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.

schadenfreude wrote:Classic guns versus butter.

Except the argument is "cut defense," not "balance defense.

Also, the military budget, as a percentage of government spending, is lower than it was during the cold war.

schadenfreude wrote:Cuts would be in expensive hardware like F22s and the over all size of the military (reduced recruiting)

More likely reducing the number of troops.

Which is not necessarily a bad thing.

There are one or two people on this thread (Frazz and schadenfreude) who keep muttering about there being no Red threat, whilst over zealously declaring their love for Texas, Nancy Reagan etc etc

Now I can't speak for Schadenfreude, but I know from previous threads that Frazz is of a similar age to myself, old enough to be the product of Commie spies sneaked into America during the 60s and 70s... Do the maths, Dakka, do the maths...

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:There are one or two people on this thread (Frazz and schadenfreude) who keep muttering about there being no Red threat, whilst over zealously declaring their love for Texas, Nancy Reagan etc etc

Now I can't speak for Schadenfreude, but I know from previous threads that Frazz is of a similar age to myself, old enough to be the product of Commie spies sneaked into America during the 60s and 70s... Do the maths, Dakka, do the maths...

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.

Bring back the kepi!!


I think the biggest issue is the basis that we need a military sized to handle two major fronts. If we look at the purely military portion of the Iraq war - not the military police occupation - I believe it was over in 7 days. If China/North Korea invaded the South, I doubt that we could get the troops in position fast enough to curtail such an advance and would be forced into an Inchon II or a naval blockade/air-only counter attack.

I think we should be spending our efforts looking at faster response time rather than bigger.

I always thought the "beret" the US Army was given by the Brits developed from the Tam o Shanter. But I been wrong before.

AustonT wrote:

Melissia wrote:Doesn't soldier pay match with inflation?

No.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If anything it's a little higher
Base pay for an E-5 over 4 was 888 in 1984 in 2006 when inflation had roughly doubled the same place in the chart made 1935.

I had said that yes we get raises roughly with inflation, I think that up until the last couple years, its been a 3.3% increase.. So, inflation gained something like 3%, and we gained slightly more than the actual inflation value, but really, when combined with "necessary" bills and such, most of us live paycheck to paycheck and struggle to make ends meet (especially those with multi-child families), which I actually attribute more to lifestyle than I do our pay. My wife who is also military do just fine when compared to other dual income families who are of similar rank/income to us.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:There are one or two people on this thread (Frazz and schadenfreude) who keep muttering about there being no Red threat, whilst over zealously declaring their love for Texas, Nancy Reagan etc etc

Now I can't speak for Schadenfreude, but I know from previous threads that Frazz is of a similar age to myself, old enough to be the product of Commie spies sneaked into America during the 60s and 70s... Do the maths, Dakka, do the maths...

Right and wrong...

Wrong about my love of Texas and Nancy Reagan. No love for the Texas myself, born and raised in the People's Republic of California and currently living in Northern Nevada. No love for Nancy Reagan either, or any 1st lady for that matter the position is over rated. I've also said multiple times the things I liked most about Reagan was how moderate he was, and how good he was at reaching across the isle and working with Democrats.

Right about me being a commie spy. Yes I was born in the 1970's, and my biological mother was a Russian Jew. Thanks for blowing my cover as a covert Red operative, but at least you didn't blow my cover as a covert Zionist operative.

schadenfreude wrote:
Right and wrong...

Wrong about my love of Texas and Nancy Reagan. No love for the Texas myself, born and raised in the People's Republic of California and currently living in Northern Nevada. No love for Nancy Reagan either, or any 1st lady for that matter the position is over rated. I've also said multiple times the things I liked most about Reagan was how moderate he was, and how good he was at reaching across the isle and working with Democrats.

Right about me being a commie spy. Yes I was born in the 1970's, and my biological mother was a Russian Jew. Thanks for blowing my cover as a covert Red operative, but at least you didn't blow my cover as a covert Zionist operative.

Dang, well I guess you blew your cover now, so you'll have to kill all of us.. if you can find us.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Melissia wrote:Doesn't soldier pay match with inflation?

No.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If anything it's a little higher
Base pay for an E-5 over 4 was 888 in 1984 in 2006 when inflation had roughly doubled the same place in the chart made 1935.

I had said that yes we get raises roughly with inflation, I think that up until the last couple years, its been a 3.3% increase.. So, inflation gained something like 3%, and we gained slightly more than the actual inflation value, but really, when combined with "necessary" bills and such, most of us live paycheck to paycheck and struggle to make ends meet (especially those with multi-child families), which I actually attribute more to lifestyle than I do our pay. My wife who is also military do just fine when compared to other dual income families who are of similar rank/income to us.

I've known guys who lived paycheck to paycheck and I could never figure out how. I actually snapped to say no because I mistakenly thought it was much less, then checked my facts. *shrug* it happens. It always seems like you aren't making what you should, until you get out and realize how very much it is.

AustonT wrote:I always thought the "beret" the US Army was given by the Brits developed from the Tam o Shanter. But I been wrong before.

Like most military headgear, it derives from the French Army, which dominated Europe between about 1500 and 1815 except for occasional rebuffs.

Or onion sellers. I'm not sure which.



Bicycle and cart portage have a respected military history.

Orlanth wrote:
Leaner strongly indicates improved efficiency, that is the doubletalk.

No, that's spin, or selling a policy. Its huge part of any politicians job. Obama isn't "Getting away with it." so much as "Doing what all other politicians do."

Orlanth wrote:
Cuts do not usually result in that.

However, they might, and that may be their intention, which makes the description valid.

Orlanth wrote:
You should try to think rather than laugh you will find out that sweeping cuts almost always means starved, not fighting fit.

Interestingly, when I laugh, its usually because I am thinking.

biccat wrote:
Also, the military budget, as a percentage of government spending, is lower than it was during the cold war.

So you argument is that defense spending should not be reduced because during the Cold War, when we were engaged in an arms race and a series of proxy wars with the world's only superpower, defense spending was higher?

Should we, then, have not cut defense spending after WWII?

Rented Tritium wrote:I think the realistic thing to hope for is an efficient reduction of capability, but still a reduction of capability.

Essentially, yes. Any significant reduction in spending is going to result in a reduction in capability. The question, then, is whether or not we really needed the capability that was lost.

Rented Tritium wrote:
Now, if the cuts are in the wrong places, you can really screw things up, so tread carefully. But you know, government etc.

Or, in this case, military as well.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
Also, the military budget, as a percentage of government spending, is lower than it was during the cold war.

So you argument is that defense spending should not be reduced because during the Cold War, when we were engaged in an arms race and a series of proxy wars with the world's only superpower, defense spending was higher?

Pointing out that someone's argument is incorrect does not constitute acceptance of the counter argument.

Facts are, so I've been told, stubborn things.

dogma wrote:

So you argument is that defense spending should not be reduced because during the Cold War, when we were engaged in an arms race and a series of proxy wars with the world's only superpower, defense spending was higher?

Should we, then, have not cut defense spending after WWII?

As a history major here, I think The issue and my opinion is that we need to learn from past cuts. I think that pre-WW1, and post-WW1, into post WW2, Korea and possibly even Vietnam, the American Govt has had a tendency to trim TOO much off of the military. Our saving grace in many of these situations was the ability to quickly expand our forces to meet the perceived need of the country. Within a few months to a year of beginning into WW1, we were able to take a force of around 200k troops, and expand that into a force of over 1 million. After WW1, IIRC we reduced to between 4 and 500k, but were again well over the million mark once WW2 kicked off. I realize that in each of these situations, the draft was implemented, and that the shrinking was really just the large majority of draftees leaving service; But, we did begin to maintain slightly larger forces after each conflict, possibly using the reasoning that each war will, if past indications are anything to judge by, the "next war" would be bigger than the last.


While I may not particularly enjoy some of the forthcoming "cuts" and they may suck, it is my job right now to perform here, and I will keep doing my job the best I can, with whatever I am given or can create, it's kinda what we've always done. I do hope that some of the things that we have now are not even discussed as part of any cuts, or limits in growth. These sorts of things include medical and dental treatment and coverage, as well as our current education benefits, housing a food allowances that are about the only things that let some of us enjoy a "normal" life (as in, able to purchase homes, try and establish some sort of roots into a community, etc.)

I have sincere doubts that Tricare, BAS, or BAH are in danger. The Air Forces frivolous COLA payments probably should be.
Like you said upthread removing equipment that ist being used or isn't in the supply system preferably only when both conditions exist. Even in the "boom" of spending over the last decade I know that some parts of the Army have been recognized as doing so much, with so little, for so long that further cuts will only be detrimental.

AustonT wrote:Which as a civil war EVERYONE should have stayed out of. You know except Libyans.

Some countries like to pretend they oppose mass killing of civilians (and keeping oil prices down).

Personally I consider the Libyan intervention to have been highly successful.

We were invited by an internal faction who had broad support among the people. We got the backing of the Arab League.

Those points legitimised the intervention.

Many NATO nations contributed.

The risk to our forces was low, because we had very few boots on the ground, and the Libyans were nearly incapable of opposing our aircraft.

We caused the minimum of collateral damage.

Thus, we avoided angering the local people and Arabists generally, and we did not seem like invaders or crusaders.

Overall cost of operations was pretty low and gave our forces useful live firing experience (if you want to be cynical about it).

A vile dictator was ousted, to the great satisfaction of everyone except himself and other vile dictators.

Gaddaffi was topped in circumstances which can be explained as "fortunes of war", which removed a variety of potential future aggro.

The whole thing took under a year.

Altogether I consider Libya a much superior model to Iraq for western military intervention in the Arab world.

KilKrazy wrote:Altogether I consider Libya a much superior model to Iraq for western military intervention in the Arab world.

That is certainly true. I just think that America, and by extension her allies but not necessarily in a binding way. Should seek to avoid interventionist policy, especially in civil wars. Self determination vice OUR determination should dictate the development or collapse of thier nation.

biccat wrote:

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
Also, the military budget, as a percentage of government spending, is lower than it was during the cold war.

So you argument is that defense spending should not be reduced because during the Cold War, when we were engaged in an arms race and a series of proxy wars with the world's only superpower, defense spending was higher?

Pointing out that someone's argument is incorrect does not constitute acceptance of the counter argument.

Facts are, so I've been told, stubborn things.

Actually it shows you are starting to agree with me that we don't need a cold war era budget for our military.

Is DoD spending is less now than it was in the cold war( linflaton adjusted $)?

biccat wrote:
Pointing out that someone's argument is incorrect does not constitute acceptance of the counter argument.

Who claimed that we spend more on defense, as a percent of GDP or federal outlays, than we did during the Cold War?

You made an irrelevant statement, you make a habit of this, you should learn to accept this tendency (and stop making irrelevant statements).

Even if we use you measure of "percentage of federal outlays" your initial claim is wrong. The military budget as a percentage of federal outlays was, in 1960, roughly double what it is currently. And no one, ever, or anywhere, would claim 1960 was not during the Cold War.

I pretty much said we are spending more now than we were during the cold war on defense spending. My statement is true if you look at inflation adjusted spending. We capped out at about 800 billion a year when 10,000 nuclear warheads were pointed at our cities, and are now spending about 50% more to fight guys in caves. Others attacked my claim by pointing out how dod as a % of gdp has gone down, which roughtly translates to its ok to overspend on dod as long as medicare and social security overspend by even larger amounts of money. Doesn't make sense to me but what do I know I am just a cheap ass penny pinching libertarian who would want dod spending rolled back to inflation adjusted 800b/year cold war levels so we could take the 400b in dod cuts to lower taxes on middle class families. But that's just me being a libertarian cook.

To look at it very simply, GDP is all the money the country has to spend on everything.

If you increase GDP faster than inflation, you can increase defence spending in real terms while also reducing its proportion of GDP. This leaves you more money to spend on everything else.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:This is just my simple opinion, being in the Army right now myself...

The first things to be cut, will be retention benefits. Basically, sometime soon, I may be seeing a cut in the bonus I receive for staying on longer. After this will more than likely be the recruiting of new soldiers for certain MOSs. In "peace times" certain jobs see major decreases in numbers, some others see moderate to fairly large increases in numbers.

We'll probably see a drive to dump old and outdated equipment that is just rotting in various units around the world (which would be fantastic, because my shop is loaded with crap from the 60s and 70s that no one can fix or use any more)

After a drive to temper or reduce numbers, we'll see a drop in "available" ammunition and fuel for the fiscal year. For example, a Battalion has 500 soldiers, and currently gets allotted 1 million rounds of various type for training prior to heading into a warzone. Under these budget "cuts" this same battalion may only receive 750 thousand rounds of various types, or even half a million rounds available.. This means that units will need to become much more efficient in their qualifying and training with live rounds to meet army requirements (you'd be amazed the people who cannot shoot and qualify to save their lives without hundreds of rounds in a given range day).

Certain people I've spoken to tell me that recruiting will have to go up in order to keep the branches performing as they usually do, especially with higher-ranking people being axed left and right. How true is this? I still want to get a place in the military, but It does worry me that there simply won't be room

Also, I'm surprised you still have equipment from that long ago. What kind of stuff are we talking about? Flak Vests and Web gear or vehicles and tank parts? Usually the former ends up in surplus stores after a replacement is available, while I was under the impression that we sold off our old tanks and crap to emerging compliant militaries. We could definitely make some quick cash off of selling our old stuff, whether that means flooding the civilian markets or to countries abroad.

Kilkrazy wrote:Personally I consider the Libyan intervention to have been highly successful.

We were invited by an internal faction who had broad support among the people. We got the backing of the Arab League.

Those points legitimised the intervention.

Many NATO nations contributed.

The risk to our forces was low, because we had very few boots on the ground, and the Libyans were nearly incapable of opposing our aircraft.

We caused the minimum of collateral damage.

Thus, we avoided angering the local people and Arabists generally, and we did not seem like invaders or crusaders.

Overall cost of operations was pretty low and gave our forces useful live firing experience (if you want to be cynical about it).

A vile dictator was ousted, to the great satisfaction of everyone except himself and other vile dictators.

Gaddaffi was topped in circumstances which can be explained as "fortunes of war", which removed a variety of potential future aggro.

The whole thing took under a year.

Altogether I consider Libya a much superior model to Iraq for western military intervention in the Arab world.

Of course Al Qaeda is reported to be sending people in there now. In the words of the immortal bard: we'll see.

On the positive a dictator who directly ordered the killing of American civilians is dead, and in a nasty way. I'll light up a fat one in celebration of that.

schadenfreude wrote:Actually it shows you are starting to agree with me that we don't need a cold war era budget for our military.

I agree that we don't need a cold war era budget for our military.

schadenfreude wrote:Is DoD spending is less now than it was in the cold war( linflaton adjusted $)?

In terms of government outlays? Yes.

Hard to tell otherwise, wars (including particularly expensive ones like Iraq and Afghanistan) tend to create bubbles in spending. Of course you would acknowledge that a lot of the "military" spending in Iraq and Afghanistan is going to non-military purposes.

What I found most interesting about your chart is that it only shows $1.2 trillion in spending for 2010. Interestingly, the 2010 budget (such as it was) was actually $3.7 trillion. If you're going to make a "guns vs. butter" argument, shouldn't the growth of the 'butter' section be relevant? Where did the other $2.5 trillion get spent?

dogma wrote:Who claimed that we spend more on defense, as a percent of GDP or federal outlays, than we did during the Cold War?

Dogma, if you're not going to honestly debate and won't bother reading the thread before you respond, I'm not going to argue with you.

"The red menace is gone, so I would not expect the guns versus butter ratio to be the same as it was in the 80s."

I'm going to just ignore the rest of your posts because you apparently can't engage in debate without resorting to personal attacks.

Funny, my squadron is scheduled to fly more hours this year than in its entire history.