Military spending, raise or lower?

[UltraQuiet]

LeadMagnet - The article you linked to about nuclear cruise missiles is dated 1990. I will repeat it one more time; The only ship in the US fleet that deploys with nuclear weapons onboard is the Trident sub. It is, and has always been, the most survivable and cost efficient method of nuclear detterence. The rest of your post appears to be based on the same lack of knowledge and isn't worth addressing.

 

[Gaard]

Hey Dave,
Sorry to go OT but your last post got me to thinking (yeah, I do that now and then). I was just wondering if there is some kind of plan for you guys on the sub (you are still onboard, right?) if the missles fly. If the surface is on fire, do you guys go somewhere? How long can you guys stay down there?

Hope I didn't ask for classified info.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Hey Dave,
Sorry to go OT but your last post got me to thinking (yeah, I do that now and then). I was just wondering if there is some kind of plan for you guys on the sub (you are still onboard, right?) if the missles fly. If the surface is on fire, do you guys go somewhere? How long can you guys stay down there?

Hope I didn't ask for classified info.

The limiting factor aboard nuclear powered subs is food for the crew. We make our own air and water and I guess in a pinch we could open the outer door of the torpedo tubes and scoop up some fish or whatever.

As to the other part(s) of your post - of course there's a plan and of course it's classified.

 

[LeadMagnet]

As far as the Nukes on surface ships I digress my argument since I found this article in my search to prove that I was right. This happened after I had left the Navy.

3. Tomahawk cruise missiles raise other nuclear proliferation questions. In 1991, President George Bush announced that all tactical nuclear weapons would be removed from U.S. vessels. In the fiscal year 2000 Annual Report to the President and the Congress, U.S. Defense Secretary Cohen states, "Nuclear weapons capability on surface ships has been eliminated but the capability to deploy Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles armed with a nuclear warhead on submarines has been maintained." Nuclear armed Tomahawks are still operational.

Text


However regarding my feeling that the Army should be able to be a quick deployment and occupation force still holds true. Anything to help cut this massive defence budget.here

And as far as NK is concerned I still feel as though we are going about this the wrong way by starving the communism out of the exsistance.

And we can save Afganastan for another thread.

 

[Gaard]

<<As to the other part(s) of your post - of course there's a plan and of course it's classified. >>

Ooops. Better just whisper it to me...never know who might be listening.

Oh well, I's just wondering.



*mumble*ibetTomClancyknows*mumble*

 

[glugglug]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Hey Dave,
Sorry to go OT but your last post got me to thinking (yeah, I do that now and then). I was just wondering if there is some kind of plan for you guys on the sub (you are still onboard, right?) if the missles fly. If the surface is on fire, do you guys go somewhere? How long can you guys stay down there?

<not completely serious>
If the surface is on fire, there is always the "lost" city of Atlantis where they go to park the sub for a bit. It is located in the eastern portion of the Gulf of Mexico, which is part of the area known as the Bermuda Triangle. The unusual compass readings in that area and large quantities of lightning strikes are in fact a side effect of the "lost" cities cloaking system.
</not completely serious>

 

[Fencer128]

Hi,

Everyone here should be careful what they wish for (not that this necessarily my philosophy) . A large reason that the US is "top of the pile" is due to the pressure that their vastly superior military force exerts (be it sometimes indirectly) on smaller countries. Wishing for a decrease in defence spending is asking for a decrease (however long term) in perceived/actual military might. This can obviously lead therefore into a decrease in "influence" of the US.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[ScottyB]

Lower to 1/10 of what it is at now. Use that money towards socialized medicine and welfare.

 

[AndrewR]

I love these threads.

Long on opinion, short on clues.

Amen.

Certainly we are the most technologically advanced force OVERALL and absolutely dominated the Iraqis and the Taliban recently. However, is it such an achievement to batter a fourth-rate militia and an embargoed, demoralized military? The efficacy of our actions was certainly notable, but the mere fact that we prevailed in Iraq and Afghanistan is hardly justification for lowering military spending.

Further and more importantly, look at the equipment which we have today. We were able to succeed in many cases DESPITE the equipment we have available, not because of it. The professionalism and quality of our troops overcame the limitations of certain pieces of equipment.

The CH-47 fleet and the CH-53 fleet of helos are dangerously old considering how complex (and therefore prone to maintenance problems) helicopters are. Then look at our rescue birds, the HH-60s, which were a stop-gap measure when purchased but have been "stopping the gap" for quite some time now.

Our tanker fleet has issues. Even though the KC-767 tanker lease was approved, that was only for 100 tankers to replace the worst of the KC-135E fleet. Even the up-engined KC-135R models are flying on Boeing 707 airframes that were built in the 50's. The reality is that they will NOT keep flying forever especially since no other aircraft in the military has more flying hours than a tanker. The KC-767 is the START of a replacement program that's long overdue, not the end. If you think that's going to happen cheaply, you're an idiot.

Tactical airlift is facing problems. The C-17 has been a lifesaver in terms of intertheater lift, but the C-130 is being neglected. The latest and greatest iteration, the C-130J, is being held by bureaucratic nonsense while we still have C-130s manufactured in the '50s flying around (the Guard flies the very first production C-130 out of Duke Field in Florida). Don't even mention the C-5 as they sit in maintenance often more than they fly.

Our top-of-the-line fighter aircraft, the F-15, first flew almost 31 years ago, and the design was produced in the late '60s. While it has been modernized since then, the basic airframe has remained essentially unchanged and does not incorporate any stealth or any modern airframe design aspects. Its replacement is being steadily pared down by critics citing a lack of need, ignoring the fact that aircraft sales around the world are still going strong.

Our intelligence collection aircraft as well as our airborne early warning (USAF) all fly the Boeing 707 airframe. When was the last time you flew on a 707 when flying with an airline? Can't remember? Ever think that it's because they reached the end of their useful lifespans and were considered too unsafe or too expensive to fly? Yet, we still ask our military to fly them despite the expense and the risk.

Then, we have people saying that our intelligence is faulty yet demanding that we spend less on intelligence collection, by implication, which doesn't happen without dedicated people and systems (including outrageously expensive space vehicles) to collect and analyze the information gathered.

People also don't understand that while a certain number of aircraft, ships, tanks, or submarines may seem like a great deal, you have to account for deployment cycles and transit times. You cannot have the same people or even the same vehicle, ship, equipment, etc., on station for extended periods of time because it erodes maintenance, morale, and effectiveness. Ideally, for every deployed position, you want three units available -- one to be on station, one to be in transit or at preparing to deploy, and one to be in maintenance or reserve.

 

[burnedout]

yeah we showed them - we bombed a 3rd world country from the 1700's to the 1500's , And our boys are still dying over there, and we still only control 15 mile radius around each major town, warlords still have the rest of the country. And we still think Osama is on the Afgan / Pakistani boarder.

*sigh* Within a very short time of 9/11, a naval carrier task force moved out from the East coast headed toward Pakistan. Other carriers followed suit, including an empty carrier used as a troop staging platform. The fact that we are the only nation on the planet that can effectively and expeditiously deploy such massive numbers of strike aircraft obviously isn't enough, eh? No, the casualty rate among friendlies taking on Taliban Tommy and the rest of his sorry gang without such immediately available aircraft would have been much higher.

The army should be able to have a flexable quick deploying arm that is capable of Marine like invasion. Expanding the Army's specail forces units will help develop the unit.

If I'm not mistaken, the USMC was under consideration for disbandment after either WWII or the Korean conflict. Didn't happen. USMC is even more valuable now given the state of world affairs. They have their own integrated air and sea assets. A USMC MEU can sit off the coast of some obscure country and enter if needed. While the Army has indeed recently demonstrated tremendous lethality employing armor/mech forces coupled with admirable performance from SF, the fact remains they aren't as mobile or self-sustaining.

 

[Tab]

Rasie, if your going to live to protect some dickhead protester's freedom of speech. You deserve to have some cash.

 

[Moonbeam]

I would cut the army by 11.4 %, the airforce by 3.8%, the navy by 14.6% the marines by 5.1% and I would increase the coast guard by 8%.

 

[LunarRay]

I'd cut the federal and state tax on active duty to half the tax table rate. It is already 0 for combat.. or used to be. Then I go about reducing the size of the military manpower and building more long range and accurate missle systems so we could shoot from our local bases and save on all the transport and the crossing of unfriendly country issues.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: HJD1
I'd cut the federal and state tax on active duty to half the tax table rate. It is already 0 for combat.. or used to be. Then I go about reducing the size of the military manpower and building more long range and accurate missle systems so we could shoot from our local bases and save on all the transport and the crossing of unfriendly country issues.

CONUS-based assets do not have the deterrence value of a carrier battle group parked near a disobedient country or a group of heavy bombers moved into forward locations.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: HJD1
I'd cut the federal and state tax on active duty to half the tax table rate. It is already 0 for combat.. or used to be. Then I go about reducing the size of the military manpower and building more long range and accurate missle systems so we could shoot from our local bases and save on all the transport and the crossing of unfriendly country issues.

CONUS-based assets do not have the deterrence value of a carrier battle group parked near a disobedient country or a group of heavy bombers moved into forward locations.

Yeah... the bully factor... Ok the odd task group.. but, just two and only for show.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I would cut the army by 11.4 %, the airforce by 3.8%, the navy by 14.6% the marines by 5.1% and I would increase the coast guard by 8%.

Did you pull those numbers out of your a$$ or is there a method to the madness?

 

[Moonbeam]

I was responding to AndrewR and the guy he quoted below. I thought that 'short on clues' wouldn't be quite so objectionable of it contained decimal places. The shorter answer is "out of my ass." the usual method it gets done by politicians too:
---------------
Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I love these threads.

Long on opinion, short on clues.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Amen.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: HJD1
I'd cut the federal and state tax on active duty to half the tax table rate. It is already 0 for combat.. or used to be. Then I go about reducing the size of the military manpower and building more long range and accurate missle systems so we could shoot from our local bases and save on all the transport and the crossing of unfriendly country issues.

Do you realize how much a missile that can fly half way around the world would cost? How much R&D would go into making a missile capable of landing within a few meters of its target (unless you want ICBMs w/ nukes to be our only option)? How long it would take to reach its target? The lack of flexibility?

Fact is, whenever you want to take and hold ground, you need infantry. You simply cannot control an area with your closest assests being thousands of miles away. Sure, you can deny the enemy use of an area for a while, but you can't control it

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: LeadMagnet

20-year Army vet here disagreeing. Army does not have the flexibility of USMC - period.

The Army cannot do it just as well especially when it comes to the MEU and how does expanding special forces make up for the Marines? It's two totally different missions.

The army should be able to have a flexable quick deploying arm that is capable of Marine like invasion. Expanding the Army's specail forces units will help develop the unit.

Then all you are doing is making the army bigger. SF does not have the same mission as the USMC. You wont see a bunch of SEALs storm and hold a beach or an airport, that just not their mission, and they arent particularly good at it. The very nature of SF groups makes them unable to accomplish the missions of the marines.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: HJD1
I'd cut the federal and state tax on active duty to half the tax table rate. It is already 0 for combat.. or used to be. Then I go about reducing the size of the military manpower and building more long range and accurate missle systems so we could shoot from our local bases and save on all the transport and the crossing of unfriendly country issues.

CONUS-based assets do not have the deterrence value of a carrier battle group parked near a disobedient country or a group of heavy bombers moved into forward locations.

Yeah... the bully factor... Ok the odd task group.. but, just two and only for show.

Pithy and ignorant. Thank you for your contribution to the discussion.

I was responding to AndrewR and the guy he quoted below. I thought that 'short on clues' wouldn't be quite so objectionable of it contained decimal places. The shorter answer is "out of my ass."

Nope, still as objectionable.

 

[Schadenfroh]

your enemy is not a giant like the soviet union anymore. today is small groups and pockets of terrorists. you cant use a massive army in situations like that. you need a very small highly trained and well organized speical forces to deal with such threates. Huge armies are useless, if china starts looking like they gonna attack, we can always rapidly build it back up like in WWII

 

[Moonbeam]

Nope, still as objectionable.
------------------------------
Now Andrew just look at how I had datalink7. I could have slapped up some graphs and had a convert.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: HJD1
I'd cut the federal and state tax on active duty to half the tax table rate. It is already 0 for combat.. or used to be. Then I go about reducing the size of the military manpower and building more long range and accurate missle systems so we could shoot from our local bases and save on all the transport and the crossing of unfriendly country issues.

CONUS-based assets do not have the deterrence value of a carrier battle group parked near a disobedient country or a group of heavy bombers moved into forward locations.

Yeah... the bully factor... Ok the odd task group.. but, just two and only for show.

Pithy and ignorant. Thank you for your contribution to the discussion.

I was responding to AndrewR and the guy he quoted below. I thought that 'short on clues' wouldn't be quite so objectionable of it contained decimal places. The shorter answer is "out of my ass."

Nope, still as objectionable.

Either you read too fast or don't understand my use of the term local. We have bases proximate to everywhere. Saudi for instance, England lots of places. The carriers groups to me are money gobbling bird barges. No need to introduce our people into harms way when we could do as I say above. I think 2 carrier groups are enough to insure the "bully factor" (Big guy on the block) (Are you scared yet?). My response was pithy but, not ignorant. IMO... Just for show means Just for show. No real purpose if there is a more effective way to deliver munitions or whatever and I think there is.

 

[AndrewR]

Either you read too fast or don't understand my use of the term local. We have bases proximate to everywhere. Saudi for instance, England lots of places. The carriers groups to me are money gobbling bird barges. No need to introduce our people into harms way when we could do as I say above. I think 2 carrier groups are enough to insure the "bully factor" (Big guy on the block) (Are you scared yet?). My response was pithy but, not ignorant. IMO... Just for show means Just for show. No real purpose if there is a more effective way to deliver munitions or whatever and I think there is.

See? The explanation is all the difference.

The problem with having a couple or three battlegroups is that a) you have no reserve, and b) they take forever to arrive on station negating their effectiveness of being present and intimidating on a moment's notice. We cannot predict with any certainty where the next crisis might arise -- Algeria? North Korea? Iran? Pakistan? India? Chile? South Africa? The only way we ensure timely response to a crisis is by having battlegroups stationed around the world.

You say on one hand that we should not have bases overseas and should instead launch missiles from American soil to handle our problems. Yet, on the other, you want to cut the best choice we have for "mobile basing" in the form of a US Navy carrier battlegroup or in the form of an amphibious ready group of Marines (or combination thereof). Which is it? Moving troops, aircraft, and munitions from CONUS is a time consuming process, as the lead-in to Desert Storm and to OIF proved. What did we have on station nearly immediately? A few carriers and assorted support vessels.

Power projection is key. The Navy is arguably the best in that regard because of what they can move around on the water (or under or over the water) without any consideration to basing rights or host country restrictions.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: AndrewR The Navy is arguably the best in that regard because of what they can move around on the water (or under or over the water) without any consideration to basing rights or host country restrictions.

Exactly That is the only response needed as to why we need to have and keep floating cities and swimming villages.

CkG