Military spending, raise or lower?
- Thread starter Syringer
- Start date
I say cap it at $300 Billion.
Most of it is just corporate welfare. I have a friend who works for a defense contractor, and from what I am hearing it's inefficient and wasteful as hell.
Most of it is just corporate welfare. I have a friend who works for a defense contractor, and from what I am hearing it's inefficient and wasteful as hell.
the defense department has literally lost or cannot account for trillions of dollars in cash and equipment.
Our military is so superior to any other country's right now, and we are the only superpower on the face of this planet, so I think it should be lowered, or at the very least streamlined to eliminate waste. IMO.
We did win the war quite easily with the supposedly "gutted" Clinton armed forces...
We did win the war quite easily with the supposedly "gutted" Clinton armed forces...
300 tops, and I am being generous here. The military needs to cut the fat and learn to run a lean ship. I think it has to demonstrate the same productivity increases that private sector has been showing, and accomplish more with less.
Lower it to $100B - and get rid of :
1: Aircraft Carriers and their nessary support ships
2: All Naval fixed wing fighters/bombers (keep SAR and Sub hunters)
3: Balistic subs (keep 20 attack subs)
4: Marine Corps
5: B2 and B1b bombers
6: Start Wars (and the sequels)
7: Close all over seas bases except (Japan / Italy / Diego Garcia / and 1 in England)
8: Close 33% of domestic bases
1: Aircraft Carriers and their nessary support ships
2: All Naval fixed wing fighters/bombers (keep SAR and Sub hunters)
3: Balistic subs (keep 20 attack subs)
4: Marine Corps
5: B2 and B1b bombers
6: Start Wars (and the sequels)
7: Close all over seas bases except (Japan / Italy / Diego Garcia / and 1 in England)
8: Close 33% of domestic bases
CaptnKirk
Lifer
- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
Military spending should raise the pay of the soldiers (and dependants) to provide them with compensation
matching what they deserve for what they do - and they do a lot.
Behind the scenes our military equipment is so far advanced when compared to the rest of the world
that we are prepared to fight WW's 4,5,6,7 - Etc while the rest of the world is still stuck on technology
that is not much more advanced that used in the original Gulf - 1 war.
We should continue building the next generation of equipment for our defense, but we shouldn't
be selling all the overly sophisticated equipment that we make to foriegn governments.
When we make first line jet fighter aircraft to foriegn countries, we have no assurance that
if there is a colapse of their 'Today Friendy' it will not lead to 'Tomorrows Foe' and we end up
haveing the risk of having to fight weapons we made that are very sophisticated.
The fact that we do arm select governments with our super-toys forces us to continue building
even more sophisticated weaponry, as we have to be able to defeat last weeks model.
Cut the world off from buying our stuff and our stuff dosen't have to be constantly advanced
to protect us from ourselves, but the "Corporate Welfare" folks won't make their billions from arms.
matching what they deserve for what they do - and they do a lot.
Behind the scenes our military equipment is so far advanced when compared to the rest of the world
that we are prepared to fight WW's 4,5,6,7 - Etc while the rest of the world is still stuck on technology
that is not much more advanced that used in the original Gulf - 1 war.
We should continue building the next generation of equipment for our defense, but we shouldn't
be selling all the overly sophisticated equipment that we make to foriegn governments.
When we make first line jet fighter aircraft to foriegn countries, we have no assurance that
if there is a colapse of their 'Today Friendy' it will not lead to 'Tomorrows Foe' and we end up
haveing the risk of having to fight weapons we made that are very sophisticated.
The fact that we do arm select governments with our super-toys forces us to continue building
even more sophisticated weaponry, as we have to be able to defeat last weeks model.
Cut the world off from buying our stuff and our stuff dosen't have to be constantly advanced
to protect us from ourselves, but the "Corporate Welfare" folks won't make their billions from arms.
9: increase the enlisted man's pay and help get them and their family off food stamps
(yes some people in my Navy fighter sqaudron were on food stamps)
Nevermind force projection when we might really need it.
And once again, forget about force projection.
And forget about strategic deterrence. Kim Jong Il sez hey!
And forget about a proud and honored, flexible intervention force.
I might agree with B1b. B2s, no. And then fly the 98 remaining active, 50 year-old B52s when needed.
Agreed
And forget about deterrence on the Korean peninsula.
Depends on which ones.
Agreed
That is very rare these days. Very junior people with lots of kids. Targeted pay raises the last couple of years plus supplemental programs have almost, if not completely, eliminated this problem.
I don't think we should be projecting our force, doing preemtive strikes, enforcing our policies(politics?) on other nations, the US military should be here to protect US soil (not embassies and US corporation overseas)
Our missle sihlos in the US and on our multi purpose warships have enogh nukes to melt the world many time over let alone a small peninsula
The army can do it just as well, and we should expand the special forces to make up for no Marine Corps
Think about it from N Korea's point of view, WE are at their doorstep ,with our planes over thier head, and our ships around their coast. Would you be sweating of you were surrounded by a heavily armed invasion force for 40+ years?
Lets back off to Japan and open up talks ( starting with food and heating oil). I have several S Korean friends and they all feel as the US is being too threating
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
What idiots are voting for lower?
Boy, that was easy....and FUN!
WHEEEEE!
This is a poll, dolt. people are entitled to their anonymous opinion. I didn't vote for raise, but I could definately see why someone would(wether right or wrong).
CkG
Force projection is essential in the Gulf, in and around the Taiwan Straits and in the Med, etc., etc. Pre-emptive strikes is a different matter altogether.
The SSBN fleet is the most survivable and cost efficient arm of the nuclear triad. Our other warships do not carry nukes.
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.
I prefer to think of it from a strategic (and intelligent) point of view. Pulling our troops out of SK is going to do what? Give Kim Jong an opportunity to take what he needs by force? Let's do the smart thing and keep the troops there and negotiate from a position of strength.
let's just reduce it to $0 Zero, and let Europe defend us, surely no one will attack us with Europe in charge...
we do need a missile shield, not because eventually someone's likely to launch a missile at us, but to usher in the next era of warfare (outer space) which we also lead.
and not that bloated $350 billion "hit missile with missile" shield that doesn't work, i'm talking about the real one based on lasers that is underdeveloped but has shown 100% accuracy in pre trials.
and another $300 billion for JSF as the contract has already been given to lockheed. wonder is the aurora can go sub orbital...
we do need a missile shield, not because eventually someone's likely to launch a missile at us, but to usher in the next era of warfare (outer space) which we also lead.
and not that bloated $350 billion "hit missile with missile" shield that doesn't work, i'm talking about the real one based on lasers that is underdeveloped but has shown 100% accuracy in pre trials.
and another $300 billion for JSF as the contract has already been given to lockheed. wonder is the aurora can go sub orbital...
Forget about the fact that we were able to deploy on short notice to Afghanistan after 9/11.
Subs are the still most survivable and threatening.
20-year Army vet here disagreeing. Army does not have the flexibility of USMC - period.
Nevermind about TF Smith in 1950. Anyway, if NK changes its tune and dramatically reforms, then yes, we should withdraw. However, with the current band of starvation-inclined, armed communist headcases in charge, I think not.
Is really just the US trying to force it's policeys down another countries throat.
Yes it has worked so well for the past 40+ years. Almost as well as the embargo on Cuba.
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.
And expensive. With the nukes on our current surface ships, what the AirForce can fire/drop and whats in the silohs I'd say we can have a couple to hit NK or Iran with.
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.
And speaking of the Airforce it should be spending it's money on pilotless vehicles rather than $200B over the next 5 years on joint strike fighter.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,407
- 8,595
- 126
most of those are so-called tactical nukes, without the range or power of an SLBM. the other thing is that the subs are far more survivable than any surface force anyone has ever come up with.
as a sovereign state we have that right
the NKs haven't invaded in the last 50 years, so i would consider it a smashing success, unlike that crappy embargo
part of the MC's flexibility is its special relationship with the navy. while i do think that the current divisions between the branches are antiquated and counter-productive, the divisions will remain for quite a while, if not forever. even if the structure was completely unified for the military everyone would still have their pet projects/interests. plus, the MC is huge. half the army would be "special" forces if it had to fill in for the MC's role. plus each part of the special forces has its own area of expertise, not really the same mission type as the marines.
upkeep cost on them is pretty low. plus, you still haven't come up with something to get anywhere near as close for survivability.
what would you have us do, stop looking, abandon afghanistan?
pilotless vehicles have a long way to go before they replace manned aircraft as the primary aircraft over the battlefield. and its not like they're not spending money developing pilotless vehicles.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter