Slashdot Mirror
US War Machine Downsizing?
mrspoonsi writes "BBC Reports: 'Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has unveiled plans to shrink the U.S. Army to its smallest size since before World War Two. Outlining his budget plan, the Pentagon chief proposed trimming the active-duty Army to between 440,000 and 450,000 personnel — from 520,000 currently. The U.S. currently spends more on defense than the combined total of the next 12 countries, as ranked by defense spending.'"
Of Planet Earth is near completion.
The rest can be sub-contracted.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
I concur. Well said, sir. Our nation really needs it badly. We've been fucking with other people's countries for so long; we've forgotten to take care of our own.
Or are they just privatizing more military functions?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I worked for an airline. 90%-95% of our pilots and air plant mechanics came from the military. The airline was started by a Marine Aviator and leaded his leadership skills in the Marines. Miniaturization of electronics is the results of war and the MIC. The lowly and common microwave oven is a by-product of war and the MIC. Don't sell the MIC short--the Internet with all its tubes is the invention of, not AlGore, but war and the MIC. The Democrats have benefited from the MIC far more than the Republicans.
Social security and Medicaid will eat the federal budget.
Obamacare? That's just rushing one more big ticket item onto the credit card before it all goes bad.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I hope this news means we have finally heeded his warning and are moving towards dismantling the military industrial complex.
No. That is not what is happening. Almost all the proposed reductions are to fighting troops. Almost no cuts are to the bloated defense bureaucracy that make up the core of the MIC's revolving door. Hagel wants to reduce the muscle while protecting the belly fat. He is going about it all wrong anyway. Rather than trimming a little here, and a little there, it would be much better to completely eliminate a few big misguided programs. Killing the trillion dollar F-35 boondoggle would be a great place to start.
I'd me more surprised if it were the marines or the navy seals being downsized. The Army is a lot of bulk manpower that just sits around for the most part and maintains control of areas that have already been seized from the enemy via the attacking efforts of the marines. Advancements of technology means drones and stationary automated turrets can do a lot of that defending work I'd imagine. Just gotta have some protected folks around to maintain control and change the batteries every now and then. Probably way more affordable than actual people. The marines and seals on the other hand can't be so easily replaced by a machine.
However, the Democrats will want new taxes on the rich to offset any further increases in military spending, and I doubt the Republicans will budge on that front, so any further changes are likely to be minimal.
Likewise the Democrats will almost certainly balk at any reforms to social welfare spending, which is the major portion of Federal spending and which dwarfs the defense budget.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
He's saying as soon as you appear weak, you are weak.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Did you mean JSF, not JSOC?
The A-10 is on the chopping block, as is the U2. What I don't get about the elimination of those is that one has proven itself extremely cost-effective in close-quarters ground support (as in using bullets, rather than relying on rockets and bombs) and extremely durable when taking fire (flying back with a wing missing) and the other has been extremely effective for quick-turnaround intelligence.
Both programs are effective in the kind of engagements that we've found ourselves in during the last couple of decades and both are paid for. It's maintenance only, as opposed to development.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
The problem is that the sequester is 50% defense, 50% everything else, but the defense budget is a minority of the Federal budget. That pushes the cuts disproportionately on the defense side.
Totally irrational. The fact that the defense budget is a minority of the overall budget does not mean that it is a minority of the waste. The defense sector is filled with bloat, and is essentially just functioning as a make-work program in the districts of influential representatives. It would be far more efficient to take that same money and spend it on more direct social services.
No, he's eliminating the parts of the Regular Army that can be (relatively) easily replaced by National Guard troops in time of trouble.
No, there are no such things. In times of trouble we activate both the Army and the National Guard. See: The Persian Gulf. Not only did we activate them, but we subjected them to stop-loss programs (See: Slavery.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
for a lot of teenagers, the military is the only way into what resembles a middle class lifestyle.
And that is why we are so warlike — we encourage it generation by generation. Maybe it's time to grow up and learn to cooperate.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You don't get to blame SS for that though. It had nothing to do with the baby boom or anything else. Through careful planning, SSA had it all covered until Congress busted the piggybank so they could cut taxes for the wealthy and pay for all that bumbling in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Given that, it is perfectly reasonable that any military cuts and new (or reinstated really) taxes for the wealthy should go towards putting the money back where it came from.
The responsible people are Congress for ordering SSA to make the loans. If it makes you feel better, I FULLY support your call for the responsible congressmen to spend some time in jail.
Paying for private healthcare will eat the federal budget. Social Security and Medicaid are much lesser problems.
The US government, RIGHT NOW pays enough per capita to cover healthcare for every man woman and child in the US if our health care system had the same cost per person as Canada's.
All you would have to do to solve entitlements and the long term US budget problems would be install single payer and take the cap off SS wages.
The Air Force brass *never* wanted the A-10, the A-10 was virtually forced upon them. There has never been a moment in time since the A-10 first flew that they were not trying to be rid of it.
My understanding is that A-10s undergo a lot more mechanical stress during training and combat than B-52s and that the A-10 fleet is seeing a lot of micro-fractures in key structural areas. They have been cannibalizing old planes in storage but that source is just about dried up. They are at the point where they will need to manufacture new components, major components like wings. This is letting the brass finally get their way.
The US Navy and Marine Corp are "merged" in some ways, command, procurement, etc. Together they represent the Naval Services commanded by the Department of the Navy.
For example look at Marine Corp Aviation. Marine pilots are trained at the same schools along side Navy pilots and the Navy and Marines essentially fly the same aircraft. Marine squadrons are often deployed on aircraft carriers. There is one notable difference with respect to Marine pilots. They must first become infantry officers before starting aviation training.
The Coast Guard also falls under the Department of the Navy when directed to do so by the President. This happened during WW1 and WW2. Normally the Coast Guard is performing missions that the military is prohibited from doing, law enforcement for example.
The US isn't particularly warlike.
Who told you that, and why did you believe them? Check our our body count and our military expenditure, and look into how many conflicts we've been in per decade as compared to other nations, and get back to me.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
In the last days of the USSR it's what the communists wanted, and did, as well.
Like practically all conservative "think tanks", the Heritage Foundation has a serious case of confirmation bias. Love it how they scathe spending under Obama all over their site, but naturally, the fact that they were strong supporters of the Iraq war, a useless, unnecessary war which was based on now obvious lies and disinformation and cost 1.7 trillion, with long term costs of 6 trillion isn't mentioned anywhere on the site. Nope. Money gone! Obama bad! And we don't have nuttin' to do with'at! Yuppedi-diddledy-doo!