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.
Yeah but we're much more mobile today. We can get boots on the ground from our own soil in a mighty hurry of we need to. But frankly, with a major conflict, we initiate contact with air strikes anyway, and carriers are spread out all over the world. With available surveillance we can tell when dangerous troop movements need our attention basically immediately. But more importantly, we just can't afford it any more. We have over 900 bases spread out over more than 200 countries. And most them don't even want us there. We're no longer protecting countries, we're shaping and creating governments, most of them don't want our interference. Not everyone approves of wants our culture and I say we leave them alone to be who they want to be, it's not our call, we're not the world police. At least, we shouldn't be.
Call me crazy, but I think this is good. We spend too much on the military, plain and simple. We can still be "number 1" with a drastically lower budget.
IP: Logged
01:47 PM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43235 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
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 don't foresee a huge increase in garrisoned troop buildup in CONUS . I do think, that we will continue to see an asset shift to the Pacific, with perhaps an increase in Europe, depending how the Ukraine situation plays out long term, tho I really believe Putin is smarter than he appears to be in reference to his rhetoric.
More and more members non-vol'd every day going directly to the breadline! Hey, will that count against the unemployment numbers? Or will they get swept under the rug too?
IP: Logged
02:13 PM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43235 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
More and more members non-vol'd every day going directly to the breadline! Hey, will that count against the unemployment numbers? Or will they get swept under the rug too?
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.
X2. However we were told that separation pay wouldn't be allowed unless you were at least 6 years in. Our AFSC already closed out luckily.
IP: Logged
03:38 PM
hiwil88formula Member
Posts: 622 From: San Antonio, Texas Registered: Oct 2001
X3, but my AFSC is getting cut bad 3K getting the boot. Good thing, we gonna get rid of a lot of dirt bags, bad thing, some of the great troops have to go as well. I am not looking forward to the next couple of years. 2016 cant come quick enough, I am so done with this crap and ready to retire. I'm a Cop by the way.
X2. However we were told that separation pay wouldn't be allowed unless you were at least 6 years in. Our AFSC already closed out luckily.
Yeah I forgot about that little tidbit.
Is it me or do most posters find the undefined grey area and base the whole argument on generic figures, I mean, this has been going on for at least the last few months lol.
X3, but my AFSC is getting cut bad 3K getting the boot. Good thing, we gonna get rid of a lot of dirt bags, bad thing, some of the great troops have to go as well. I am not looking forward to the next couple of years. 2016 cant come quick enough, I am so done with this crap and ready to retire. I'm a Cop by the way.
Yeah I read about that, a family member is a Cop too and I'm hoping he doesn't get the boot either.
IP: Logged
05:05 PM
carnut122 Member
Posts: 9122 From: Waleska, GA, USA Registered: Jan 2004
Drones, robot mules, Google, Cyber warfare, is there a need to have a lot of Combat Troops?
I have to agree that's where we're heading. I also don't think it's an accident that Google bought up a lot of US robotics companies. Looking at the cuts purely based on #'s is like looking at the loss of manufacturing jobs in the US ,without looking at how many jobs were replaced through automation, and then assuming that production has likewise declined. Although I feel sorry for those affected, the numbers represent about 10% of the armed forces. I'm thinking there's probably some fat that can be trimmed.
[This message has been edited by carnut122 (edited 02-25-2014).]
IP: Logged
08:51 PM
cliffw Member
Posts: 37880 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by Taijiguy: Yeah but we're much more mobile today. We can get boots on the ground from our own soil in a mighty hurry of we need to.
Yeah but, having forward staging areas for all the equipment and supplies has something to be said for it. Which would require personnel to "exercise" and maintain. Forward bases also enable us to become more familiar with and better understand our allies so we can better coordinate a strategy. We also become better attuned to situations around the world. They would give us listening posts and places our intelligence assets can work from. I would think.
quote
Originally posted by Taijiguy: But more importantly, we just can't afford it any more. We have over 900 bases spread out over more than 200 countries. And most them don't even want us there.
That does seem like a lot. I agree we can not afford it anymore. A sign our spending addiction is making us a nation in decline.
quote
Originally posted by Taijiguy: We're no longer protecting countries, we're shaping and creating governments, most of them don't want our interference. Not everyone approves of wants our culture and I say we leave them alone to be who they want to be, it's not our call, we're not the world police. At least, we shouldn't be.
Good points. I would say I think we do provide some protection by just being there. Much like a gun does not have to be used to be a deterrent.
quote
Originally posted by maryjane: 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..
Thank you for that. I had not thought of percentage wise. I am more concerned with overall numbers. We can still keep the same balance of percentage.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 02-25-2014).]
IP: Logged
09:01 PM
carnut122 Member
Posts: 9122 From: Waleska, GA, USA Registered: Jan 2004
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.
I have a friend who went to Afghanistan under one of those contractors. I can only dream of what they paid him to go over there for a year. I agree that current military personnel l could have done the same job for less than half the $. Along those same lines, Cheney was bemoaning the cuts. I guess Haliburton et al will have to take a big hit.
[This message has been edited by carnut122 (edited 02-25-2014).]
IP: Logged
09:01 PM
yellowstone Member
Posts: 9299 From: Düsseldorf/Germany Registered: Jun 2003
I have a friend who went to Afghanistan under one of those contractors. I can only dream of what they paid him to go over there for a year. I agree that current military personnel l could have done the same job for less than half the $.
Are you looking at lifetime costs? You only pay a contractor when you need him, not before and not after. You also don't have any other obligations such as hardware, healthcare, retirement costs etc.
IP: Logged
09:20 PM
motoracer838 Member
Posts: 3751 From: Edgewater Co. USofA Registered: Jan 2006
I'm wondering if we go back to guarding only our borders will we have to gear up for world war AGAIN? I mean, the last two times we had a small standing army and minded our own business the world blew up in our face. And then we had to go help put out some big damn fires. Maybe next time should we just let the world burn? Eh, newf?
[This message has been edited by Hudini (edited 02-26-2014).]
IP: Logged
08:05 AM
cliffw Member
Posts: 37880 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by maryjane: Percentage wise ... 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.
So, of the 450,000 projected troops we would have only 150,000 fighting troops ?
So, of the 450,000 projected troops we would have only 150,000 fighting troops ?
Not necessarily, we're much more efficient today, and a lot of the support that was all in-service provided back then is civilian contractor provided today.
I'm wondering if we go back to guarding only our borders will we have to gear up for world war AGAIN? I mean, the last two times we had a small standing army and minded our own business the world blew up in our face. And then we had to go help put out some big damn fires. Maybe next time should we just let the world burn? Eh, newf?
No idea. I'd say it's balance for a world power how much military/defense is needed or wanted.
The last time we really had to act within a timeline was in Korea. It took 90 days. That, was a hard lesson to learn, but it won't take that long next time.
On June 25, 1950, 75,000 men of the North Korean Army crossed the 38th parallel and invaded their southern neighbor. American forces in Korea were limited to the 500-man Korean Military Advisory Group. U.S. naval forces in the western Pacific consisted of less than three dozen ships, half of them submarines and mine sweepers. U.S. forces stationed in Japan, hastily thrown into battle, were overwhelmed by July 5.
Eight days after the invasion, 24 U.S. and Royal Navy ships entered North Korean waters and aircraft from the carriers Valley Forge and HMS Triumph struck rail lines, airfields, and bridges near the North Korean capital of Pyongyang.
During July and August, American and allied navies arrived on station off the Korean peninsula. In addition to Navy aircraft, four squadrons of Marine Corps aircraft, plus U.S. Air Force fighters were embarked on carriers for the transit from California to Korea.
Limited air power, and the few infantry units deployed to Korean could not slow the North Korean offensive. The Fleet Marine Force, cut drastically from a WWII high of 300,000, had only 27, 656 men.
General Clifton B. Cates, Commandant of the Marine Corps, was ordered by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to deploy the 1st Marine Division to Korea by mid-September. However, short of equipment and with only 8,000 men, Cates requested President Truman to mobilize all reserve elements of the Marine Corps and attached Navy medical personnel to bring the division to wartime strength of 22,000.
Within a month 33,000 men, the entire Marine Corps ground Reserve, 138 units, were ordered to active duty. And, with them, nine Marine Corps Reserve fighter and ground intercept aircraft squadrons were ordered up. By August 1, American and Allied forces were defending south of the Naktong River, to a pocket known as the Pusan Perimeter. The U.S. Eighth Army was reinforced by the Army's 2nd Infantry Division and the 1st Provisional Marine Brigade comprised of the 5th Regimental Combat Team of the 1st Marine Division and Marine Aircraft Group 33.
I cannot ever envision the 1st Mar Div at troop strength of 8K. It, the 82nd and 101st are the go to divisions for quick deployment of division size units.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 02-26-2014).]
pointing out that the United States spends more money than anyone else on the defence is a pointless argument. For one, it's not how much you spend, its how you spend it. With unions and contracts in this country, we waste a lot more money on military spending with little outcome in many areas. Where in contrast, the Russians and Chinese spend their money much more effectively on their military progression and don't have to deal with collective bargaining and massive waste.
also, if you want to stay ahead of the curve you have to continue to invest and research and development continue to ride a cutting-edge technology and tactics. Remember, but we set back and took a more easy going approach, the Germans invested time and energy in research and development and far surpassed the world going into World War 2. By the time we entered the war we were so behind in technology and military power, we had to play massive catch up and a lot of good men died as a result of us being in adequately prepared.
IP: Logged
10:37 AM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
hey, dummies - the Oil Wars are over. nice waste of at least $5Trillion. YAY. got nothing. YAY. and, are these the same budget cry babies that have been wailing and gnashing their teeth about spending? but, yes, nice to see just how FOS y'all really are.
hey, dummies - the Oil Wars are over. nice waste of at least $5Trillion. YAY. got nothing. YAY. and, are these the same budget cry babies that have been wailing and gnashing their teeth about spending? but, yes, nice to see just how FOS y'all really are.
sorry, back to the Job Bank for the enlisted.
Hey dummy, where is all that f'ing oil? that "oil" war crap is got to be one of the most retarded mantra's ever regurgitated.
hey, dummies - the Oil Wars are over. nice waste of at least $5Trillion. YAY. got nothing. YAY. and, are these the same budget cry babies that have been wailing and gnashing their teeth about spending? but, yes, nice to see just how FOS y'all really are.
sorry, back to the Job Bank for the enlisted.
The Hawks can't seem to see wastage in war or defense spending, it's all necessary for your safety.
The war machine needs a reason to exist. Dropping bombs and the spilling of blood "over there" has been accepted blindly by many for some reason. I wonder if the same "expenditure" were to be domestically what might happen?
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 02-26-2014).]
IP: Logged
11:53 AM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
Originally posted by Red88FF: Hey dummy, where is all that f'ing oil? that "oil" war crap is got to be one of the most retarded mantra's ever regurgitated.
yes, it is. doesnt change the fact of it tho.
not one person would give one crap of what happens in the middle east if it were not for the oil.
it would just be another Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, or some other random African/asian Give A Crap country.
would be nice if every penny of US taxpayer dollars which ends up getting used for the middle east came exclusively from Gasoline Taxes. I am sure "the wars" would have been MUCH MUCH shorter, if they had to be paid for at the Gasoline Pumps. But, responsibility is not the strong suit of these folk, eh?
not one person would give one crap of what happens in the middle east if it were not for the oil.
it would just be another Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, or some other random African/asian Give A Crap country.
would be nice if every penny of US taxpayer dollars which ends up getting used for the middle east came exclusively from Gasoline Taxes. I am sure "the wars" would have been MUCH MUCH shorter, if they had to be paid for at the Gasoline Pumps. But, responsibility is not the strong suit of these folk, eh?
