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

[steveh_131]

I am adamantly opposed to any expansion of DHS.

At the moment, I would support shrinking the standing army. I would be open to a discussion on the subject, but just sniping at everyone who isn't a part of the military isn't really a discussion.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

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

Or the NFA. Our ancestors went to war over the British press-ganging American citizens into their armed forces, just three decades after we fought our first war for independence. America has never been willing to shy away from conflict when necessary. Sadly, we've also devolved into not shying away from conflict even when unnecessary. The Congress is now completely bypassed. Veterans are pretty much ignored and discarded after they've sacrificed limb and life and well-being for their country. The Department of Veterans Affairs has literally been destroying personnel files just to clear out the backlog at VA Hospitals. It has been 231 years since we gained our independence, and so much has completely devolved in those two centuries that this country is barely recognizable as anything close to the champion of our founding ideals. How best to proceed and restore those ideals? I don't know. It's all gone wrong.

I do know that destroying veterans' exam requests in order to reduce one's backlog at a VA hospital is not right and a deep dis-service to our fighting men.
VA employees actually destroy veterans' records to ease backlog | Allen B. West - AllenBWest.com

What a betrayal!

 

[Kagnew]

I am adamantly opposed to any expansion of DHS.

At the moment, I would support shrinking the standing army. I would be open to a discussion on the subject, but just sniping at everyone who isn't a part of the military isn't really a discussion.

Would being retired after 34 years' service entitle me to do some "sniping"?

I do think that being "open to a discussion" is awfully good of you. At least you'll listen to other opinions before making the final decision of the matter.

 

[mrjarrell]

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

No, the USN spoke and published the numbers of what they have. No-one else comes close to our navy.
List of current ships of the United States Navy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are approximately 430 ships believed to be in active service with the United States Navy, on reserve, or under construction, based on public reports compiled in this list. The U.S. Navy is the largest in the world; its battle fleet tonnage is greater than that of the next 13 largest navies combined.

 

[Kagnew]

No, the USN spoke and published the numbers of what they have. No-one else comes close to our navy.
List of current ships of the United States Navy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, Chief. mrjarrell's got the inside scoop. You're just an old, retired anchor-clanker. What could you possibly know about it?

 

[steveh_131]

Would being retired after 34 years' service entitle me to do some "sniping"?

I do think that being "open to a discussion" is awfully good of you. At least you'll listen to other opinions before making the final decision of the matter.

Do all the sniping you want. It just makes you sound elitist and and silly. If you know everything then make your case and let it stand on its own merits.

 

[steveh_131]

Yeah, Chief. mrjarrell's got the inside scoop. You're just an old, retired anchor-clanker. What could you possibly know about it?

What is your deal, man? If he's wrong or his facts are inaccurate then lay it out.

 

[jdmack79]

Yeah, Chief. mrjarrell's got the inside scoop. You're just an old, retired anchor-clanker. What could you possibly know about it?

Instead of whistling away with sarcasm, you should try to refute his statement. What nation has a navy that is anywhere near as powerful as ours? I'd love to hear from all of you who are adamantly opposed to reducing the size of our military where this mysterious nation that wants to invade us is located. Who is it that is such a big threat to the USA? What nation has a navy that rivals ours? What country has a more powerful air force? Who else can match our ability to project power?

 

[Kagnew]

Oh. Well, if I've given you reason to see me as "elitist and silly", I'll say no more on the subject.

 

[MisterChester]

How do they justify spending as much as they do on this?

 

[steveh_131]

How do they justify spending as much as they do on this?

Kagnew does it just like this:

 

[Kagnew]

Kagnew does it just like this:

Well, thank you, Steve!

 

[steveh_131]

Well, thank you, Steve!

You're welcome.

Now does anyone with any knowledge and ability to reason want to actually discuss this?

 

[Who Dares Wins]

I think we can afford the cuts.

Does anyone have this chart as a percentage of GDP/GNP???

 

[Who Dares Wins]

I think a lot of America's spend is on higher technology items and this costs a large sum. We have less tanks/planes/ships than some unfriendly countries, but much better technology. I am amazed they want to get rid of the A-10, as it really is a great anti-tank ground attack aircraft. Maybe they are lining up a multitude of missile armed drones to do the same job!

 

[Birds Away]

I believe I clearly stated up thread that I fully support the reduction of the military budget. My problem is with how it is being done. To put this all on the backs of the troops while the defense contractors wallow in government largesse is corruption plain and simple. Yes, we have a large and powerful Navy. In case you didn't notice we are essentially an island nation. Go back and read your Alfred Thayer Mahan and watch the Chinese as they invest massive amounts of money to become a true blue water navy. There are certainly savings to be had in the military budget but great care must be exercised and I have little faith in any of the decision makers we have.

 

[steveh_131]

What portion of the budget consists of contractors? What roles do they fill? Can you elaborate more on the largesse, and corruption?

An interesting bit that I noticed on the defense.gov article about it:

The cuts assume the United States no longer becomes involved in large, prolonged stability operations overseas on the scale of Iraq and Afghanistan.

I wonder what sort of operations will be manufactured in an attempt to stop these cuts. This seems like an easy way for the Democrats to try to gain some political capital by pretending to make some cuts that won't actually happen.

 

[Birds Away]

In lieu of "defense contractors" insert "the defense industry".

 

[steveh_131]

Ok, so you don't support an increase in the size of DHS and you think that defense contractors are corrupt.

I agree with you on DHS and you may be right about defense contractors, although if they are then I am uninformed on the subject. However, these strike me as red herrings. More relevant discussion points:

Is our standing army too large?

Is it in our financial best interest to keep a standing army indefinitely prepared for World War III?

Does this huge standing army encourage our leaders to involve us in conflicts, due to a 'use it or lose it' attitude?

If a 'changing world' negates the opinions of the writers of the constitution on this matter, why wouldn't it also negate their opinions on the 2nd Amendment?

 

[Trooper]

How far do we cut? Maybe we should get rid of the Army and the Air Force. Move the combat troops into the Marines, all the support troops into the Navy. Strip support troops out of the Marines then have the Navy provide personnel as they now do with medics and chaplains. With the Air Force the strategic units go to the Navy and the tactical and air lift go to the Marines. And support personnel (mechanics and crews) would be Navy. Just the pilots would be Marines.

But at some point we have such a small military that any country in the world could conquer us. Plus if we get rid of the military then there is no reason that there should be personal firearms as the militia was to be part of the military.