Quadrennial Defense Review to Propose Killing Two Carriers, Cut JSF, Cancel EFV

[Sacrilege]

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/12/09/qdr-likely-kills-two-carriers-efv/

Word on Capitol Hill is that the Quadrennial Defense Review should result in the demise of two Navy car­rier groups and the Marines’ Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. On top of that, the Joint Strike Fighter pro­gram is likely to lose a so-​​far uncer­tain num­ber of planes and the Air Force looks to lose two air wings.

The larger strat­egy debate would seem to embrace such cuts, or at least make them eas­ier to pro­pose. Gen. Hoss Cartwright, vice chair­man of the Joint Chiefs, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in July that the ven­er­a­ble two major the­ater war strat­egy was dead.

Are these the correct strategies for America? A strong military has been instrumental in American global power, maintaining the security of trade, etc. This directly affects the standard of living of even the most peacenik liberal.

Jesus said, "The poor will always be with you." And when I see a lazy poor person, I think, WWJD? And I realize that all the government aid in the world will not help many people. Their improvement must come from within. I hope that in a Democratic Party shortsighted spending spree, other national priorities are left neglected.

Furthermore, is the US slowly conceding power to China? Is China the kind of power Democrats want dictating world affairs? The world suffered for 50 years under the yoke of authoritarians. And for all the whining our forum left wingers make about the CIA and oligarchical capitalists, the US has generally been the world power the most on the side of democratic ideals, especially compared to Russia and China. Europe has been good lately, but they were terrible colonial masters in the past.

 

[CycloWizard]

The "problem" with the US military is that it has become too effective: no one will ever fight us in a stand-up fight because they would get absolutely annihilated. Therefore, strategies based on this type of fighting are and will continue to be ineffective. The versatility of the JSF should make it a good candidate for the type of guerilla crap that is the primary "defense" that we encounter. The EFV is just another in a string of scrapped marine vehicles as they work to adjust their style to what we're now facing. I'm not too familiar with the status of our carrier fleet, so I can't really comment on that.

 

[Zebo]

I think these are correct strategies. China will be our best friends in 20 years I wouldn't worry about them and the costs to maintain a CBGs are huge 30 billion a year. We need more special forces to take on asymmetrical threats and terror orgs.

ED problem is you just can't print those off an assembly line. Takes athletes with high IQ and years of training language culture and DA training. I've always thought these guys should make 250K a year...well their bonuses are not too far off that.

 

[theflyingpig]

The weakening of America continues. Pathetic.

 

[Steeplerot]

Kill 75% of the budget and bring up the draft again. Watch the glorification of the military and the enrichment of contractors on our tab end overnight. And still be miles above everyone else.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Good. Direct military spending should be capped at about 10% of the total federal budget, while indirect spending shouldn't exceed another 5% at most (during peace time at least; which should be any time we're not at war with a specific enemy target and have a signed congressional declaration of war). That, combined with a balanced budget if it ever gets here again, might be enough to become domestic stabilization.

 

[Craig234]

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/12/09/qdr-likely-kills-two-carriers-efv/
Are these the correct strategies for America? A strong military has been instrumental in American global power, maintaining the security of trade, etc. This directly affects the standard of living of even the most peacenik liberal.

Jesus said, "The poor will always be with you." And when I see a lazy poor person, I think, WWJD? And I realize that all the government aid in the world will not help many people. Their improvement must come from within. I hope that in a Democratic Party shortsighted spending spree, other national priorities are left neglected.

Furthermore, is the US slowly conceding power to China? Is China the kind of power Democrats want dictating world affairs? The world suffered for 50 years under the yoke of authoritarians. And for all the whining our forum left wingers make about the CIA and oligarchical capitalists, the US has generally been the world power the most on the side of democratic ideals, especially compared to Russia and China. Europe has been good lately, but they were terrible colonial masters in the past.

When Jesus said the poor will always be with you , the message was not to be compacent and accept that, it was that you should help them. You got the wrong message.

Your history is distorted as well. The bad actions by the USSR and China were in no small part part of a larger power struggle in which the US played a key role in continuing and pressuring them to act badly.

I can name you a long list of weaker nations in which the US played a key role in the mass killing and oppression of people to maintain 'our interests' over the last century - there is plenty of immoral brutality to go around. Our role as a leader of democracy is unfortunately heavily weighted to words over deeds. Many Americans are simply unwilling to face the facts, to get informed to help our nation to be more what you believe it to be, the goal many Americans want, for us to actually be that leader for democracy.

You are highly misguided about the benefit of 'government aid' and the cause of poverty in poor nations. You reach the wrong conclusion, blamig the victims.

This is becaue, in my opinion, you simply have wrong facts to reach your conclusions. I don't think you are some evil person out to hate the poor, I think you are misled and uninformed.

Many Americans fail to appreciate how much our prosperity is built on the backs and the belongings of others we have arranged for our own benefit, how poverty is caused a lot by government action.

How would people understand this? Every politicians speech tells them the warm and fuzzy story of our love for freedom, the history is not taught in schools, it's not told in our media.

THere are excellent books you can read to get informed that maybe 2% of people read and do get informed. Even that 2% is a nice privilege and freedom we have but too few use it.

The very fact that you use language like 'whining' about wrongdoing about our country puts you into a bad role as someone who can't be bothered to get informed before you go pushing misguided policy.

How are we gong to debate the merits of defense cuts when you are goinmg to view anything our military does as morally upstanding fighting evil o defend freedom whatever the facts?

 

[Craig234]

The weakening of America continues. Pathetic.

You are the weakening of America.

 

[werepossum]

When Jesus said the poor will always be with you , the message was not to be compacent and accept that, it was that you should help them. You got the wrong message.

Your history is distorted as well. The bad actions by the USSR and China were in no small part part of a larger power struggle in which the US played a key role in continuing and pressuring them to act badly.

I can name you a long list of weaker nations in which the US played a key role in the mass killing and oppression of people to maintain 'our interests' over the last century - there is plenty of immoral brutality to go around. Our role as a leader of democracy is unfortunately heavily weighted to words over deeds. Many Americans are simply unwilling to face the facts, to get informed to help our nation to be more what you believe it to be, the goal many Americans want, for us to actually be that leader for democracy.

You are highly misguided about the benefit of 'government aid' and the cause of poverty in poor nations. You reach the wrong conclusion, blamig the victims.

This is becaue, in my opinion, you simply have wrong facts to reach your conclusions. I don't think you are some evil person out to hate the poor, I think you are misled and uninformed.

Many Americans fail to appreciate how much our prosperity is built on the backs and the belongings of others we have arranged for our own benefit, how poverty is caused a lot by government action.

How would people understand this? Every politicians speech tells them the warm and fuzzy story of our love for freedom, the history is not taught in schools, it's not told in our media.

THere are excellent books you can read to get informed that maybe 2% of people read and do get informed. Even that 2% is a nice privilege and freedom we have but too few use it.

The very fact that you use language like 'whining' about wrongdoing about our country puts you into a bad role as someone who can't be bothered to get informed before you go pushing misguided policy.

How are we gong to debate the merits of defense cuts when you are goinmg to view anything our military does as morally upstanding fighting evil o defend freedom whatever the facts?

Just out of morbid curiosity, can you name three major post-war ills for which you don't consider the USA at least partially responsible? Or perhaps explain America's role in pressuring communist China into invading and annexing Tibet? Perhaps a nice treatise on how battered women are playing a key role in continuing the struggle, it takes two to have one person beat the crap out of another, right?

 

[Craig234]

Just out of morbid curiosity, can you name three major post-war ills for which you don't consider the USA at least partially responsible? Or perhaps explain America's role in pressuring communist China into invading and annexing Tibet? Perhaps a nice treatise on how battered women are playing a key role in continuing the struggle, it takes two to have one person beat the crap out of another, right?

Sure, but for fun, you list five to ten major posatwar ills, and I'll say whether I see a role of the US in them.

You already gave me one, I see no role of the US in China's aggression in Tibet.

Oh, heck, you want a couple more - England/Falklands, Russia/Chechnya.

Go ahead and list more, you miight get somew new info. If you are listening, anyway, if not don't waste my time.

 

[mk]

When Jesus said the poor will always be with you , the message was not to be compacent and accept that, it was that you should help them. You got the wrong message.

Really? That's quite an odd interpretation.

A little before the last supper a woman came to Jesus and poured some very expensive perfume on him (according to some translations worth a year's pay). When asked why should the stuff be wasted instead of being sold and the money used to help the poor Jesus said that the poor were always going to be there to be helped but he was here now. It was a good thing for her to anoint his body before the burial and her deed should be remembered.

At least in this passage Jesus is clearly saying that instead of feeding a large number of needy people it is more important to use the money on him.

 

[Craig234]

Really? That's quite an odd interpretation.

A little before the last supper a woman came to Jesus and poured some very expensive perfume on him (according to some translations worth a year's pay). When asked why should the stuff be wasted instead of being sold and the money used to help the poor Jesus said that the poor were always going to be there to be helped but he was here now. It was a good thing for her to anoint his body before the burial and her deed should be remembered.

At least in this passage Jesus is clearly saying that instead of feeding a large number of needy people it is more important to use the money on him.

http://poserorprophet.wordpress.com...does-it-mean-to-always-have-the-poor-with-us/

 

[Sacrilege]

The bad actions by the USSR and China were in no small part part of a larger power struggle in which the US played a key role in continuing and pressuring them to act badly.

Stalin's internal purges of millions of people, and Maos similar actions in China, were caused by America?

I guess when you are desperate to blame America for everything, this is the kind of logic you come up with.

 

[Carmen813]

Sound like reasonable cuts to me. We don't need to be the world's policemen, and we don't need to be able to fight two wars at once. (or is it 3 or 4? it's hard to keep track).

The U.S. is on the side of democratic ideals when it suits our interests. Don't believe me? Then explain South America and how China became our largest trade partner.

 

[Craig234]

Stalin's internal purges of millions of people, and Maos similar actions in China, were caused by America?

I guess when you are desperate to blame America for everything, this is the kind of logic you come up with.

On the one hand, I should rephrase slightly to say some of the bad actions by those countries, which is what I meant but not what I wrote.

On the other you are saying something idiotic with your 'desperate to blame America' crap. I guess that's how the truth looks to someone who can't deal with it.

The USSR at its founding wasn't about being a terrible and oppressive tyranny, it had some ideals about being good for people, notentirly unlike our own nation's founding.

The nasty wealthy classes in Europe and the US had no use for their 'nice to workers' ideas, and promptly decided the USSR was an enemy and invaded them shortly after the revolution - including US forces, which few Americans are aware of. This did have an effect of pushing the young USSR to feel threatened and to concentrate on its own security and military, and had the effect of pushing it down the Stalin road.

None of that excuses Stalin's monstrous policies; by the time he was in place, his internal purges were nothing more than evil acts for his own power unrelated to the US.

But yes, the US did have some impact on the direction of their nation early and later. The acts I was referring to involve the USSR having to compete in the cold war that the US made all the more contentious, forcing conflict - some for its own gain and some out of a paranoia that took hold, as well as some legitimate opposition to the terrible nation the USSR had become.

But you can take some examples - it was the US who always maintained its interest in a nuclear first strike, always sending illegal flights to collect information on Soviet air defenses for no other purposes than the planning of a first strike; it was the western allies' allowing the Soviets to suffer the vast majority of casualties in WWII, delaying D-day years after it had been expected, that helped lead to the USSR's feeling it had to have satellite buffer nations to never again be so threatened by invasion; it was the US who set the precedent placing nukes on the border of the USSR that led to the USSR's countering with the same thing with missiles in Cuba, about which we had a double standard and insisted they were monsters for doing the same thing we already had done. We were willing to go to nuclear war over their doing what we had done - including our refusal to officially agree to remove our missiles on their border in exchange for their removing Cuba's (thought we did make the deal secretly).

Winston Churchill was furious and disappointed with the US in the 1950's for the US in his view making the cold war much more dangerous than it needed to be. And he was no friend of Stalin or the USSR. The real history is a lot more complicated than the white hat black hat version you appear to accept blindly.

I've posted many detailed examples, you can deal with them or put your head in the sand. But we're stronger as a nation to deal with the facts and not the feel good myths.

You are not honest if you suggest the accurate history is not the accurate history and attack any pointing out of mistakes as being 'out to get America'.

 

[werepossum]

On the one hand, I should rephrase slightly to say some of the bad actions by those countries, which is what I meant but not what I wrote.

On the other you are saying something idiotic with your 'desperate to blame America' crap. I guess that's how the truth looks to someone who can't deal with it.

The USSR at its founding wasn't about being a terrible and oppressive tyranny, it had some ideals about being good for people, notentirly unlike our own nation's founding.

The nasty wealthy classes in Europe and the US had no use for their 'nice to workers' ideas, and promptly decided the USSR was an enemy and invaded them shortly after the revolution - including US forces, which few Americans are aware of. This did have an effect of pushing the young USSR to feel threatened and to concentrate on its own security and military, and had the effect of pushing it down the Stalin road.

None of that excuses Stalin's monstrous policies; by the time he was in place, his internal purges were nothing more than evil acts for his own power unrelated to the US.

But yes, the US did have some impact on the direction of their nation early and later. The acts I was referring to involve the USSR having to compete in the cold war that the US made all the more contentious, forcing conflict - some for its own gain and some out of a paranoia that took hold, as well as some legitimate opposition to the terrible nation the USSR had become.

But you can take some examples - it was the US who always maintained its interest in a nuclear first strike, always sending illegal flights to collect information on Soviet air defenses for no other purposes than the planning of a first strike; it was the western allies' allowing the Soviets to suffer the vast majority of casualties in WWII, delaying D-day years after it had been expected, that helped lead to the USSR's feeling it had to have satellite buffer nations to never again be so threatened by invasion; it was the US who set the precedent placing nukes on the border of the USSR that led to the USSR's countering with the same thing with missiles in Cuba, about which we had a double standard and insisted they were monsters for doing the same thing we already had done. We were willing to go to nuclear war over their doing what we had done - including our refusal to officially agree to remove our missiles on their border in exchange for their removing Cuba's (thought we did make the deal secretly).

Winston Churchill was furious and disappointed with the US in the 1950's for the US in his view making the cold war much more dangerous than it needed to be. And he was no friend of Stalin or the USSR. The real history is a lot more complicated than the white hat black hat version you appear to accept blindly.

I've posted many detailed examples, you can deal with them or put your head in the sand. But we're stronger as a nation to deal with the facts and not the feel good myths.

You are not honest if you suggest the accurate history is not the accurate history and attack any pointing out of mistakes as being 'out to get America'.

Churchill was also furious at the USA in the 40s for not understanding the true evil of the USSR and making our main effort invading occupied Europe through Italy, thereby cutting off the USSR from Western Europe. By that time your workers' paradise had invaded and occupied Ukraine and Finland plus numerous smaller nations like Georgia, divided up Poland with Germany before Germany invaded, and generally made life miserable for every nation within its grasp. Due to our treating the USSR as an ally rather than as a hostile power it went on to occupy half of Germany and all of Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Bulgaria, and the Baltic nations to name a few. In particular the USSR's occupation of the Baltic states made Germany's previous occupation look like a neighborhood barbecue. Good to know though that you can at least admit not every evil in the world is caused by the USA.

As to the overflights, those weren't to plot first strikes, but to keep track of Soviet troop movements, as there was a real fear that the USSR would continue its march west and resume the war in a bid to occupy all of Europe. Somehow I don't think the people who endured half a century of brutal Soviet occupation would see them as quite the innocent victims you find them.

 

[Craig234]

Churchill was also furious at the USA in the 40s for not understanding the true evil of the USSR and making our main effort invading occupied Europe through Italy, thereby cutting off the USSR from Western Europe. By that time your workers' paradise

That's where I stopped reading because you showed youyr post to be idiocy, mot worth a response.

I have little doubt I more strongly oppose the USSR understanding its wrongs than you in you ignorance.

If you can get rid of the idiocy you can try again.

your worker's paradise, you should be very embarrassed for the garbage.

 

[K1052]

it was the western allies' allowing the Soviets to suffer the vast majority of casualties in WWII, delaying D-day years after it had been expected, that helped lead to the USSR's feeling it had to have satellite buffer nations to never again be so threatened by invasion; history and attack any pointing out of mistakes as being 'out to get America'.

If the US did not have the bomb by the end of the war all of Europe could have been "buffer nations". Stalin was mad for land and power just like Hitler. Finland, the Baltic states, and Poland all found that out well before Barbarossa launched.

 

[0marTheZealot]

If the US did not have the bomb by the end of the war all of Europe could have been "buffer nations". Stalin was mad for land and power just like Hitler. Finland, the Baltic states, and Poland all found that out well before Barbarossa launched.

Finland was kicking Russia's ass until the Nazis came and set things straight.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Just out of morbid curiosity, can you name three major post-war ills for which you don't consider the USA at least partially responsible? Or perhaps explain America's role in pressuring communist China into invading and annexing Tibet? Perhaps a nice treatise on how battered women are playing a key role in continuing the struggle, it takes two to have one person beat the crap out of another, right?

There's a lot of blame to go around after the Cold War. America has had it's hand in some of those situations, others not so much. Blaming everything on America is just as folly as assigning no blame.

 

[Siddhartha]

The weakening of America continues. Pathetic.

What role would you like the US to take in the world? Maintain a global US Pax where the US is at constant war and war readiness?

What is your idea of how much and what kind of military the US needs?

 

[K1052]

Finland was kicking Russia's ass until the Nazis came and set things straight.

The Finns would have eventually lost since the Soviets could keep throwing more men and equipment at the poorly supplied/equipped Finns (albeit at great cost). That said the Finish Army inflicted enormously wide kill ratios on their Russian counterparts. Enough so that the Red Army had to thoroughly review and reform their tactics, leadership, and equipment. That's probably the only thing that saved their ass when the Nazis came calling.

 

[alphatarget1]

I have no problem with that. JSF is already developed and should the need arise, we can just build more. Cut the 2 older carriers and dock them somewhere. Maybe if needed we can recommission them. Weren't we building another carrier even after the USS Ronald Reagan? Maybe sell some old ones to some friends (Australia, for instance).

 

[StageLeft]

As I linked to a month back in another debt thread, the author said that as the US debt gets worse militar spending will be cut, as has happened in other nations and the US will by extension become weaker.

The US probably doesn't need 11 carriers but it's not like it spends a crazy amount of GDP on military. Also, if funding has to be cut, should it be cut here? I don't know, but I bet there are other areas that could be cut first.

If the US could sell these to another decent nation it would be a good idea, though, like a strong ally. Canada has no carriers and England's barely qualify as aircraft carriers. HMS Beaver, Canada's first carrier.

 

[K1052]

I have no problem with that. JSF is already developed and should the need arise, we can just build more. Cut the 2 older carriers and dock them somewhere. Maybe if needed we can recommission them. Weren't we building another carrier even after the USS Ronald Reagan? Maybe sell some old ones to some friends (Australia, for instance).

The USS George H.W. Bush was the last Nimitz class carrier to be built. Construction has already begun on the first ship of the new carrier class, the Gerald R. Ford.