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

[Kagnew]

We have plenty of ships already in the water and more are already budgeted for and being built. The Navy is covered for quite a while. No-one else on the planet even comes close to matching what we have. We can afford some cuts in the Navy, too.

There you have it, Chief. The all-knowing "mrjarrell" has spoken.

 

[Birds Away]

There you have it, Chief. The all-knowing "mrjarrell" has spoken.

Ya, well it won't be his butt on the line when the Chinese decide to throw down. It amazes me what an expert on naval warfare you can become just by watching the History Channel.

 

[steveh_131]

Interesting conversation. I suppose the most pertinent question that we should explore is this:

Is it in the best interests of the U.S., financially and otherwise, to permanently maintain a military force large enough to fight an entire world war at a moment's notice?

And a few related questions:

Does this massive expenditure prompt the U.S. to become involved in more conflict than it ought to be? Every other government agency has been well known to have a 'use it or lose it' attitude when it comes to justifying their budgets and personnel. Is the military immune to this?

Does the constant conflict contribute to the increased risk of another world war that we feel we must be prepared to defend against? (A particularly vicious circle)

 

[steveh_131]

I'll also note that Thomas Jefferson was vocal in his opposition to large standing armies.

"Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace for [defense against invasion]." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334


"Standing armies [are] inconsistent with [a people's] freedom and subversive of their quiet." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North's Proposition, 1775. Papers 1:231


"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." --Thomas Jefferson to Chandler Price, 1807. ME 11:160

 

[Birds Away]

I agree that the military budget can be trimmed quite a bit. Eisenhower warned us of the military industrial complex. In my mind we probably could get significant savings and still field a military capable of defending our shores and projecting power as necessary. The world has changed quite a bit since Jefferson's time. I reiterate my position about the time it takes to train and field an army as now as opposed to centuries past. IMO the biggest problem, as in many problems our country faces, is that the people making these decisions have a vested interest in keeping things as they are. If I were to make cuts in the Pentagon's budget I feel confident that I could find a lot of places that wouldn't directly affect the active/reserve forces. I would like to see someone knowledgeable in these matters that doesn't have a political or financial investment in the outcome to take a look at it. I just don't think this is possible.

 

[hornadylnl]

I'll also note that Thomas Jefferson was vocal in his opposition to large standing armies.

"Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace for [defense against invasion]." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334


"Standing armies [are] inconsistent with [a people's] freedom and subversive of their quiet." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North's Proposition, 1775. Papers 1:231


"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." --Thomas Jefferson to Chandler Price, 1807. ME 11:160

That seems to be the only "living" ideal of the founders. The rest of the constitution isn't living.

 

[Disposable Heart]

Ya, well it won't be his butt on the line when the Chinese decide to throw down. It amazes me what an expert on naval warfare you can become just by watching the History Channel.

Not supporting a specific position, but I have a strong feeling that if China does throw down, it would go nuclear VERY rapidly...

 

[Birds Away]

Not supporting a specific position, but I have a strong feeling that if China does throw down, it would go nuclear VERY rapidly...

Somehow I doubt it. But you may be right. In a conventional war they can absorb a lot more casualties than we can, both in terms of population and politics. Once the nuke card is played all bets are off.

 

[steveh_131]

Madison seemed to feel the same way.

In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.
-James Madison

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied: and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
-James Madison

 

[traderdan]

Had Jefferson any idea how small the world would become...he would not have said that. Madison also could not see a world where hundreds of thousands of troops could move across the globe in a few days. I admire the sentiment, understand the purpose..yet without a standing army we would long have been enslaved.

 

[steveh_131]

Had the founders any idea how dangerous firearms would become... they would not have said that. They also could not see a world where a single kid could shoot dozens of kindergarteners in a matter of minutes with a single assault rifle.

Right?

 

[traderdan]

Had the founders any idea how dangerous firearms would become... they would not have said that. They also could not see a world where a single kid could shoot dozens of kindergarteners in a matter of minutes with a single assault rifle.

Right?

Wrong...They would have written quick capital punishment into the language of the Constitution for offense such as that.

 

[traderdan]

The Founders would have gone to war to prevent the 1968 Firearms Act.

 

[traderdan]

I am certainly no expert in military matters...I believe that the waste is tremendous. I DO become very suspicious of the desire of this administration to weaken our military dramatically. Dear Leader desires that we be inferior to other nations.

 

[Birds Away]

Had the founders any idea how dangerous firearms would become... they would not have said that. They also could not see a world where a single kid could shoot dozens of kindergarteners in a matter of minutes with a single assault rifle.

Right?

Ah, so you want to eliminate the Army and repeal the 2nd. I suppose you notice the commensurate increase in the DHS? But that should cause no worries, right?

 

[steveh_131]

I was playing devil's advocate in an attempt to point out some inconsistent logic. I tend to agree with Jefferson and Madison both on the 2nd Amendment and their opinions regarding gigantic standing armies.

I did not comment on DHS, feel free to fill me in on what you're talking about.

 

[Birds Away]

Yes, I know you didn't mention DHS. But what benefit is it to reduce the standing army while vastly expanding the domestic army?

 

[cobber]

Had Jefferson any idea how small the world would become...he would not have said that. Madison also could not see a world where hundreds of thousands of troops could move across the globe in a few days. I admire the sentiment, understand the purpose..yet without a standing army we would long have been enslaved.

Well, or a standing navy at any rate...

Yes, I know you didn't mention DHS. But what benefit is it to reduce the standing army while vastly expanding the domestic army?

Clearly the gov. is not anticipating major foreign entanglements.

 

[Birds Away]

Clearly the gov. is not anticipating major foreign entanglements.

Just domestic ones?

 

[hornadylnl]

I was playing devil's advocate in an attempt to point out some inconsistent logic. I tend to agree with Jefferson and Madison both on the 2nd Amendment and their opinions regarding gigantic standing armies.

I did not comment on DHS, feel free to fill me in on what you're talking about.

It's a living document afterall.