Gates Proposing Cuts in Military Budget

[Gerald]

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Robert Gates is announcing the latest round of cost-cutting measures for the military, including a plan to do away with a new amphibious vehicle that can ferry troops to shore while under fire.The plan is aimed at staving off potentially deeper cuts by the White House or Congress by showing that the Pentagon is taking seriously a call to rein in the U.S. deficit.The Defense Department is responsible for the biggest piece of discretionary spending in the federal government's annual budget.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/06/gates-proposing-cuts-military-budget/



Note: Published January 06, 2011

[Tessa]

The whole national debt has always bothered me (aside from personally hating finance and politics), for once why don't we (the US) play the bad guy for once and come knocking on other countries doors demanding they pay their outsanding wwii debts (and others they've racked up since)?

Total outstanding debt owed to us is 13.5 Trillion, current national debt is just over 14 trillion. We need to get some nice Italian family guys from New Jersey and New York into the State Deptartment and Treasury.

One day a pair of agents goes off and comes back the next day with 2 Trillion in gold. When asked, "how did you get all that in cash so fast?". "Don't worry about the details, just cross s,x,y,z countries of the collections list. Were gonna need a bigger plane this time, like a B-52 (gotta cruise in style) as we're heading to Asia. Gonna need to take some extra muscle and that group of guys who's names sound like something out of my toolbox along with us. Should be back with 4 or 5 Trillion, hopefully more this time." "These damn politicians think money grows on tree, and to get that money back usually takes part of that same tree in the form of a baseball bat. Incentive is the key to getting these deadbeats to cough up what they've owed us for decades. Lucky we aren't charging our standard rates for interest."

[Gerald]

The idea of what you say is not farfetched at all, now is the time to countries that have received so much support for such a long time, open the wallet in return

[TLAM Strike]

Total outstanding debt owed to us is 13.5 Trillion, current national debt is just over 14 trillion.

That is exactly why think that at some set date we the whole world should just forgive all financial debts previous to that date and start fresh. :yep:

[August]

That is exactly why think that at some set date we the whole world should just forgive all financial debts previous to that date and start fresh. :yep:

I predict that idea will be a lot more popular with those that owe money than those that are owed! :DL

[TLAM Strike]

I predict that idea will be a lot more popular with those that owe money than those that are owed! :DL

The point is we are both. As Tessa said our debt to owed ratio is just about even.

[Growler]

Military budget cuts.

Great.

Know what this means? The guys at the pointy end of the stick get shafted, and the defense contractors change not a thing.

[Skybird]

You guys forget that the rest of the world for a multitude of reasons has pumped more money into the American capital market over the past 20, 30 years than there are any WWII debts or current US deficits and debts.

The US simply weants more military than it can afford by its own financial and economical power. Its economical resources, heavy industry and cars amongst others, have been relocated in the name of globalisation. One has spend much more than one had produced in fincial incomes, and a good deal for that, especially for the military, was investements that produced no future incomes. Meanwhilwe the education system has constantly detoriated while the power grid is said to represent the standard of a developement country.

In the past 600 years, practically all Euroean great powers and empires overstretched their military spending until breaking point. Practically all European great powers of the past 600 years went bancrupt over defence and war spendings. Some even repeatedly. The USA of today is repeating that megalomaniac mistake, for several reasons. For example it is thought that military superiority could compensate industrial inferiority.

The USA should and must give up the claim to militarily dominate all the globe. It simply cannot maintain that claim economically anymore. That means two things. First, the US needs to set priorities and needs to ignore hotspots that are not of direct interest for it. It already does a bit like that, but I think this trend will strengthen. Second, other nations, the European ones for example, must understand that either they give up certain military security interests being vital to them, or they take over responsibility for these, since the US will and can no longer maintain them all. The US focus of foreign policy already is massively shifting from Europe to the Pacific region anyway.

Adding to this the Euro-crisis and the flawed economic and financial design of the EU and Euzro-Zone, I think europeans are simply saying good-bye to playing a major role on the world stage.

What comes after Europe and the US, are China, India, Brazil and Islam in general - for better or worse. Most likely they will make the same mistakes the Western nations have made over the past 600 years. There is nothing new under the sun - except what has been forgotten since then.

[Ducimus]

Well, the praise, "History always repeats itself" wouldn't be around for so long if it wasn't true. The combination of Iraq and Afganistan, in the long run, may end up having the same effect on us, that Afganistan had on the Soviet Union. Just pessimistic conjecture on my part.

[Gerald]

Well, the praise, "History always repeats itself" wouldn't be around for so long if it wasn't true. The combination of Iraq and Afganistan, in the long run, may end up having the same effect on us, that Afganistan had on the Soviet Union. Just pessimistic conjecture on my part. But there is relevance in what you say,and for that matter, you do not need to have pessimistic thoughts..

[the_tyrant]

you know, this morning I saw on a Chinese forum a rather interesting opinion: "Over there (America) they have all the committees and stuff, while for us one guy makes all the decisions. Democracy has a price, and surprisingly, its being payed by dictators"

I guess government costs could be further lowered.

[Takeda Shingen]

you know, this morning I saw on a Chinese forum a rather interesting opinion: "Over there (America) they have all the committees and stuff, while for us one guy makes all the decisions. Democracy has a price, and surprisingly, its being payed by dictators"

I guess government costs could be further lowered.

What we need is less government. If history is any indicator, that is probably not what we are going to get.

[August]

The point is we are both. As Tessa said our debt to owed ratio is just about even.

Unfortunately it isn't that simple. I might be willing to forgive the money you owe me, but the people that I owe aren't going to benefit from that.

[The Third Man]

What we need is less government. If history is any indicator, that is probably not what we are going to get.


Another convert to Reagan. "Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem." -

[Takeda Shingen]

Another convert to Reagan. "Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem." -

Hardly. Reagan was a big spender. Welcome back.

[The Third Man]

Hardly. Reagan was a big spender. Welcome back.

But very targeted big spending. Reagan spending collapsed the Soviet Union.

Good to be here.

[Takeda Shingen]

But very targeted big spending. Reagan spending collapsed the Soviet Union.

Debatable. Lots of revision over the years by the cult of Reagan. I used to subscribe to that view. Now I see him as just another free-spending politico. Nothing magic about the man.

[The Third Man]

Debatable. Lots of revision over the years by the cult of Reagan. I used to subscribe to that view. Now I see him as just another free-spending politico. Nothing magic about the man.

Former Soviet reality is enough to convince me. If you cannot see the difference it is because you were born in the late 1970/early 1980's. Those of us born earlier can recognize the reality easily.

[Takeda Shingen]

Former Soviet reality is enough to convince me. If you cannot see the difference it is because you were born in the late 1970/early 1980's. Those of us born earlier can recognize the reality easily.

Ah. So my age places my views on the Index Prohibitorum. I suppose that is a convenient enough tool for silencing dissent. Of course, if what you say were true, everyone born prior to the dates you listed would be lock-step in their opinions. I wonder if that is true.

[Ducimus]

You know, one of the biggest problems with neoconservatives, is they seem plan, act, talk, etc, like the US is still the all powerful and influential nation it was during the cold war. The world has changed since then, and is no longer the place where nations had to ally themselves with either the soviet bloc, or the US lead Nato/western alliance. That scenario gave us economic and political clout we no longer have.

[Gerald]

So now let's talk about the Catholic Church, which is quite distant from the main issue, but neither Reagan or age,has nothing to do with this

[The Third Man]

Ah. So my age places my views on the Index Prohibitorum. I suppose that is a convenient enough tool for silencing dissent. Of course, if what you say were true, everyone born prior to the dates you listed would be lock-step in their opinions. I wonder if that is true.


That was not my intent...to silence you...it was my intent to ask you to look deeper and employ your greater mind to go outside today's reality to examine the reality which came before you. History is about the 'place of the then' , not the place of the then seen through the eyes of today.

[Takeda Shingen]

So now let's talk about the Catholic Church, which is quite distant from the main issue, but neither Reagan or age,has nothing to do with this

You got the Catholic Church thing from my prohibitorum reference. :O:

But, you're right; Reagan doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand.

[Gerald]

You got the Catholic Church thing from my prohibitorum reference. :O:

But, you're right; Reagan doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand. Well, you never now :D

[The Third Man]

You know, one of the biggest problems with neoconservatives, is they seem plan, act, talk, etc, like the US is still the all powerful and influential nation it was during the cold war. The world has changed since then, and is no longer the place where nations had to ally themselves with either the soviet bloc, or the US lead Nato/western alliance. That scenario gave us economic and political clout we no longer have.


You seem to have the same vision as many weak folks. Until you and yours change their attitude you can count on the place you hold. California?

[Takeda Shingen]

That was not my intent...to silence you...it was my intent to ask you to look deeper and employ your greater mind to go outside today's reality to examine the reality which came before you. History is about the 'place of the then' , not the place of the then seen through the eyes of today.

Oh, no. That was the intent. Don't worry, I'm not afraid of you. In fact, I used to be you. When I used to look back at history, I did so with blinders, so to speak. I adhered to the Index, conveniently disregarding anything that conflicted with [then] my world view as biased and invalid. The world was black and white; there were good guys and bad guys. But then I came to the realization that, most of the time, it isn't a game of cowboys and indians and one man's hero is always another man's villain.

[The Third Man]

You got the Catholic Church thing from my prohibitorum reference. :O:

But, you're right; Reagan doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand.

Yet you addressed Mr. Reagan as an over spender. It wasn't until after your position was revealed as flawed that you want to change the subject.

[Takeda Shingen]

Yet you addressed Mr. Reagan as an over spender. It wasn't until after your position was revealed as flawed that you want to change the subject.

When did that happen? I said that Reagan was a big spender. You agreed with that, calling it 'targeted spending', and saying that it had a purpose. I said that I thought that the effect of that spending has been distorted by revisionists. You then said that I was too young to have an informed opinion. Well, that's one way to do things, I guess.

[Ducimus]

Third man back to trolling I see. Nice bait, make a strong, yet subtle personal attack at a persons core and station in life. His troll Fu is strong. I can has report post button?

[The Third Man]

Oh, no. That was the intent. Don't worry, I'm not afraid of you.


How is that possible. You a Moderator, large contributor, etc.

How is it that I can possibly intimidate your standing on SubSim? Your like a Nancy Pelosi (safe district) of Subsim.

[The Third Man]

Third man back to trolling I see. Nice bait, make a strong, yet subtle personal attack at a persons core and station in life. His troll Fu is strong. I can has report post button?

Direct reply is trolling? I guess if it isn't what you want to hear.

[Takeda Shingen]

How is that possible. You a Moderator, large contributor, etc.

How is it that I can possibly intimidate your standing on SubSim? Your like a Nancy Pelosi (safe district) of Subsim.

Ah, so you are back for personal attacks. That's fine, but I suggest that you cool off a bit.

[The Third Man]

Ah, so you are back for personal attacks. That's fine, but I suggest that you cool off a bit.


How, pray tell, is that a personal attack? Is it not the truth? And a tribute to your value to Subsim?

I could question your position as being a personal attack. But for the reasons I stated it would make little or no difference.

[Platapus]

you know, this morning I saw on a Chinese forum a rather interesting opinion: "Over there (America) they have all the committees and stuff, while for us one guy makes all the decisions. Democracy has a price, and surprisingly, its being payed by dictators"

I guess government costs could be further lowered.

Then that guy knows practically nothing about how China works or the structure of their governments.

[nikimcbee]

Hardly. Reagan was a big spender. Welcome back.

You mean Congress. He's just being bipartisan.:haha:

[Gerald]

In order to understand what China stands for and what is said there, so it is an advantage of knowing their limitations, to a large extent, what you have to read between the lines to get a rough estimate, and the whole country is one big firewall, as the principle does not allow uploads (to phones, for example) which we are accustomed to do, the list is very long on what is happening, and that must be experienced live, to get 'some' insight..

[gimpy117]

Good Move. Our spending has been out of control. Sure, we still need to defend our nation with new technology...but we need to get away from writing blank checks.

Also, the wars of Afghanistan and Iraq were some of the least cost effective wars EVER. A lot of it had to do with all of the pork contracts given to friends of the administration. Like all of the cost plus contracts. There were stories of contractors not even doing their jobs building wells etc. and then just turning around and reporting "costs" and getting a cut on top of that.

And to suggest Reagen's spending collapsed the soviet union? They did it to themselves. The CCCP fell from within from political strife, and lost taxes because new regional governments refused taxes to moscow. The cold war lasted a lot longer than just the Reagen years...and to suggest that it was all due to him is farce.

[Freiwillige]

Reagen didn't defeat the Soviets nor did the Soviets just magically implode. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Reagan couldn't help topple the Soviets if they were not already on shaky ground yet without Reagan's efforts they could have stabilized and survived. This is my belief. It was neither one or the other but a just right combination of both forces colliding at the right place and time in history.

And one can say what they want about Reagan's administration but he was the only president In recent times who actually shrank the government instead of bloating it.

[Gerald]

Good Move. Our spending has been out of control. Sure, we still need to defend our nation with new technology...but we need to get away from writing blank checks.

Also, the wars of Afghanistan and Iraq were some of the least cost effective wars EVER. A lot of it had to do with all of the pork contracts given to friends of the administration. Like all of the cost plus contracts. There were stories of contractors not even doing their jobs building wells etc. and then just turning around and reporting "costs" and getting a cut on top of that.

And to suggest Reagen's spending collapsed the soviet union? They did it to themselves. The CCCP fell from within from political strife, and lost taxes because new regional governments refused taxes to moscow. The cold war lasted a lot longer than just the Reagen years...and to suggest that it was all due to him is farce. With hindsight, one can easily say that it would have done, but since you mention new technology, so also reduces the risk to other things that could compromise national security, and the action will not compromise on

[Takeda Shingen]

Reagen didn't defeat the Soviets nor did the Soviets just magically implode. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Reagan couldn't help topple the Soviets if they were not already on shaky ground yet without Reagan's efforts they could have stabilized and survived. This is my belief. It was neither one or the other but a just right combination of both forces colliding at the right place and time in history.

And one can say what they want about Reagan's administration but he was the only president In recent times who actually shrank the government instead of bloating it.

Yes, I'll agree about the shrinking of government. Reagan was a mixed bag; really good about the size of government and anti-drug programs, and and really bad about things like the deficit and free trade. I have no problem giving Reagan his due, but the concerted efforts of certain groups which seek to omit certain aspects of his admistration while exaggerating others in order to present him as some sort of political godhead is almost farcical.

You mean Congress. He's just being bipartisan.:haha:

Then I suppose that we should really be giving Tip O'Neill credit for defeating the Soviet Union.

[gimpy117]

With hindsight, one can easily say that it would have done, but since you mention new technology, so also reduces the risk to other things that could compromise national security, and the action will not compromise on

But whats worse? a total financial collapse or not having the new wizz-bang killing gadget? I'm all for military development. it's a necessary evil, but some of this spending has to be carefully watched. We can't just keep handing out blank checks to every arms developer and expect our money to be effectively spent.

[Gerald]

But whats worse? a total financial collapse or not having the new wizz-bang killing gadget? I'm all for military development. it's a necessary evil, but some of this spending has to be carefully watched. We can't just keep handing out blank checks to every arms developer and expect our money to be effectively spent. You are right, the military technology must be maintained, and there is one basic fact in each country's sovereignty, at least if you ask me, and so will occur even in the U.S.

[gimpy117]

must economies as well. A bankrupt county is a non effective fighting force.

[Gerald]

must economies as well. A bankrupt county is a non effective fighting force. It all hangs together, and the balance in the economy, must have room to grow, and then you have to have a government that has the will and strength to pursue what is relevant and important for the country

[Tessa]

And one can say what they want about Reagan's administration but he was the only president In recent times who actually shrank the government instead of bloating it.

When Reagan was Governor of California he left office with the state having a budget surplus of several millions, the next Govenor (much to my horror since I live here) Jerry Brown was the next Governor and before his first term was up he'd already blew through the entire surplus and plunged the state into an equal amount of debt. Believe Reagan was quoted previously, but the truth behind it is the same "the cure to government, is less government".

One thing Reagan had was a real backbone, he wouldn't let anyone intimidate the US. He was a big fan of cruise missles, and wasn't afraid to have Battleships/Destroyers in the area launch attacks at those whom struck at us. He wasn't afraid of "polictial correctness" and used the armed forces when they were needed. Had Reagan been president in the 90's there's a good chance 9/11 wouldn't have happened, why? Because at one point Bin Laden was at a know location, coraborated by several reliable sources. All Clinton had to do was order the strike and 1 cruise missle would have brought him down. This chance happened right after the Lewinski scandal broke and didn't take the action he should have because it might have possibly make his political situation worse. "War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over." -- Gen William Tecumseh Sherman

[TLAM Strike]

If anyone cares now...

Defense Tech posted some info on what Gates said...


We’ll have a more detailed look at winners and losers the US Defense Secretary Robert Gates outlined today, but I thought it might help to get the discussion going and for those of you who weren’t watching it live to list the biggies now…


F-35B will go on a “two year probation” and move to the “back of the line” on development behind the “C” and “A” model. More F/A-18EF Super Hornets will be purchased and older F/A-18 Hornets will have their service lives extended for the Marine Corps to make up for the “B” delay or cut.
EFV is gone. Savings will be used to upgrade the AAV with more armor, better electronics and weaponry.
Army SLAMRAAM canceled.
The Non-Line of Sight Launch System gone.
Drawdown by 27K Soldiers and up to 20K Marines from end strength in 2015

What’s in — Air Force:


More Air Force Reapers.
More EELVs.
Modernize F-15 radars.
New long range nuclear strike bomber — that can be “optionally piloted.”

Army:


More money for Army suicide prevention.
Modernize the Abrams, Bradley and Stryker vehicle.
More MC-12 surveillance aircraft.
Quicker development of Grey Eagle UAV.
Quicker development of vertical UAS.

Navy:


More money for jammers.
More money to upgrade and refit Marine Corps equipment used up in war.
More money and accelerated development of an unmanned strike capability.
Life extension for 150 F-18s.
New ship classes, including a destroyer, LCS, oilers and ocean surveillance craft.

Missile Defense:


More long range interceptors.
More radar sites in Asia, Europe and the Middle East.

Gates said the 2012 DoD budget request will be $553 billion, $13 billion less than planned in the previous FYDP. He added that the new FYDP numbers are $78 billion less than previously planned.
“We think we have tightened up a good bit,” Gates said. “We think this is a sustainable budget.”

I don't disagree with anything Gates has proposed... :yep:

[gimpy117]

why the Nuclear strike bomber?

I thought those days were behind us?

[August]

why the Nuclear strike bomber?

I thought those days were behind us?

Why? Did the rest of the world give up their nuclear weapon delivery capabilities?

[TLAM Strike]

why the Nuclear strike bomber?

I thought those days were behind us?

Might have something to do with the increase in Chinese ABM development and the basic ABM capabilities of the best selling Russian S-300 missile system.

[goldorak]

Why? Did the rest of the world give up their nuclear weapon delivery capabilities?

You've got :


ICBMs
SLBM
B-1Bs and B-2s
venerable B-52s


Why would you need a new long range nuclear capable bomber ? :yawn:

[goldorak]

One thing Reagan had was a real backbone, he wouldn't let anyone intimidate the US. He was a big fan of cruise missles, and wasn't afraid to have Battleships/Destroyers in the area launch attacks at those whom struck at us. He wasn't afraid of "polictial correctness" and used the armed forces when they were needed.

Doing wars by proxy is easy. Its even easier launching 1 or 2 missiles, or carrying precision strikes. But look what happens when the US military goes to war. Vietnam you lost. Iraq you lost. Afghanistan, you're not winning.
In fact the US had never "winned" in any sense a large scale war after WW2.
That should tell you something.


Had Reagan been president in the 90's there's a good chance 9/11 wouldn't have happened, why? Because at one point Bin Laden was at a know location, coraborated by several reliable sources. All Clinton had to do was order the strike and 1 cruise missle would have brought him down. This chance happened right after the Lewinski scandal broke and didn't take the action he should have because it might have possibly make his political situation worse. "War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over." -- Gen William Tecumseh Sherman

Hindsight is always 20/20. Sure Regan had a backbone, when dealing with the libyians. He had no qualms launching an air strike against gheddafi. But look what happend in lebanon. Us marines left lebanon. And during the Clinton years US troops got to leave somolia for the same political reasons.
On the other hand just as gheddafi had luck and was not killed in that famous strike, so Bin Laden got lucky and was not killed in the cruise missiles attacks. S-h-i-t happens. Its not colored republican or democrat.

[August]

You've got :


ICBMs
SLBM
B-1Bs and B-2s
venerable B-52s


Why would you need a new long range nuclear capable bomber ? :yawn:

Because perhaps the B-52 is getting too long in the tooth to rely on and the B1's and B2's have issues that make them unsuitable as replacements?

[gimpy117]

Because perhaps the B-52 is getting too long in the tooth to rely on and the B1's and B2's have issues that make them unsuitable as replacements?

I don't think the B-52 is "too long in the tooth" the fleet is still ready.

The B-1B was designed as a Nuclear bomber!

I don't know about the B-2...

Oh and we've still got ballistic missiles not to mention the boomers. This just seems a bit excessive that we need a new Nuclear bomber...Some company (probably Lockheed or Boeing) is going to be thrown a huge (and questionable) bone at the american Taxpayers expense.

[August]

This just seems a bit excessive that we need a new Nuclear bomber...Some company (probably Lockheed or Boeing) is going to be thrown a huge (and questionable) bone at the american Taxpayers expense.

I don't know dude. It's your administrations plan not mine. I'd much prefer better military equipment for our ground troops but unless we know what the specifics of the situation are speculation is useless.

[Oberon]

Never understood how non-stealth strategic nuclear bombers are meant to hit their targets without being blasted out of the sky before hand. Although, I guess if the first strike takes out radar installations, then there's no way of knowing where the bombers are, but otherwise it would be a case of picking them up on long range radar, burning through the jamming and directing the patrolling aircraft in.
I guess it depends on what range burn-through is achieved vs launch range of stand-off nuclear missiles. :hmmm:

Altitude would also help...but then again things like the MiG-25 were designed to get up to altitude sharpish. :hmmm:

[gimpy117]

I don't know dude. It's your administrations plan not mine. I'd much prefer better military equipment for our ground troops but unless we know what the specifics of the situation are speculation is useless.

I highly doubt it's our idea. Most likely some lobbyists

[Platapus]

Altitude would also help...but then again things like the MiG-25 were designed to get up to altitude sharpish. :hmmm:

I think the opposite was the plan.

Go in low and fast. Deliver the weapon. Return trip not guaranteed. That's what made some of the cold warriors heroes:salute:. They knew it would be a one way trip.

[TLAM Strike]

In fact the US had never "winned" in any sense a large scale war after WW2.
That should tell you something. ... I seem to remember something huge when I was a youngling... around 1991... :hmmm:


Never understood how non-stealth strategic nuclear bombers are meant to hit their targets without being blasted out of the sky before hand. Although, I guess if the first strike takes out radar installations, then there's no way of knowing where the bombers are, but otherwise it would be a case of picking them up on long range radar, burning through the jamming and directing the patrolling aircraft in.
I guess it depends on what range burn-through is achieved vs launch range of stand-off nuclear missiles. :hmmm:

Altitude would also help...but then again things like the MiG-25 were designed to get up to altitude sharpish. :hmmm: Stand off missiles like the ALCM. The B-52 is just a bus to carry them close to shore. ;)

Any deep inland stuff they would bring along jammer aircraft and fighters.

Because perhaps the B-52 is getting too long in the tooth to rely on and the B1's and B2's have issues that make them unsuitable as replacements? Exactly the B-52 airframes are old and the aircraft can no longer carry a full bomb load. The B-2 and B-1Bs do have issues, the Bone still has reliability problems, the B-2 due to its large size is vulnerable to certain new radars that have been developed since it was deployed.

[Gerald]

... I seem to remember something huge when I was a youngling... around 1991... :hmmm:


Stand off missiles like the ALCM. The B-52 is just a bus to carry them close to shore. ;)

Any deep inland stuff they would bring along jammer aircraft and fighters.

Exactly the B-52 airframes are old and the aircraft can no longer carry a full bomb load. The B-2 and B-1Bs do have issues, the Bone still has reliability problems, the B-2 due to its large size is vulnerable to certain new radars that have been developed since it was deployed. And what is the optimal solution accor you in this case?