(11-15-2014 09:26 AM)vandiver49 Wrote: (11-03-2014 01:25 PM)mlb Wrote: (11-03-2014 01:19 PM)JMUDunk Wrote: Okay, so lets cut all those by a whopping 25%. Of course that would cripple our defenses, training, ability to deploy, keep and recruit troops, putting tens of thousands out of work at the same time, but ok.
Those are done, real "cuts", right off the top, 25%.
You're about 35-40% there. Now, what next?
1st of all, the US spends what on defense? The same amount as the next 10 countries in line? It would cripple us to cut programs like the tank plant that is producing tanks that go straight to the graveyard. Same goes with the humvee's that we build then give to other countries. How about those planes we bought for Afghanistan that was sold for scrap? Don't act like there isn't a ton of waste in the DOD that can't be cut without significant layoffs of the military.
I'm not a budget officer for the gov't, I don't know where all the waste is. I do know, however, that every department has a lot of waste that can be cleaned up.
Of course, I'd also switch to a national sales tax and eliminate most of the IRS thanks to that.
You could slash the military's budget in half and you would still end up with a world class fight force. Such a cut would force the military to truly evaluate the core missions of each service branch and whether or not they remain viable in the 21st century (i.e. opposed amphibious landings). But I'm only willing to slash the military's cut only if their is an equal one from all of the social obligations to gov't undertakes.
Perhaps the best indication of just how much waste there is in our military spending cones from a study by McKinsey, Google it at McKinsey on Government, Special Issue: Defense, March 2010.
Looking at the developed countries McKinsey found that total defense spending averaged 26% combat, 11% combat support, 63% other (essentially, overhead). That's bad enough, but for the US the numbers were 14% combat, 9% combat support, 77% other/overhead. And we were engaged in two actual combat operations at the time. This suggests we could cut something on the order of 25%, or about $150 billion, without touching combat or combat support. Where would I look for cuts:
1. Adopt the Sweden/Switzerland/Israel model with a larger portion of the force in a reserve status. The key to a strong military at an affordable price is to keep a large part of it in a reduced state of readiness, unless and until needed. It costs something on the order of $80,000-100,000 a year for the average person on active duty, more like $20,000 for the average reservist. We could cut 400,000 active duty troops, replace them with 800,000 reservists, increase potential end strength by 400,000, and save $20 billion in the process.
2. Bring the troops home. Let Europe pay for defending Europe, let Japan pay for defending Japan. Leave cadres there to provide maintenance and security for prepositioned equipment, mobilize reservists and fly them in if the balloon goes up. Right now, we have people there who would almost immediately need massive logistics support if anything happened. As long as it's a lot easier to put a soldier on a 777 than it is to put a tank, that strikes me as backwards. Because our overseas troops are in most cases highly subsidized by the host countries, this won't save a lot, but still worth doing.
3. Reform procurement. Instead of everything needing to be cutting edge state of the art (F-35, LCS, D-1000 Zumwalt class, Osprey, Ford class), have a few of those and round out the numbers with more proved and affordable platforms. Instead of 80% new/20% proved technology, go for 80% proved/20% new technology. You don't need Aegis destroyers doing pirate patrolman the IO. On the flip side, if the Russians really do have the capability to knock out the Aegis electronics, as the recent event involving a Russian jamming plane suggests, then it could be very useful to have ships with different systems around. Consider the Brit 22/42 combination during the Falklands.
4. Come up with a realistic threat assessment, develop a strategy to meet those threats, tailor the force to implement that strategy, and update continuously. Get rid of duplication and things you don't need. Get rid of top-heavy rank structures--the navy does not need more admirals than ships. Given the levels of terrorists and other asymmetric threats, I have thought of retaking the Marine Corps to become the anti-terror/asymmetric specialty commando force, and focus the other branches on conventional warfare. Keep in mind another lesson of the Falklands--the war you'll have to fight is the one you don't prepare for, and you'll have to fight it with what you have when it starts.
5. Never fight a war you don't intend to win. Either go in with overwhelming force and permissive rules of engagement, or don't go in.
/
if the republicans lose NC, we have the gutless libertarians to thank
![[Image: sean-haugh.jpg]](http://www.kinston.com/polopoly_fs/1.342953.1404774596!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_445/sean-haugh.jpg)
![[Image: 220px-Lindsey_Graham_official_photo.jpg]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/69/Lindsey_Graham_official_photo.jpg/220px-Lindsey_Graham_official_photo.jpg)
