Big cuts coming to US military

[Onkel Neal]

...and why not? Wars in Iraq and A-Stan are over. Simply redirect funding to satellites and drones, who needs an army?

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/24/defense-department-to-cut-army-to-pre-ww-ii-size/?hpt=hp_t1

[Jimbuna]

who needs an army?



We do in the UK so send some of those budget savings across the pond...a few spare Harriers would be appreciated too.

[STEED]

America can now pay off it debt mountain.

Nahhh, drink beer and eat ribs. :03:

[Ducimus]

History is cyclical, and the wheel in the sky keeps on turning.


edit:
America can now pay off it debt mountain.


Dollar will collapse before that happens. (Seriously, we are well and truly screwed. (http://demonocracy.info/infographics/usa/us_debt/us_debt.html) )

[Catfish]

And always think that the benefits of this decision (if it really comes forward) will be gained by the president after the next president.

On the other hand, there's Venezuela. But i don't think the CIA needs a whole army, for that. And the money will come from drug deals, of course. :03::O:



Seriously, it is clear that the US cannot just go on spending such amounts for decades, but since they are used to play globally, the upkeep of the infrastructure will be hard to maintain.
A smaller, but excellent military with superior equipment will be better, but still costly..

[Mr Quatro]

Better the US Army than the US Navy ... perhaps they should consider joining the US Army back with the US Air Force like t was in the forties.

One things for sure the US Army is not going to go down without fighting ... pun :D

[Cybermat47]

I don't see the problem myself. The Cold War is over, the Iraq War is over, and you're about to pull out of Afghanistan. Why spend money on a military that has no war to fight? :hmmm:

[Dread Knot]

I hope nobody tries to refloat the farcical term "peace dividend" from the early nineties. If there was ever a single distribution from that one, it got swallowed up in an instant.

[Catfish]

I don't see the problem myself. The Cold War is over, the Iraq War is over, and you're about to pull out of Afghanistan. Why spend money on a military that has no war to fight? :hmmm:


But .. but .. the TERRORISTS ! They are EVERYWHERE, even in Jemen.
And if there are none left, we have to invent them.

[vanjast]

History is cyclical, and the wheel in the sky keeps on turning.
'Proud Mary keep on burning'.. :D

Hitler rightly said.. "Armies are meant for war".
If there is no war.. you don't need an army, or at least a beeeeg one.

[ReallyDedPoet]

I don't see the problem myself. The Cold War is over, the Iraq War is over, and you're about to pull out of Afghanistan. Why spend money on a military that has no war to fight? :hmmm:

This can be the problem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_complex

[Wolferz]

There will be no belly aching, until they start closing bases here at home.:huh:

There will be great wailing and gnashing of teeth in congress then.:haha:

[Sailor Steve]

'Proud Mary keep on burning'.. :D
Different group, different song.

[Catfish]

But was Proud M. a stern, or a side wheeler ?

I always tried to find that out .. :hmm2:

[Ducimus]

There will be no belly aching, until they start closing bases here at home.:huh:

There will be great wailing and gnashing of teeth in congress then.:haha:


Yup.

In any event, I have a hunch that downsizing our military will have little to no effect on our national debt at this point.

EDIT:
I should probably say that I do feel many budget cuts are necessary, like big fancy stealth jets for example and similarly grotesquely bloated projects; even some personnel cuts, however cutting personnel too much, I think unwise.

EDIT 2:
If they really want to reduce the cost of the military, the politiicans in washington need to reduce our global foot print first. They should close bases overseas first before closing them at home. Seems to me, we did this song and dance under the Clinton administration.

[Platapus]

So now that there will be cuts, we will see how these "smaller government" members of congress will fight this.

Smaller government spending is not so good when it is in your state. :yep:

The MIC is a hungry mistress.

[Platapus]

Why spend money on a military that has no war to fight? :hmmm:

I am sure we can come up with something. There will be some "emergency" that will "force" the United States to up the funding for the military... for national security, you understand.

[Cybermat47]

Hmm... it loos like the US Army has been selling their services to the civilian population of America under the name 'Life Alert': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tdWx2txXHw

Absolutely disgusting. Civilians shouldn't have to pay their military, that's the government's job.

[Herr-Berbunch]

Close bases, cut jobs, then what do the people do? Return to local manufacturing? :hmmm:

I agree with cutting waste, and as previously mentioned by Ducimus a good place to start is some great white technological elephant, and not personnel.

[Skybird]

Having less grunts to pay monthly fees, means not so much, financially.

The real cost saver would be to reduce the influence of the defence industry on the policy makers.

The quality of competitors' defence quality, namely China, becomes better ands better,m the Americna lead is shrinking both in quantity and quality, and due to the technology race the ability to compensate numerical inferiority by technical superiority is declining: the higher the level is already is, the smaller the improvments that can be gained by the higher investements for them needed. Oh dear, can one say it that way or did I just mess up the language?

Needless to say, the more specialised and higher in quality one's own forces are, the more precious they become and the more costly and potentially war-decisive even small losses become, because for the same money you then can maintain only smaller forces: loosing for example one destroyer when you have two hundred, is one thing. Loosing one destroyer when you only have ten, is something very different.

What I disagree with is to phase out the A-10s. Not because of sentimental reasons, but because of what these planes can do - and the F35 cannot. For many CAS type of missions, I think the A10 is the - sometimes much - better aircraft, still. And last time I read about it, many ground commanders agreed with that assessment.

[Aktungbby]

:agree:

[Stealhead]

Actually cutting down the man power does save a lot of money.Remember in the US each troop gets food and housing paid for.if they are married they get base housing which is again free of charge.

A single junior enlisted gets everything food,clothing,housing(and experiences there of) all covered.Then you have BAS (basic allowance for substance) and BAQ( basic allowance for quarters). Everyone who lives off base gets these to a very large extent and it goes up to match the cost of living in the particular region the troop and family (if he has one lives Japan is the best because the cost of living is very high there)

The savings by trimming out say 25,000 from the entire military would actually be substantial.

There are actually ways for each branch to deal with MIC crap that is not needed.Trust me I was personally involved in insuring certain new un-needed crap getting forced upon us failed.

That is only part of it when ever they cut troops a portion of what ever they where supporting also goes away which saves money.

The MIC is a problem and an expense but so is to a very large extent the cost of feeding housing medicating a troop and his family.Consider how much it costs for one typical American in one year to pay rent pay water pay electric to eat so on. Now imagine having to pay 100% or a sizable portion of that cost for over 1 million people.Pretty expensive.Oh and you also have to pay roughly 1 million people a salary every two weeks.

[Oberon]

It's not entirely surprising, and it's going to hurt, trust us, we've been there...but I doubt it'll be as deep as some, so there's that to be grateful for.

Here's an interesting fact that might not be known. When British forces conclude their service in Afghanistan and return home, it will be the first time the British military forces have not been in conflict in over a century.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/feb/11/british-forces-century-warfare-end

[Stealhead]

Defense is good but only what you need at a given time.An unnecessarily large military force is very costly.So it makes perfect sense.

@Oberon Northern Ireland kept the UK busy for some come to think of it.

[Oberon]

@Oberon Northern Ireland kept the UK busy for some come to think of it.

Yup, still seems rather strange how rapidly it all ended, then again 9/11 rather jaded the American and global view on 'freedom fighters', and it gave a carte blanche for heavier offensive action on 'terrorists' so I guess Sinn Fein could see which way the wind was blowing and decided to get out while the going was good...it's a shame Tribesman has been brigged as he would probably be able to correct me in what I've just theorised as he knows a lot more on the ins and outs of Irish politics than I could hope to.
Still, there'll always be tension there, there's talk of a 'New IRA' forming up, but thank God (both Catholic and Protestant) that it has generally died down now. Those were dark times for both sides, and honestly, I think that todays children in England at least, wouldn't believe (or likely even know) that once upon a time, a street in Ireland could look like this:

http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2007/0707/belfast_bayonet.jpg

A fairly good film, made for TV, about one of the most infamous incidents in the Troubles, Bloody Sunday:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aj5lSBMyUfY

[Jimbuna]

If the cuts are inevitable and do happen, hopefully they will be hand in hand with the realisation that one needs to be more choosy in what conflicts abroad one can justifiably commit to with a genuine hope of achieving a successfull outcome.

After the UK pulls out of Afghanistan I hope the British government will come to such a realisation.

Try to keep a submarine base open with sufficient space for us to park our nukes....we could be looking for such a haven next year :)

[Ducimus]

Needless to say, the more specialised and higher in quality one's own forces are, the more precious they become and the more costly and potentially war-decisive even small losses become, because for the same money you then can maintain only smaller forces: loosing for example one destroyer when you have two hundred, is one thing. Loosing one destroyer when you only have ten, is something very different.

This is more or less why i'm not a big fan of some of the really high dollar projects like the F-35. Things like that become so expensive, so valuable, that you dare not use it, and if you lose one, your going to feel it in many ways.


What I disagree with is to phase out the A-10s. Not because of sentimental reasons, but because of what these planes can do - and the F35 cannot. For many CAS type of missions, I think the A10 is the - sometimes much - better aircraft, still. And last time I read about it, many ground commanders agreed with that assessment.

That's probably the USAF's fighter mafia talking. Practicality be damned, if it doesn't break the sound barrier, and isn't an air superiority role, they don't want it.


Actually cutting down the man power does save a lot of money.Remember in the US each troop gets food and housing paid for.if they are married they get base housing which is again free of charge.

A single junior enlisted gets everything food,clothing,housing(and experiences there of) all covered.Then you have BAS (basic allowance for substance) and BAQ( basic allowance for quarters). Everyone who lives off base gets these to a very large extent and it goes up to match the cost of living in the particular region the troop and family (if he has one lives Japan is the best because the cost of living is very high there)

The savings by trimming out say 25,000 from the entire military would actually be substantial.

Very true. I know some personnel cuts are unavoidable, but I strongly think they should be very focused and as limited as possible. The reason is, experience and flexibility. Experience is a valuable commodity, and you want to keep as much of as possible within the military. Loss of experience can conceivably cost lives later on in the form of mistakes that are being learned all over again. Flexibility, because you need enough troops where the "Operation tempo" isn't overwhelming. In my day, (Clinton era), we had massive draw downs, and no decrease in operation tempo.

In my career field it was not uncommon to be deployed 200 days out of the year, and we didn't have "Air expeditionary forces" at the time. They started that up right as I was leaving active. I'm out because I got caught in the draw down. I didn't want out, but my career field was "over manned" (and yet the work load just kept getting harder, go figure. :shifty: ) Others got out, because being deployed 200 plus days out of the year does wonders for retention.


As an aside, as much as the services struggle with Fraud, Waste, and Abuse, a crapton of it is systemic. End of fiscal year spending anyone?

[Skybird]

This is more or less why i'm not a big fan of some of the really high dollar projects like the F-35. Things like that become so expensive, so valuable, that you dare not use it, and if you lose one, your going to feel it in many ways.


Its like adjusting a slider, with "maximum number of cheap units" at the one and of the scale, and "maximum quality, expensive units " at the other. Already Rumsfeld pushed that slider utmost towards the latter, so he claimed. And I think that is a mistake. There is a lesson to be learned form the Russian war against the Germans.

The trick is to push the slider towards the latter, but not to the maximum of it, but to find a good balance between numbers and quality, where as the chance of enemy technology damaging you or enemy number superiority overwhelming you are kept at the possible minimum.

The cuts in the American defences are okay if they indeed should serve mainly for defending the American homeland. The growing isolationism of the US speaks for this also. But for an America that may redefine its role as a globally engaged actor, it overstretches the defence resources. You cannot quickly rebuild quality forces in case you need them, if for years you have not maintained such reserves for this case _ you need years of preparation, the more years the better quality you want, because quality not only means industrial capacity and technological skill, but also experience. If you cannot maintain such reserves because you cannot afford it anymore, your global claims have to be limited. And I think that is what is happening, which is noted in Europe and the ME with growing discomfort and nervousness.

It's an empire reversing expansion to contraction. History knows no example of contracting empires so far that nevertheless survived. Where an empire reached the point where it did not expand anymore, it started to stagnate and fade.

China btw. has just sold a record share of its US bonds in December, witch the Chinese also buying the global gold market empty. Their defence budgets (and that of their neighbours and those in the ME) are growing, in some countries almost explode. All that are more signs that the US empire is in contraction.

[Dan D]

The US is a maritime nation like its mother UK.
The US accounts for close to half of all the world's military expenditure.
Compared to that the US Army is not that big, ca. 500.000 soldiers, China has 2.000.000, North Korea 1.000.000, Russia 400.000.

So where does all the money go?
The US has by far the largest Navy in the world. The sea is the first line of defence, keep the enemy of your shores.

But why not fight them at their shores and inland with the Navy?

The US has twice as much aircraft carriers as all other nations together. A Carriers does not come alone but as a carrier strike group supported by other ships. Furthermore the US Navy has amphibious assault ships who function as bridgeheads to fight inland.

So if the US reduces its Army from rougly 500.000 „to 440,000 to 450,000 troops, according to the Times. Army troop levels already were supposed to go down to 490,000, from their height of 570,000 after the 9/11 attacks“ (link given at the start of the thread), this is no drama. This is very likely owed to a change of tactics towards more operational maneuvers from the Sea in future.

Btw, did you know that there are more than „1 million injured veterans from the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan“? That is grim.
http://www.ibtimes.com/va-stops-releasing-data-injured-vets-total-reaches-grim-milestone-exclusive-1449584

[Oberon]

I heard that the A-10 is going to be one of the first to go, now that does suck, especially since it's going in favour of the Golden Bird (F35). But, I guess although it costs over $9x10*99999 it is more up to date, and technology has to march on.
Still, I presume the A-10s will be mothballed rather than cut up, so at least they can be dusted off if needed again.

[Oberon]

The cuts in the American defences are okay if they indeed should serve mainly for defending the American homeland. The growing isolationism of the US speaks for this also. But for an America that may redefine its role as a globally engaged actor, it overstretches the defence resources. You cannot quickly rebuild quality forces in case you need them, if for years you have not maintained such reserves for this case _ you need years of preparation, the more years the better quality you want, because quality not only means industrial capacity and technological skill, but also experience. If you cannot maintain such reserves because you cannot afford it anymore, your global claims have to be limited. And I think that is what is happening, which is noted in Europe and the ME with growing discomfort and nervousness.

America is different to Europe though in that whilst the biggest obstacle for an army moving through all of Europe is the English Channel (and the Swiss Alps) America has only two land based borders, one of which is held by a competent military power, and the other...well...the less said about that the better. Only an absolute fool would conduct a land war in either Asia or America, trust us on this, we've had bitter experience :O:

[Stealhead]

The A-10 has gotten lucky twice once in the Gulf War it got a reprieve because it got to do what it was designed for.Then it was realized that it made a pretty darn good observation and COIN platform and it saw use in that role for roughly 15 years starting in 1992 over Bosnia.

Now the time is coming along where it has run out of a job again(or soon will be).

The problem the US has had is figuring out what exactly is the military role post Cold War.This is very tricky after 65 years of military spending.As a collective whole we do not know what the hell to do.And then politics gets tied up into politicians what some pork barrel military spending in their state.Thing is it all costs a crap load of money for no real result short of adding to an already massive debt.

I think it is part of how the US will go down we'll just keep having a large expensive military and sooner or later bankrupt our selves.Kind of like in Total War if your military is too large it just eats up all of your money.

Ducimus is right there is a ton of fraud waste and abuse out there as well.Trust me you'd be shocked.One example the USAF contingent at Lakenheath RAF the AGE flight there they decided that they needed a ultra mega ridiculous break room so they made one on federal coin of course.this thing wound up costing over $200,000 dollars it had big screen TVs and a freaking running fountain no joke.That happens all the time.

[MH]

The trick is to push the slider towards the latter, but not to the maximum of it, but to find a good balance between numbers and quality, where as the chance of enemy technology damaging you or enemy number superiority overwhelming you are kept at the possible minimum.



If we talking about USAF , the air force has lots of front line fighter to balance "the slider".Some still in production or the older ones which are upgraded at this time.
When it comes to f35 or f22 those fighters have their role to play and most likely will be used with adequate care to maximize their effectiveness.
After all im sure there are enough people in this business who know what they are doing.

History also shows that technological advantage wights a lot.
The WW2 example might be good one or bad depends at what aspects you want to look..
It is true that the ratio was against Germany but this was war Germany started too early and could not win later on.
The technological innovative mood came later on , when Germany was already in trouble - out of necessity.
Too late.
Yet the kill ratio of some German units was impressive.

There are also more recent examples where technology ruled the battle field.
Gulf war for example...

So USA may not have the necessary edge to conquer China for example..or whole world.:doh: but may maintains enough superiority for everyone to know that screwing with american military will not pay off.
I think that what is all about.

[Wolferz]

We have the pain rays waiting in the wings. The Navy is set to field and use lasers and rail guns. Pretty soon troops will become obsolete in preference to drones. Zeitgeist.

[Dread Knot]

Only an absolute fool would conduct a land war in either Asia or America, trust us on this, we've had bitter experience :O:

You gave those Mars'huns hell and saved the Earth, so you're okay in our book. :cool:

http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p313/Starbug360/Motivational%20Posters/Thunderchild.jpg

[Oberon]

You gave those Mars'huns hell and saved the Earth, so you're okay in our book. :cool:



Come on Thunder Child! :rock:

[BrucePartington]

A fairly good film, made for TV, about one of the most infamous incidents in the Troubles, Bloody Sunday:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aj5lSBMyUfY

I promised meeself I was going to bed early tonight. Now I can't, I'm 20 minutes into it. And you're to blame.:D

[Oberon]

I promised meeself I was going to bed early tonight. Now I can't, I'm 20 minutes into it. And you're to blame.:D

:haha: Oh, been there, done that. Enjoy it, it's well made. :yep: James Nesbitt is a very good, oft underrated, actor, as is Nicholas Farrell, nice chap Farrell is too, met him once years ago.

[Stealhead]

Yet the kill ratio of some German units was impressive.

This is because the Luftwaffe typically did not rotate pilots to the rear as a result the ones that survived flew a substantially larger amount of sorties than an American or British who flew a tour got rotated to the rear often to pull a stint as an instructor and then back again.

A Luftwaffe pilot for the most part flew either until the war ended or his luck ran out and he got killed or injured the only rotation he saw was from one front line unit to another and every so often he might get a month or so or R&R.

Many also had the advantage to have flown a portion of their careers against the Soviet Union which honestly for the most part was a shooting gallery from 1941 until well into 1943.Not to say that the high scoring Germans where not unskilled but they did have many things in their favor that allowed them to rack up a high score which in turn means that each unit a long serving Luftwaffe pilot served in will have a high score.Again their units have an advantage as some where in constant combat from 1939 to 1945.

[em2nought]

I'm pretty sure China "told" us to get rid of the A-10. :03:

[MH]

....

I'm aware of the fact.
The majority of top scoring german aces of ww2 who survived won most of their victories on eastern front.
Actually by reading some memories of those guys it seems that western europe was to this airmen what eastern front was to german infantrymen.
In the late stage of the war all though swamped by russian air force the german pilots had great rate of success.
Many died after transferring to the west where the odds diminished due to the Allies having better skilled pilots , the technological superiority on average ....and the numbers.

[Jimbuna]

Come on Thunder Child! :rock:

http://s18.postimg.org/4pn0cdoxl/Thunder_Child.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/xs1af7b79/full/)

[MH]

Nice one.
Might keep it as my wallpaper. :up:

[Jimbuna]

Nice one.
Might keep it as my wallpaper. :up:

Quite a few there:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=war+of+the+worlds&espv=210&es_sm=122&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=bSoOU9CMI4Km0wXIsICQBQ&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1680&bih=925

[gimpy117]

I don't see the problem myself. The Cold War is over, the Iraq War is over, and you're about to pull out of Afghanistan. Why spend money on a military that has no war to fight? :hmmm:

so totally agree. it was bad enough we forgot the cold war was over (to some extent)

[Ducimus]

The problem with downsizing comes with the need to maintain a standing force of some size in order maintain readiness against future threats and conflicts that will inevitably come.

[Platapus]

Since WWII has the United States ever been without an "enemy"? :nope:

[Skybird]

An analysis in German language, which probably generally sees it correctly.

http://www.focus.de/politik/gastkolumnen/jaeger/laender-besetzen-ist-out-die-us-armee-schrumpft-fuer-den-krieg-der-zukunft_id_3644351.html

The author points out that we currently have seen the end of an era where military occupation of foreign countries pays off, and therefore the kind and way of modern warfare once again dramatically changes, and shifts its focus. This change , which also is due to changes in political paradigms on how to meet international opponents, allows the reduction of ground forces, and it is logical that parallel to the defence cuts some key branches of military competence, cyberwarfare for example, indeed will get boosted, not cut.

The author closes with expressing the hope that the Europeans can read the sign of times. It seems to me that they - and especially Germany - still have not realised that the conception of "nation building" and international "humanitarian interventions", has been buried in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even the Arab revolutions need to be learned some lessons from.

Ironically, I think, it is a bit like with political correctness wanting to educate the public to become better people of this or that manner - by forcing them via new laws. Laws do not educate a people to change themselves and their traditions, but it is the other way around: long-collected experiences and traditions, over millenia, influence in the formulation of moral codices and laws. Guess which of the two has the deeper, longer roots.

[Ducimus]

Since WWII has the United States ever been without an "enemy"? :nope:

You mean since WW1, you know, the war that was supposed to end all wars.

[August]

You mean since WW1, you know, the war that was supposed to end all wars.

Well technically we did get a couple of decades of relative peace between the world wars.

[Oberon]

Well technically we did get a couple of decades of relative peace between the world wars.

Lucky you...we went to Russia...and that went really well. :O:

[Armistead]

We have numerous cold war bases that can be shut down....and placed on our southern border

[Onkel Neal]

We have the pain rays waiting in the wings. The Navy is set to field and use lasers and rail guns. Pretty soon troops will become obsolete in preference to drones. Zeitgeist.

That's what I'm saying. Get rid of pilot planes like the f22, f35, etc and other fighter planes, use missiles and lasers to defend against aircraft, use missiles and drones to attack enemy installations and troops. Using pilot planes reminds me of the insistence WWI generals had for house mounted cavalry and mass front line attacks against machine guns.

[August]

That's what I'm saying. Get rid of pilot planes like the f22, f35, etc and other fighter planes, use missiles and lasers to defend against aircraft, use missiles and drones to attack enemy installations and troops. Using pilot planes reminds me of the insistence WWI generals had for house mounted cavalry and mass front line attacks against machine guns.

But drones aren't just some new weapon like a machine gun or a longbow Neal. Taking the human out of the equation does provide some advantages but it also introduces some pretty significant weaknesses too.

For one thing is the potential for an enemy to jam or hack the control signalling. That's a lot easier to do than stop a determined human pilot.

The way I figure it we'll need both drones and human piloted aircraft for a long time, maybe forever, lest we find our missiles and drones useless or worse co-opted used against us.

[Skybird]

August,

that is why I expect the move towards autonomous drones being inevitably coming, for better or for worse. Problem will be that when everybody can build such drones with technological components build by anybody and bought from anybody (globalizations, spreading of hightech and knowhow), everybody can strike against everybody without ever being formally held responsible: states, criminal cartels, companies, angry billionaires.... A nightmare scenario.



Neal,

http://www.amazon.com/Kill-Decision-Daniel-Suarez/dp/0451417704/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1393537982&sr=8-1&keywords=kill+decision

Autonomous drones meet insect swarm intelligence. Not pleasant. :D The novel is exciting, though Daemon and Darknet by the same author were even more so.

Possible I mentioned this book before, I am not certain.

[Ducimus]

Did someone say autonomous drones? Sorry, i couldn't resist. :O:

New air based drones to replace pilots!
http://www.foundation3d.com/uploads/art/2009/03/4564-25-978052.jpg

New ground based drones to replace troops!
http://www.movieprop.com/tvandmovie/terminator/t3endoskeletons1.jpg

[August]

August,

that is why I expect the move towards autonomous drones being inevitably coming, for better or for worse. Problem will be that when everybody can build such drones with technological components build by anybody and bought from anybody (globalizations, spreading of hightech and knowhow), everybody can strike against everybody without ever being formally held responsible: states, criminal cartels, companies, angry billionaires.... A nightmare scenario.

Well as the capability grows obviously so too will the countermeasures.

[mapuc]

In the 70s there was a politician who demanded that the defense was abolished and replaced with a simple phone. This phone should have direct contact to the Kremlin and was in the event of a Soviet attack, saying that Denmark surrenders

Markus

[CaptainMattJ.]

I've been raising hell about the F-35 project for a couple years now. The amount of money that is being flooded into this project makes me sick. Its like buying a bugatti veyron that can go 400 KM/h when you dont have anywhere near the money to pay for it and you already have a perfectly good car thats going to last you into the near future. Just look at what Turkey has done. Their F-16s can blow the pants off of damn near any aircraft in production with the right pilot behind the stick. With the skill of our pilots and the cost efficiency of upgrading the F-16 fleet, we wont need anything near an F-35 or an F-22 for many decades to come. I mean, who are we trying to compete against? Space Aliens? Nobody in the world fields anything near the ridiculous F-35, so why are we so desperate to make it? Grotesque waste of money.

The day the Department of "Defense" actually lives up to its name is the day i become a billionaire superstar. We could literally field about 1/4 of the active duty servicemembers we have now and still be ready for any invasion. China, the biggest potential threat, couldnt dream of putting together the logistical capacity to invade mainland USA.

[Tribesman]

Lucky you...we went to Russia...and that went really well. :O:
Be fair, the Americans took part in that futile adventure too.

[Wolferz]

I have a better idea...
Do away with armed conflict altogether.
All we are saying is give peace a chance.~ John Lennon~

[Ducimus]

I have a better idea...
Do away with armed conflict altogether.
All we are saying is give peace a chance.~ John Lennon~

"So long as there are men, there will be wars."

[Jimbuna]

"So long as there are men, there will be wars."

A few women have started one or two :)

[MH]

I've been raising hell about the F-35 project for a couple years now. The amount of money that is being flooded into this project makes me sick. Its like buying a bugatti veyron that can go 400 KM/h when you dont have anywhere near the money to pay for it and you already have a perfectly good car thats going to last you into the near future. Just look at what Turkey has done. Their F-16s can blow the pants off of damn near any aircraft in production with the right pilot behind the stick. With the skill of our pilots and the cost efficiency of upgrading the F-16 fleet, we wont need anything near an F-35 or an F-22 for many decades to come. I mean, who are we trying to compete against? Space Aliens? Nobody in the world fields anything near the ridiculous F-35, so why are we so desperate to make it? Grotesque waste of money.

The day the Department of "Defense" actually lives up to its name is the day i become a billionaire superstar. We could literally field about 1/4 of the active duty servicemembers we have now and still be ready for any invasion. China, the biggest potential threat, couldnt dream of putting together the logistical capacity to invade mainland USA.

Remember when f16 or f15 had been developed and what bleeding edge technology it is been?
That the reason the planes are still in service.
Same idea here.

[Ducimus]

A few women have started one or two :)

While I can't think of any names aside from Cleopatra off the top of my head, I have no qualms in saying, "Your right!, how sexist of me in pinning all the blame on men!" :O:

[Jimbuna]

While I can't think of any names aside from Cleopatra off the top of my head, I have no qualms in saying, "Your right!, how sexist of me in pinning all the blame on men!" :O:

Margaret Thatcher immediately springs to mind :)

[Schroeder]

Margaret Thatcher immediately springs to mind :)
Well, technically Argentine started it with the invasion of the Falklands. Thatcher just gave a strong answer.:O:

[Jimbuna]

Well, technically Argentine started it with the invasion of the Falklands. Thatcher just gave a strong answer.:O:

LOL...The India Pakistan war of 1971, started by Mrs. Indira Gandhi.

Boudica, queen of the British Iceni tribe.

Queen Elizabeth 1

[THE_MASK]

Reduced American military = back to the dark ages :yep:
Tribal warfare :yep:

[CaptainMattJ.]

Remember when f16 or f15 had been developed and what bleeding edge technology it is been?
That the reason the planes are still in service.
Same idea here.
Except that the DOD is trying to get out as many F-35s as they possibly can, before testing is completed. They've broken the "fly before you buy" rule. Its already cost us a couple billion to fix up the production model F-35s that have already been built. We aren't in the cold war anymore. If there is any shred of competency left in the world, there shouldnt be a real threat of all-out war for the foreseeable future. Our biggest "threats" are still fielding warplanes that are similiarly if not outmatched by block 52 F-16s. I'd rather have the DOD spend less now upgrading the existing fleet and wait until the F-35 becomes cheaper and the testing is completed. The F-16 turned out to be cheaper and more efficient than originally planned, whereas the F-35 has almost doubled in costs across the board and has run into a multitude of problems, the biggest is lockheed martin being behind in almost every department. Even adjusting for inflation, the F-35 is going to be the DODs most expensive acquisition program to date.

[Oberon]

We aren't in the cold war anymore.

That is something that might change in the very near future.... :hmmm:

[Ducimus]

That is something that might change in the very near future.... :hmmm:


Where international diplomacy is concerned, it's been armature hour in the white house for awhile now. There was the thing with Syria. That was pretty much a professional poker match on the world stage, and Putin read Obama like a book. I see the headlines today, and i keep thinking, "Why in the hell would Putin listen to anything Obama or Kerry has to say?" Them condemning this, or saying that, it's tantamount to a guard dog with no teeth. All bark, no bite, and Putin knows it.

[Jimbuna]

Where international diplomacy is concerned, it's been armature hour in the white house for awhile now. There was the thing with Syria. That was pretty much a professional poker match on the world stage, and Putin read Obama like a book. I see the headlines today, and i keep thinking, "Why in the hell would Putin listen to anything Obama or Kerry has to say?" Them condemning this, or saying that, it's tantamount to a guard dog with no teeth. All bark, no bite, and Putin knows it.

Agreed...Obama is now trying to recoup some credibility otherwise his legacy will be in the lower ratings.

[Oberon]

The snag is, if Obama does nothing then he's going to get slated for it, and if he does something then he'll be slated for either not doing enough or being a dog with no teeth. In a situation like this, unfortunately, there's no option to 'not do anything', especially when you're supposed to be a leading superpower.

[Tribesman]

The snag is, if Obama does nothing then he's going to get slated for it, and if he does something then he'll be slated for either not doing enough or being a dog with no teeth. In a situation like this, unfortunately, there's no option to 'not do anything', especially when you're supposed to be a leading superpower.

Another snag is that Obama and the US military are 80% reliant on maintaining goodwill with Russia and some very dubious former SSR leaders.
Lose that deal and the only real options are to go begging in Beijing and Tehran and see what price they will extort.
Not a great situation to be trapped in is it.
But that's a legacy issue. If they had gone with the 6 month timeframe the Pentagon study suggested instead of the 12 year mess they chose they wouldn't still be stuck with relying on Russia.

[Aktungbby]

A few women have started one or two :)

LOL...The India Pakistan war of 1971, started by Mrs. Indira Gandhi.

Boudica, queen of the British Iceni tribe.

Queen Elizabeth 1

And the unforgettable Zenobia, Queen of Palmyra(Syria) taking on the Roman Empire: 270-274 AD; http://www.luc.edu/roman-emperors/zenobia.htm (http://www.luc.edu/roman-emperors/zenobia.htm) A real money-honey in her own right!http://www.luc.edu/roman-emperors/zenobia.jpg (http://www.luc.edu/roman-emperors/zenobia.jpg) She actually survived, however briefly, unlike Boudicca, Cleo and Indira!