Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announces today the intent to cut US military strength ... with these opening remarks at the announcement press conference ...

quote ... These recommendations will adapt and reshape our defense enterprises so we can continue to protect this nations security in an era of unprecedented certainty and change.

He wants to cut troop strength to just 450,000 service personnel. A pre WW II precedent level.

This when our Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, just last week said ...

quote ... never in the last 50 years of my service have I seen the threats I do now.

This also at a time that Nobama already cut the military budget a half billion dollars with the sequester. Then, in 2011, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said the cuts would be devastating.

So, which servicemen do we axe ? The ones who just laid it all on the line the last ten years ? Whose families also suffered. People who are near retirement ?
The Dumbocrats have already disrespected our servicemen by eliminating cost of living allowances, nixed the military commissary, have a disrespectful record of enrollment in wounded veteran care services, and other "crimes" I forget.

Destroy the economy, dismantle the military, fragment and demoralize the population.......with friends like this.....?

My best friends are in the military, REALLY hoping they come out of this unscathed. Thanks, obama.

[This message has been edited by RWDPLZ (edited 02-24-2014).]

Cut to things such as the military is necessary to support Obama's core supporters like this guy. When your entire country is one big welfare state, something has to give to pay for it.

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2...8looks-good-time-man

[This message has been edited by loafer87gt (edited 02-24-2014).]

I've read how they intend to cut troop strength. It's not as bad as it appears, but National Guard units are going to be taking on a LOT more combat role should TSHTF somewhere.
Army will see the biggest cuts, with Navy and USAF a smaller cut but procurement of new ships and aircraft are going to be under a microscope.
Helos will be shifted around, with Army probably trading some of their Comanches for most of the Guard's Apaches, instead of new Apaches being bought for the Army..
BRAC is yet to be decided.

This is supposedly for fiscal reasons. I did hear that some "declared" unneeded weapons would be cut. Fine. We can ramp that back up quick enough. Troop experience takes years in the making.
Also, he is hamstringing future Commanders in Chief.

Really?
I disagree. I was a combat veteran in less than 19 months.
You only need a core of combat experienced veterans with which to lead.
USAF/USN/USMC aviation will not see the same cuts as ground forces.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: This is supposedly for fiscal reasons. I did hear that some "declared" unneeded weapons would be cut. Fine. We can ramp that back up quick enough. Troop experience takes years in the making. Also, he is hamstringing future Commanders in Chief.

Another little detail that slipped out.. He want's to axe the A-10 and fully implement the F-35.. The F-35 is a colossal boondoggle. Over budget and none of the services want it.
Yes the A-10 is a huge liability in an air to air environment, sure if we were planning on going toe to toe with the old Soviet Bloc or China, but even then they should have F-22 top cover.
And no, I'm not just and oldie clinging. Sure felt a lil sad when the F-4s and F-14s were retired but the 18's and 22s are far superior.
Fact the 35 cannot maintain time on target nor give the same level of close support as the A-10. The A-10 is a brute and even with my previous experience I'd rather have it around than a 35 trying to do the same job.

In short the 35 is a platform that has been tasked to do too many jobs and in trying to compromise it's going to halfass most of them.

Drones, robot mules, Google, Cyber warfare, is there a need to have a lot of Combat Troops?

"...is there a need to have a lot of Combat Troops?"
Ask this again after an EMP.

Yeah we are calling them the hunger games

Most of the RIF is being front loaded this year as far as what I heard. Retention boards go into effect in a month or two, folks with UIF's, failed PT tests, or any unfavorable PIFs already have been notified of their DOS rollback. Military is offering early retirements and voluntary sep pay for those who want an expedited exit. Dirtbags will still find a way to remain fat, dumb, and happy while hard working folks get thrown out on their ass. Good times....

Here's another viewpoint from a Navy vet who has a grandson in the marines. Who are we defending against? I don't see any conventional military threats that would stand a chance against us with a military 1/2 the size we have now. I see ICBM threats and terrorist threats, neither of which is addressable by a huge conventional military. I think the number I remember is that we have ten times as much military as the rest of the world COMBINED. Call me stupid but I think that is overkill and is the type of spending that will make us unable to be competitive with the rest of the world economically. We are fighting present wars with past systems. My biggest concerns is how we reabsorb and convert our retiring military into productive civilian jobs. Less airplanes, tanks, and ships and more useful consumer goods rather than blowing it on defense will make us stronger.

The KGB guy nailed it.

quote Originally posted by avengador1: "...is there a need to have a lot of Combat Troops?" Ask this again after an EMP.

Our standing army will be defenseless when an EMP disables all of their high tech weapons and equipment leaving them just a bunch of unarmed immobile soldiers right? So what good are more numbers of personnel?

Military people don't vote for Democrats, welfare people do.

So, he finally gets forced into trying to cut some spending (or look like he is), where did you think he would do it?

im in this boat...kinda while i am a national guardsman i was recently at a leadership development class and in my class of 190 about 50 recieved walking papers while in the class and another 70 will meet a board review this summer. I know cutbacks are tough but, we need to look at what we are paying these contractors to do the same job as our fighting forces wearing the uniform. Cost of an E4 is around 50-60 a year this includes housing, medical, food, and pay. A contractor doing the same job is costing around 150-170k most goes to some government contract organization that takes most of it on top to give back to a retired officer giving this contract company the contract before they left the service. It is a loose loose for the military and the american tax payers. It is amazing how much waste and abuse there is in military contracting.

quote Originally posted by mmeyer86gt/gtp: im in this boat...kinda while i am a national guardsman i was recently at a leadership development class and in my class of 190 about 50 recieved walking papers while in the class and another 70 will meet a board review this summer. I know cutbacks are tough but, we need to look at what we are paying these contractors to do the same job as our fighting forces wearing the uniform. Cost of an E4 is around 50-60 a year this includes housing, medical, food, and pay. A contractor doing the same job is costing around 150-170k most goes to some government contract organization that takes most of it on top to give back to a retired officer giving this contract company the contract before they left the service. It is a loose loose for the military and the american tax payers. It is amazing how much waste and abuse there is in military contracting.

And as for their "cost cutting" that is where somebody who actually cared about what they were doing,,, would be doing it. If he does in fact "care" about what he is doing, well then he is.................... and we are stupid and screwed.

quote Originally posted by williegoat: Destroy the economy, dismantle the military, fragment and demoralize the population.......with friends like this.....?

You cain't believe none a that's true. Neptune will give you a link to a Huffington Post article which says it ain't true. Them people over there are intellectuals. They know soooo much more than you or me. Evahthangs gonna be just fine.

[This message has been edited by heybjorn (edited 02-25-2014).]

The Obama regime is dismantling the US military so his Muslim brothers have an easier time when they overtake the world.

quote Originally posted by Old Lar: The Obama regime is dismantling the US military so his Muslim brothers have an easier time when they overtake the world.

Good choice of an avatar! I like it.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 02-25-2014).]

Don't worry, they'll be replaced by socialist government friendly non-U.S. soldiers from the UN.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Really? I disagree. I was a combat veteran in less than 19 months. You only need a core of combat experienced veterans with which to lead.

Perhaps. I defer to your experience. However, I was/am saddened by the back to back to back continual deployment of the same core group of servicemen this last decade. It is a lot to be asked to give up your family life, experience the seriousness of combat and the death of your brothers, then to be asked to do it again and again and again.
Also, when we need a new roughneck, we look to get the most experienced we can find. Nineteen months is good experience but more is usually better. I would think a serviceman has more to learn than a roughneck. Then we have that "when seconds count, help is nineteen months away" thing.

quote Originally posted by dratts: Who are we defending against?

All excellent points dratts. I have been listening to retired military analysts. They say that time after time the prediction was that we did not need a big ground force in the future, only to be proved wrong in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq/Afghanistan.

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 02-25-2014).]

quote Originally posted by newf:

You have a point here? The United States has the biggest defense budget in the world because, since WW 2, everyone else in the west expected us to protect them from Russia.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: However, I was/am saddened by the back to back to back continual deployment of the same core group of servicemen this last decade. It is a lot to ask to give up your family life, experience the seriousness of combat and the death of your brothers, then to ask to do it again and again and again.

Sucky but when you have leaders and a military complex that like to go to war soldiers are the ones who do their dirty work.
And isn't that in fact their job, you know exactly what did they signed up for?

quote Originally posted by newf: Yeah that sounds about right.

Newf. Disrespect of America bothers me. Neg earned. Yeah, just for the rolleyes smiley.

quote Originally posted by Tony Kania: Newf. Disrespect of America bothers me. Neg earned. Yeah, just for the rolleyes smiley.

Don't you think he meant that the "protection from Russia" is a bit outdated these days - like 20+ years? That's how I understood it.

quote Originally posted by yellowstone: Don't you think he meant that the "protection from Russia" is a bit outdated these days - like 20+ years? That's how I understood it.

Call it "the icing"...

His ratings can change. Much like yours. My neg will surely be set back to neutral or positive at some point. I just did not want to hide. Negs only stick for those that prove they have no morals.

Frankly, if they plan to reduce the amount of military overseas protecting other countries, and bringing the focus of our military back to the US to protect our own borders, then I'm OK with it.

quote Originally posted by Tony Kania: Newf. Disrespect of America bothers me. Neg earned. Yeah, just for the rolleyes smiley.

It's all good.... I don't pay much attention to ratings on OT anyways
.

quote Originally posted by newf: Yeah my point is the U.S. military budget could be cut in half and still be nearly triple the next highest nation.

Troop strength :
China - 2.2 million
N Korea - 1.2 million
Russia - 800,000
Turkey - 510,000
Egypt - 439,000
US projected - 420,000
Myramar - 406,000

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: Frankly, if they plan to reduce the amount of military overseas protecting other countries, and bringing the focus of our military back to the US to protect our own borders, then I'm OK with it.

I share your sentiment but it's not that black and white to me. I always feel obligated to help those that I can who share similar values. We could have allowed Germany and Japan to shape the world. We also need forward bases if we are gonna eliminate a threat. We had to go into Berlin and Japan to end those wars.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Troop strength : China - 2.2 million N Korea - 1.2 million Russia - 800,000 Turkey - 510,000 Egypt - 439,000 US projected - 420,000 Myramar - 406,000

I'm missing your point. The budget of over 600 Billion is not just related to troop strength. In fact the proposed changes of troop strength according to your numbers would only change the US position by moving it from just above Turkey's to just below.

Edit: Your numbers for "U.S. proposed" in your previous post differs from the original number you quoted.

Wait having said all that...Isn't Chuck Hagel a Republican?

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 02-25-2014).]

quote Originally posted by newf: I'm missing your point. The budget of over 600 Billion is not just related to troop strength. In fact the proposed changes of troop strength according to your numbers would only change the US position by moving it from just above Turkey's to just below. Edit: Your numbers for "U.S. proposed" in your previous post differs from the original number you quoted. Wait having said all that...Isn't Chuck Hagel a Republican?

Probably because there are several different troop level reduction plans being floated and Hagel hasn't made up his mind on which one to go with--and it isn't 100% up to him. One news source will point to one plan--another will point to a diferent one.
The point of troop reduction is to reduce costs to meet the congressionally mandated sequester that both sides agreed upon a yr ago. Congress=House and Senate--signed by POTUS. Republicans, Tea Party and the liberals all hailed sequester as a victory.

Since WW2, we've tied to keep a standing "army" (army meaning total military in this case) large enough to fight 2 separate large scale wars in 2 separate theatres of operation at the same time and for an extended period of time. (Europe/SE Asia---MidEast-Asia--the old Soviet Union/China--South America/Asia--Pacific/Atlantic--all imaginable contingencies--you get the picture). Pentagon war plans for all and any number of possibilities. This, above and beyond the usual "global projection of power" associated with any superpower.
The Iraq/Afghanistan wars do not really fit this scenario. Combat--undoubtedly, but not on the scale of the events that caused this military mindset. WW2.

Do we need this type ability and global 2 war strategy in today's world? That's at least debatable.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 02-25-2014).]

quote Originally posted by newf: Yeah my point is the U.S. military budget could be cut in half and still be nearly triple the next highest nation.

That's a meaningless comparison. Capability is what matters.

quote Originally posted by dratts: Our standing army will be defenseless when an EMP disables all of their high tech weapons and equipment leaving them just a bunch of unarmed immobile soldiers right? So what good are more numbers of personnel?

In an event like that, a standing army of infantry riflemen is ALL you have. In that scenario, we are substantially outnumbered and outgunned by other nations.

quote Originally posted by dratts: Who are we defending against?

Good question. The problem is if you wait until attacked to see who your enemy is, you don't have time to defend or react. I support reducing our military spending. Afterall, we are ending two long running wars; however, they're not talking about going back to pre-Iraq/Afghanistan levels. One figure I read put it back to 1940 levels. That would leave us solely dependant on those high tech weapons and unable to respond to much of anything beyond a Lybia or Bosnia type engagement. We wouldn't even been able to take on a nation like Saddam's Iraq at those levels.

It takes time to build defenses. Deciding how much needs to be ready to go is the question that nations live or die by.

One flip side of this is if these types of cuts are made, it becomes even more important for American citizens to be armed should a civilian militia have to fill in the gaps. The National Guard has done that historically since it's founding, but if it's taking on a larger role they may not be available.
That's where a state defense or unorganized militia would step in.

quote Originally posted by newf: I'm missing your point.

Color me surprised, . kidding.

quote Originally posted by newf: The budget of over 600 Billion is not just related to troop strength.

Thanks for bringing that up, even though in my opening post my gripe was about troop strength.
Do you really think this is about financial matters ? At a time when Nobama is doing nothing about run-a-way spending ? If it is, it is because "austerity" has hamstrung his ability to spend where he wants to.

quote Originally posted by newf: In fact the proposed changes of troop strength according to your numbers would only change the US position by moving it from just above Turkey's to just below.

True that. They were not high enough in my opinion. We have asked to much from to few for to long, for far few dollars. Hence my topic. We have an all volunteer military. I can not help but feel much more ... indebted to them for their sacrifice because I can not imagine any one signing up for being asked for so much sacrifice, for to few dollars, with to few relief abilities.

quote Originally posted by newf: Edit: Your numbers for "U.S. proposed" in your previous post differs from the original number you quoted.

The original numbers are pre new round sequester cuts coming. All the military spending recipients have lobbyists, except the soldiers, .

quote Originally posted by newf: Wait having said all that...Isn't Chuck Hagel a Republican?

It's nice to know that taxpayer funded kool-aid is not going to waste, . He is the staunchest of Republicans. That's why Nobama allowed him to join the regime. Doofus is being played like a fiddle.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: The point of troop reduction is to reduce costs to meet the congressionally mandated sequester that both sides agreed upon a yr ago.

I am not sure. It's being reported that sequester could reduce the number from the regime's 450,000 target to 420,000. I saw it on the internet, .

EMP is not very selective--it will affect both sides if used on a large scale.
450,000 troop levels=about 23 divisions, but that doesn't mean 23 combat divisions.
At the height of WW2, there were nearly 100 US Military divisions.
For the US Army, in late fall 1941 and early spring 1945, it broke down this way:

Date..................total troop strength.........Army ground troops-----non-combat--------combat as % of total----ratio
31 Dec 1941............1,657,157........................867,462........................789,695............52.4% (1/2)...............~1:1 support to combat
31 Mar 1945.............8,157,388........................2,753,517.....................5,403,871.........33.8%(1/3)................~2:1 support to combat

It took 2X as many troops in non-combat support and reserve as it did to fight on the ground in actual war as was available right after Pearl Harbor..
This is what some war planners still look at and I'm not sure it is applicable today.

For the Iraq war, it was like this:

Iraq: the functional Teeth-to-Tail (T3R) is 1 to 2.5 (combat to noncombat).—40% combat, 36% logistics, 24% HQ/Admin. Including contractor support, the combat element goes down to 28%. Throughout the 20th century and on into the 21st century, about a third (33%) of all soldiers have been organized into operational units.
Percentage wise, we are today about on par with what we were during the height of WW2 in relation to US Army combat troops compared to total US Army troops..

http://www.historyshots.com/usarmy/backstory.cfm

bon jour!

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 02-25-2014).]