Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

mattyrm wrote:A ten percent slash in the US budget wont embolden her enemies to act any more aggressively than they are now.

Kim Jong Un is prepping a large scale invasion of Rhode Island as we speak

"Strategy for leaner US military", how come Obama gets away with the doubletalk, he means cuts.

How is the "leaner NASA "working out?

Melissia wrote:Oh no, I don't disagree with you. I was disagreeing with the idea that every country should spend nothing on defense.

If everyone spent nothing, at least the best anyone could do to attack each other would be to grab a big stick and drive/sail across the border

Orlanth wrote:How is the "leaner NASA "working out?

The invasion of Mars is on hold

Orlanth wrote:"Strategy for leaner US military", how come Obama gets away with the doubletalk, he means cuts.

How is the "leaner NASA "working out?

The point surely is not that they are spending less, thats obvious! I was simply saying that I cant see a small reduction (say 5-10%) of the US military budget being an issue?

Orlanth wrote:"Strategy for leaner US military", how come Obama gets away with the doubletalk, he means cuts

You're acting like this is double speak when it is clearly and plainly obvious he means cuts?

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Someone had to. The Europeans sure weren't doing it.

So you're claiming that there is a global minimum for defense expenditure?

I'm saying when staring across at The Evil Empire, most of NATO wasn't spending its fair share to defend itself. They can do what they want, but we no longer have to spend to defend them.

If the Russian bear comes, we can sell him potatoes and buy back good vodka from Him.

Melissia wrote:

Orlanth wrote:"Strategy for leaner US military", how come Obama gets away with the doubletalk, he means cuts

You're acting like this is double speak when it is clearly and plainly obvious he means cuts?

A cut in the growth of spending isn't a cut.

Orlanth wrote:"Strategy for leaner US military", how come Obama gets away with the doubletalk, he means cuts.

This is unintentionally hilarious.

You're essentially criticizing a person for using a particular term in order to elicit a particular response, while using a particular term in order to elicit a particular response. I assume you'll try to defend this on grounds of apparent accuracy, but the reality is that both the term you used, and the term used by Obama are accurate. This is not "doubletalk" (by which I suspect you mean doublespeak), unless you are also engaged in "doubletalk".

SilverMK2 wrote:

Melissia wrote:Oh no, I don't disagree with you. I was disagreeing with the idea that every country should spend nothing on defense.

If everyone spent nothing, at least the best anyone could do to attack each other would be to grab a big stick and drive/sail across the border

You forget, in a world where no one spends anything on defense, the US and Somalia kick ass. between us we have what 800 trillioins gazillion small arms in civilian/militia hands. Bring it!

Flashman wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Orlanth wrote:"Strategy for leaner US military", how come Obama gets away with the doubletalk, he means cuts

You're acting like this is double speak when it is clearly and plainly obvious he means cuts?

A cut in the growth of spending isn't a cut.

Technically speaking no, but in the eyes of those who are getting the money a budget cut is a budget cut (even if it's a future hypothetical budget).

Frazzled wrote:
I'm saying when staring across at The Evil Empire, most of NATO wasn't spending its fair share to defend itself. They can do what they want, but we no longer have to spend to defend them.

If the Russian bear comes, we can sell him potatoes and buy back good vodka from Him.

As I said earlier though, its a different world isn't it? We are at risk from a couple of rogue states tossing WMD's maybe, or terrorist acts.

But nobody is likely to "invade" anyone these days are they?

Easily available modern technology has increased the punching power of the little nations. If the USA with its gigantic military budget attempted to occupy somewhere in Western Europe unsustainable casualties could be inflicted upon the occupiers, so how on earth is Russia going to march into anywhere this day and age?

As I said, I'm a military man, I think we should all have big armies, but this news really isn't going to feth anyone's country up.

mattyrm wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
I'm saying when staring across at The Evil Empire, most of NATO wasn't spending its fair share to defend itself. They can do what they want, but we no longer have to spend to defend them.

If the Russian bear comes, we can sell him potatoes and buy back good vodka from Him.

As I said earlier though, its a different world isn't it? We are at risk from a couple of rogue states tossing WMD's maybe, or terrorist acts.

But nobody is likely to "invade" anyone these days are they?

Easily available modern technology has increased the punching power of the little nations. If the USA with its gigantic military budget attempted to occupy somewhere in Western Europe unsustainable casualties could be inflicted upon the occupiers, so how on earth is Russia going to march into anywhere this day and age?

As I said, I'm a military man, I think we should all have big armies, but this news really isn't going to feth anyone's country up.

The Russians walloped Georgia a short period ago.
But I agree, I don't think Europe is in great danger. Of course, the USA is in substantially less danger. We have no natural foes.

Well, no natural foes that can really endanger us on a national level aside from ourselves.

Frazzled wrote:
I'm saying when staring across at The Evil Empire, most of NATO wasn't spending its fair share to defend itself.

That's not really true. The US outpaced all of NATO in terms of defense spending, but it wasn't really about defending Europe (Europe defended itself quite ably after pulling it together following WWII) it was about fighting Communism.

That's all water under the bridge.

The USA genuinely believed that the Soviets would start a campaign for world domination in Europe (they already did at the end of WW2, by some measures).

Under the principle that a major war is best fought as far away as possible from your own country, the USA was pretty much obliged to defend western Europe.

The situation has changed. Britain has been pulling its forces out of Germany. The US should of course follow suit and concentrate on more important strategic areas.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
I'm saying when staring across at The Evil Empire, most of NATO wasn't spending its fair share to defend itself.

That's not really true. The US outpaced all of NATO in terms of defense spending, but it wasn't really about defending Europe (Europe defended itself quite ably after pulling it together following WWII) it was about fighting Communism.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/10/24/1319480354131/BERLIN-Checkpoint-Charlie-001.jpg

Thats fine. Now we can cut our spending to commensurate levels and bring our troops home since there is no communist menace now.

Flashman wrote:

Orlanth wrote:How is the "leaner NASA "working out?

The invasion of Mars is on hold

Yeah but that SEAL cum Astronaught is training the force.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Samus_aran115 wrote:Do not want. I probably won't be axed while I'm in (they'll always need lower ranking people to do dog crap work), but it does worry me. Makes sense though.

Get rid of the air force and give the army their planes. Air force doesn't need to exist, in my opinion. It worked just fine as the Air Corps. Guarantee that'll save some money.

Ironically, my MOS in the army has a major history of actually growing during times when the Army is at its smallest.. hooray job security.

I do agree, and had heard rumors (they were just that AFAIK) that the AF will be somewhat Axed, and their various duties branched into the Navy or Army. Which would save a ton of money, since there is a perception that the AF, when building a new base, builds all the super nice housing, and ice cream places, etc. run out of money, then run back to 'daddy' saying, "but we haven't built the runway, give us more money!!!" Not to mention, the Air Force has already started getting smaller, but there was a cover article on AF Times, that said blatantly that they had eliminated 43,000 "enlisted" jobs, yet created 43 "General" slots. To me, this doesn't save money, since often times, we dont need MORE Generals, we need the 'grunts' to actually do something useful.

Secret Squirrels? Hmm, I didn't know that. My dad was a secret squirrel at quantico before he shipped out for Iraq in 2003.

Yeah, honestly, the AF seems to step on a lot of toes and overlaps with the doctrine and operations of the other branches. The navy has a vast armament of planes itself, which don't require massive bases with runways and base housing, Exchanges, etc. That's not necessarily the best way to do things, but it seems to be the best way to do it if you're trying to project force and allow rapid deployments around the world, like obama is saying. I don't think they'll ever actually do it, but man, I personally think it would work. The formation of the air force was based on the shortcomings the army air corps came across during WW2, I think. But the military climate of out modern world doesn't really warrant a dedicated force, IMO.

Actually, the Navy houses all it's carrier squadrons on land bases when not deployed on sea-cruises.

A leaner, smaller military that still wishes to project power on a global scale needs the Air Force more than a large military ever would. If you are going to effect global politics in a country not immediately accessible by sea, you are going to need long range bombers, missiles, space imagery, and all the various electronic warfare and intelligence assets that the AF brings to the table.

Hell, the transportation and refueling capabilities of the Air Force are reason enough to keep them around.

If you are going to argue for the elimination of the Air Force, then you must, at the same time, be for the elimination of the Marine Corp.

These cuts will be painful. Do they need to happen - perhaps. It depends on what gets cut.

As an aside, I believe we don't actually spend the most on defense as a percentage of GDP - I believe China holds that distinction.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Actually, the Navy houses all it's carrier squadrons on land bases when not deployed on sea-cruises.

A leaner, smaller military that still wishes to project power on a global scale needs the Air Force more than a large military ever would. If you are going to effect global politics in a country not immediately accessible by sea, you are going to need long range bombers, missiles, space imagery, and all the various electronic warfare and intelligence assets that the AF brings to the table.

Hell, the transportation and refueling capabilities of the Air Force are reason enough to keep them around.

If you are going to argue for the elimination of the Air Force, then you must, at the same time, be for the elimination of the Marine Corp.

These cuts will be painful. Do they need to happen - perhaps. It depends on what gets cut.

As an aside, I believe we don't actually spend the most on defense as a percentage of GDP - I believe China holds that distinction.

Or Minutemen MIRV'd verhicles...

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Actually, the Navy houses all it's carrier squadrons on land bases when not deployed on sea-cruises.

A leaner, smaller military that still wishes to project power on a global scale needs the Air Force more than a large military ever would. If you are going to effect global politics in a country not immediately accessible by sea, you are going to need long range bombers, missiles, space imagery, and all the various electronic warfare and intelligence assets that the AF brings to the table.

But I'd be willing to bet that you could assimilate these functions into the other branches, right? I admit I totally forgot that the Air Force does a massive amount of intelligence and information things. That would be hard to separate.

Hell, the transportation and refueling capabilities of the Air Force are reason enough to keep them around.

Yeah, that's also true

If you are going to argue for the elimination of the Air Force, then you must, at the same time, be for the elimination of the Marine Corp.

As much as I like the Marine Corps, I don't feel like it's essential in a modern military, where the other branches have units that are capable of performing the same function (albeit with a different methodology and doctrine). The marines were more or less acting as a second army in these previous conflicts, which is a complete contradiction of their duties. The Marines have a place, but only aboard ships that support their missions and on bases that are too far away for immediate action (like Australia and Japan) from the other branches.

I can see why these cuts are so hard for the government too decide on.

He won't occupy Rhode Island for long, anyone able to chooses to leave...

Samus_aran115 wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Actually, the Navy houses all it's carrier squadrons on land bases when not deployed on sea-cruises.

A leaner, smaller military that still wishes to project power on a global scale needs the Air Force more than a large military ever would. If you are going to effect global politics in a country not immediately accessible by sea, you are going to need long range bombers, missiles, space imagery, and all the various electronic warfare and intelligence assets that the AF brings to the table.

But I'd be willing to bet that you could assimilate these functions into the other branches, right? I admit I totally forgot that the Air Force does a massive amount of intelligence and information things. That would be hard to separate.

Hell, the transportation and refueling capabilities of the Air Force are reason enough to keep them around.

Yeah, that's also true

If you are going to argue for the elimination of the Air Force, then you must, at the same time, be for the elimination of the Marine Corp.

As much as I like the Marine Corps, I don't feel like it's essential in a modern military, where the other branches have units that are capable of performing the same function (albeit with a different methodology and doctrine). The marines were more or less acting as a second army in these previous conflicts, which is a complete contradiction of their duties. The Marines have a place, but only aboard ships that support their missions and on bases that are too far away for immediate action (like Australia and Japan) from the other branches.

I can see why these cuts are so hard for the government too decide on.

Oh Samus,
You are woefully mistaken, but not alone. I personally hate Zoomies, but I think the problem lies in the sense of entitlement the AF has. As referenced earlier they tend to focus on amenities rather than being an effective fighting force. Fixing the culture is more important than renaming the force or reorganizing as that culture of entitlement is likely to follow. Not to mention that they just do stupid things as a matter of course. Like the Light Support Aircraft contract...a contract primarily designed by OUR Air Force to spend OUR money to equip OTHER countries. But the AF isn't why I said you are mistaken...
The Marines are another kettle of fish entirely. In very broad and general terms each of the historic branches has a specific role. The Navy (and Marines) are the offensive force. The Marines in particular are a force used to project a countries influence on and beyond the ships of their Navy. The Army by contrast is a defensive force, not to say that they are not used offensively. But that their role is defensive in nature. The Marines feth gak up and leave, the Army feths gak up and stays there to keep it. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have muddied those roles but the fact remains that marines are not soldiers on ships.
The best way I can think of to describe it is that the Marines are an attack dog, the army is a guard dog, and the navy is a shark. I hope that makes any goddamn sense because as I read it, well it sounded better aloud.

Kilkrazy wrote:
The situation has changed. Britain has been pulling its forces out of Germany. The US should of course follow suit and concentrate on more important strategic areas.

The problem here is that the US bases in Germany, Japan, and Korea; But especially Germany hold great strategic significance to our "ability to fight". Germany has been deemed important because of its location relative to much of the world via aircraft. The bases act as a way point between the US, and most other countries, allowing our forces to not have to negotiate new terms and treaties with another country anytime we train, or fight in another country. This also allows us to transport wounded troops back home for further treatment, and they get some treatment 'en route' as it were.

Frazzled wrote:

mattyrm wrote: Easily available modern technology has increased the punching power of the little nations. If the USA with its gigantic military budget attempted to occupy somewhere in Western Europe unsustainable casualties could be inflicted upon the occupiers, so how on earth is Russia going to march into anywhere this day and age?

As I said, I'm a military man, I think we should all have big armies, but this news really isn't going to feth anyone's country up.

The Russians walloped Georgia a short period ago.

Sort-of. A chunk of Georgia where half or more of the people also hold Russian passports and consider themselves Russian, decided they wanted to secede, and Georgia decided to stomp on that notion militarily. Russia jumped in to try to annex the portion which wanted to leave anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:"Strategy for leaner US military", how come Obama gets away with the doubletalk, he means cuts.

How is the "leaner NASA "working out?

Orlanth, meet Nels' post of a couple hours before you posted. Nels' post of a couple hours before Orlanth, meet Orlanth.

NELS1031 wrote:This isn't a new strategy on Obama's part, more of a return to General (ret.) Eric Shinseki's pre 9-11 vision for the military, a smaller , better trained, equipped and fast response army. At its heart its modelled after how the US Army's Ranger, airborne and air assault regiments/divisions operate, so much so that Shinseki gave every soldier the black beret, a former signature apparell piece of the Rangers. They then adopted a tan beret, so set themselves apart again, thereby defeating the purpose of why the black beret was given to everyone.

I loved the army transformation project, but hated the new headgear with a passion. Never undertood our military's fixation with berets. Nothing says elite combat soldier like a french headpiece, apparently.

Anyway, the army transformation was curtailed by the occupation of Iraq and its need for a larger military presence, which ironically Shinseki warned the Bush administration about and was promptly shitcanned. Its good that we are returning to this project as it will reduce our footprint while still maintaining our combat effetiveness, obstensibly reduce the military budget, and make our military as a whole even more elite.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
As an aside, I believe we don't actually spend the most on defense as a percentage of GDP - I believe China holds that distinction.

Its actually Eritrea.

China actually spends, or so it is estimated, a little over 2% of its GDP on the military which is about half of the US expenditures similarly expressed.

2.5% seems about par looking at the UK,France, and the estimates for China which are 2-4.
I'd love to see the US military cut it's budget to those levels and remain at the same or similar capability. I also think it's possible, .gov seems to take a fleecing by defense contractors on a regular basis...

As said by someone on another board

Just an observation- it's interesting that we have now bought planes with props and browning machine guns... in 2012... For $17.5M each...

"$17,500,000.00 in 2011 had the same buying power as $1,117,807.82 in 1940."

To put that into prospective- the P-51 Mustang cost $51,000.


Now I'm not saying this is a glorified P-51, but it's entertaining to think we now have a new plane with a prop and brownings on it- sort of harkens back.

AustonT wrote: I also think it's possible, .gov seems to take a fleecing by defense contractors on a regular basis...

No joke. Not only is defense a central issue at the national level, with a lot of public support for a high defense budget, but the defense industry itself is extremely powerful, and individual defense contractors make a habit of employing former military personnel in their sales and marketing divisions which doesn't generally mean that a lot of budget oversight goes on at the project level.

I'm probably alone, in many ways I hope I am. But I think the military should take (back?) over the production of certain things. Ammunition for one Lake City could be staffed by soldiers. I think government owned arms manufacturing should return, maybe even again staffed by soldiers. If Springfield Armory (not the current company the place) built the M16/M4 we'd have a new battle rifle by now. Some things require the innovation and competition of private industry. Somehow I think the construction and design of destroyers, LHDs, and Carriers arent among them...you know those things the Navy spends a couple bucks on.