Why We Must Reduce Military Spending

[beararms1776]

We need to bring all military personell home to help us fight the war Shabazz is trying to start now.

 

[Andyland]

We should not cut the military budget, We should recall all personnel from foreign soil, Have only the Carrier Task Groups in foreign deployment. This will save Soooooooo much money, we'll finally have money to buy the Updated and most advanced equipment we should have.

Um.. I have a thought. Cut the entire ground force military, and all but 4 of the 12 aircraft carrier task force groups. Mandatory basic training at age 16.
Go back to a voluntary militia, state by state, require all adults between the ages of 16 and 60 to have a full kit. Go back to the original Indiana constitution of 1816, but allow everyone to join (see article 7). Oh and the 1934 NFA will have to go, as it is obviously unconstitutional. Start hanging violent criminals after they have been convicted. We had a lot fewer problems before 1906 when we got progressive.

 

[irishfan]

Go back to a voluntary militia, state by state, require all adults between the ages of 16 and 60 to have a full kit. Go back to the original Indiana constitution of 1816, but allow everyone to join (see article 7). Oh and the 1934 NFA will have to go, as it is obviously unconstitutional. Start hanging violent criminals after they have been convicted. We had a lot fewer problems before 1906 when we got progressive.

That would be to much to hope for.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I completely disagree with mandatory training. No way no how. That is not freedom, that is serfdom.

The best thing we ever did was go to an all volunteer military.

I don't argue that we could spend less on development, mostly by reducing the ridiculous amount of hoops a contractor has to jump through and all the cost associated with it.

I just don't want to get where we were at the beginning of both world wars where we're about 20 years behind in technology, and shed a LOT of blood before we figure out how to catch up.

What's worth more to you? Blood or dollars? That's really what it comes down to.

 

[$mooth]

Yes, please find a more credible source than some website no one's ever heard of. Thanks.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s1263.pdf

Here you go. Obviously the link downzero provided didn't account for Iraq and Afghanistan. It comes out to around 6%, which I think is way too high for prosperous nation.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I don't believe we can reasonably disband our current "Standing Army" (meaning the entire military establishment), given our current world situation. But, as Robert A. Heinlein said in "Glory Road" (1964) "When you've spent years and years knocking the patriotism out of a boy, don't expect him to stand up and cheer when he gets a telegram starting out 'Greetings'".

I don't agree with 'Barearms1776' contention that we need our Army to defend against an internal threat; that's why most of us keep and bear arms to begin with, and it's certainly one of the original reasons for the National Guard.

As far as Andyland's contention that we should enrol all able-bodied men into local militias and do away with our Standing Army - well, see above. And I will expand that; if the world situation deteriorates to the point that we are vulernable to invasion from any quarter, we WILL NOT HAVE TIME to ramp up as we did prior to entering WWI or WWII. It only takes 9 hours to fly from Asia to most of the West Coast, and about the same time to fly from Europe to the East Coast. It only took a C-17 12 hours to fly directly from Kuwait to San Antonio, Tx in 2006. We need a well-trained, sizeable military force to be available to protect us from proven enemies who have larger military forces and, soon, comparable equipment. Until the world around us is comprised of nations who "ain't a-gonna study war no more", we can't rely upon the traditional distance barrier that has kept us largely immune from invasion throughout our history. And, as ever, it's vastly preferable to fight on the other guy's turf rather than on your own.

Should we encourage our youth to love their country and volunteer to help defend it, in whatever manner? You bet. Should we downsize our military capabilities in favor of social priorities when there are well-funded nations and groups who actively wish us evil and harm? No I don't think so.

Is there wastage in our military procurement system? Oh you bet. But it mostly comes from regulations promulgated by our elected members of Congress, who have made the government procurement system overly complicated, easily manipulable for political/financial gain, and often non-responsive to the stated needs and desires of the end users.

 

[SavageEagle]

I am officially rethinking my support of Ron Paul. If this email is talking about this same bill, Ron Paul has some serious issues.

Anyone who knows Col. Chet Nagle knows he's not a man to be messed with or disrespected. And considering he's in the know, this bill is BAD news. I support withdrawing from many of our overseas endeavors, but this right here is ****ing ridiculous. This is suppose to keep us safe?

THIS IS A VERY INTERESTING ARTICLE
Although Scary!

The following is an opinion piece written by Chet Nagle, graduate of the US Naval Academy and author of Iran Covenant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chet_Nagle

The Obama administration intends to slash the defense budget in order to pay for its riotous spending on bailouts, "stimulus bills," their signature healthcare program, and massive pork bribes for votes from congressmen who hopefully will not survive this November's balloting.

To continue the spending spree, the White House plans to eliminate over a trillion defense dollars in the next ten years. Details of those proposed cuts were laid out by Rep. Barney Frank's (D-MA) Sustainable Defense Task Force in a 56 page report titled:
Debt, Deficits, and Defense - A Way Forward. None of the service arms are spared.

The Navy will be reduced to eight aircraft carriers (from twelve planned) and seven air wings. Eight ballistic missile submarines will be cut from the planned force of 14, leaving just six. Building of nuclear attack submarines will be cut in half, leaving a force of 40 by 2020. The four active guided missile submarines would be cut, too. Destroyer building would be frozen and the new DDG-1000 destroyer program cancelled. Among other huge cuts, the fleet is to be reduced to 230 combat ships, eliminating 57 vessels from a current force level of 287.

The Air Force must retire six fighter air wings equivalents, and at the same time build 301 fewer F-35 fighters. The nuclear bomber force will be completely eliminated in the name of unilateral disarmament-the B-1 and B-2 and B-52 and other bombers will still be able to drop bombs, but their nuclear weapon wiring and controls will simply be removed.

Procurement of the new refueling tanker and the C-17 cargo aircraft will be cancelled. Directed energy beam research and other advanced missile and space warfare defense projects will also be eliminated or curtailed.

Active duty Army personnel will be slashed from 562,400 to 360,000. That includes elimination of about five active-component brigade combat teams (the report is not exact). The Army will also suffer a myriad of other cuts, including closure of overseas bases.

The Marine Corps would be cut by 30%, from 202,000 to 145,000, and the other funding cuts planned for the Corps mean the United States will not be able to mount a major amphibious landing on any hostile shore.

Marine Corps programs to be killed include the V-22 Osprey tilt rotor aircraft and the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.

The hot button item of reducing pay, pension, healthcare and other benefits for our soldiers, their wives, their families and their widows is stated as: "Resetting the calculation of military compensation and reforming the provision of military health care..."

Whatever those mysterious words will ultimately come to mean, the task force report shows a planned reduction of pay and benefits for the troops and their families to the tune of $120 billion.

Many other proposed cuts are not addressed in coherent detail, including how the reduction of our deployed nuclear warheads to 500 would be accomplished (a much greater reduction than contemplated by the pending START treaty with Russia).

Today's deterrent force of 500 Minuteman III missiles, for example, would be reduced to just 160 missiles or less, which then leaves a balance of 340 warheads for ballistic submarines and tactical delivery systems everywhere in the world!

Other key parts of American strategic defenses are slashed as well, including modernization, research, and maintaining safety and reliability of existing weapons.

These sweeping reductions in our defenses are bad enough, but the most disturbing part of the report from Rep. Frank's task force of think-tank pundits is the lack of a rationale for such drastic cuts.

Instead of serious proposals for a national security strategy, the task force recommends something they call a "policy of restraint."
The soaring rhetoric of the report is not specific, but it seems to suggest the United States should withdraw from the world and hole up in a little "Fort America."

President Obama is emulating President Jefferson.
Strapped for money, Jefferson cut the navy by two-thirds and built small gunboats instead, saying they "are the only water defense which can be useful to us, and protect us from the ruinous folly of a navy."
What were the results of Jefferson's version of a low cost 'policy of restraint? Britain's navy brushed the gunboats aside and burned the White House in 1814.

Maybe we should give some thought to doing the same in 2011?

 

[gunowner930]

I am officially rethinking my support of Ron Paul. If this email is talking about this same bill, Ron Paul has some serious issues.

Anyone who knows Col. Chet Nagle knows he's not a man to be messed with or disrespected. And considering he's in the know, this bill is BAD news. I support withdrawing from many of our overseas endeavors, but this right here is ****ing ridiculous. This is suppose to keep us safe?

I don't know who Col. Nagle is but I'll take your word on his character. What is mentioned in this article is downright scary. The reduction in benefits will be a great recruiting tool (sarcasm.) The F-35 program scares me more than anything. We are all in with this aircraft hoping it can replace everything in our inventory, yet we hear about reduction in numbers, delays, and rising costs. Is it realistic to expect one aircraft to perform the diverse roles of the F-15, F-16, F-18, and A-10? Do you know where I can find Ron Paul's endorsement of this bill?

repped

 

[SavageEagle]

I don't know who Col. Nagle is but I'll take your word on his character. What is mentioned in this article is downright scary. The reduction in benefits will be a great recruiting tool (sarcasm.) The F-35 program scares me more than anything. We are all in with this aircraft hoping it can replace everything in our inventory, yet we hear about reduction in numbers, delays, and rising costs. Is it realistic to expect one aircraft to perform the diverse roles of the F-15, F-16, F-18, and A-10? Do you know where I can find Ron Paul's endorsement of this bill?

repped

No better place to hear it from than straight from the horses mouth itself.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zLK-NfuQz4]YouTube - (1/2) Ron Paul and Barney Frank: Cut Military Spending[/ame]

 

[Andyland]

I said mandatory military training, not service or deployment. We waste enough money on government regulation now. It used to be that when the military didn't need m2 machine guns anymore, they had to be de-milled, meaning cut up. Back at desert storm one, there was a class 3 dealer south of fort wayne, he got a contract to supply 110 m2's for the army. Going rate was $5k for one transferable at the time. Govt rate paid was $10K for one. If the silly bastards in the government/military didn't cut them up in the first place, we would still be using new/old stock made in WW2. State department wont let me buy a WW2 half track, surplussed to Argentina, surplussed by Argentina, and up for sale, because they don't want a heavy truck that was made at the IH plant in fort Wayne to come back into the country into civilian hands.
That means you.
As long as the military and government are kept separate from the civilians, they will maintain a sense of superiority that they have taught themselves.
I have a national guard coworker who has made comments about how he might have to shoot me some day, because I made comments in support of Arizona and it's citizens. I am honestly terrified that enough of the armed forces are willing too take whatever orders, from these idiots in the government.
We were originally meant to defend ourselves.
After every conflict, the congress and the professional military have changed the rules on the militia, to give themselves more control, until the militias were eliminated in 1903 or '06.
You have to train an honest man to follow a bad order.
That requires a standing army. We are setting ourselves up for a "Stalin", and the numbers killed this time will make the last one look like nothing because of the number of available victims.
Who said "I know no truth, but the history of my experience"?
We are at the threshold of slavery now.
Your currency will collapse, because the FED is creating money out of thin air.
All of our stuff is made in mexico or china, and paid for with imaginary money.
It will only take one country to stop taking imaginary money and this whole house of cards will collapse. And I am surrounded by 300 million Americans with no more understanding of citizenship, than the animals that burned down parts of Los Angeles in the '90s.
We are in DEEP folks, and the last thing the talking heads want to do is tell us that. Want to disagree, fine. But get your sh*t together first. Please! Because we will have all the time in the world to disagree after this has all hit the fan. We will either be holding a clump of woods, or sharing a bunk in a fema camp.
I call top bunk.