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

[Trooper]

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.

Contractors are being cut as well. They are only needed during conflicts. We used contractors in the Revolutionary War and Civil War to do supply (Suttler)

 

[steveh_131]

But at some point we have such a small military that any country in the world could conquer us.

How do we decide where that point is?

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.

Wait, what? How do you figure?

 

[Birds Away]

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?

The lawmakers are corrupt. They give outlandish and unnecessary contracts to defense corporations and then get gifts, favors and reelection support in return. If you would even consider dismantling our armed forces then there really isn't much to discuss.

 

[steveh_131]

The lawmakers are corrupt. They give outlandish and unnecessary contracts to defense corporations and then get gifts, favors and reelection support in return.

Ok. Not sure what the relevance is, but it should be shut down. I think we agree on that.

If you would even consider dismantling our armed forces then there really isn't much to discuss.

My apologies for quoting Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who both seemed to be adamantly opposed to large standing armies. I will remember, for future reference, that their opinions are outdated and irrelevant to today's world.

 

[mrjarrell]

How is this "getting rid of the military"?

Under the Hagel plan, which Congress could change, the active-duty Army would shrink from its current 522,000 soldiers to between 440,000 and 450,000. That would make it the smallest since just before the U.S. entered World War II
Army leaders have been saying for months that they expect their size would shrink as the nation prepares to end its combat role in Afghanistan this year.

Those are modest cuts, at best. Trooper needs to come in from left field.

 

[Trooper]

Ok. Not sure what the relevance is, but it should be shut down. I think we agree on that.



My apologies for quoting Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who both seemed to be adamantly opposed to large standing armies. I will remember, for future reference, that their opinions are outdated and irrelevant to today's world.

Madison did not have to deal with bombers that could strike anywhere on earth within a hour. Or intercontinental missiles. Or that it does not take all that much time to move a major military force into our country via aircraft.

Want to have to recruit, train and mobilize a military while having enemy troops on our soil? All those guys with guns, even the veterans, lack the physical fitness and training that it would take. Could you afford to train with and supply a machine gun? At 850 rounds per minute that is at least a $1000 per minute. Do you have the ability to supply the thousands of rounds that a MG eats? And what about owning a Carl Gustav 84mm recoilless Rifle? Could you afford to train with it, the huge expense of each round? Just remember that there is one of these CG 84mm per squad and at least one MG. A company would have eight of each for 250 men. That is a lot of fire power!

What about discipline? How many gun owners are going to be willing to put up with sergeants and officers screaming at them? Or punishing them for being idiots that would get other men killed?

The point is that a standing army is a lot more than just individual riflemen. It is supply, discipline, organization, and fire power.

 

[Birds Away]

Ok. Not sure what the relevance is, but it should be shut down. I think we agree on that.



My apologies for quoting Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who both seemed to be adamantly opposed to large standing armies. I will remember, for future reference, that their opinions are outdated and irrelevant to today's world.

If you want this to become a snark-fest I would counter that both Jefferson and Madison were slave owners. So you support the enslavement of human beings? Of course not. So let's discuss this in a civil manner. Are you famiiar with the "America Firsters"? Where do you think we would be if we had followed Lucky Lindy's lead? While I would love to live in a world of rainbows and puppies I am not a leftist or a liberal. I realize that while I might not prefer certain situations I must still aquiesce to common sense. To believe that we would be able to raise a modern army in enough time to defend ourselves if attacked is probably unrealistic. Worse, we have allies. Maybe you don't think we should but we do. If we completely shut down the standing Army and Navy some of those allies would fall like a house of cards. I don't know how this can be seen in a positive light. Certainly not for them. Anyway, if you are a complete isolationist, that's fine, be prepared to be encircled eventually.

 

[steveh_131]

Madison did not have to deal with bombers that could strike anywhere on earth within a hour. Or intercontinental missiles. Or that it does not take all that much time to move a major military force into our country via aircraft.

He also didn't have to deal with 'assault rifles' with 30-round 'clips', but I still support his stance on the 2nd amendment.

I don't understand how you guys can discount their opinions based on technology when it comes to a standing army, but not when it comes to the 2nd amendment.

I'm not even saying that I necessarily advocate dismantling our entire standing army, but we could certainly trim it back some.

 

[Trooper]

He also didn't have to deal with 'assault rifles' with 30-round 'clips', but I still support his stance on the 2nd amendment.

I don't understand how you guys can discount their opinions based on technology when it comes to a standing army, but not when it comes to the 2nd amendment.

I'm not even saying that I necessarily advocate dismantling our entire standing army, but we could certainly trim it back some.

No move most of the force to the reserves, especially the Guard. That would fit more with the 2nd amendment. We could have a five million man Guard force. Cap the active side to less than 2 million in peace time. Move most of the maintenance, supply and transportation to contractors.

And lets get merge the Army and Air Force into the Navy and Marines.

 

[Birds Away]

I say again for possible penetration...I said up thread a couple times that I agree there is plenty of fat in the defense budget. The problem is the people who choose where to make these cuts do not do so with just the defense of the country in mind. They are political animals who think politically. They are also corrupt by nature. Personally I think those of us who value our freedom may just need the standing army to intervene when the DHS and their ilk get a little bit out of hand. If nothing else the mere threat of intervention might save the day...someday.

 

[steveh_131]

If you want this to become a snark-fest I would counter that both Jefferson and Madison were slave owners.

I didn't make this a 'snark-fest'. I asked some pretty legitimate questions that have been ignored. Apparently quoting the founders made me unworthy of a real discussion.

I am able to separate their lack of morality from their political wisdom. They understood tyranny and they understood what sparked it and what enabled it. I value their opinions on that topic in particular.

The service members and ex-service members get their panties so twisted at the very thought of any cuts that they seem unable to carry on a reasonable discussion on the subject. And I'll reiterate that I'm actually fairly open-minded on the subject. I'll admit my lack of knowledge of some military matters and am willing to consider both sides, if anyone would present theirs in a way that isn't packed with sarcasm or logical fallacies.

 

[Trooper]

I say again for possible penetration...I said up thread a couple times that I agree there is plenty of fat in the defense budget. The problem is the people who choose where to make these cuts do not do so with just the defense of the country in mind. They are political animals who think politically. They are also corrupt by nature. Personally I think those of us who value our freedom may just need the standing army to intervene when the DHS and their ilk get a little bit out of hand. If nothing else the mere threat of intervention might save the day...someday.

When it takes over 10 years to get a new aircraft into service, there are too many people in the decision making process. If we have to cut, it is the political elements of DOD, not the troops.

 

[mrjarrell]

No move most of the force to the reserves, especially the Guard. That would fit more with the 2nd amendment. We could have a five million man Guard force. Cap the active side to less than 2 million in peace time. Move most of the maintenance, supply and transportation to contractors.

And lets get merge the Army and Air Force into the Navy and Marines.

The military is already at less than 2 million, (1.4 million under arms). We could do with a lot less than that and still have the most effective military on the planet. No-one in government is talking about gutting the military, only lending some sanity to the numbers and moving them from the cold war paradigm that they've been stuck in. They, along with other sectors of the government, are bleeding us dry and there's no sense in keeping them at the current levels. Yell all you want, but don't ever say again that you folks are any kind of fiscal conservative. We're seeing that lie played out right here.

 

[Trooper]

The military is already at less than 2 million, (1.4 million under arms). We could do with a lot less than that and still have the most effective military on the planet. No-one in government is talking about gutting the military, only lending some sanity to the numbers and moving them from the cold war paradigm that they've been stuck in. They, along with other sectors of the government, are bleeding us dry and there's no sense in keeping them at the current levels. Yell all you want, but don't ever say again that you folks are any kind of fiscal conservative. We're seeing that lie played out right here.

Look we still have 8000 flag officers (generals and admirals). The same number we had coming out of WW2!

Yes I know that we have a small military that is still larger than most. However if we downsize and Europe would remilitarize then there would be a huge military force over there. BTW I believe that the Chinese could field a 20 million man force.

Not sure what the Swiss military size is. But they could have a huge force given that they have mandatory serve in a mostly reserve force.

 

[Birds Away]

Unfortunately, their political wisdom only remains intact insofar as the Constitution is strictly adhered to. The separation of powers is no longer in effect. The executive branch now chooses which laws will be enforced and simply changes other laws to suit their desires. It throws everything out of balance. I sometimes think we may need that standing army to put things right. I certainly hope not but once a precedent of lawlessness has been established by the executive who knows how far it will go.
But yes, in theory I support reductions in the defense budget.

 

[Maximinus Thrax]

We have a different world to consider when talking about the existence of a standing army. The world is a much smaller place now than it used to be so our preparedness must reflect that reality. Now, current and recent past thinking has said that a large Active military force is the answer. To a degree that thinking has proved helpful in our most recent engagements because we don't have to spend long periods of time to bring in large numbers of new recruits and equipment to enable us to project force.

How do we solve the problem of needing rapid projection of force while still reducing our military spending? I've often wondered if there should be a greater integration of the Reserves into the Active Duty. The National Guard is under the authority of the States and should remain that way so we leave them alone. What would the viability be of creating Reserve units to serve alongside active units that draw from the local populations near Stateside Bases? These Reserve Personnel would still maintain training standards as they already do but in the event of a rapid activation they would already be connected to an Active unit. Overseas locations would still have to be manned by Active Duty personnel but temporary assignments of Reserve and Guard units to these locations can provide experience and keep up manning. Afghanistan and Iraq have already proven that the Reserves and National Guard can perform at least the same level or even above the levels of their Active Duty counterparts.

I don't know...I think I need more time to think about how it could work...

When it takes over 10 years to get a new aircraft into service, there are too many people in the decision making process. If we have to cut, it is the political elements of DOD, not the troops.

It's not just current decision makers at fault here. It's a tradition of policies that have created this acquisition nightmare.

 

[steveh_131]

Unfortunately, their political wisdom only remains intact insofar as the Constitution is strictly adhered to. The separation of powers is no longer in effect. The executive branch now chooses which laws will be enforced and simply changes other laws to suit their desires. It throws everything out of balance. I sometimes think we may need that standing army to put things right. I certainly hope not but once a precedent of lawlessness has been established by the executive who knows how far it will go.
But yes, in theory I support reductions in the defense budget.

That's a pretty good point.

But how do you know that a standing army would so would so willingly defy the executive branch, instead of be used by it? I can not think of many historical instances where that has been the case.

 

[Birds Away]

That's a pretty good point.

But how do you know that a standing army would so would so willingly defy the executive branch, instead of be used by it? I can not think of many historical instances where that has been the case.

Sadly, I don't. Our tradition of civilian leadership of the military is one of our most valuable in sustaining our freedom. But we've never, until recently, had an executive and legislative branch who established an internal security force devoted to surveillance and control of the people. With the purge of general and flag officers of a conservative bent that has been taking place I wonder if this hasn't already been considered and dealt with. I really don't know. I don't like to think of myself as a tin foil hat kind of guy but there are a lot of machinations taking place that don't really add up any other way. But that's another discussion. As for the military, yes, cut the military budget and contain them within the borders of the U.S. if that's what you want to do. Just think it through and all of the possible outcomes.

 

[Trooper]

That's a pretty good point.

But how do you know that a standing army would so would so willingly defy the executive branch, instead of be used by it? I can not think of many historical instances where that has been the case.

There are not a whole lot of leftwingers in the ranks. Not even a lot of gays or lesbians. The military is still basically a conservative organization. And the heart of the military is not its officer corps but the NCOs. Officers may tell you do something, but it is the NCO who makes it happen. The Sergeants and Petty Officers also interpret the orders (intend of the mission). It would not be the first time that orders got lost in the interpretation. And a good NCO will stand up to officers. It is expected that they will tell an officer that he is full of crap and hasn't a clue. A good flag officer respects his NCOs, the best ones fear their NCOs.

In many countries, Turkey for example, it is the military and not the courts that protect the constitution.

 

[octalman]

The DoD budget could be reduced to zero and you would feel little to no difference in the government bleeding us dry. Fact is, entitlement spending is the elephant in the room. The Military Budget routinely is attacked as full of fat and corruption by those that want to ignore the real issue of wealth re-distribution. Want to stop the bleeding, make real cuts in entitlement spending.

Because we have been told that the Cold War is over does not mean the world is any less prone to conflict. Putin is working to restore Russia to Superpower Status. China is spending big on military growth with the intent of projecting power in the Pacific. Our 1.4 million boots on the ground would be dwarfed by a Chinese Army in the millions and growing. Further weakening the US Military is an open invitation for despots to start a fight. Refer to the lessons of History!

The Swiss can remain neutral and aloof precisely because of US Military Power. We bailed Europe out twice in the 20th Century. Also, there is little strategic value to Switzerland. Adopting a Swiss model of military service and firearm ownership as any kind of reasonable alternative is pure fantasy.