At a time when we may never have faced more danger and conflicts.

Quote:The U.S. Air Force has a quarter of the number of fighter squadrons it did 25 years ago and two-thirds of the active duty airmen, a drop that threatens U.S. air superiority, defense officials told lawmakers on Friday.

‘Enough is enough,’ Air Force Secretary Deborah James told lawmakers in the House of Representatives as she defended a Pentagon budget request that exceeds federal spending caps. ‘Given the state of the world … the number one thing we have to stop is this downsizing.’

But members of the defense appropriations subcommittee said President Barack Obama’s 2016 Pentagon base budget of $534 billion exceeded spending caps by nearly $35 billion and would have to be cut.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...efore.html

And by weak they mean still strong.

As long as the USAF keeps procuring garbage like the F-35 nothing will change.

Our military spending needs to be cut even more and everybody reorganized. Why do we need an Army Reserves and a National Guard? The answer is we don't. All we need is the National Guard. Same can be said for the Marines in general. Just transition Marines into a special operations unit similar to Rangers.

Without strong conventional forces, the US and western nations could be forced to use nuclear weapons. I don't think any of the current nuclear powers, including Russia would use nukes unless their back is against the wall. Best way to get backed into a position where nukes are the only option downsize and degrade the military. The world population is growing you can't fight a conventional war against a large conventional military if you don't have that yourself.

We grow weaker and China grows stronger.

It will be a grim situation when the U.S. is no longer the dominant power in the world.

(03-01-2015 10:05 AM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Without strong conventional forces, the US and western nations could be forced to use nuclear weapons. I don't think any of the current nuclear powers, including Russia would use nukes unless their back is against the wall. Best way to get backed into a position where nukes are the only option downsize and degrade the military. The world population is growing you can't fight a conventional war against a large conventional military if you don't have that yourself.

Oh good lord this is wrong in so many ways.

Large conventional armies aren't needed for war anymore, they are still needed for occupation, but to act like we need to have millions in our standing army to defend our nation sort of ignores the reality of our technology and modern warfare. You're just buying the propaganda.

(03-01-2015 11:05 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 10:05 AM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Without strong conventional forces, the US and western nations could be forced to use nuclear weapons. I don't think any of the current nuclear powers, including Russia would use nukes unless their back is against the wall. Best way to get backed into a position where nukes are the only option downsize and degrade the military. The world population is growing you can't fight a conventional war against a large conventional military if you don't have that yourself.

Oh good lord this is wrong in so many ways.
Large conventional armies aren't needed for war anymore, they are still needed for occupation, but to act like we need to have millions in our standing army to defend our nation sort of ignores the reality of our technology and modern warfare. You're just buying the propaganda.

Exactly how and where did you develop your expertise in military strategy and tactics?

I believe Herd said "strong conventional forces," not "millions in our standing army."

(03-01-2015 03:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 11:05 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 10:05 AM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Without strong conventional forces, the US and western nations could be forced to use nuclear weapons. I don't think any of the current nuclear powers, including Russia would use nukes unless their back is against the wall. Best way to get backed into a position where nukes are the only option downsize and degrade the military. The world population is growing you can't fight a conventional war against a large conventional military if you don't have that yourself.

Oh good lord this is wrong in so many ways.
Large conventional armies aren't needed for war anymore, they are still needed for occupation, but to act like we need to have millions in our standing army to defend our nation sort of ignores the reality of our technology and modern warfare. You're just buying the propaganda.

Exactly how and where did you develop your expertise in military strategy and tactics?

I believe Herd said "strong conventional forces," not "millions in our standing army."

He read an article in "Mother Jones."

It's still more than we need.

We need a smaller more efficient military. What we have is too large and costs too much. It's also too complicated.

We'd be better of with a smaller, meaner, more focused set up.

Isn't the defense budget way more than it was 10 years ago?

(03-01-2015 12:26 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

At a time when we may never have faced more danger and conflicts.

Quote:The U.S. Air Force has a quarter of the number of fighter squadrons it did 25 years ago and two-thirds of the active duty airmen, a drop that threatens U.S. air superiority, defense officials told lawmakers on Friday.

‘Enough is enough,’ Air Force Secretary Deborah James told lawmakers in the House of Representatives as she defended a Pentagon budget request that exceeds federal spending caps. ‘Given the state of the world … the number one thing we have to stop is this downsizing.’

But members of the defense appropriations subcommittee said President Barack Obama’s 2016 Pentagon base budget of $534 billion exceeded spending caps by nearly $35 billion and would have to be cut.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...efore.html

Of course they say that, they want more budget

You cannot turn on a dime. It takes time to do R&D and even to build existing hardware designs.

Time just may not be on our side at this point.

I agree wholeheartedly.


Steve in Texas, Roscoe, United States, about 4 hours ago

The single biggest problem with it is that Politicians are involved in the military. We have exceptional military leadership and all of the hardware and talent to see any job through, but every time they are called upon to do a job, there are severe restrictions, effectively tying their hands behind their back. If Barry (or someone with a pair) would just pick up the phone, call DOD and say "We have a real problem going on with these ISIS clowns ... go take care of it." ... and just stay the hell out of the way ... the problem would be completely under control in under 30 days .....

(03-01-2015 05:00 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It's still more than we need.
We need a smaller more efficient military. What we have is too large and costs too much. It's also too complicated.
We'd be better of with a smaller, meaner, more focused set up.

Whether it is in fact more than we need is not clear. In many areas we cannot currently meet ongoing peacetime demands, much less war demands. That prompts the obvious question as to whether we actually need all those peacetime demands.

And that gets to the larger question. Whether too large or not, it clearly isn't the right military. It is being driven more by procurement contracts than by strategic needs. The navy is currently decommissioning perfectly good destroyers with useful life remaining in order to accommodate LCSs, which are essentially worthless. It is decommissioning perfectly good amphibs with useful life remaining in order to accommodate the San Antonio class, which is severely flawed, at best. It is considering decommissioning a perfectly good carrier with useful service life remaining, rather than refuel it, in order to accommodate the Ford class, which costs twice as much and has major reliability issues (last I saw, the catapults that launch the aircraft are up to 90% reliable, let that sink in). The F35 that was supposed to cost $90 million is now looking like $190-200 million a pop, and the super duty helmet (google glasses?) that lets the pilot "see" in the directions where aircraft structure blocks his vision doesn't work. All of these suffer from one common flaw--nobody determined what missions they need to cover before going forward with them.

I have some ideas that I think would knock $100-150 billion off the defense budget without sacrificing operational capability. To give you an idea how much fat is there, McKinsey did a study of defense expenditures for the OECD countries, broken down into combat, combat support, and overhead. The OECD countries as a group spend 63% of their defense budgets on overhead. That's bad enough, but for the US the overhead number is 77%. Let that sink in. If we were only as efficient as the rest of OECD, we would get rid of close to $150 billion per year.

And that's without sacrificing any strength. The only loser would be real estate prices in northern Virginia.

(03-01-2015 12:26 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

At a time when we may never have faced more danger and conflicts.

Quote:The U.S. Air Force has a quarter of the number of fighter squadrons it did 25 years ago and two-thirds of the active duty airmen, a drop that threatens U.S. air superiority, defense officials told lawmakers on Friday.

‘Enough is enough,’ Air Force Secretary Deborah James told lawmakers in the House of Representatives as she defended a Pentagon budget request that exceeds federal spending caps. ‘Given the state of the world … the number one thing we have to stop is this downsizing.’

But members of the defense appropriations subcommittee said President Barack Obama’s 2016 Pentagon base budget of $534 billion exceeded spending caps by nearly $35 billion and would have to be cut.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...efore.html

The Air Force, specifically the fighter mafia, put the flying branch in this position. Don't weep for their reduced capability.

Cut the Pentagon staff in half. Cut the number and cost of civilian contractors in half. Those would be good places to start.

My old boss from my middle two years on active duty got orders to the Pentagon. A couple of years later, I had gotten off active duty and had my reserve two weeks in DC. George and I went to lunch one day. He told me that he had put his retirement papers in. He was due to complete his 20 years in about a month and as he put it, "I don't believe in working for half pay." In anticipation he had started teaching two courses at George Washington (the Navy had sent him to Ohio State to get a PhD in Human Resource Management), so he was at GWU instead of coming in to the Pentagon on Tue and Thu. His wife had started an import/export business, and he was taking Wed and Fri afternoons off to help her with that. When he went in to tell his boss that he had put in his retirement papers, his boss's reaction was, "Oh, no, George, I've got to talk you out of that. I can't afford to lose you. You're indispensable around here."

His comment to me, "If I'm working two days a week and I'm indispensable, what does that tell you about how hard everybody else around here is working?"

(03-01-2015 03:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 11:05 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 10:05 AM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Without strong conventional forces, the US and western nations could be forced to use nuclear weapons. I don't think any of the current nuclear powers, including Russia would use nukes unless their back is against the wall. Best way to get backed into a position where nukes are the only option downsize and degrade the military. The world population is growing you can't fight a conventional war against a large conventional military if you don't have that yourself.

Oh good lord this is wrong in so many ways.
Large conventional armies aren't needed for war anymore, they are still needed for occupation, but to act like we need to have millions in our standing army to defend our nation sort of ignores the reality of our technology and modern warfare. You're just buying the propaganda.

Exactly how and where did you develop your expertise in military strategy and tactics?

I believe Herd said "strong conventional forces," not "millions in our standing army."

LoL SPOT ON.

UCF08 is such an expert on every topic. It must be a burden to have all the answers.

If you want to cut and add immediately to the bottom line, then get rid of the IRS! Go to a flat tax!

(03-01-2015 11:05 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 10:05 AM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Without strong conventional forces, the US and western nations could be forced to use nuclear weapons. I don't think any of the current nuclear powers, including Russia would use nukes unless their back is against the wall. Best way to get backed into a position where nukes are the only option downsize and degrade the military. The world population is growing you can't fight a conventional war against a large conventional military if you don't have that yourself.

Oh good lord this is wrong in so many ways.

Large conventional armies aren't needed for war anymore, they are still needed for occupation, but to act like we need to have millions in our standing army to defend our nation sort of ignores the reality of our technology and modern warfare. You're just buying the propaganda.

More rubbish. Good gracious man, what the heck is wrong with you?