• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Welcome your DOD as the new hollow military force

Status
Not open for further replies.
Perhaps it's time to trim the fat.

The US military already has vastly too much money spent on it. The US Navy has as many carrier fleets as the rest of the world combined (and some of the world's ones really don't qualify as functional).

How much is enough?

204c21cc52b7386a825bd07dc6ee7577.png


I realize that stat can be a bit misleading. As a percentage of GDP US spends less than 5%, most of the annual budget is spent on other things, so even slashing military spending literally in half wouldn't impact the budget all that terribly.
 
Doppel said:
Perhaps it's time to trim the fat.

The US military already has vastly too much money spent on it. The US Navy has as many carrier fleets as the rest of the world combined (and some of the world's ones really don't qualify as functional).

How much is enough?

204c21cc52b7386a825bd07dc6ee7577.png


I realize that stat can be a bit misleading. As a percentage of GDP US spends less than 5%, most of the annual budget is spent on other things, so even slashing military spending literally in half wouldn't impact the budget all that terribly.
Click to expand...

I don't dispute that the DOD as well as every other govt agency is inefficient. Does it not concern you that AF officers responsible for the launch of nuclear weapons behave in this manner. Despite the opinion regarding overspending troops are working harder than ever with much less....one of the results can be read in the story.
 
This is not political... You should know this can happen to any unit with poor leadership. That's all this is. My first unit was terrible, I left and got orders back there a few years later and it was awesome. The people and leadership change.
 
It appeared the Minot force, which is one of three responsible for controlling — and, if necessary, launching — the Air Force’s 450 strategic nuclear missiles, is an outlier.

he Air Force told the AP on Wednesday that the two other missile wings — at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Mont., and at F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyo. — earned scores of “excellent” in the most recent inspection of their ICBM launch skills.
Click to expand...

The email obtained by the AP describes a culture of indifference at Minot, with at least one intentional violation of missile safety rules and an apparent unwillingness among some to challenge or report those who violate rules.
Click to expand...

I don't really see how you can assume this is related to manning and funding instead of something else
 
nextJin said:
This is not political... You should know this can happen to any unit with poor leadership. That's all this is. My first unit was terrible, I left and got orders back there a few years later and it was awesome. The people and leadership change.
Click to expand...

This. I had two CSM and three Lt. Col in my bat during my time there, and the difference in leadership, and how things ran was astounding.
 
US defense budget in 2000 (before the wars) was about 300 billion. The 2013 defense budget is 672 billion, which is down from it's peak a couple years ago due to less overseas war budget, but the DOD non-overseas war budget has steadily increased year after year.
 
Atreus21 said:
I wonder what the Navy brass say about what resources they realistically need.
Click to expand...

What they need is based on the types of missions they are expected to support.

They support the civilian chain of command.

If the decision is that we need to project force in three oceans; the Navy knows that 3 battle groups are needed per ocean.

If the civilians are willing to allow a projection of force only into two oceans; then you can cut 3 groups.

However, it takes time to reactivate a group when needed.
 
dawheat said:
US defense budget in 2000 (before the wars) was about 300 billion. The 2013 defense budget is 672 billion, which is down from it's peak a couple years ago due to less overseas war budget, but the DOD non-overseas war budget has steadily increased year after year.
Click to expand...

And an important note about this is that DoD spending leaves out considerable outlays that most people would consider 'defense'. Nuclear weapons are maintained by the Dept. of Energy at the cost of about $8 billion a year. The Coast Guard participates in quite a few things that are defense related, the VA is clearly directly related to people serving in the military, but it isn't counted towards defense spending, etc, etc.

At the height of the wars US military spending could be considered to have capped $1 trillion, depending on what you wanted to include.
 
nextJin said:
This is not political... You should know this can happen to any unit with poor leadership. That's all this is. My first unit was terrible, I left and got orders back there a few years later and it was awesome. The people and leadership change.
Click to expand...

Absolutely leadership is missing....and that is a lot of the point. I'd argue that this issue isn't just about Minot but is somewhat systemic across the DOD. Some units are better than others but I see this "rot" everyday from multiple organizations.

So why is this? Lack of unit level funding, lack of adequate manning, what?
 
America's military is the strongest military the world has ever known. The Soviet Union knew that and tried to catch up and ended up spending 50% of their GDP on defense. As a result the Soviet Union imploded.

America has to spend a lot on its military in order to protect its freedom and the freedom of other countries that respect human rights or want to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top