https://twitter.com/Chris_1791/status/12...1678731265

MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

What a fvcking idiot

Maybe the first thing I can remember that I agree with him on. Im sure if forced to do so the Pentagon can find 10% in just waste to slash without sacrificing one iota of military readiness. Im also fine with doing this across the board in ALL government agencies but Id bet Bernie would balk at that idea.

We can't even get our pilots sufficient flight time thanks to Obama era cuts. I guess if you want to get the military solidly behind Trump in a contested election Bernie just not punched Sloe Joe in the sack.

Bernie and the others would be very happy losing Cold War II to the commies, because that would mean implementation of their socialist/communist ideas by fiat.

Republicans need to wake up and realize what is at stake here. The parade of milquetoast wimps that have been going along to get along won't stop it.

And as Reagan said, the USA is the last, best hope of freedom and liberty. If we lose it here, there is no place else to go.

(07-26-2020 10:22 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  We can't even get our pilots sufficient flight time thanks to Obama era cuts. I guess if you want to get the military solidly behind Trump in a contested election Bernie just not punched Sloe Joe in the sack.

But are republicans even aware enough to figure it out? They've been asleep at the wheel for far too long.

Bernie would be happy to defund Washington and just place under the Chinese Communist Party. Washington is unnecessary in Bernie’s world view.

(07-26-2020 10:16 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Maybe the first thing I can remember that I agree with him on. Im sure if forced to do so the Pentagon can find 10% in just waste to slash without sacrificing one iota of military readiness. Im also fine with doing this across the board in ALL government agencies but Id bet Bernie would balk at that idea.

What factual evidence do you have that makes you so sure? It's not like this hasn't been done before where the military had to find ways to slash by 10% or more. That's why the military was in such poor financial condition when Trump took office.

(07-26-2020 11:44 AM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  

(07-26-2020 10:16 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Maybe the first thing I can remember that I agree with him on. Im sure if forced to do so the Pentagon can find 10% in just waste to slash without sacrificing one iota of military readiness. Im also fine with doing this across the board in ALL government agencies but Id bet Bernie would balk at that idea.

What factual evidence do you have that makes you so sure? It's not like this hasn't been done before where the military had to find ways to slash by 10% or more. That's why the military was in such poor financial condition when Trump took office.

The reason it hasn't been done before is because the waste is at the top, and who gets the job of finding waste? The folks at the top.

We have more people working in and around the Pentagon today that it took to win WWII? Is there any logical reason for that?
The Navy has 284 admirals for 290 ships. Why?
And it's not like these people come up with wonderful ideas. The Ford class aircraft carriers at $14B a pop and everything work except the catapults, the arresting gear, the weapons lifts, the main engines--and now the toilets? The Littoral Combat Ships, that go 45 knots but can't execute any viable military mission when they get there? The LHA/LHD large-deck amphibious ships that cost $3.5B each and can haul a lot of Marines and equipment around, but can't get the equipment ashore because they have to operate 25-50 miles out and they have no viable ship-to-shore connectors from that distance? The F-35, which should have been 3 different airplanes--a fighter/interceptor for the Navy and Air Force, a long-range carrier-based attack airplane for the Navy, and a STOVL close air support aircraft for the Marines? The compromises required to make one airplane do all three result in an airplane that costs way too much and doesn't do any of the three as well as it should.

The consulting firm McKinsey (maybe a bad word to the Rice people) did a study of defense spending by OECD countries in 2010, still online at http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/art...ce_VF.pdf.

In it, the average OECD country spends 26% of its defense budget on combat, 11% on combat support, and 63% on administration/overhead. The US is worse: 16% combat, 7% combat support, 77% admin/overhead. We could cut our defense budget by $100B by adding 25% to combat and combat support, giving us a stronger defense capability, and cutting admin/overhead by 25%. But if it's the admin/overhead folks who get to decide where cuts come, they keep their gravy train running and cut equipment and armor and bullets from the folks in the field.

(07-26-2020 11:44 AM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  

(07-26-2020 10:16 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Maybe the first thing I can remember that I agree with him on. Im sure if forced to do so the Pentagon can find 10% in just waste to slash without sacrificing one iota of military readiness. Im also fine with doing this across the board in ALL government agencies but Id bet Bernie would balk at that idea.

What factual evidence do you have that makes you so sure? It's not like this hasn't been done before where the military had to find ways to slash by 10% or more. That's why the military was in such poor financial condition when Trump took office.

If we are going to make cuts then an entire review of everything should be done..from bottom to top and look first for areas in which we have redundancies and waste. Clinton did some of this without compromising readiness. It hasn't been done since to my knowledge. Id like to see by law... a review of ALL governmental spending every 10 years or so.

We all know that the "tail" of the IMC wags the "dog" of the Pentagon. Contractors are making policy through lobbyists and corporate board rooms..We all know what that means in regard to spending. It's time for a comprehensive review and see what cuts can be made and that we are getting a fairly treated by our vendors. The American public deserves the best military on the planet. It also deserves not to be gouged for the cost of it. We all know the stories.

For clarity...Im against cutting one cent if it means compromising our troop readiness and safety...but...I can't imagine we are running our defense structure that well in regard to its stewardship of the money its allocated any more than any other governmental structure. There is plenty of waste. No one looks for it until they are forced to do so.

If we ever needed confirmation that this country is under attack this is it, along with several other indicators that have been ignored. Our government has been infiltrated, and it began in the 1950's. McCarthy was right.

I am a staunch supporter of military spending, but even I believe there is at least $50B in waste annually. As has been posted, too many chiefs, not enough Indians. Like every government agency, it is administratively bloated and subject to abuse by contractors.

I don't like that there are so many TOP grade officers. They don't really serve a purpose. In times of war they're not on the front lines, they just get in the way because of egos. You could probably slash half of all generals and admirals in the military and be fine with it.

If that's done then the ordinary GI can get a sizable paycheck instead of giving it to the top echelon in pay and then, gasp, in retirement checks. It is ridiculous how much we pay those people in those two areas.

Most military bases are run by colonels so it isn't like a coronel can't do the job currently done by the top brass.

Don't defund, that would be stupid...like Bernie, but I'm for decreasing.

We need to spend more on combat and combat support. Right now our forces are way overextended to meet current commitments. Part of that is the huge Mideast commitment. Walking away from that would free up a lot. Plus all we are really doing at this point is securing China's oil supply.

But we need to spend way, way less on non-combat/non-support functions. We have too many flag and general officers, too many staffs, too many people working at the Pentagon, too many consultants, and a procurement system that is totally lacking in cost-effectiveness and discipline.

Right now the Navy is struggling to try to reach a 355-ship goal in 30 years. For less than what the Navy will have to spend to achieve that goal, I can design a 600-ship fleet that would include
- 24 carriers (instead of the Navy's goal of 12), which will allow carriers to work in groups of 2 to 4, where they are most effective
- 8 battleships, based on the 1980s battle carrier concept, to provide big guns, long-range missiles, and tactical air, operating in concert with 8 ASW helicopter carriers, to provide sea control and support for amphibious assaults
- 20 gun cruisers, to supplement the battleships and provide the naval gunfire support (NGFS) capability we currently lack
- 10 amphibious squadrons capable of lifting a total of 32,000 Marines (40,000 short-term in a pinch) and can also do what the current big-deck LHA/LHD/LPD amphib force cannot, which is to launch an opposed assault with tanks, artillery, and amphibious armor, in addition to light infantry and air
- 110 submarines, roughly twice the current number, including some smaller AIP subs that are better in littoral ops
- a true littoral force consisting of ASW and land attack corvettes, patrol boats, mine warfare ships, and the AIP subs
- sufficient escorts to screen the major combatants, including AAW destroyers, GP escorts, and ASW frigates
- sufficient logistics force ships to support the warships and also amphibious assaults

We have spent billions on the F-35, which really should have been 3 different airplanes
- a fifth generation fighter/interceptor for the Navy and Air Force
- a stealthy long-range carrier-based attack aircraft for the Navy
- a short takeoff/landing close air support (CAS) aircraft for the Marines
By trying to be three different things, it costs a bundle and doesn't do any of the three as well as a purpose-built aircraft would do.

We could cut maybe $100 billion from the military budget while enhancing combat readiness. But as long as the people who need to be cut (the top heavy wasteful Pentagon staffs) are the ones making the calls, any military cuts will come in the form of giving fewer bullets and poorly-maintained equipment to forces in the field, instead of cutting of their gravy trains.

(07-26-2020 01:09 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  If we ever needed confirmation that this country is under attack this is it, along with several other indicators that have been ignored. Our government has been infiltrated, and it began in the 1950's. McCarthy was right.

I agree. Bernie is a fcking parasite. Im fine with prudent cuts in our defense budget..but..unlike Bernie...Im for prudent cuts...EVERYWHERE. And also unlike Bernie I would return that money to the citizens that actually did something to earn it or use it to fix this nations terrible infrastructure problems. We know exactly what he would do with it....prop up Socialist BS programs.

(07-26-2020 05:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We need to spend more on combat and combat support. Right now our forces are way overextended to meet current commitments. Part of that is the huge Mideast commitment. Walking away from that would free up a lot. Plus all we are really doing at this point is securing China's oil supply.

But we need to spend way, way less on non-combat/non-support functions. We have too many flag and general officers, too many staffs, too many people working at the Pentagon, too many consultants, and a procurement system that is totally lacking in cost-effectiveness and discipline.

Right now the Navy is struggling to try to reach a 355-ship goal in 30 years. For less than what the Navy will have to spend to achieve that goal, I can design a 600-ship fleet that would include
- 24 carriers (instead of the Navy's goal of 12), which will allow carriers to work in groups of 2 to 4, where they are most effective
- 8 battleships, based on the 1980s battle carrier concept, to provide big guns, long-range missiles, and tactical air, operating in concert with 8 ASW helicopter carriers, to provide sea control and support for amphibious assaults
- 20 gun cruisers, to supplement the battleships and provide the naval gunfire support (NGFS) capability we currently lack
- 10 amphibious squadrons capable of lifting a total of 32,000 Marines (40,000 short-term in a pinch) and can also do what the current big-deck LHA/LHD/LPD amphib force cannot, which is to launch an opposed assault with tanks, artillery, and amphibious armor, in addition to light infantry and air
- 110 submarines, roughly twice the current number, including some smaller AIP subs that are better in littoral ops
- a true littoral force consisting of ASW and land attack corvettes, patrol boats, mine warfare ships, and the AIP subs
- sufficient escorts to screen the major combatants, including AAW destroyers, GP escorts, and ASW frigates
- sufficient logistics force ships to support the warships and also amphibious assaults

We have spent billions on the F-35, which really should have been 3 different airplanes
- a fighter/interceptor for the Navy and Air Force
- a long-range carrier-based attack aircraft for the Navy
- a short takeoff/landing close air support (CAS) aircraft for the Marines
By trying to be three different things, it costs a bundle and doesn't do any of the three as well as a purpose-built aircraft would do.

We could cut maybe $100 billion from the military budget while enhancing combat readiness. But as long as the people who need to be cut (the top heavy wasteful Pentagon staffs) are the ones making the calls, any military cuts will come in the form of giving fewer bullets and poorly-maintained equipment to forces in the field, instead of cutting of their gravy trains.

The Pentagon has the same entrenched bureaucratic problems as the rest of government. It's high time this stuff end. We simply can't afford it anymore.

(07-26-2020 06:00 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-26-2020 01:09 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  If we ever needed confirmation that this country is under attack this is it, along with several other indicators that have been ignored. Our government has been infiltrated, and it began in the 1950's. McCarthy was right.

I agree. Bernie is a fcking parasite. Im fine with prudent cuts in our defense budget..but..unlike Bernie...Im for prudent cuts...EVERYWHERE. And also unlike Bernie I would return that money to the citizens that actually did something to earn it or use it to fix this nations terrible infrastructure problems. We know exactly what he would do with it....prop up Socialist BS programs.

I am in complete agreement. There's also no telling what we could save by GTFO of countries where we call the locals allies who couldn't give a rats ass about us. Some, probably most, of the alliances we still hold are outdated, obsolete and yield no significant benefits for us. We need to stop being the worlds policemen.

(07-26-2020 07:07 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(07-26-2020 06:00 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-26-2020 01:09 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  If we ever needed confirmation that this country is under attack this is it, along with several other indicators that have been ignored. Our government has been infiltrated, and it began in the 1950's. McCarthy was right.

I agree. Bernie is a fcking parasite. Im fine with prudent cuts in our defense budget..but..unlike Bernie...Im for prudent cuts...EVERYWHERE. And also unlike Bernie I would return that money to the citizens that actually did something to earn it or use it to fix this nations terrible infrastructure problems. We know exactly what he would do with it....prop up Socialist BS programs.

I am in complete agreement. There's also no telling what we could save by GTFO of countries where we call the locals allies who couldn't give a rats ass about us. Some, probably most, of the alliances we still hold are outdated, obsolete and yield no significant benefits for us. We need to stop being the worlds policemen.

Absolutely...We simply can not afford as much of the stuff we have done in the past and now in regard to protecting other countries. Either PAY us or spend YOUR money on YOUR defense. No damn wonder many of these countries spend so much on Socialist health care and other programs. They don't have to fund a military since they depend on Uncle Sam.

(07-26-2020 06:00 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-26-2020 01:09 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  If we ever needed confirmation that this country is under attack this is it, along with several other indicators that have been ignored. Our government has been infiltrated, and it began in the 1950's. McCarthy was right.

I agree. Bernie is a fcking parasite. Im fine with prudent cuts in our defense budget..but..unlike Bernie...Im for prudent cuts...EVERYWHERE. And also unlike Bernie I would return that money to the citizens that actually did something to earn it or use it to fix this nations terrible infrastructure problems. We know exactly what he would do with it....prop up Socialist BS programs.

He's pretty gung ho on infrastructure repair.

Yeah I have no problem at all, in any way, cutting the Pentagon budget and the military budget majorly.

We have no business doing 2/3rds of the things we are doing.