Military buget cut proposals would take US to 1940 troop levels.

[funeralweb]

Smaller Army: Hagel proposes cuts in 2015 budget

Makes perfect sense.

 

[Fletch]

 

[Kart29]

From the article:

"The Army is not standing still. The Army is doing many, many, many things in order for us to shape the future environment and prevent conflict around the world."


Yeah? Like what? Afraid to mention it because nobody would really want our army doing the many, many, many things they are doing?

Perhaps our army should be used for defense of OUR nation and stop using my money and committing the lives of our childrent to shape someone else's future and end someone else's conflict.

In case you didn't notice, we did sort of okay in WWII even though we didn't have a huge standing army already meddling in things that are none of our business.

 

[rambone]

Its kind of mind-blowing that current troop levels are anywhere near what they were during World War 2. And have stayed that way for 70 years. Amazing. And this has been the conservative, "small government" position.

 

[OneShotFOGE]

It saddens me to see the A-10 retired. What an amazing aircraft. Here is a plane that was built around a gun. They have a gigantic minigun, and built a plane specifically to use this gun. A gun so powerful, it slows the plane down, when firing.

 

[DeadeyeChrista'sdad]

A retired general was telling me that you just don't need the numbers of men that used to be needed. Don't get me wrong, boots on the ground still needed, just not as many thanks to the technology available now.

 

[Manatee]

Do we need to invade anyone else.

I give a +1 on the A-10. The pentagon isn't worth crap if they decomission this aircraft.

 

[rockhopper46038]

Let's take government spending in total back to those levels - or lower.

 

[indykid]

In reference to the A-10, there is nothing smarter than taking what is probably the best airborne ground support platform ever devised and replace it with an unknown, untried, and not as well armed replacement.

And if someone doesn't see the purple in my statement, sorry.


Letter going out to my reps now.

 

[cerebus85]

The era of 1940's preparation causedmore harm than good and resulted in many military failures in the beginning when we needed it. we were severly underequipped.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I'm no expert on military manpower, but it seems like the push for at least a decade has been more contractors, less soldiers. Contractors are cheaper in the short term. You don't owe us a pension, you don't owe us medical care in perpetuity, you don't have to pay to train us, etc. Sure, we got a higher salary for the years we work, but that's chump change compared to the ongoing costs of recruiting, training, retaining, and after service care of real soldiers. The problem that I would foresee is a smaller military also equates to a smaller pool of folks who can go back as contractors. It increases the amount of deployments for real soldiers, which hurts retention, which causes a nasty spiral. When you need a whole bunch of recruits RIGHT THE EFF NOW, you invariably drop your standards in terms of mental, moral, and physical standards. That doesn't help the military long term.

You have to wonder if we aren't thinking too short term on these issues.

 

[mrjarrell]

Cutting the army down to about 440K is hardly taking an Exacto knife to them. And they're planning on leaving the other branches pretty much alone. We could do with some serious cuts in the military and some downsizing, too. It's way past the time we stopped supporting a Cold War military and got back to a peacetime level military.

U.S. Army Shrinking To Pre-World War II Size, But We Could Do Even More | The Libertarian Republic

 

[Kutnupe14]

he's our military numbers, by year.

Active Duty Military Personnel, 1940?2011 | Infoplease.com

Kut (hates creative reporting)

 

[mrjarrell]

he's our military numbers, by year.

Active Duty Military Personnel, 1940?2011 | Infoplease.com

Kut (hates creative reporting)

Do we really need 1.4+ million men under arms? I don't think so. We could easily cut that in half and still have one the most effective militaries in the world.

 

[SSGSAD]

Its kind of mind-blowing that current troop levels are anywhere near what they were during World War 2. And have stayed that way for 70 years. Amazing. And this has been the conservative, "small government" position.

Depends, on what you call "During" WW 2.....
IIRC There were some 12 MILLION MEN and WOMEN, in UNIFORM, "during" WW2..... NOT counting the numbers, of women, who went to work, here at HOME, during the War.....

 

[Kagnew]

It saddens me to see the A-10 retired. What an amazing aircraft. Here is a plane that was built around a gun. They have a gigantic minigun, and built a plane specifically to use this gun. A gun so powerful, it slows the plane down, when firing.

Kill the Warthog. Reduce troop levels. Save money. But we'll still have plenty of money for Obamacare. We LUUUUUUUUV Obama!!! (Romney wasn't gonna do nuthin' for us. Romney sucks!)

 

[SSGSAD]

And my QUESTION is WHERE are all these UNEMPLOYED, Men, and Women, going to go to WORK ?????

 

[Kagnew]

Depends, on what you call "During" WW 2.....
IIRC There were some 12 MILLION MEN and WOMEN, in UNIFORM, "during" WW2..... NOT counting the numbers, of women, who went to work, here at HOME, during the War.....

When was the last time "rambone" gave any indication of knowing WTF he was talking about?

 

[Kagnew]

And my QUESTION is WHERE are all these UNEMPLOYED, Men, and Women, going to go to WORK ?????

A large percentage of them won't have to worry about work. They can get Obama money.

 

[MCgrease08]

I have no issues with slashing both military spending and troop levels. Is there any rational reason why we need 50k troops perpetually stationed in places like Germany, Japan, Italy, etc.