US War Machine Downsizing? 506
mrspoonsi writes "BBC Reports: 'Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has unveiled plans to shrink the U.S. Army to its smallest size since before World War Two. Outlining his budget plan, the Pentagon chief proposed trimming the active-duty Army to between 440,000 and 450,000 personnel — from 520,000 currently. The U.S. currently spends more on defense than the combined total of the next 12 countries, as ranked by defense spending.'"
Drone Occupation (Score:5, Insightful)
Of Planet Earth is near completion.
The rest can be sub-contracted.
Re:Drone Occupation (Score:5, Interesting)
Before you know it, well be able to fight a complete war without risking a single soldier.
Since the bar for invasion of another sovereign state is already set fairly low, what future transgression will be enough when no dead heroes need to return home? Iran looked at me funny!
How could Iran look at you funny? They're dead. (Score:5, Funny)
We attacked last week over a EULA violation.
Re:How could Iran look at you funny? They're dead. (Score:5, Funny)
Wait until the drones detect they have illegal copies of software installed, you bet your ass the EULA allows them to participate in a 'removal of corrupt authoritarian powers and replacement with a benevolent drone overload'
I for one welcome our new drone overloads.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Before you know it, well be able to fight a complete war without risking a single soldier.
Define risk.
The drone pilots at Nellis (Las Vegas) end up with PTSD like field soldiers do.
Worse still, programmers assigned to classified projects - required to use only known approved secure development tools and libraries - are driven slowly insane by having to spend 6 months to accomplish something they know could be done in 6 days with freely available, but not approved, tools.
Re:Drone Occupation (Score:5, Insightful)
The drone pilots at Nellis (Las Vegas) end up with PTSD like field soldiers do.
While true, that is only because the screening program for that job weeds out abnormal people. Normal people simply don't want to kill other people, either in person or via remote control.
However, such people do exist... Once the military figures out that they can get socially maladjusted people to fly the drones, they'll have no problems, because such people couldn't care less about killing "ragheads" or whoever the "bad guy of the week" happens to be.
Re:Drone Occupation (Score:4, Insightful)
Once the military figures out that they can get socially maladjusted people to fly the drones, they'll have no problems, because such people couldn't care less about killing "ragheads" or whoever the "bad guy of the week" happens to be.
Maybe fewer problems with PTSD, but one needs to remember that the military isn't just about violence, it's about controlled violence.
You get somebody who doesn't care, much less enjoys it, and you increase the already present problems of uncontrolled or misdirected violence. And that costs more than a few cases of PTSD. I mean, besides the waste of drone time and the cost of the munitions you also have destroyed property that you end up paying for, medical bills for the survivors, settlements with the families of the deceased, lowered public perception, protests and sanctions from other governments*, etc...
*For example, something as simple as denying the US Navy access to a port can cost us MILLIONS in shipping and resupply costs.
Re: (Score:3)
It depends on the resolution of the drone's camera feed. The reason snipers need to be more psychologically hardened than other soldiers that they have an up close and personal view of the death of every person they kill. They get to see, clearly, the effects of the bullet entering the target. Most other soldiers do not have that curse. They shoot someone and most will just see the person fall over, if that due to needing to keep cover.
Drones serve to raise normal soldier up closer towards what snipers have
Re:Drone Occupation (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually I've heard the PTSD can be even worse - the human brain is apparently not that well suited to killing people 8-to-5 and then going home to the wife and kids who can't relate at all.
On the other hand fully autonomous killing machines are currently being field-tested, and especially when there are no friendlies on the ground I fully such things to be deployed in a big way within a decade or two. And then we'll see just how ugly and expansionist the US war machine can really be.
Fully autonomous programmer-drones on the other hand I don't expect to see any time soon.
Re:Drone Occupation (Score:5, Insightful)
Since the bar for invasion of another sovereign state is already set fairly low, what future transgression will be enough when no dead heroes need to return home
I thought it was common knowledge that since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the US Gov't has been waging an escalating war on Private Citizens culminating in the last few year in new and improved ways to conduct mass surveillance, removal of their rights to a trial and killing them in drone strikes.
No more pussy-footing around with stupid attempts at tyranny like saying "We Need to Suspend the Constitution for the War on Drugs" like Bush I stated to the nation. Now days we just call it "National Security" while we have a drone blow up a car carrying a US Citizen because he's a suspected terrorist sympathizer or wipe out a bunch of people attending a funeral because "intelligence sources confirmed a number of terrorists were likely to be present"
Re:Drone Occupation (Score:5, Insightful)
...while we have a drone blow up a car carrying a US Citizen because he's a suspected terrorist sympathizer ...
There isn't much real doubt about Anwar al-Awlaki [youtube.com].
Leaving aside this US citizen's extrajudicial execution (which his family repeatedly attempted to have the federal courts address before he was killed), I am presuming you felt his teenage son was worthy of the killing that was administered to him too?
"Let's start killing people without trial, who haven't even killed anyone themselves. And then let's not get worked up when we kill US citizen minors, either," said no one reasonable.
Re: (Score:3)
The real heart of the issue is not if we think he needed to die or not. The question is, does our constitution allow the president to command the military to kill people in a country with which we are not in a state of declared war? As per the AUMF, he was justified in using military force if he believed that the target was part of the 9/11 attack or was affiliated with organizations that would perform similar attacks in the future.
A deeper and more pressing question should be, is it right that we are now i
Time to end the military industrial complex (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Time to end the military industrial complex (Score:2, Insightful)
I concur. Well said, sir. Our nation really needs it badly. We've been fucking with other people's countries for so long; we've forgotten to take care of our own.
Re:Time to end the military industrial complex (Score:5, Funny)
All of that money could be used to rebuild the crumbling infrastructure we have right here at home.
Oh, that would be pointless. Meth-heads will just steal the rebuilt infrastructure to sell to scrap metal dealers, again.
Re:Time to end the military industrial complex (Score:5, Funny)
We could solve that problem, and have major savings by replacing medicare with a 'free meth and oxycodone' program.
Re:Time to end the military industrial complex (Score:5, Informative)
You jest, but programs where drug abusers are allowed to do a free, limited, government funded amount of drugs in a safe environment actually decrease criminality, and costs to society, and generally improve the situation of the users and the environment where they would normally roam:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H... [wikipedia.org]
So, while doing away with Medicare isn't a very good idea, 'free [strictly regulated] meth' is probably a very good one.
Re:Time to end the military industrial complex (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope this news means we have finally heeded his warning and are moving towards dismantling the military industrial complex.
No. That is not what is happening. Almost all the proposed reductions are to fighting troops. Almost no cuts are to the bloated defense bureaucracy that make up the core of the MIC's revolving door. Hagel wants to reduce the muscle while protecting the belly fat. He is going about it all wrong anyway. Rather than trimming a little here, and a little there, it would be much better to completely eliminate a few big misguided programs. Killing the trillion dollar F-35 boondoggle would be a great place to start.
Re:Time to end the military industrial complex (Score:5, Interesting)
The last time we had such a recommendation it was to totally get rid of the Marine Corps.
The next hear Gulf 1 started, and Kuwait was over run, and those same "useless" Marines once again arrived the firstest with the mostest.
Re:Time to end the military industrial complex (Score:5, Interesting)
So you'd be left with an Army who does everything on land and a Navy who does everything at sea (and does landings on coasts, then hands off to the Army at about the 15 mile point inland).
The Navy and Marine Corp are "merged" (Score:4, Insightful)
For example look at Marine Corp Aviation. Marine pilots are trained at the same schools along side Navy pilots and the Navy and Marines essentially fly the same aircraft. Marine squadrons are often deployed on aircraft carriers. There is one notable difference with respect to Marine pilots. They must first become infantry officers before starting aviation training.
The Coast Guard also falls under the Department of the Navy when directed to do so by the President. This happened during WW1 and WW2. Normally the Coast Guard is performing missions that the military is prohibited from doing, law enforcement for example.
Re:Time to end the military industrial complex (Score:4, Interesting)
The Army and Air Force need to be merged and the Navy, Coast Guard, and Marines need to be merged.
Canada did that decades ago, and it has been problematic in various ways. They have been "unmerging," assuming more of their old identifies.
Royal Canadian Navy [wikipedia.org]
On 16 August 2011, the government renamed Maritime Command the "Royal Canadian Navy", renamed Air Command the "Royal Canadian Air Force" and Land Force Command the "Canadian Army".
There has even been talk of Canada forming its own marine corps. It will be interesting to see which way they go with that if they do, something along the British model, the American model, or a hybrid. Perhaps the news will some day report, "Today, Canadian Royal Marine commandos took part in a daring mission to .... "
Re:Time to end the military industrial complex (Score:4, Informative)
No, he's eliminating the parts of the Regular Army that can be (relatively) easily replaced by National Guard troops in time of trouble. He's keeping in place things like divisional command structures (we already have two divisions that are nothing more than HQ's to be filled out with 3 NG Brigades each in time of trouble) and the rear area parts of the Army which are needed in case we have to suddenly expand the force.
Then again, he's getting rid of the A-10 also. Which is probably a bribe to the Air Force, since they've always hated having to provide close air support to the Army....
Re: (Score:3)
Last I heard every time the Air Force wanted to drop the A-10 the Army raised it's hand and said 'We'll take it, We'll find the money'.
The Air Force can't have the Army flying fixed wing aircraft. So there it stood.
Re:Time to end the military industrial complex (Score:5, Interesting)
Then again, he's getting rid of the A-10 also.
The A-10 was bought and paid for decades ago, so that is not a big savings.
Number of times we have need air-to-ground support, like the A-10 delivers, in the last two decades: tens of thousands.
Number of times we we have need an air superiority fighter, like the F-35, in the last two decades: 0.
Of course, the F-35 can do close air support, but it does it no better than the A-10, despite costing far, far, more to build, operate, and maintain.
Re:Time to end the military industrial complex (Score:4, Insightful)
No, he's eliminating the parts of the Regular Army that can be (relatively) easily replaced by National Guard troops in time of trouble.
No, there are no such things. In times of trouble we activate both the Army and the National Guard. See: The Persian Gulf. Not only did we activate them, but we subjected them to stop-loss programs (See: Slavery.)
Re: (Score:3)
Stop-loss is not slavery. It's an employment of the reactivation clause in every contract signed by military personnel before they even enter training. Does it suck? Yes. Is it slavery? Nope.
Only Soldiers are required to sign a contract which can subject them to conditions of forced servitude, because the UCMJ denies them numerous rights which are [theoretically] enjoyed by the rest of us. For everyone else, you cannot sign away your rights — only if you have demonstrated a willingness to kill and die for your country can you be enslaved without first being convicted of a crime. Their crime is willingness to serve. This seems poor repayment.
I agree, but the U.S. makes money on preying on po (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
right here at home
insensitive clod, etc.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Social security and Medicaid will eat the federal budget.
Obamacare? That's just rushing one more big ticket item onto the credit card before it all goes bad.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Paying for private healthcare will eat the federal budget. Social Security and Medicaid are much lesser problems.
The US government, RIGHT NOW pays enough per capita to cover healthcare for every man woman and child in the US if our health care system had the same cost per person as Canada's.
All you would have to do to solve entitlements and the long term US budget problems would be install single payer and take the cap off SS wages.
Re: (Score:3)
Paying for private healthcare will eat the federal budget.
You won't find anyone who was more anti-AFCA than I was. Still I don't think paying for health care has to break the budget.
The way we have implemented it sure will though. As a society we really need to answer some very fundamental questions we mostly refuse to talk about. In fact the AFCA actually makes the problems worse by mostly removing the lifetime cap on benefits.
The AOL fiasco of some weeks ago highlights the issue, regardless of if those two babies had anything to do with AOL really needing to
Re: (Score:3)
Canadians, rich or otherwise, generally come to the USA for health care for the same reasons somebody might go to another state for care - excessively specialized treatment, or it's just closer/more convenient than the closest Canadian provider. Canada generally pays for the treatment in those cases.
Re:End the MIC? (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't get to blame SS for that though. It had nothing to do with the baby boom or anything else. Through careful planning, SSA had it all covered until Congress busted the piggybank so they could cut taxes for the wealthy and pay for all that bumbling in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Given that, it is perfectly reasonable that any military cuts and new (or reinstated really) taxes for the wealthy should go towards putting the money back where it came from.
The responsible people are Congress for ordering SSA to make the loans. If it makes you feel better, I FULLY support your call for the responsible congressmen to spend some time in jail.
Re:It IS to blame, but so what? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm pretty sure they would have found another piggy bank to bust if they hadn't had SS to put the bite on. Failing that they would have printed money.
SS really should be paid back through a tax on the wealthy though. Otherwise it amounts to the wealthy literally robbing middle and lower class retirement funds to pay their bills for them (not that there's anything new about that).
Re: (Score:2)
are you sure military budget not lining fat cat and shareholder pockets?
Re: (Score:2)
are you sure military budget not lining fat cat and shareholder pockets?
Some is. No doubt
Are you so sure welfare and obamacare isn't lining the fat cat and shareholder pockets?
Around these parts its commonly known that running a non-profit is one of the most lucrative gigs you can get.
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly you don't know any modern soldiers.
US Army Corps of Engineers (Score:3)
USA "defense" budget is 90% welfare and employment program. you would be just as safe if it was put into a welfare&jobs program intended for building bridges and roads
In other words, you're claiming that more of the Army budget needs diverted to USACE [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
USA "defense" budget is 90% welfare and employment program.
Lol, That is a whole new category of crazy, I haven't heard that argument before :)
Re:Time to end the military industrial complex (Score:5, Insightful)
for a lot of teenagers, the military is the only way into what resembles a middle class lifestyle.
And that is why we are so warlike — we encourage it generation by generation. Maybe it's time to grow up and learn to cooperate.
Re:Time to end the military industrial complex (Score:5, Insightful)
The US isn't particularly warlike.
Who told you that, and why did you believe them? Check our our body count and our military expenditure, and look into how many conflicts we've been in per decade as compared to other nations, and get back to me.
Re: (Score:2)
...which we have purchased at the low-low price of the 1/2 the GDP of the US for, well, forever.
Re:Time to end the military industrial complex (Score:5, Informative)
No, not even close.
Defense spending as a percentage of GDP [heritage.org]
Where Does All the Money Go? [heritage.org]
Re:Time to end the military industrial complex (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You seem to have missed this nugget: "Source: Office of Management and Budget. "
The bad news doesn't change if you pick another truthful source.
Also, from what I see, the "Koch brothers" are very minor donors to Heritage. Besides that, if you use the "Koch brothers" as your universal explanation for things you are engaged in epic fail.
Re:Heratige foundation (Score:4, Informative)
A lot of the items labeled as 'social security' are in fact veterans benefits.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Time to end the military industrial complex (Score:5, Insightful)
The A-10 is on the chopping block, as is the U2. What I don't get about the elimination of those is that one has proven itself extremely cost-effective in close-quarters ground support (as in using bullets, rather than relying on rockets and bombs) and extremely durable when taking fire (flying back with a wing missing) and the other has been extremely effective for quick-turnaround intelligence.
Both programs are effective in the kind of engagements that we've found ourselves in during the last couple of decades and both are paid for. It's maintenance only, as opposed to development.
Re: (Score:2)
Hard to believe the A10 would be discontinued... what generation is the B-52 on?
The U2 can be replaced by any number of alternatives... probably including a couple of aircraft that aren't common knowledge at the moment.
The Air Force brass *never* wanted the A-10 (Score:5, Insightful)
My understanding is that A-10s undergo a lot more mechanical stress during training and combat than B-52s and that the A-10 fleet is seeing a lot of micro-fractures in key structural areas. They have been cannibalizing old planes in storage but that source is just about dried up. They are at the point where they will need to manufacture new components, major components like wings. This is letting the brass finally get their way.
Re:The Air Force brass *never* wanted the A-10 (Score:4, Informative)
Its really only the Air Force leadership that hates the A-10.
Re: (Score:3)
The entire aviation fleet is on the chopping block, realistically. Drones are here to stay, and its only a matter of time before they start consistently being able to win dogfights against real pilots as well
Re:Time to end the military industrial complex (Score:5, Informative)
Both programs are effective in the kind of engagements that we've found ourselves in during the last couple of decades and both are paid for. It's maintenance only, as opposed to development.
"Maintenance only" when talking about military aircraft is huge, especially with planes that are 60 years old. There's a phrase in the general aviation world for planes that don't fly much and require a lot of maintenance - hangar queens. Both sitting around, and their age, causes maintenance headaches.
Plus the cost of "staffing" is enormous. The U2 is enormously difficult to fly; at altitude, the window between stall (plummet to the ground) and Vmax (lose control surface functionality and/or rip pieces of the plane off) is something like 10mph. Training people in the things places the planes and people at risk; keep up the program and eventually you won't have any U2's left to fly. Then there's the problem of an unpressurized cockpit; pilots need to nitrogen-purge for hours before flight and wear what is almost a space suit. Oh, and it cannot evade modern SAM and AA missiles....and has no steal capabilities....yet has a human inside? The US needs another Gary Powers like a hole in the head.
Then there's the fact that the U2 can only launch from a small number of bases (mostly designed to cover Russia), is slower, doesn't offer as nice real-time capabilities, and in the time it takes for a U2 pilot to plan a mission, suit up, prebreathe, etc - the drone is half-way enroute and they're figuring out the rest of the flightplan as they go. Nevermind that with so many commercial satellite imagery companies, chances are someone's already got the imagery you're looking for.
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.usgovernmentspendin... [usgovernmentspending.com]
Literally the first link when I typed in "percentage of US budget welfare" into google.
I just showed you how to use the internet.
The above is common knowledge. You just asked if the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.
Yes. Yes it does.
Re: (Score:3)
My request wasn't to get the numbers as I did a similar search and know the numbers, it was to help you realize that welfare is a small portion of the budget. I obviously failed in this as rather than looking at the number and saying "gee, that isn't that much money in the context we are talking about" you attempted to insult my intelligence. When I ask for fact to substantiate your nebulous assertions you return with insults and no facts. I assume this is because the facts don't support your specious ar
What is it good for? Absolutely $$$! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What is it good for? Absolutely $$$! (Score:4, Insightful)
He's saying as soon as you appear weak, you are weak.
Re: (Score:2)
"And here we have a gun with a knife taped to it.
We really have all the guns we need...
You don't want to appear weak do you?
I'll take 100,000 units."
I'm in the wrong business.
But will they shrink man-hours? Spending? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or are they just privatizing more military functions?
Re:But will they shrink man-hours? Spending? (Score:5, Informative)
If these changes go through, it will actually reduce spending. We spent $670B on "defense" in 2013. This change would get us down to around $500B for the 2015 budget.
This was already passed as a part of the sequester -- this story is really just discussing how the Pentagon plans to get under the limit set by the law. The budget that got passed in December rolled back a few of the sequester cuts, and I'm sure Republicans will push to roll back more. However, the Democrats will want new taxes on the rich to offset any further increases in military spending, and I doubt the Republicans will budge on that front, so any further changes are likely to be minimal.
It looks like this is actually going to happen, and it's about damn time.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
However, the Democrats will want new taxes on the rich to offset any further increases in military spending, and I doubt the Republicans will budge on that front, so any further changes are likely to be minimal.
Likewise the Democrats will almost certainly balk at any reforms to social welfare spending, which is the major portion of Federal spending and which dwarfs the defense budget.
Re:But will they shrink man-hours? Spending? (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't see how that's relevant. We're talking about negotiations here. Increased military spending and decreased social spending are both things Republicans want.
I was pointing out that the Republicans don't have anything they're willing to trade in order to stem the sequester cuts to military spending. The only way they could stave off the cuts would be by accepting increased taxes, and they're not willing to do that.
I get the feeling you took my comment as a slight against Republicans, and posted some knee-jerk response. I'm only pointing out the reality of the negotiations.
Re:But will they shrink man-hours? Spending? (Score:4, Insightful)
In the last days of the USSR it's what the communists wanted, and did, as well.
Re:But will they shrink man-hours? Spending? (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that the sequester is 50% defense, 50% everything else, but the defense budget is a minority of the Federal budget. That pushes the cuts disproportionately on the defense side.
Totally irrational. The fact that the defense budget is a minority of the overall budget does not mean that it is a minority of the waste. The defense sector is filled with bloat, and is essentially just functioning as a make-work program in the districts of influential representatives. It would be far more efficient to take that same money and spend it on more direct social services.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it really isn't. Maybe you could read this and explain to me how you could hand out free bread and cheese in American cities and achieve the same affect (liberating enslaved Americans)?
Jefferson Versus the Muslim Pirates [city-journal.org]
Re: (Score:2)
It won't reduce spending.
If you believe that you are delusional.
Re: (Score:2)
You joke, but last time this happened the only things that didn't have strong enough advocates in DC to keep the money flowing was trivial stuff like ammo for the troops.
Federal procurement has political issues.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think he was joking. You may think so at your peril.
The last time [time.com] cuts of this nature were proposed the idea was to entirely stand down the US Marine Corps. (Still beating that drum today [time.com]).
Because we were never going to have to invade any country again.
Then Saddam over ran Kuwait, and was looking hungrily at Saudi Arabia.
Guess who arrived first ?
Re: (Score:2)
So... is that intended as praise for the marines or to make rather nasty implications about them? Or possibly even as a threat? Because it could be read either way.
Re:But will they shrink man-hours? Spending? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, judging from TFA, they are cutting spending for FY 2015 to 496 bln, then raising it to 535, 545 and $559 bln in following years. That means if you deduct the wartime finding for Iran and Afghanistan, the baseline spending level will be back to pre-sequester levels, and as much as the next seven countries in defense spending rank put together.
Not that spending is at all a measure of how much defense we get. One of the things the budget does is it retires the A10 Warthog attack plane which costs less than $18K/flight hour to operate and replaces it with the F-35, which is currently *promised* to cost $32K/flight hour, if it ever becomes combat ready.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Those can be very useful for quick strikes. As long as you're not actually occupying foreign soil, your point is well mad But wars of occupatio0n take manpower, as demonstrated in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and the second Iraq war. And don't be mistaken, the USA didn't "win" any of those. In Iraq and Afghanistan now, the US is "declaring victory" and leaving a mess that is, in some ways, worse than when the wars started. Sadam Hussein, as much of a genocidal dictator as he was, didn't allow the Taliban to
Misleading in the grand scheme of things (Score:2)
Spending the money on killing machines doesn't win you anti-bloat points.
Shrink the budget. Shrink the percentage of budget based on adjusted GDP. We're becoming all brawn and no brain.
Re: (Score:2)
To be clear: Drones and Secrets instead of Troops on the Ground... That doesn't mean we shrank our war machine.
Finally! (Score:2)
Finally The Man is acting like a true progressive. Most of his policies have been either centrist or conservative-leaning (despite Fox/Rush characterizations). Even the "commie" ACA (ObamaCare) was borrowed from the Heritage Foundation and a former Republican governor of MA.
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Informative)
...
Then why is the state buying ammo at an unprecented rate?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/03/11/1-6-billion-rounds-of-ammo-for-homeland-security-its-time-for-a-national-conversation/
...
You mean buying ammunition at a highly precedented and declining [gao.gov] rate?
Even Fox News [foxnews.com] more or less debunked this bit of conspiracy baiting.
Plans to shink the US army (Score:4, Funny)
Ha! I'm going to beat him to it. I just need to steal some super-rare crystals stored at Los Alamos first, to complete my shrink ray. And a white kitten.
Makes sense. Its just the Army. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Makes sense. Its just the Army. (Score:4, Funny)
The Recon Marine described his training, which included being dropped off in the middle of nowhere with a mark on a map for a rendezvous point, and his diet of raw bugs and reptiles as he struggled toward the LZ for five days.
The Navy man regaled with the legendarily difficult, 90+% failure rate, Seal training program that requires a man to learn to swim like a fish, but kill like a lion.
The Ranger took a long,quiet look at the others, squatted on his haunches, and stirred the coals in the fire with his fingers.
Re:Makes sense. Its just the Army. (Score:4, Funny)
Where are the ennemies (Score:2)
With the US amounting for 50% of army expenses worldwide, and NATO accounting for 80%, it is not obvious where the enemies are.
The USSR does not exist anymore. A much smaller army would protect US security as well as the current one.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Southeast Asia.
China just launched its second aircraft carrier. India just launched its first, is building two more, and is buying 120 Rafales. South Korea is buying Apaches and F-15s (or maybe F-35s). Malaysia and Thailand want to buy AH-1Zs. Thailand is also modernizing its current fleet of western fighter planes. Japan just launched its first helicopter attack ship, is buying V-22s, and is no longer keeping up the pretense of only having a defensive force. The Philippines is begging us to come back
Re: (Score:3)
With the US amounting for 50% of army expenses worldwide, and NATO accounting for 80%, it is not obvious where the enemies are.
As part of your calculations you need to take into account the "cost of materials." The US doesn't have conscription anymore like most of the world has relied upon until quite recently. It pays its soldiers wages and benefits competitive with the civilian work force instead of forcing everyone to serve for two years at $100/month. The US also has an advanced economy. The net effect is that a US corporal is paid about the same as a Chinese general. The US also pays more for its weapons and materials. A
And oddly... (Score:2)
... Federal Spending will still increase.
Perfect timing? Right before WWIII (Score:2)
The Army could stand to be downsized... (Score:5, Interesting)
At the beginning of the 1st Gulf War, the Marines were just getting the M1 Abrahms tanks the Army was swapping out for newer models (before that the Marines were still on old M60 tanks).
In the late 90's (97-98) the Marines were just starting to get the venerable Singars radios. Up till then they were still using post-Vietnam era AN/PRC-77 radios.
Time and time again the Army goes and asks for more men and money, new gear, etc, because they state they cant accomplish the mission with what they have.
And time and time again the Marine Corps happily takes that "old outdated" equipment with fewer men and exceed... There has long been a rivalry between the branches, but maybe its time for the other branches to take a page out of the Corps manual and learn how to do more with less. You could drop military spending by half at least, if not more, by following the Marines lead.
Cut much, much deeper (Score:2)
Here's a better idea: Scale the US Army down to about 100,000, or less. Retain a small full-time force to man the equipment and technology-heavy portions of an army (e.g. armor, artillery and highly-specialized forces), though even most of those can be turned over to national guard forces (especially artillery), and use the rest to form a training and logistics cadre whose job it is to prepare to train and equip an actual army, should we need one.
To make that easier, encourage the unorganized militia to s
Wish it was more (Score:4)
not a fair comparison (Score:3)
The U.S. currently spends more on defense than the combined total of the next 12 countries, as ranked by defense spending.
But that isn't really a fair comparison. After all, a lot of that spending is really for aggression, not defense.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Downsize === Entire Canadian Military (Score:4, Informative)
At a worst case of about 80,000, the US ARMY is downsizing more people than are employed in the Royal Canadian Army, Navy, and,/i> Air Force put together.
Jobs (Score:2, Insightful)
I worked for an airline. 90%-95% of our pilots and air plant mechanics came from the military. The airline was started by a Marine Aviator and leaded his leadership skills in the Marines. Miniaturization of electronics is the results of war and the MIC. The lowly and common microwave oven is a by-product of war and the MIC. Don't sell the MIC short--the Internet with all its tubes is the invention of, not AlGore, but war and the MIC. The Democrats have benefited from the MIC far more than the Republic
Re: (Score:2)
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) created the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
It's ability to route around damage was specifically to make in robust in case of nuke war.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
look up facts before spewing, army is biggest part of the defense budget at 32%
Re: (Score:3)