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.

Here's a link to the BBC article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15830176

Is anyone really surprised?

Nope..not at all

Nope. If the senate, house, and W.H. can't get it together then why would the Super Committee. The 12 came from the senate, the plan was from the W.H., and the House...well the House....

Well, it was engineered to fail from the get-go as a pretext to doing what they really wanted.

It's like the myth that the US Postal Service needs to cut saturday delivery and other services because they're "losing money", when in fact they were actually profitable during the recession. They're going out of business because it was engineered that way. The Supercomittee was never supposed to succeed, just like the USPS was never supposed to actually be able to prefund their pensions.

This man speaks the TRUTH.

Gonna get interesting.

Might as well get this thread kicking now.

The New York Times
© November 25, 2011

By Elisabeth Bumiller

WASHINGTON

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has painted such an apocalyptic vision of America's national security under $500 billion in military budget cuts triggered by the failure of a congressional deficit panel, that Pentagon officials said this week that they were pushing back at Congress and not even planning for the spending reductions, which are to take effect in January 2013.

But independent military budget analysts described the cuts, which would bring the Pentagon base budget back to 2007 levels, as agonizing but manageable.

The analysts, who have close ties to the Pentagon, expressed amazement that a department that plans for every contingency was not planning for this one. They laid out the possibility of cutbacks to most weapons programs, a further reduction in the size of the Army, large layoffs among the Defense Department's 700,000 civilian employees and reduced military training time - such as on aircraft like the F-22 advanced jet fighter, which flies at Mach 2 and costs $18,000 an hour to operate, mostly because of the price of fuel.

Other possibilities include cutting the number of aircraft carriers to 10 from 11 - the United States still has more than any other country - as well as increased fees for the military's generous health care system, changes in military retirement, base closings around the country and delayed maintenance on ships and buildings.

"I'm not suggesting these are smart things to do, necessarily," said Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a military policy and research group in Washington. "But if you had to do it, you could do it."

The $500 billion in cuts, to be spread out over a decade, would come on top of $450 billion in spending reductions over the next 10 years that the Defense Department and the White House agreed to last summer.

Panetta, a former White House budget director, has described the $450 billion in cuts as painful but acceptable and is now determining where they should come from. In an interview this month, he said he was considering reducing medical and retirement benefits, shrinking the number of troops, reducing new weapons purchases and trimming the nuclear arsenal.

But he has publicly opposed the $500 billion in additional cuts, which he described in a statement Monday as tearing "a seam in the nation's defense." In a heated letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee last week, Panetta declared that over a decade the cuts would lead to "the smallest ground force since 1940, the smallest number of ships since 1915 and the smallest Air Force in its history."

By Panetta's calculations, the new cuts would reduce the 2013 budget by 23 percent - the reason Pentagon officials said they would push Congress to work out a way to avoid "sequestration," the automatic cuts set in motion by the committee's failure. (There appeared to be little support for such an agreement on Tuesday in Congress, however.)

"We are not planning for the sequester," said Doug Wilson, a Pentagon spokesman. "The focus is on trying to get Congress to do what it said it would do."

Under the automatic cuts triggered by the committee's failure, the 2013 Pentagon budget would have to shrink to $472 billion from $525 billion - an 11 percent reduction, or about the size of the Pentagon's base budget in 2007. (The costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not included in the base budgets.)

An 11 percent reduction is nonetheless a cut of $54 billion, which would have to be done in a single year - the real challenge in reducing Pentagon spending this way.

"It's the abruptness of the cuts, not the depth of the cuts, which makes it hard," Harrison said.

Although closing bases, shrinking the size of the Army and laying off civilians reduces spending over time, he said, the fastest way to reduce the budget is to make cuts in major weapons systems - which in fact began under Panetta's predecessor, Robert M. Gates.

Right now, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the most expensive weapons program in history, is the top target for cuts. (The Pentagon plans to spend nearly $400 billion buying 2,500 of the stealth jets through 2035.) Other potential targets include the Army's planned ground combat vehicle and a "next-generation" long-range bomber under development by the Air Force.

As a result, the military industry is already in full alarm.

"The Pentagon has been cutting weapons programs by hundreds of billions of dollars for three years now," said Loren B. Thompson, a consultant to military contractors. "There's not much left to kill that won't affect the military's safety or success."

Other analysts argued that the United States had such overwhelming military superiority globally that it could easily withstand the cuts, even to the point of eliminating the Joint Strike Fighter.

"We're in a technological race with ourselves," said Gordon Adams, who oversaw military budgets in the Clinton White House.

We have a choice. Cheap Oil, or Soldier's Safety. There are two ways to get cheap oil - send the best-eqipped military in the world to do it cheaply in terms of lives lost (but very expensive), or send a bunch of ill-eqipped soliders to do it on the cheap and only get half of them back. (If you think Iraq and Afghanistan aren't ultimately about stabilizing the Mideast to preserve the availabilty of oil, you may be deluding yourself.)

OR... we can just kick the oil habit once and for all. Drop the 100 mile communtes, the big-ass SUVs and trucks and muscle cars for commuter transport, etc. Demand better mass tranport options and give benefits to those who carpool... which will also be quite expensive. Then we can leave the Gulf to it's own devices and not worry about the strength of our military. At least, not until China starts building aircraft carriers...

There's no good option, really. Maintain a strong but expensive elite military? Mainatin a large military that is still powerful but risks loosing soldiers in job lots? Not worry about military security and hope 20 years down the road someone doesn't come along and try and carve off a chunk of the country? Balance the three options as best you can and risk winding up with the worst of all worlds (expensive and still soldiers get expended in job lots unsucessfully defending the nation)?


Or just decide that Vulcan is bound and determined to find the worst in any outcome...

China has two on the block being built plus 4 purchased.

It cost $17,500 to equip a US soldier for a combat deployment which will increase as personnel protection for soldiers evolve. Slightly more for a SpecOps soldier.

Do you think China will use their aircraft carriers to make war on the USA?

I say no way. China out gunned, out classed, and inexperience to deal with the US Navy. They know it and we know it. China will not use their aircraft carrier to go to war. Focus will be more on Taiwan and its surrounding area I say.

Kilkrazy wrote:Do you think China will use their aircraft carriers to make war on the USA?

Right now, they can't even use their aircraft carrier - singular - to land aircraft on. They only have one, which has been unfinished for over 20 years. They don't have a carrier group to support it, and no experience doing so. Their ability to wage war with this ship is nonexistent at present and dubious in the near future.

Their other carrier was converted into a hotel or something and is as dangerous as the Queen Elizabeth 2.

The Chinese have no reason to threaten the US militarily, as our economies are too intertwined. The mostly likely point of contention would be Taiwan, and again, hurting Taiwan would cause a great deal of self inflicted wounds as well.

Chinese carrier capability is just a placeholder for the future.

Both carriers are essentially training vessels. When China wants a carrier fleet they will build more, and that might happen quickly.

The entire Chinese MO is to lul any opponent rather than provoke them, they have no need to engage in an arms race now.

Orlanth wrote:
The entire Chinese MO is to lul any opponent rather than provoke them, they have no need to engage in an arms race now.

That was consistent with the Chinese foreign policy position in the 90's, but has almost no relevance today (and even in the 90's it was only certain government players that opted for the "lull" response). The Chinese are extremely confrontational regarding the South China Sea, Tibet, North Korea, and a host of other issues.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:China has two on the block being built plus 4 purchased.

2 of the purchased carriers are amusement parks.

2 of the purchased carriers are amusement parks.

Thats what they want you to think

Kilkrazy wrote:Do you think China will use their aircraft carriers to make war on the USA?

No, because China knows that it will lose if it makes war on the USA. What China will do, however, is alter the current strategic balance in the South Pacific.

Vulcan wrote:We have a choice. Cheap Oil, or Soldier's Safety. There are two ways to get cheap oil - send the best-eqipped military in the world to do it cheaply in terms of lives lost (but very expensive), or send a bunch of ill-eqipped soliders to do it on the cheap and only get half of them back. (If you think Iraq and Afghanistan aren't ultimately about stabilizing the Mideast to preserve the availabilty of oil, you may be deluding yourself.)

No. A hundred times no. This is left-wing conspiracy "no war for oil" theory. There are plenty of ways to get cheap oil and multi-billion dollar military engagements are not anywhere near the top of the list.

The fact that people still believe this is shocking.

Ouze wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Do you think China will use their aircraft carriers to make war on the USA?

Right now, they can't even use their aircraft carrier - singular - to land aircraft on. They only have one, which has been unfinished for over 20 years. They don't have a carrier group to support it, and no experience doing so. Their ability to wage war with this ship is nonexistent at present and dubious in the near future.

Their other carrier was converted into a hotel or something and is as dangerous as the Queen Elizabeth 2.

The Chinese have no reason to threaten the US militarily, as our economies are too intertwined. The mostly likely point of contention would be Taiwan, and again, hurting Taiwan would cause a great deal of self inflicted wounds as well.

I agree, some feel that intertwining economies is a way to prevent war. Thomas Friedman wrote about it in a book called The World is Flat in what he calls the "Dell Theory of Conflict Prevention". A bit off topic there.

As for the super committee, I actually thought there would be last moment heroics where both parties would claim they saved the day. So ya, failure surprised me a bit as it would have been a great opportunity show they can do their jobs.

J-Roc77 wrote:

Ouze wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Do you think China will use their aircraft carriers to make war on the USA?

Right now, they can't even use their aircraft carrier - singular - to land aircraft on. They only have one, which has been unfinished for over 20 years. They don't have a carrier group to support it, and no experience doing so. Their ability to wage war with this ship is nonexistent at present and dubious in the near future.

Their other carrier was converted into a hotel or something and is as dangerous as the Queen Elizabeth 2.

The Chinese have no reason to threaten the US militarily, as our economies are too intertwined. The mostly likely point of contention would be Taiwan, and again, hurting Taiwan would cause a great deal of self inflicted wounds as well.

I agree, some feel that intertwining economies is a way to prevent war. Thomas Friedman wrote about it in a book called The World is Flat in what he calls the "Dell Theory of Conflict Prevention". A bit off topic there.

As for the super committee, I actually thought there would be last moment heroics where both parties would claim they saved the day. So ya, failure surprised me a bit as it would have been a great opportunity show they can do their jobs.

Yeah, some silly people thought that before WWI as well.

Wait a second, they made a committee, to fix this garbage, using 3 dems and 3 republicans? Who the feth thought THAT was a good idea? At least add 1 personal from another party to balance the OBVIOUS dead locks they will run into.

Easy E wrote:

J-Roc77 wrote:

Ouze wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Do you think China will use their aircraft carriers to make war on the USA?

Right now, they can't even use their aircraft carrier - singular - to land aircraft on. They only have one, which has been unfinished for over 20 years. They don't have a carrier group to support it, and no experience doing so. Their ability to wage war with this ship is nonexistent at present and dubious in the near future.

Their other carrier was converted into a hotel or something and is as dangerous as the Queen Elizabeth 2.

The Chinese have no reason to threaten the US militarily, as our economies are too intertwined. The mostly likely point of contention would be Taiwan, and again, hurting Taiwan would cause a great deal of self inflicted wounds as well.

I agree, some feel that intertwining economies is a way to prevent war. Thomas Friedman wrote about it in a book called The World is Flat in what he calls the "Dell Theory of Conflict Prevention". A bit off topic there.

As for the super committee, I actually thought there would be last moment heroics where both parties would claim they saved the day. So ya, failure surprised me a bit as it would have been a great opportunity show they can do their jobs.

Yeah, some silly people thought that before WWI as well.

Sure there is always the exception. I should have said it is a deterrent, it does not completely prevent as you have pointed out. While I personally don't think Freidman is all that great I think he illustrated the point well by using the Pakistan and India standoff '01/'02 . The idea is not new I was just wanting to use a contemporary example of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KingCracker wrote:Wait a second, they made a committee, to fix this garbage, using 3 dems and 3 republicans? Who the feth thought THAT was a good idea? At least add 1 personal from another party to balance the OBVIOUS dead locks they will run into.

WHOA...WHOAH...slow down there. Politics is no place for making sense! I think both parties would like to believe that a third party does not exist, having a third party help fix it would also show their weakness so it is a tea party for two only.

US military spending has nothing to do with protecting the US, and nothing to do with taking on military rivals, neither real nor theoretical. US military spending has everything to do with giving the US the ability to have an absolute say in world events because if worst comes to worst, the US can drop a carrier group into the region to resolve the issue.

In the more formalised, alliance based situation of the cold war this was an immense boost to US trading relationships. Nowadays I kind of doubt it gives anywhere near as much as value to their trading power, and just ends up looking like a giant drag on the budget and economy as a whole.

KingCracker wrote:Wait a second, they made a committee, to fix this garbage, using 3 dems and 3 republicans? Who the feth thought THAT was a good idea? At least add 1 personal from another party to balance the OBVIOUS dead locks they will run into.

They were picking congressmen, so what other party would that be?

US military spending has nothing to do with protecting the US, and nothing to do with taking on military rivals, neither real nor theoretical.

I actually thought it was to give us the technical edge over any and all adversary. Example will be night vision equipment.

US military spending has everything to do with giving the US the ability to have an absolute say in world events because if worst comes to worst, the US can drop a carrier group into the region to resolve the issue.

I see the threat of the US military really working on Iran or say Russia? Use of military force is a is decided by the politicians for the US. Implementation of the force is decided by DoD/Joint Chief of Staff once ordered by POTUS. That happens after POTUS exhaust all methods to deal with the issue at hand. Besides dropping a carrier group in the Indian Ocean to ensure say...North Korea arms trade. (Just throwing it out there as an example)

In the more formalised, alliance based situation of the cold war this was an immense boost to US trading relationships. Nowadays I kind of doubt it gives anywhere near as much as value to their trading power, and just ends up looking like a giant drag on the budget and economy as a whole.

Military Tech trade? or trade in general? I'm going for trade in general. Isn't trade a private sector thing? Think economic reforms might be in order here. Military budget needs some common sense cuts which in effect will cut into economy. Do the cut down but do it gradually.

So out of the 9 congress men/women I wonder what their degree's are lol

KingCracker wrote:Wait a second, they made a committee, to fix this garbage, using 3 dems and 3 republicans? Who the feth thought THAT was a good idea? At least add 1 personal from another party to balance the OBVIOUS dead locks they will run into.

Deadlock was the intention.

The system worked (well, not for us, but for the Congress critters)

Im not a big fan of politics, partly because it just pisses me off, and partly because its so incredibly fething confusing (Im sure its meant to be that way) on the way it handles its business. But why would they WANT it to auto fail? Please explain this to me, because its just not knocking loose in my head

KingCracker wrote:Im not a big fan of politics, partly because it just pisses me off, and partly because its so incredibly fething confusing (Im sure its meant to be that way) on the way it handles its business. But why would they WANT it to auto fail? Please explain this to me, because its just not knocking loose in my head

Because now both sides can claim they tried to be bipartisan and that the other side stopped them from getting anything done for one.

I'm sure there's some other political advantage to not making a clear decision on spending. Now none of them have to bear the heat in upcoming elections. As I understand it, the budget being discussed doesn't go into effect until 2013. Both sides stand to gain from remaining unattached to any decision until the upcoming election season is decided.

Ok ok ok ok......Im going to some mudhole former Soviet state, buying some nukes, and starting a fething revolution.

Jihadin wrote:I actually thought it was to give us the technical edge over any and all adversary. Example will be night vision equipment.

I think you misread what I wrote. I was talking about all US military spending, and the purpose of that spending being the ability of the US to influence world events, not anything to do with repelling an invasion from some other country.

I see the threat of the US military really working on Iran or say Russia?

Look how isolated they are, how all the countries that share similar cultures move away from them and to the US. So on that level it absolutely works.

The issue is that once, in the formalised conditions of the Cold War, getting those countries to be close to the US meant they traded with you guys, giving you access to cheap resources, and markets for your manufactured goods. These days, that's not really true anymore, I mean, everyone tut-tutted Russia for their actions in Georgia, but the whole of Europe kept buying their natural gas.

Use of military force is a is decided by the politicians for the US. Implementation of the force is decided by DoD/Joint Chief of Staff once ordered by POTUS. That happens after POTUS exhaust all methods to deal with the issue at hand. Besides dropping a carrier group in the Indian Ocean to ensure say...North Korea arms trade. (Just throwing it out there as an example)

Yes, exactly. But the simple fact is while military action is the last measure, the capability for such is relied upon every step of the way. It's why the US, and not Germany or Iceland, are the ones involved in negotiations with North Korea in the first place.

Military Tech trade? or trade in general? I'm going for trade in general. Isn't trade a private sector thing? Think economic reforms might be in order here. Military budget needs some common sense cuts which in effect will cut into economy. Do the cut down but do it gradually.

Trade in general. And no, international trade relies heavily on government agreements, both for the legal right (it isn't very common anymore but it used to be the case that you flat out could not trade with certain countries), and also for government support to alleviate many of the difficulties involved - all those guys working in diplomatic offices around the world, maybe 90% of them have their degrees in international business because they're there first and foremost to help businesses make deals that benefit their country.

By size (number of troops), the top ten nations looks like this;

China
United States
India
Korea, North
Russia
Korea, South
Pakistan
Israel
Turkey
Iran

But anyone who has studied military history knows that the number of troops is a misleading measure. There are several factors that make the troops of one army more effective than others. The most obvious modifying factor is weapons and equipment (quantity and quality). Closely related to this are the “combat support” elements. The most important of these are logistics (being able to move troops, and their supplies, long distances and in a timely manner) and maintenance (keeping things in repair and running under all conditions.) Then there are the intangibles (like leadership, training and the most intangible item of all; military tradition.) Apply all of those to the raw number of troops and you get different number. This number is called "combat power."

Top Ten By Combat Power

United States
China
Israel
India
Russia
Korea, South
Korea, North
United Kingdom
Turkey

The most unusual entry here is Israel. But this is because Israel is one of the few nations to have a reserve army that can be mobilized for action more quickly than most countries can get their active duties into shape for combat. The mobilized Israeli armed forces number over half a million troops. In addition, the Israelis have world class equipment and weapons, as well as exceptional intangibles. The downsize of this is that mobilizing its armed forces also cripples the Israeli economy. Under these conditions, Israel must conduct a war that ends within a few months. After that, supplying the armed forces becomes difficult and actual combat power begins to decline.

The other nations in the top ten have large armed forces that are well equipped and trained, at least compared to most nations farther down on the list. Britain’s armed forces, like Israel’s, are better equipped, trained and more experienced than most. Turkey benefits from having a strong military tradition and excellent leadership at the small unit level, as well as good combat training.

Overall, the U.S. combat power is about three times that of second place China, and ten times that of tenth place Pakistan. But another modifying factor is how you plan to use that combat power. Wars are not fought in a vacuum, but in places that often inconvenient places for one side. Most armed forces are optimized for fighting on their own borders; for defending the homeland. Only the United States is capable of quickly moving lots of combat power to anywhere on the planet. Moreover, given a few months, the United States can put enough combat power just about anywhere, and become the major military force in that neighborhood. Countries like Britain and France can move some forces to just about anywhere on the planet. But no one can put forces anywhere quite like the United States.

For most nations with powerful armed forces, it's mainly a matter of having the most formidable military force in the neighborhood.

I was refering to how advance our equipment is over most countries. Thats most of the funding in the budget going to equipement that gives the US its military edge i a shooting match

Vulcan wrote:We have a choice. Cheap Oil, or Soldier's Safety. There are two ways to get cheap oil - send the best-eqipped military in the world to do it cheaply in terms of lives lost (but very expensive), or send a bunch of ill-eqipped soliders to do it on the cheap and only get half of them back. (If you think Iraq and Afghanistan aren't ultimately about stabilizing the Mideast to preserve the availabilty of oil, you may be deluding yourself.)

The price stability of oil (not necessarily the actual price of oil) is a factor that makes the Middle East a region of strategic interest to the US (basically, they have a lot of it, and therefore a strong influence on price fluctuations), but the impetus behind the current wars was only, at best, influenced by this. Afghanistan was a case of a hawkish Administration responding to an attack on US soil, and Iraq was that same Administration's advocacy of Democratic Peace Theory in addition to certain historical factors relative to US policy relative to Iraq.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:US military spending has nothing to do with protecting the US, and nothing to do with taking on military rivals, neither real nor theoretical. US military spending has everything to do with giving the US the ability to have an absolute say in world events because if worst comes to worst, the US can drop a carrier group into the region to resolve the issue.

There's also a culture, though and ebbing one, which favors the possession of a strong military for its own sake; which helps make it an issue of political contention. Throw in certain material interests in certain states and Congressional districts, and it gets even more entrenched.

(If you think Iraq and Afghanistan aren't ultimately about stabilizing the Mideast to preserve the availabilty of oil, you may be deluding yourself.)

Yes. Because a country with no oil is absolutely vital in assuring the availability of oil...