firing the opening salvo in a bloody budget battle, U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel recommended drastic cuts of billions of dollars that would take American military forces to its lowest level since before World War II.

The cuts in military spending, forces and weapons programs address the stark reality of growing budget pressures at home while pointing to the improbability that the United States will engage in a large ground war.

“As we end our combat mission in Afghanistan, this will be the first budget to fully reflect the transition [the Defense Department] is making after 13 years of war,” Hagel said in the Pentagon briefing room.

The reductions will come at a price, he said.

“As a consequence of large budget cuts, our future force will assume additional risk in certain areas,” Hagel said, citing gaps in training and maintenance and a smaller force that would be stretched thin if major conflicts broke out in several places at once.

Source.

quote:

Okay, Hagel wants to cut the military manpower to the lowest points since 1940, he says we have to big a military to modernize economically.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

I really do not think any of you have thought about the cuts or what they mean. Instead bringing forth fears and boogeymen where none exist in reality. The military was made big due to Iraq, not Afghanistan. Transporting a large military to and from both theaters was a major logistics headache for those thirteen years. The money was generally easy to obtain, since no one in Congress wanted to be seen as 'the person holding our troops back from doing their job'. Afghanistan I could understand, since that was the origination of the 9/11/01 attacks on Washington, D.C. and New York City. Why did we go to Iraq? There were four reasons. Yet the average American could at most rattle of one of those, and possibly another. What was George W. Bush's reason? To get the guy who tried (unsuccessfully) to kill his dad during the Clinton Administration.

The A-10 is a craft that has been successful in our military for over forty years. To say the craft is beloved by not just pilots, mechanics, and many Americans is an understatement. The craft has gone through many changes and updates to keep it 'on par' with existing technologies and weaponry. A rugged craft that has more than one saved all groups of US Soldiers in near-close fire fights. And the A-10 looks damn cool, but that's just my opinion!

These cuts come due to the reduction in defense spending when Congressed failed to find an agreement on the super committee back in 2011. What your seeing here is just putting a good face on a Republican failure. Many supported back in 2011 of reaching no agreements with Democrats, even though they had (as Rep. Bohner once put it "...having 98% of what we wanted". An all those people cheered when no agreement was reached. Well, this is the effects of that stupidity and foolishness by conservatives and libertarians. This was back when Republican/Tea Party was doing anything and everything to undermine the President in order to make him a one term President. In my view, these people have...NO GROUNDS....to bitch. People on that super committee knew well know the penalty for NOT reaching an agreement. Republican/Tea Partiers do not wish to compromise on anything, figuring the Democrats would simply cave in to absurd demands. Its all there in this history books and newspaper clippings if your interested.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
I think our basic military needs should always be met with a fair amount of reserves "at the ready".

The problem is: what are our basic needs?

I have disagreed vehemently with the conduct of this country around the world. We seem to be engaged in building empire; an idea whose time has come and gone.

I think we need to truly defend our borders (this would include against illegal immigration but we'd have to find some way to do it without negating posse comitatus).

Then, we need to decide how many soldiers, marines, airmen, etc. we would need "in reserve".

The idea of "professional soldiers" has bothered me for some time. Not necessarily the idea of lifers but the idea that we have marginalized those members of our society that seem to be suited to combat because we consider them "blood thirsty" or words to that effect.

I'm talking about the people who may be "on the fence" when it comes to the line between law-abiding and lawless. In years past, they found a place in the military where their "bloodlust" could do a service to the rest of society; therefore, rendering them as "law-abiding".

Now, we have a military of "professional soldiers" who seem to be ill-fitted for actual combat (based upon the greater percentages of PTSD/suicide that our troops endure, lately).

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
What part of President Obama telling Putin to keep the Russian military out of the Ukraine does not sound like saber rattling? And tell me once more how Iran is just happy as a puppy to do as we ask about their nuclear program without them telling the US to shove it up their ass?

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
And North Korea is not constantly making threats and crap? Granted if they did do something, the UN could pretty much squash them like a bug, until China (remember China?) which has a long standing mutual defense treaty with North Korea decides they want to play army too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
As I said, since WW2, the US, in the name of Democracy and other reasons, has pretty much pissed off half the nations on the planet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
I agree military spending needs cut, but not by that much.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
FYI, Putin has just enough balls to call our bluff.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

I think our basic military needs should always be met with a fair amount of reserves "at the ready".

The problem is: what are our basic needs?

I have disagreed vehemently with the conduct of this country around the world. We seem to be engaged in building empire; an idea whose time has come and gone.

I think we need to truly defend our borders (this would include against illegal immigration but we'd have to find some way to do it without negating posse comitatus).

Then, we need to decide how many soldiers, marines, airmen, etc. we would need "in reserve".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

I think much of it would depend on what our national security aspirations might be at present. Should we still consider ourselves to be the "Arsenal of Democracy"? Is our continued national goal (as first stated by Wilson in 1917) to "make the world safe for democracy"? Once we set that precedent and solidified it during WW2, we were pretty much committed to the same goal during the Cold War and even since then.

As a nation, it might be time for us to revisit some of these ideals we've embraced for generations and ask ourselves whether or not such goals are viable or even relevant in today's world.

We also need to ask ourselves whether we even have an accurate perception of the world. We talk about rogue nations and axes of evil - as if we view the outside world as some hodgepodge of comic-book supervillains. The government can foster such perceptions thanks to loads of such imagery being found in popular culture coupled with the fact that too many Americans seem to have a rather scant knowledge about the outside world.

We will have to eventually work with Russia, China, and other major powers in the world and revisit the same idea on a global scale. We may have to re-evaluate the original goals and mission of the UN and decide whether that organization should be scrapped and a new one formed among the major regional powers. One possibility is that each regional power would have hegemonic jurisdiction over their own region. So, for example, if North Korea kicks off, then it would be China's job to restrain them or stop them however they can, since China would be the largest regional power. In the case of Iran, that would be Russia's job to restrain them or stop them, since Russia would be the closest major power to Iran. America would only have to deal with things that happen in their own region.

Of course, all the major powers would have to cooperate and support each other's efforts in policing their own region and securing international commerce and communication. That may not be possible, in which case we might be back to square one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

The A-10 is a craft that has been successful in our military for over forty years. To say the craft is beloved by not just pilots, mechanics, and many Americans is an understatement. The craft has gone through many changes and updates to keep it 'on par' with existing technologies and weaponry. A rugged craft that has more than one saved all groups of US Soldiers in near-close fire fights. And the A-10 looks damn cool, but that's just my opinion!

quote:

Now they are going to increase the special operations forces, and probably the Black Ops forces that no one talks about.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

I think much of it would depend on what our national security aspirations might be at present. Should we still consider ourselves to be the "Arsenal of Democracy"? Is our continued national goal (as first stated by Wilson in 1917) to "make the world safe for democracy"? Once we set that precedent and solidified it during WW2, we were pretty much committed to the same goal during the Cold War and even since then.

As a nation, it might be time for us to revisit some of these ideals we've embraced for generations and ask ourselves whether or not such goals are viable or even relevant in today's world.

We also need to ask ourselves whether we even have an accurate perception of the world. We talk about rogue nations and axes of evil - as if we view the outside world as some hodgepodge of comic-book supervillains. The government can foster such perceptions thanks to loads of such imagery being found in popular culture coupled with the fact that too many Americans seem to have a rather scant knowledge about the outside world.

We will have to eventually work with Russia, China, and other major powers in the world and revisit the same idea on a global scale. We may have to re-evaluate the original goals and mission of the UN and decide whether that organization should be scrapped and a new one formed among the major regional powers. One possibility is that each regional power would have hegemonic jurisdiction over their own region. So, for example, if North Korea kicks off, then it would be China's job to restrain them or stop them however they can, since China would be the largest regional power. In the case of Iran, that would be Russia's job to restrain them or stop them, since Russia would be the closest major power to Iran. America would only have to deal with things that happen in their own region.

Of course, all the major powers would have to cooperate and support each other's efforts in policing their own region and securing international commerce and communication. That may not be possible, in which case we might be back to square one.

Zonie, I always like your posts but I need to take some issue with the part in red.

Why should we involve ourselves in things that don't concern us?

If for example, Canadia decides to not sell some of their crude to Russia. What the fuck should we care? Is it our job to look after Russia's interests? I don't think so.

I think we need to go back to “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entanglements with none”.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Okay, Hagel wants to cut the military manpower to the lowest points since 1940, he says we have to big a military to modernize economically.

quote:

Pentagon Set to Slash Military to Pre-World War II Levels

Firing the opening salvo in a bloody budget battle, U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel recommended drastic cuts of billions of dollars that would take American military forces to its lowest level since before World War II.

The cuts in military spending, forces and weapons programs address the stark reality of growing budget pressures at home while pointing to the improbability that the United States will engage in a large ground war.

“As we end our combat mission in Afghanistan, this will be the first budget to fully reflect the transition [the Defense Department] is making after 13 years of war,” Hagel said in the Pentagon briefing room.

The reductions will come at a price, he said.

“As a consequence of large budget cuts, our future force will assume additional risk in certain areas,” Hagel said, citing gaps in training and maintenance and a smaller force that would be stretched thin if major conflicts broke out in several places at once.

Source.

Now they are going to increase the special operations forces, and probably the Black Ops forces that no one talks about.

However, considering that a few generals told Bush we didnt have enough troops to fight two wars, as proven by the multiple re deployments with very short recovery times, and the tendency for presidents (of both parties) tendency to use the military as a large diplomatic baseball bat. Okay, Obama is using drones more than boots on the ground, but still, he has to run out of hell fire missiles at some point, then what, carpet bombing, cruise missile strikes?

Lets face it, cruise missiles are expensive.

Then in Defense cuts proposed by Hagel, he wants to cut out classes of fighters for the air force (wonder if that includes golf courses,) cut the number of ships in the Navy, and who knows what to the marines.

It seems that Hagel has not realized that over the past 50 or so years, we have managed to piss off more people on the planet than we did in all the years before 1964.

Not to mention the "new" Russia is not so new, I mean Putin still tries to beat the US in pissing contests, and of course Obama has told Russia not to put troops in Ukraine or else...

I say we reinstate the draft, open closed defense plants and put Americans back to work, it will help the economy and the Democrat party will go back to its pre Carter stand. I mean for all his "Neutrality" statements, FDR did kinda give the Axis powers no choice by supplying the UK and China with weapons and turning a blind eye to the AVG and authorized the US navy to attack U boats between the east coast and Iceland...

And no, I am not being sarcastic. It is a proven fact that the US economy thrives in an environment of world tension.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FellowSlave

quote:

Now they are going to increase the special operations forces, and probably the Black Ops forces that no one talks about.

It makes actually lot of sense. The war operations in the Middle East and Africa are basically mercenary operations. Soldiers who are part of it should be aware what is going on, properly compensated, and trained in terror tactics. They are fighting mostly for global corporatist agenda, typically the US citizens do not get any direct benefit out of it. The soldiers are fed lies. It is wrong, they figure out fast what is going on and it causes problems like suicides, post dramatic psychosis and so on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Okay, Hagel wants to cut the military manpower to the lowest points since 1940, he says we have to big a military to modernize economically.

quote:

Pentagon Set to Slash Military to Pre-World War II Levels

Firing the opening salvo in a bloody budget battle, U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel recommended drastic cuts of billions of dollars that would take American military forces to its lowest level since before World War II.

The cuts in military spending, forces and weapons programs address the stark reality of growing budget pressures at home while pointing to the improbability that the United States will engage in a large ground war.

“As we end our combat mission in Afghanistan, this will be the first budget to fully reflect the transition [the Defense Department] is making after 13 years of war,” Hagel said in the Pentagon briefing room.

The reductions will come at a price, he said.

“As a consequence of large budget cuts, our future force will assume additional risk in certain areas,” Hagel said, citing gaps in training and maintenance and a smaller force that would be stretched thin if major conflicts broke out in several places at once.

Source.

Now they are going to increase the special operations forces, and probably the Black Ops forces that no one talks about.

However, considering that a few generals told Bush we didnt have enough troops to fight two wars, as proven by the multiple re deployments with very short recovery times, and the tendency for presidents (of both parties) tendency to use the military as a large diplomatic baseball bat. Okay, Obama is using drones more than boots on the ground, but still, he has to run out of hell fire missiles at some point, then what, carpet bombing, cruise missile strikes?

Lets face it, cruise missiles are expensive.

Then in Defense cuts proposed by Hagel, he wants to cut out classes of fighters for the air force (wonder if that includes golf courses,) cut the number of ships in the Navy, and who knows what to the marines.

It seems that Hagel has not realized that over the past 50 or so years, we have managed to piss off more people on the planet than we did in all the years before 1964.

Not to mention the "new" Russia is not so new, I mean Putin still tries to beat the US in pissing contests, and of course Obama has told Russia not to put troops in Ukraine or else...

I say we reinstate the draft, open closed defense plants and put Americans back to work, it will help the economy and the Democrat party will go back to its pre Carter stand. I mean for all his "Neutrality" statements, FDR did kinda give the Axis powers no choice by supplying the UK and China with weapons and turning a blind eye to the AVG and authorized the US navy to attack U boats between the east coast and Iceland...

And no, I am not being sarcastic. It is a proven fact that the US economy thrives in an environment of world tension.