Military buget cut proposals would take US to 1940 troop levels.

[VN Vet]

The Obama Administration know exactly what they are doing and they are hoping the results will be exactly as they have plan.

Just because the predictions that Japan would take us, the Middle East would take us or China will take us has not yet happened does not mean something wicked won't happen. Regardless our fears, we must always be ready for the fight when the fight comes. Peace through Power and Strength. The Bully will only attack those who can fight back. Obama's Regime: Disarm the Citizens, do a major cut back to our Military and be sure our borders or freely open. You think?

 

[Kutnupe14]

The Obama Administration know exactly what they are doing and they are hoping the results will be exactly as they have plan.

Just because the predictions that Japan would take us, the Middle East would take us or China will take us has not yet happened does not mean something wicked won't happen. Regardless our fears, we must always be ready for the fight when the fight comes. Peace through Power and Strength. The Bully will only attack those who can fight back. Obama's Regime: Disarm the Citizens, do a major cut back to our Military and be sure our borders or freely open. You think?

You think Obama wants to gut the military and disarm citizens so we can be invaded???

 

[9mmfan]

This: Obama gutting the military for more social programs and disarming the populace so they can't fight back if needed.

I think he's to late in his 2nd term to get any anti gun stuff through congress but gutting the military is another matter. More/bigger social program and open borders equal Democrat voters.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

The Obama Administration isn't the first one to cut back the military after a major conflict has ended or is nearing its end: Wilson did it; Truman did it; Carter did it; Bush 41 had it done to him by Congress; Clinton did it some more. This is a particularly bad time to do it, but then post-WWII turned out to be a bad time to cut our forces, too.

And the rationale for cutting the military the past three times has always been to provide more money for social programs.

 

[Jludo]

This: Obama gutting the military for more social programs and disarming the populace so they can't fight back if needed.

So Obama wants the US to be invaded and his plan was to disarm the populace and shrink the military?
Ya that makes sense.

 

[Jludo]

The Obama Administration isn't the first one to cut back the military after a major conflict has ended or is nearing its end: Wilson did it; Truman did it; Carter did it; Bush 41 had it done to him by Congress; Clinton did it some more. This is a particularly bad time to do it, but then post-WWII turned out to be a bad time to cut our forces, too.

And the rationale for cutting the military the past three times has always been to provide more money for social programs.

I'm as libertarian as the next guy but if it came down to social programs and military spending I'm more than willing to tell the military industrial complex to take a hike.
That being said both the military spending and welfare spending need reduced. I'll take it where I can get it.
To quote the great Doug Stanhope, "until the mongols come over the hills swinging machetes" I'm not too worried about reducing our military spending.

 

[9mmfan]

Bringing this thread current. Does Obama's proposed cuts in our military give a boost to Russia's takeover of Crimea and their massing of troops on Ukraines eastern border? To Russia's eventual takeover of all of the Ukraine?
If Russia moves into any NATO countries we will have to get involved. Probably won't happen but it is possible. We currently don't have any sizable force to even slow them down. Most of the other NATO countries militaries would take weeks to be mobilized and it would take us several months to get a sizable force into Europe. And that's with our current sized force.

Edit: Yes, in Europe.

 

[Trooper]

I'm as libertarian as the next guy but if it came down to social programs and military spending I'm more than willing to tell the military industrial complex to take a hike.
That being said both the military spending and welfare spending need reduced. I'll take it where I can get it.
To quote the great Doug Stanhope, "until the mongols come over the hills swinging machetes" I'm not too worried about reducing our military spending.

Part of the military industrial complex are the gun manufacturers. Want them to be disbanded as well?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Bringing this thread current. Does Obama's proposed cuts in our military give a boost to Russia's takeover of Crimea and their massing of troops on Ukraines eastern border? To Russia's eventual takeover of all of the Ukraine?
If Russia moves into any NATO countries we will have to get involved. Probably won't happen but it is possible. We currently don't have any sizable force to even slow them down. Most of the other NATO countries militaries would take weeks to be mobilized and it would take us several months to get a sizable force into Europe. And that's with our current sized force.

You mean in Europe, right? While I believe we should keep our obligations to NATO, that doesn't mean I think we should be the vanguard of their defense. If it takes them weeks to mobilize, then it takes them weeks to mobilize. We shouldn't be putting any of our service members in harm's way, until the Europeans spill their own blood. NATO membership shouldn't be the "US will protect us club."

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Part of the military industrial complex are the gun manufacturers. Want them to be disbanded as well?

No, but maybe they can build fewer missiles and fighter jets and more 9mm and .22 ammo instead.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Frankly, I think some of you folks are being pretty short-sighted about this whole "military industrial complex" idea and its relation to national defense. First of all, it is a "complex;" it's not simple manufacturers turning out relatively simple systems like cannon, mortars, bombs, rifles, pistols, and ammunition. It's multitudes of factories that turn out components for trucks, tanks, airplanes, helicopters, combat multipliers like night vision devices and individual weapons sights, naval vessels, missiles. Some of these items are long-lead-time end items which have a long logistics tail both to be manufactured and to be maintained. The F-22 assembly line, for instance, having been shut down, can't be restarted immediately. Lead times for its components would probably be measured in tens of months because factories would have to be re-tooled for production.

It's foolish to put ourselves in such a production hole when the travel times to our shores are so much shorter than they were even 50 years ago. If we cut ourselves too far back and get too far behind modernization of weapons, we'll find ourselves not only outnumbered, but outclassed as well in a military confrontation with our most capable rivals in the world.

And it's especially foolish to continue with gutting our military when our potential enemies are all (every single one of them) testing our resolve to assist our allies. I'm surprised that you libertarians who want to retain your weapons (and have access to other types of weapons at will ) to defend your personal property and selves would balk at the need to have the same sorts of deterrence available on a national level. It shows a remarkable blind spot in your philosophy, in my opinion.

 

[9mmfan]

Frankly, I think some of you folks are being pretty short-sighted about this whole "military industrial complex" idea and its relation to national defense. First of all, it is a "complex;" it's not simple manufacturers turning out relatively simple systems like cannon, mortars, bombs, rifles, pistols, and ammunition.

It's multitudes of factories that turn out components for trucks, tanks, airplanes, helicopters, combat multipliers like night vision devices and individual weapons sights, naval vessels, missiles. Some of these items are long-lead-time end items which have a long logistics tail both to be manufactured and to be maintained. The F-22 assembly line, for instance, having been shut down, can't be restarted immediately. Lead times for its components would probably be measured in tens of months because factories would have to be re-tooled for production.

It's foolish to put ourselves in such a production hole when the travel times to our shores are so much shorter than they were even 50 years ago. If we cut ourselves too far back and get too far behind modernization of weapons, we'll find ourselves not only outnumbered, but outclassed as well in a military confrontation with our most capable rivals in the world.

And it's especially foolish to continue with gutting our military when our potential enemies are all (every single one of them) testing our resolve to assist our allies. I'm surprised that you libertarians who want to retain your weapons (and have access to other types of weapons at will ) to defend your personal property and selves would balk at the need to have the same sorts of deterrence available on a national level. It shows a remarkable blind spot in your philosophy, in my opinion.

It's this. It's not 1943. We can't produce Navy destroyers, cruiser and aircraft carriers in months like we did then. Modern aircraft carriers take years to make. Parts for the F-35 come from not just American but European companies as well.

 

[Trooper]

No, but maybe they can build fewer missiles and fighter jets and more 9mm and .22 ammo instead.

Part of the problem with ammo is that Clinton shut down 9 ammo plants (government ran) as part of reducing the size of the military. Too much of the military industrial complex is tied into products that you use. Shut down the military end of things and it also effects what you can buy.

What to have to buy airliners from China as we no longer have an aircraft industry? Or electronics. Without the military purchases, it is just easier to send things overseas.

 

[9mmfan]

Updating this again: ISIS or ISIL or whatever they call it now. Just how much ordnance is the Navy hitting ISIS with? Fuel the F-18's are using? Fuel for the ships in the fleet protecting the carrier?
Troops deployed to Africa for Ebola containment. Are we just suppose to **it them out when we need them?

Lawmakers renew call to roll back military cuts amid ISIS, Ebola fights | Fox News

 

[mrjarrell]

Why not? The .gov has acted, for decades, like it has magic money trees in DC. Why should now be any different? We didn't have the money when Bush started the fires and we still don't have the money now that Obama is continuing the trend.

 

[9mmfan]

I'll just drop this here.

Report: Defense cuts degrading military, US no longer able to fight 2 wars at same time | Fox News

 

[jdmack79]

I'll just drop this here.

Report: Defense cuts degrading military, US no longer able to fight 2 wars at same time | Fox News

That's terrible. What if we need to invade multiple regions simultaneously? We must keep the ability to spread democracy two countries at a time.

 

[firehawk1]

That's terrible. What if we need to invade multiple regions simultaneously? We must keep the ability to spread democracy two countries at a time.

And basically guaranteeing we would have no other choice but to resort to nuclear weapons to defend ourselves if we were required to fight off an enemy attacking from two fronts. Yeah, this is REAL smart thinking...

 

[jdmack79]

And basically guaranteeing we would have no other choice but to resort to nuclear weapons to defend ourselves if we were required to fight off an enemy attacking from two fronts. Yeah, this is REAL smart thinking...

When is the last time we were attacked on two fronts at the same time? Keep in mind our nation is essentially a giant island.

 

[firehawk1]

When is the last time we were attacked on two fronts at the same time? Keep in mind our nation is essentially a giant island.

Sorry, I keep forgetting we should have just let Hitler run roughshod over Europe, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union, it wasn't 'our' fight anyway. What was I thinking, Hitler would have never posed a threat to the United States even though he declared war on us... Oh, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.

When have we faced two possible future adversaries like a China and Russia who if so inclined could attack the continental United States in a matter of minutes? Your giant island isn't so giant or isolated in today's world. BTW, when has an economic superpower never become a military superpower?

With the ideas of what some consider a friend or ally and what that means, who the heck would need an enemy.