So, when will the US go bankrupt?

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Ballistic missile defense, nuclear forces, surface and subsurface naval forces with the moderate exception of CV's, etc... etc.

I would argue that none of those are expendable assets and that each of them plays a very valuable role in both the defense of this nation and ongoing offensive operations around the globe.

I was seriously hoping you'd do better than that with your examples.

These forces are useful in other conflicts, but they aren't very useful in counter-insurgency operations. Even in the case of other conflicts we are massively overloaded for what we need. (10 supercarriers and a dozen or so LHA/LHD/LCC's? How on earth is that necessary?)

China.
Russia.
Iran.
North Korea.

So, are you suggesting that we mothball a few of them, and each of their supporting elements, until we might need them again? How long will each of them take to spin back up if/when we need them at the drop of a hat?

Our defense budget is insanely bloated because just like with crime, no politician ever wants to appear 'soft on defense'. The fact that currently our good friend Saxby Chambliss is furiously fighting to appropriate more money to the F-22 that the Secretary of Defense has said he doesn't want or need is an excellent example of this.

IMO, the F-22 should be placed on hold, but not indefinitely. There will more than likely come a time when we'll need to fight an air war against a technically equal nation. It would be nice to have the F-22 perfected and ready to roll off the assembly lines when that time comes.

The F-22 is a much better, and much more specific, example. Have any more that are similar?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Ballistic missile defense, nuclear forces, surface and subsurface naval forces with the moderate exception of CV's, etc... etc.

I would argue that none of those are expendable assets and that each of them plays a very valuable role in both the defense of this nation and ongoing offensive operations around the globe.

I was seriously hoping you'd do better than that with your examples.

These forces are useful in other conflicts, but they aren't very useful in counter-insurgency operations. Even in the case of other conflicts we are massively overloaded for what we need. (10 supercarriers and a dozen or so LHA/LHD/LCC's? How on earth is that necessary?)

China.
Russia.
Iran.
North Korea.

So, are you suggesting that we mothball a few of them, and each of their supporting elements, until we might need them again? How long will each of them take to spin back up if/when we need them at the drop of a hat?

Our defense budget is insanely bloated because just like with crime, no politician ever wants to appear 'soft on defense'. The fact that currently our good friend Saxby Chambliss is furiously fighting to appropriate more money to the F-22 that the Secretary of Defense has said he doesn't want or need is an excellent example of this.

IMO, the F-22 should be placed on hold, but not indefinitely. There will more than likely come a time when we'll need to fight an air war against a technically equal nation. It would be nice to have the F-22 perfected and ready to roll off the assembly lines when that time comes.

The F-22 is a much better, and much more specific, example. Have any more that are similar?

By all means explain the role you think our current surface, subsurface, and nuclear forces are playing in the counterinsurgency operations taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Please also explain the necessity for 10 CBG's, their support craft along with the ARG's in a plausible military scenario with China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea. We face vastly weaker military adversaries today than we did during the Cold War, but we have maintained huge military spending. Building up to defend ourselves from countries that have absolutely no interest in a military confrontation with the United States is awfully wasteful.

I spent almost a decade in the military, I've seen the waste and ridiculousness with my own eyes.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Ballistic missile defense, nuclear forces, surface and subsurface naval forces with the moderate exception of CV's, etc... etc.

I would argue that none of those are expendable assets and that each of them plays a very valuable role in both the defense of this nation and ongoing offensive operations around the globe.

I was seriously hoping you'd do better than that with your examples.

These forces are useful in other conflicts, but they aren't very useful in counter-insurgency operations. Even in the case of other conflicts we are massively overloaded for what we need. (10 supercarriers and a dozen or so LHA/LHD/LCC's? How on earth is that necessary?)

China.
Russia.
Iran.
North Korea.

So, are you suggesting that we mothball a few of them, and each of their supporting elements, until we might need them again? How long will each of them take to spin back up if/when we need them at the drop of a hat?

Our defense budget is insanely bloated because just like with crime, no politician ever wants to appear 'soft on defense'. The fact that currently our good friend Saxby Chambliss is furiously fighting to appropriate more money to the F-22 that the Secretary of Defense has said he doesn't want or need is an excellent example of this.

IMO, the F-22 should be placed on hold, but not indefinitely. There will more than likely come a time when we'll need to fight an air war against a technically equal nation. It would be nice to have the F-22 perfected and ready to roll off the assembly lines when that time comes.

The F-22 is a much better, and much more specific, example. Have any more that are similar?

By all means explain the role you think our current surface, subsurface, and nuclear forces are playing in the counterinsurgency operations taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Please also explain the necessity for 10 CBG's, their support craft along with the ARG's in a plausible military scenario with China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea. We face vastly weaker military adversaries today than we did during the Cold War, but we have maintained huge military spending. Building up to defend ourselves from countries that have absolutely no interest in a military confrontation with the United States is awfully wasteful.

I spent almost a decade in the military, I've seen the waste and ridiculousness with my own eyes.

I'll kindly wait until you answer my pointed questions before addressing yours.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Ballistic missile defense, nuclear forces, surface and subsurface naval forces with the moderate exception of CV's, etc... etc.

I would argue that none of those are expendable assets and that each of them plays a very valuable role in both the defense of this nation and ongoing offensive operations around the globe.

I was seriously hoping you'd do better than that with your examples.

These forces are useful in other conflicts, but they aren't very useful in counter-insurgency operations. Even in the case of other conflicts we are massively overloaded for what we need. (10 supercarriers and a dozen or so LHA/LHD/LCC's? How on earth is that necessary?)

China.
Russia.
Iran.
North Korea.

So, are you suggesting that we mothball a few of them, and each of their supporting elements, until we might need them again? How long will each of them take to spin back up if/when we need them at the drop of a hat?

Our defense budget is insanely bloated because just like with crime, no politician ever wants to appear 'soft on defense'. The fact that currently our good friend Saxby Chambliss is furiously fighting to appropriate more money to the F-22 that the Secretary of Defense has said he doesn't want or need is an excellent example of this.

IMO, the F-22 should be placed on hold, but not indefinitely. There will more than likely come a time when we'll need to fight an air war against a technically equal nation. It would be nice to have the F-22 perfected and ready to roll off the assembly lines when that time comes.

The F-22 is a much better, and much more specific, example. Have any more that are similar?

By all means explain the role you think our current surface, subsurface, and nuclear forces are playing in the counterinsurgency operations taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Please also explain the necessity for 10 CBG's, their support craft along with the ARG's in a plausible military scenario with China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea. We face vastly weaker military adversaries today than we did during the Cold War, but we have maintained huge military spending. Building up to defend ourselves from countries that have absolutely no interest in a military confrontation with the United States is awfully wasteful.

I spent almost a decade in the military, I've seen the waste and ridiculousness with my own eyes.

I'll kindly wait until you answer my pointed questions before addressing yours.

You asked a question, I answered it. You then dismissed my answer based on zero evidence and asked me more questions. I know a lot about this topic, and I'd like to see if you do.

So sorry, my turn.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Q: (10 supercarriers and a dozen or so LHA/LHD/LCC's? How on earth is that necessary?)

A: 1. A necessary global projection of power to maintain stability in multiple hot locations simultaneously. 2. QRF anywhere, anytime. 3. The ability to conduct humanitarian missions at the drop of a hat anywhere on the planet. 4. Possible future war with an equal or greater superpower, or more than one, utilizing conventional forces -- the objective being to completely overwhelm them and completely destroy their infrastructure as fast as humanly possible.

How many would you suggest we have instead?

I've now asked three questions. Your turn.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Q: (10 supercarriers and a dozen or so LHA/LHD/LCC's? How on earth is that necessary?)

A: 1. A necessary global projection of power to maintain stability in multiple hot locations simultaneously. 2. QRF anywhere, anytime. 3. The ability to conduct humanitarian missions at the drop of a hat anywhere on the planet. 4. Possible future war with an equal or greater superpower, or more than one, utilizing conventional forces -- the objective being to completely overwhelm them and completely destroy their infrastructure as fast as humanly possible.

How many would you suggest we have instead?

Your turn. I've now asked three questions.

Your answers were terrible. They are simply cut and pasted boilerplate nonsense that show zero understanding of the issues involved and do not come anywhere close to justifying the position you took.

We do not need 10 CBG's and 10 ARG's to maintain stability in multiple locations, or anywhere close to that number.

We also do not need this many to conduct our humanitarian missions. Even if the goal were to accomplish humanitarian missions this quickly, large surface battlegroups are most certainly not the best way to accomplish this.

Maintaining a standing fleet that is more powerful than every other country on the planet combined is not anywhere close to a reasonable or proportionate precaution, particularly against a threat as nebulous as some imagined future war against opponents that have massive economic interest AGAINST fighting us. I can copy and paste from the DoD's website as well as you can, but that doesn't make them good policy choices.

I would cut the size of the fleet roughly in half. This would continue to allow us to project power in the middle east through the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf and allow us a surge capability of a third CBG if necessary while still allowing for two CV's to be in the yards/training at any one time.

As for other examples, the CG-X, DDG-1000 and CVN-21 programs are both unnecessary and should be scrapped. We do not suffer from a lack of land attack capability, nor is ballistic missile defense a realistic defense requirement.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
nor is ballistic missile defense a realistic defense requirement.

Are there any countries in the world with missiles that can hit the U.S., its allies, or its national interests?

Since the answer to that question is obviously 'yes,' I'd like you to explain why it is you think that ballistic defense is not a "realistic defense requirement"...?

And, for the record, I didn't copy or paste anything in my previous answer.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: eskimospy
nor is ballistic missile defense a realistic defense requirement.

Are there any countries in the world with missiles that can hit the U.S., its allies, or its national interests?

Since the answer to that question is obviously 'yes,' I'd like you to explain why it is you think that ballistic defense is not a "realistic defense requirement"...?

And, for the record, I didn't copy or paste anything in my previous answer.

While you might not have actually hit CTRL-C, CTRL-V, it might as well have been.

Allow me to be more clear, seaborne BMD is not a realistic defense requirement. Theater ballistic missile defense is something that is achievable and is something we should be working towards, but this is much more easily solved with ground based launchers that are a fraction of the cost. The BMD that those pushing that capability in the CG-X and DDG-1000 programs is a strategic BMD program that's incredibly wasteful and ineffective. (as previously mentioned).

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
It would be nice to cut defense spending and spend more on public health and education.

yeah... sure, cutting defense spending is a brilliant idea while the country is involved in several wars around the world, and tensions with Iran and North Korea are at their peak. You're a genius!

:roll:

reality check.

Why are you so angry?

I don't want to cut spending completely, just relocate a bit to other domestic areas that could be a benefit to society. The problems with this are that the defense sector provides jobs to millions of people, and cutting funds will have repercussions for those that hold positions. Also, as you said, we are engaged in war in the Middle East, and tensions with North Korea are escalating. However, if possible, moving funds from defense to domestic areas without sacrificing military integrity is desirable; if not now, then as a future goal.

The problem is, you can cut all the DOD spending you want and we still won't have any extra cash laying around. All you are doing is using the big ole credit card a little less. It would be like me cutting up the wife's Dillards card so that I can use the Home Depot card while using another credit card to make the minimum payments on both. The end result is still spending more money than we have.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: eskimospy
nor is ballistic missile defense a realistic defense requirement.

Are there any countries in the world with missiles that can hit the U.S., its allies, or its national interests?

Since the answer to that question is obviously 'yes,' I'd like you to explain why it is you think that ballistic defense is not a "realistic defense requirement"...?

And, for the record, I didn't copy or paste anything in my previous answer.

While you might not have actually hit CTRL-C, CTRL-V, it might as well have been.

Allow me to be more clear, seaborne BMD is not a realistic defense requirement. Theater ballistic missile defense is something that is achievable and is something we should be working towards, but this is much more easily solved with ground based launchers that are a fraction of the cost. The BMD that those pushing that capability in the CG-X and DDG-1000 programs is a strategic BMD program that's incredibly wasteful and ineffective. (as previously mentioned).

If the Interceptor, through extensive R&D over time, were capable of achieving a 99% kill ratio, would you then support sea-based BMD?

If your answer even approaches "maybe," then every penny we spend in that area is worth it.

 

[Pliablemoose]

WHO IN THE HELL LET MCOWEN BACK IN???

He hasn't changed a bit, he brings nothing to the discussion, it's the same shit different day.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: eskimospy
nor is ballistic missile defense a realistic defense requirement.

Are there any countries in the world with missiles that can hit the U.S., its allies, or its national interests?

Since the answer to that question is obviously 'yes,' I'd like you to explain why it is you think that ballistic defense is not a "realistic defense requirement"...?

And, for the record, I didn't copy or paste anything in my previous answer.

While you might not have actually hit CTRL-C, CTRL-V, it might as well have been.

Allow me to be more clear, seaborne BMD is not a realistic defense requirement. Theater ballistic missile defense is something that is achievable and is something we should be working towards, but this is much more easily solved with ground based launchers that are a fraction of the cost. The BMD that those pushing that capability in the CG-X and DDG-1000 programs is a strategic BMD program that's incredibly wasteful and ineffective. (as previously mentioned).

consider that it is the government's job to protect its citizens from foreign threats. if there is a threat, it needs to be addressed. OTOH, how large a role should the government play in the welfare of its citizens?

defense spending is much more easily justified than welfare/healthcare (not to mention it costs a hell of a lot less)

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
WHO IN THE HELL LET MCOWEN BACK IN???

He hasn't changed a bit, he brings nothing to the discussion, it's the same shit different day.

Yes, typical. You can't stand on your own argument so attack the poster.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
WHO IN THE HELL LET MCOWEN BACK IN???

He hasn't changed a bit, he brings nothing to the discussion, it's the same shit different day.

Yes, typical. You can't stand on your own argument so attack the poster.

I don't have a horse in this race you fucking idiot.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
WHO IN THE HELL LET MCOWEN BACK IN???

He hasn't changed a bit, he brings nothing to the discussion, it's the same shit different day.

Yes, typical. You can't stand on your own argument so attack the poster.

I don't have a horse in this race you fucking idiot.

Really. Then you bring nothing to the discussion either than attacking me.

Like I said you can't stand on your own two feet.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
WHO IN THE HELL LET MCOWEN BACK IN???

He hasn't changed a bit, he brings nothing to the discussion, it's the same shit different day.

Yes, typical. You can't stand on your own argument so attack the poster.

I don't have a horse in this race you fucking idiot.

Really. Then you bring nothing to the discussion either than attacking me.

Like I said you can't stand on your own two feet.

I'm simply expressing my extreme displeasure over your return.

It's too much to hope that you gained a millimeter of insight when your forums sat dead for months while you were banned from here, but no, you haven't changed a bit, spewing hatred, and ignorance with every keystroke.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
WHO IN THE HELL LET MCOWEN BACK IN???

He hasn't changed a bit, he brings nothing to the discussion, it's the same shit different day.

Yes, typical. You can't stand on your own argument so attack the poster.

Oh, and what facts have you brought to any of these discussions? NONE WHATSOEVER. All you do is insult people and if they don't agree with your twisted and idiotic view of the world, they are "rich", "Republicans", and/or "elitists." You have been repeatedly owned by people on here and yet you keep coming back for more.

You haven't stood on a single argument yet.

 

[First]

Who the hell let Dave back? My lord. :laugh:

 

[Steeplerot]

Dave, stop man, just stop. You should know by now it is getting you nowhere.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed
Dave, stop man, just stop. You should know by now it is getting you nowhere.

..

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: Evan
Who the hell let Dave back? My lord. :laugh:

I think we are all asking that same question. Same old Dave -- no facts, just insults, accusatory statements, name calling, etc.

 

[Jeffg010]

Please any mods that read this don't ban dmcowen674 he is most entertaining poster on this board. Removing him would be a travesty!

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: Jeffg010
Please any mods that read this don't ban dmcowen674 he is most entertaining poster on this board. Removing him would be a travesty!

LOL, I would use the word "sad" as well.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: eskimospy
nor is ballistic missile defense a realistic defense requirement.

Are there any countries in the world with missiles that can hit the U.S., its allies, or its national interests?

Since the answer to that question is obviously 'yes,' I'd like you to explain why it is you think that ballistic defense is not a "realistic defense requirement"...?

And, for the record, I didn't copy or paste anything in my previous answer.

While you might not have actually hit CTRL-C, CTRL-V, it might as well have been.

Allow me to be more clear, seaborne BMD is not a realistic defense requirement. Theater ballistic missile defense is something that is achievable and is something we should be working towards, but this is much more easily solved with ground based launchers that are a fraction of the cost. The BMD that those pushing that capability in the CG-X and DDG-1000 programs is a strategic BMD program that's incredibly wasteful and ineffective. (as previously mentioned).

consider that it is the government's job to protect its citizens from foreign threats. if there is a threat, it needs to be addressed. OTOH, how large a role should the government play in the welfare of its citizens?

defense spending is much more easily justified than welfare/healthcare (not to mention it costs a hell of a lot less)

You do realize that 'promote the general welfare' is an explicitly stated purpose of government in the Constitution, right?

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
You do realize that 'promote the general welfare' is an explicitly stated purpose of government in the Constitution, right?

Not in the 2nd amendment, so who gives a sh!t?