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..."
As Eisenhower warned in his farewell address, I hope this news means we have finally heeded his warning and are moving towards dismantling the military industrial complex. All of that money could be used to rebuild the crumbling infrastructure we have right here at home.
Or are they just privatizing more military functions?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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.
If these changes go through, it will actually reduce spending. We spent $670B on "defense" in 2013. This change would get us down to around $500B for the 2015 budget.
This was already passed as a part of the sequester -- this story is really just discussing how the Pentagon plans to get under the limit set by the law. The budget that got passed in December rolled back a few of the sequester cuts, and I'm sure Republicans will push to roll back more. 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.
It looks like this is actually going to happen, and it's about damn time.
Well, judging from TFA, they are cutting spending for FY 2015 to 496 bln, then raising it to 535, 545 and $559 bln in following years. That means if you deduct the wartime finding for Iran and Afghanistan, the baseline spending level will be back to pre-sequester levels, and as much as the next seven countries in defense spending rank put together.
Not that spending is at all a measure of how much defense we get. One of the things the budget does is it retires the A10 Warthog attack plane which costs less than $18K/flight hour to operate and replaces it with the F-35, which is currently *promised* to cost $32K/flight hour, if it ever becomes combat ready.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
We attacked last week over a EULA violation.
At the beginning of the 1st Gulf War, the Marines were just getting the M1 Abrahms tanks the Army was swapping out for newer models (before that the Marines were still on old M60 tanks).
In the late 90's (97-98) the Marines were just starting to get the venerable Singars radios. Up till then they were still using post-Vietnam era AN/PRC-77 radios.
Time and time again the Army goes and asks for more men and money, new gear, etc, because they state they cant accomplish the mission with what they have.
And time and time again the Marine Corps happily takes that "old outdated" equipment with fewer men and exceed... There has long been a rivalry between the branches, but maybe its time for the other branches to take a page out of the Corps manual and learn how to do more with less. You could drop military spending by half at least, if not more, by following the Marines lead.
...
Then why is the state buying ammo at an unprecented rate?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/03/11/1-6-billion-rounds-of-ammo-for-homeland-security-its-time-for-a-national-conversation/
...
You mean buying ammunition at a highly precedented and declining rate?
Even Fox News more or less debunked this bit of conspiracy baiting.
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
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.
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.