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

[ProfJohn]

The lesson of Iraq and Afghanistan is that we need more troops on the ground.

I would be willing to give up a carrier or two in order to gain back another division for the Army or Marines.

Also, read the article about what is going on in Japan about our bases their and the 40,000 troops we have their still. Why the hell do we still have 40,000 troops in Japan?

Wouldn't it be cheaper to bring the troops back to the states, especially given the fact that so many of our bases are now under used due to troop cut backs, and just leave their heavy equipment in Japan like we did in the gulf in the 90s. Then if war did break out all we have to do is throw the troops on some planes and match them up with their equipment some place down the road.

 

[cwjerome]

It's not like scaling back our military significantly would create a power vacuum- we'd still outclass any conceivable combination of forces excluding our allies.

Lowering the odds against successful aggression from 100:1 down to 90:1 doesn't really reduce the odds significantly- it's still a fool's move...

I didn't say that, your quote function must be off...

 

[fskimospy]

A lot of it came down to strategy, not industrial output. Hitler should have left the war room after conquering Europe, as the OKC basically had the perfect plan to dismantle the USSR. It a straight blitz to Moscow, capture it, and divide the country into two manageable portions. Hitler changed the strategy by forcing the Army Groups to divide up and attack Stalingrad and the oil fields in the South as well as Moscow. This, plus arrogance, led to the collapse in the East.

Germany had everything in it's favor. Technology, expertise, and logistics. No other fighting force could compare to them. In terms of technology, the Panther and Tiger tanks were easily unmatched in the battlefield. The way you defeated either one of those tanks was to send 10 Shermans at it and hope one of them got close enough to flank it and kill it. Germany had over 20 tank commanders with over 100 kills. They had several fighter aces with more than 200 kills. It really came down to an ill-advised strategy and not Allied superiority.

A few problems with that. The push towards the oil fields and Stalingrad didn't happen until 1942 after the initial blitz towards Moscow had failed, and the Panther and the Tiger didn't exist until after the point at which Germany had already lost the war. (or at least had been rendered unable to win it)

 

[Jhhnn]

I didn't say that, your quote function must be off...

You're apparently correct in that regard. No false attribution intended. I'll apparently have to be more careful to quote the original rather than a quote of it... a quirk in our new and improved forum software, I suspect. I may be able to edit- I'll give it a shot.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Defense bill breathes new life into canceled programs

House and Senate negotiators on the fiscal 2010 Defense Appropriations bill have rejected some of President Obama's biggest military spending cuts, agreeing to a $636.3 billion measure that continues an unwanted second engine program for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and buys 10 unrequested C-17 cargo planes, an appropriations aide said on Monday.

The bill also includes $130 million for the troubled VH-71 presidential helicopter program, most of which would pay to continue some work on the aircraft at Lockheed Martin Corp.'s facility in Owego, N.Y., despite the Obama administration's decision to cancel the contract.

The spending was added in defiance of a White House that sought to slash defense expenditures it deemed wasteful or unnecessary to pay for priorities within the Defense Department and elsewhere in government.

In addition to the add-ons, the Defense bill includes $6.3 billion to buy more than 6,600 mine-resistant all-terrain vehicles for Afghanistan.

For unmanned aerial vehicles, the bill includes $554 million for high-altitude Global Hawks and $489 million for Reaper hunter-killer UAVs, the requested amounts. Appropriators approved just $80 million for the Predator drone, $170 million below the request, the aide said.

Meanwhile, the bill includes about $15 billion to buy seven ships: a DDG-51 Arleigh-Burke class destroyer, a Virginia-class submarine, two Littoral Combat Ships, an Intra-theater Connector Ship, and two T-AKE auxiliary dry cargo carriers.

Meanwhile ... Appropriator expects Defense bill to pay for 10 more C-17s

~~~
The House-passed Defense Appropriations bill included $674 million to buy three C-17s, or $225 million per plane. The Senate version added $2.5 billion for 10 planes.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other senior administration officials have said repeatedly that the current plan for 205 C-17s, when combined with the existing fleet of larger C-5 Galaxy aircraft, is enough to meet the military's airlift needs.

In a letter to appropriators last week, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter R. Orszag estimated that buying 10 more C-17s would cost $100 million in operations and maintenance costs annually -- in addition to the $2.5 billion required to purchase them.

"Procuring additional C-17s is an inefficient use of critical defense resources," he wrote.

But the aircraft program, which employs more than 30,000 people in 43 states, has a legion of supporters on Capitol Hill who do not want to see the plane's production lines stopped.

-

 

[Exterous]

Wait...we've reached the point where Congress is forcing the Military to accept more toys than it waned... (So even when the Military tries to be at least a little fiscally responsible congress steps in and says 'fuck that')

 

[fskimospy]

Wait...we've reached the point where Congress is forcing the Military to accept more toys than it waned... (So even when the Military tries to be at least a little fiscally responsible congress steps in and says 'fuck that')

We reached that point generations ago. Military spending serves both a political and a military purpose. If you vote to cut spending on any program you have to brace yourself for the inevitable attack ads coming next election cycle talking about how you left Americans to die.

I find our insane military budget and many of our insanely punitive criminal statutes to have a lot in common. You can never lower either for fear of appearing weak.

 

[KMFJD]

I don't understand why Republicans think it's my patriotic duty to pay taxes to kill people who've never attacked me, but think that only a craven, power-hungry madman would suggest that I pay taxes to cure people.

 

[Craig234]

I don't understand why Republicans think it's my patriotic duty to pay taxes to kill people who've never attacked me, but think that only a craven, power-hungry madman would suggest that I pay taxes to cure people.

The power of corporatist propaganda.

As another poster astutely observed, if you can get people to equate any spending cuts the military hasn't asked for to 'weakness of our defense', the sky is the limit on what people will support there.

If you can use the fear of tyranny to get people not to agree to medical reform, you can preserve the system of corrupt greed where these people cut off their own medical benefits.

It's an irrational paranoia the propaganda uses.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

The lesson of Iraq and Afghanistan is that we need more troops on the ground.

I would be willing to give up a carrier or two in order to gain back another division for the Army or Marines.

Also, read the article about what is going on in Japan about our bases their and the 40,000 troops we have their still. Why the hell do we still have 40,000 troops in Japan?

Wouldn't it be cheaper to bring the troops back to the states, especially given the fact that so many of our bases are now under used due to troop cut backs, and just leave their heavy equipment in Japan like we did in the gulf in the 90s. Then if war did break out all we have to do is throw the troops on some planes and match them up with their equipment some place down the road.

Hmm I thought the lessons of Iraq and Afganistan were don't invade foreign countries and if you do don't occupy them.

 

[EagleKeeper]

The lesson of Iraq and Afghanistan is that we need more troops on the ground.

I would be willing to give up a carrier or two in order to gain back another division for the Army or Marines.

Also, read the article about what is going on in Japan about our bases their and the 40,000 troops we have their still. Why the hell do we still have 40,000 troops in Japan?

Wouldn't it be cheaper to bring the troops back to the states, especially given the fact that so many of our bases are now under used due to troop cut backs, and just leave their heavy equipment in Japan like we did in the gulf in the 90s. Then if war did break out all we have to do is throw the troops on some planes and match them up with their equipment some place down the road.

Hmm I thought the lessons of Iraq and Afganistan were don't invade foreign countries and if you do don't occupy them.

One must have the full political backing to go to war with a defined objective. Not just a warm fuzzy based on the way the wind is blowing today.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Aye, and the means to pay for it.

 

[KMFJD]

One must have the full political backing to go to war with a defined objective. Not just a warm fuzzy based on the way the wind is blowing today.

Would WW2 be the last time this happened? Perhaps Korean War?

 

[hal2kilo]

Wouldn't bother me at all in Big Navy lost a couple aircraft carriers. More money for the real stealth program --- submarines.

I'm not prejudice at all, only my job depends on it.

 

[Exterous]

We reached that point generations ago. Military spending serves both a political and a military purpose. If you vote to cut spending on any program you have to brace yourself for the inevitable attack ads coming next election cycle talking about how you left Americans to die.

I find our insane military budget and many of our insanely punitive criminal statutes to have a lot in common. You can never lower either for fear of appearing weak.

Oh believe me I know that any cuts in the defense budget will result in crying foul. I just dont think I have ever heard the Military say "No - we dont want that many"

 

[shira]

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.

Was this before or after the [excised] passage where Jesus does the seven virgins?

 

[Craig234]

Would WW2 be the last time this happened? Perhaps Korean War?

It's never happened.

Let's start with WWII - the public was 85% opposed to entering the war not long before we did.l After we did, the public was strongly against war with Germany, wanting to fight Japan, while FDR went to Europe.

WWI? The public was strongly opposed and Wilson, entering the war at the last minute, sent thousands of speechgivers around the country to try to get public support.

Civil war? Besides the self-evident, there were riots against the war on both sides, such as in New York City, and plenty of criticism that it was a 'war for the rich man's interests the poor have to fight'.

Our revolutionary war had, reportedly, about 1/3 in favor, 1/3 opposed and 1/3 indifferent.

After the fact, many people invent the history of the united country going to war, but it's not the case.

The polls on both Iraq wars were pretty negative before both as well. But in most wars, the numbers usually go up a lot after the war starts. They may not want war, but when their options are 'win or lose'...

This reminds me of Goebbels' quote about how governments get support for war that the public almost never wants.

 

[Rainsford]

The weakening of America continues. Pathetic.

I agree...but why stop there? Anything less that a 500% increase in our defense budget would result in a "weak" America. After all, when you embrace arbitrary spending levels as the proper level of strength, the sky is the limit.