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

[Kutnupe14]

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

Kut (cues Ike)

 

[hornadylnl]

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

Kut (cues Ike)

Let's just give them government works jobs.

 

[whipfinish]

Help me understand something about our military levels...if we have too many troops, tell me why we have fathers of young children, husbands and heads of families pulling tour after tour in combat areas only to come home with PTSD where they are left to deal with the politics of getting care from politicians who disdain their service and label them potential terrorists?

 

[hornadylnl]

Help me understand something about our military levels...if we have too many troops, tell me why we have fathers of young children, husbands and heads of families pulling tour after tour in combat areas only to come home with PTSD where they are left to deal with the politics of getting care from politicians who disdain their service and label them potential terrorists?

Because a large percentage of those in uniform are REMFs.

 

[Kagnew]

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.

Spoken like a regular Sun Tzu.

 

[zippy23]

Good thing the middle east is quieting down, and there are no real dangers anywhere in the world anymore, lets reduce our troops, and cut their benefits and increase the benefits to non workers. The liberal politics of this country are absolutely disgusting.

 

[Kagnew]

Because a large percentage of those in uniform are REMFs.

Quite right. Replace all the CS and CSS REMFs with civilian contractors who can change their minds about wanting to be in the AO and cut and run whenever they feel like it. Brilliant!

 

[Kagnew]

Good thing the middle east is quieting down, and there are no real dangers anywhere in the world anymore, lets reduce our troops, and cut their benefits and increase the benefits to non workers. The liberal politics of this country are absolutely disgusting.

How dare you question Dear Leader?

 

[rambone]

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.....

So the 1939-40 troop buildup does not count as during WW2? When recruitment was working feverishly and FDR had already begun the draft. These levels are where the "norm" has been ever since.

 

[AtTheMurph]

Why is it that we need multi billion dollar ships, 10s of million dollar aircraft and a million soldiers standing at the ready?

Who is this vague boogeyman we are supposed to be ready to fight all the time? And why would they want to go to war with us again?

Stop the standing army and go to a Swiss type system that has kept them free, neutral and mostly happy for almost 800 years. In fact Switzerland was one of the templates our Founders used when designing our governmental system. Decentralized government, a militia, and a neutral stance towards the BS in the rest of the world.

Sounds like just the ticket for a long and happy existence.

 

[mrjarrell]

I think we can afford the cuts.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

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.

In case you didn't notice it, we got our asses handed to us throughout all of 1942 both in the Pacific AND in North Africa because our troops were understrength and underequipped. And THAT was when it was two weeks from Asia to the West Coast by troop ship instead of 14 hours by air. And, after the big troop cutbacks post-WWII, we got our asses handed to us in Korea because, again, we were understrength and out of position.

The big problem of which our military planners and strategists are always accused is planning for/fighting the "last war". This idiotic downsizing of our military strength is inviting the same military disasters we faced initially in WWII and Korea, against potential enemies who are currently building and modernizing their military forces (and who already far outnumber us in numbers of personnel under arms) and who are only hours away from our interests instead of days or weeks. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

 

[9mmfan]

The problem isn't 'man power', it's gadgets. Billion dollar aircraft carriers, multi million dollar bombers and fighter jets, military satellites and the like. Gadgets are fine, but it takes 'boots on the ground' to win a non nuclear war. Period. As Blackhawk2001 stated, our country always cuts the military after conflicts and then we play catch up the next time we get involved somewhere.

 

[firehawk1]

In case you didn't notice it, we got our asses handed to us throughout all of 1942 both in the Pacific AND in North Africa because our troops were understrength and underequipped. And THAT was when it was two weeks from Asia to the West Coast by troop ship instead of 14 hours by air. And, after the big troop cutbacks post-WWII, we got our asses handed to us in Korea because, again, we were understrength and out of position.

The big problem of which our military planners and strategists are always accused is planning for/fighting the "last war". This idiotic downsizing of our military strength is inviting the same military disasters we faced initially in WWII and Korea, against potential enemies who are currently building and modernizing their military forces (and who already far outnumber us in numbers of personnel under arms) and who are only hours away from our interests instead of days or weeks. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

Those that refuse learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I was wondering how many posts it would take before someone pointed these inconvenient facts out.

 

[cobber]

I think we can afford the cuts.

What percentage of the US defense budget is dedicated to protecting our 'allies'? Their costs are artificially low because our spending is so high. Not that they need 'protection' any more.

 

[Birds Away]

In case you didn't notice it, we got our asses handed to us throughout all of 1942 both in the Pacific AND in North Africa because our troops were understrength and underequipped. And THAT was when it was two weeks from Asia to the West Coast by troop ship instead of 14 hours by air. And, after the big troop cutbacks post-WWII, we got our asses handed to us in Korea because, again, we were understrength and out of position.

The big problem of which our military planners and strategists are always accused is planning for/fighting the "last war". This idiotic downsizing of our military strength is inviting the same military disasters we faced initially in WWII and Korea, against potential enemies who are currently building and modernizing their military forces (and who already far outnumber us in numbers of personnel under arms) and who are only hours away from our interests instead of days or weeks. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

Add to that the fact that the military is much more technology based and providing adequate training for soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen to utilize this technology effectively takes a lot more time and infrastructure then it did in 1940. You can't just flip a switch and turn a million men into boots on the ground in a year like you could then.

 

[firehawk1]

Add to that the fact that the military is much more technology based and providing adequate training for soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen to utilize this technology effectively takes a lot more time and infrastructure then it did in 1940. You can't just flip a switch and turn a million men into boots on the ground in a year like you could then.

Add to that the time required for ramping up production of front line equipment.

 

[Birds Away]

Add to that the time required for ramping up production of front line equipment.

Absolutely, any war involving the Navy will be strictly a "come as you are" scenario. The lead time to build a modern warship, even a destroyer, is far too long to expect to be able to replace any losses. So if the ship isn't currently in the production process it will not happen.

 

[mrjarrell]

What percentage of the US defense budget is dedicated to protecting our 'allies'? Their costs are artificially low because our spending is so high. Not that they need 'protection' any more.

I don't know, but that can certainly be cut, too. The US armed forces is overdue for cutting, no matter what some might say. We have no need for over 1 million people under arms. We're not fighting a world war or anything like it. It's just another drain on a precious resource that needs to be returned to the people it was stolen from.

 

[mrjarrell]

Absolutely, any war involving the Navy will be strictly a "come as you are" scenario. The lead time to build a modern warship, even a destroyer, is far too long to expect to be able to replace any losses. So if the ship isn't currently in the production process it will not happen.

We have plenty of ships already in the water and more are already budgeted for and being built. The Navy is covered for quite a while. No-one else on the planet even comes close to matching what we have. We can afford some cuts in the Navy, too.

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/nav_legacy.asp?id=146