Herochat

How big does the military actully need to be

therock

  • ********
  • 8871
  • +50/-65
    • View Profile
How big does the military actully need to be
« on: January 18, 2018, 11:15:54 AM »
Given all this talk about rebuilding the military. Saying it been depleted

Note this not just a trump thing. They always expand spending...and unlike anything else they dont seem to care about the cost or deficet with that. Cant afford chip, or free college...but a bunch of shitty cold war era vehicle you can

So the question is how big does it need to be

if it needs to be cut, by how much

AP

  • ********
  • 19034
  • +119/-56
    • View Profile
Re: How big does the military actully need to be
« Reply #1 on: January 18, 2018, 03:14:47 PM »
WE need a defense force and little else.

XerxesTWD

  • *****
  • 6729
  • +101/-26
  • You can't park here, buddy. Earth is closed today.
    • View Profile
Re: How big does the military actully need to be
« Reply #2 on: January 18, 2018, 04:00:23 PM »
The problem is poorly managed military contracts. This problem is something Trump was actually correct about and tried to take credit for resolving, but the legislature is ultimately responsible for the soaring military spending and occasional savings.

The Pentagon has spent over a decade trying to rein in spending to focus on new directions, but Congress forces them to but equipment we will never use. They're jobs programs, not actual benefits to the soldiers.

Imperial

  • Was once the Greatest of All Time
  • ******
  • 2691
  • +12/-2
    • View Profile
Re: How big does the military actully need to be
« Reply #3 on: January 18, 2018, 07:43:48 PM »
The problem is poorly managed military contracts. This problem is something Trump was actually correct about and tried to take credit for resolving, but the legislature is ultimately responsible for the soaring military spending and occasional savings.

The Pentagon has spent over a decade trying to rein in spending to focus on new directions, but Congress forces them to but equipment we will never use. They're jobs programs, not actual benefits to the soldiers.

And corporate welfare programs to big donors.

Difficult to see how it gets cleaned up given anyone suggesting more efficient military spending is quickly attacked with "You don't support our soldiers." Which, as you say, has little to do with many military projects anymore.
Avatar : Da Bliss!
Sig : Anna Nystrom


therock

  • ********
  • 8871
  • +50/-65
    • View Profile
Re: How big does the military actully need to be
« Reply #4 on: January 18, 2018, 07:52:30 PM »
The problem is poorly managed military contracts. This problem is something Trump was actually correct about and tried to take credit for resolving, but the legislature is ultimately responsible for the soaring military spending and occasional savings.

The Pentagon has spent over a decade trying to rein in spending to focus on new directions, but Congress forces them to but equipment we will never use. They're jobs programs, not actual benefits to the soldiers.

And corporate welfare programs to big donors.

Difficult to see how it gets cleaned up given anyone suggesting more efficient military spending is quickly attacked with "You don't support our soldiers." Which, as you say, has little to do with many military projects anymore.


Thing is the way is to make clear what your cutting exactly...and pushed it

Then challenge anyone to explain why they need to keep the shit their cutting
And then say going to spend some of the extra money on VA, helmets and armor (which they are lacking), if anyone attacks you with  "you dont care about the millitary" shit

But issue with that is, that accounting. And accounting is boring as shit in the age of sound bites.

Hell it would solve other issue like the millitrazation of police. reason why these offices have millitary shit is we built to much. To the point they asked us to stop building them

Uhtceare

  • *****
  • 1770
  • +20/-9
    • View Profile
Re: How big does the military actully need to be
« Reply #5 on: January 18, 2018, 07:56:43 PM »
As powerful as Russia and China combined. Which is to say less than half of what we spend now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

Keep in mind that we are allies or quasi-allies with everyone else on the top ten list except China and Russia. America having the combined military budget of China and Russia, while also having an abundance of powerful allies, should be plenty. But the military industrial complex wants its money and is willing to bribe, excuse me, "donate to campaigns" heavily to keep the budget insanely high.

Dlbiininja

  • ******
  • 3691
  • +117/-13215
  • Destroyer of father of socks self-esteem
    • View Profile
Re: How big does the military actully need to be
« Reply #6 on: January 19, 2018, 02:12:45 AM »
Shit!  Even with the spending we were unprepared when we went into Iraq & Afghanistan.  We were short on armor for vehicles & even body armor for the troops. And then once the ied's they're had to be further changes to vehicles to help protect troops if not better. 
    And yep the mismanagement & contractor spending was a fucking mess Halliburton/Kbr I had many no bid contracts.  Meaning they were unopposed in the bids for their contracts. 
http://www.ibtimes.com/winner-most-iraq-war-contracts-kbr-395-billion-decade-1135905

Ah was liking for this.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1

The US flew nearly $12bn in shrink-wrapped $100 bills into Iraq, then distributed the cash with no proper control over who was receiving it and how it was being spent.

The staggering scale of the biggest transfer of cash in the history of the Federal Reserve has been graphically laid bare by a US congressional committee.

In the year after the invasion of Iraq in 2003 nearly 281 million notes, weighing 363 tonnes, were sent from New York to Baghdad for disbursement to Iraqi ministries and US contractors. Using C-130 planes, the deliveries took place once or twice a month with the biggest of $2,401,600,000 on June 22 2004, six days before the handover.

Details of the shipments have emerged in a memorandum prepared for the meeting of the House committee on oversight and government reform which is examining Iraqi reconstruction. Its chairman, Henry Waxman, a fierce critic of the war, said the way the cash had been handled was mind-boggling. "The numbers are so large that it doesn't seem possible that they're true. Who in their right mind would send 363 tonnes of cash into a war zone?"

More in the article.  We threw money away over there, no oversight.  This definitely could have covered college in America for many.
My negative Karma correlates to the amount of butthurt I've caused you! 
blowmeuptom.com/   https://www.facebook.com/tomleykisshow/
http://garyanddino.com/ 

nu-safado

  • ************
  • 4297
  • +6/-1
    • View Profile
Re: How big does the military actully need to be
« Reply #7 on: January 19, 2018, 11:11:31 PM »
I think there's been a mistake in strategic concepts until recently. The US has been budgeted out for inefficient assymetrical warfare. Despite Russia's inability to prove along-term competitor our military works best as a great power war state. Preparing to fight China is more important than preparing to fight Jihadi's

therock

  • ********
  • 8871
  • +50/-65
    • View Profile
Re: How big does the military actully need to be
« Reply #8 on: January 20, 2018, 01:20:29 AM »
I think there's been a mistake in strategic concepts until recently. The US has been budgeted out for inefficient assymetrical warfare. Despite Russia's inability to prove along-term competitor our military works best as a great power war state. Preparing to fight China is more important than preparing to fight Jihadi's

Wait are you talking about cyber, espinoage, and ecconomic war


or an actual war

Master

  • ********
  • 8463
  • +42/-24
  • When is a raven a writing desk?
    • View Profile
Re: How big does the military actully need to be
« Reply #9 on: January 20, 2018, 07:55:15 AM »
With the amount we spend, our ground infantry could legit be wearing mech suits and rolling up with drone armored vehicle support.

But we spend just enough to be powerful... and then dump the rest of the budget into billion-dollar job programs. But not programs that create millions of jobs. Programs that create a few thousand jobs... and pour most of the money into the pockets of corporations and executives.
9 outta 10 Masters are Master.

nu-safado

  • ************
  • 4297
  • +6/-1
    • View Profile
Re: How big does the military actully need to be
« Reply #10 on: January 20, 2018, 02:18:59 PM »
Quote
Wait are you talking about cyber, espinoage, and ecconomic war


or an actual war

The Pentagon has been obsessed with asymmetrical warfare for a disproportionate amount of time. Most military planners, military publications and defense analyst reports have been about counterinsurgency tactics. In short, US military dominance in the face of great powers seeking technological military parity, force projection and capabilities has been ignored for along time.

To get back to your question, warfare deserves legitimate new divisions. Space and cyber warfare divisions should be just as much a part of the military tradition of the military as the marines or Rangers. Wars are fought in 5 dimensions, not the simple land, sea and air of yesteryear

I'm acknowledging this because the Pentagon publishes annual reports on defense reports and Defense Secretary Mattis (I really like Mattis and McMaster and their world views - links if anyone wants them) have overseen a publication of this years defense priorities stating the the aim of the US military is to stay ahead of the competition coming from China and Russia.

Whether that means direct warfare or just ensuring Access Denial/Area Denial (A2/AD) in the turbulent South China Sea to protect our shipping lanes and out Pacific allies or whether it means engaging in skirmishes with China or North Korea is almost inconsequential to our acknowledgement that the Islamic World and terrorism is a horrible reality that has to be dealt with and not a geopolitical imperative is a huge step.

Regarding the aforementioned comments, it will mean less useless M-1 Abrams tank factories, especially ones that are lacking sufficient Armour in their undercarriages making them ineffectual against IED and less than ideal against impossible infantry targets (no one should fight an infantry war in Asia)

It also means that our highly ineffective F-35, the most egregious military allocations program of all, will have to be corrected with a more efficient fighter plane with a more well-defined mission and weaponry systems. it also means retrofitting and establishing a replacement to the unstoppable F-22 and developing the weapons systems of the future

Right now, whoever wins the arms races for artificial intelligence, drone swarms with AI intelligence, hypersonic missiles and the weapnization of space will have absolute dominace over the world

Truth be told, the US already has this advantage. We are upgrading our carirer fleet from Nimitz-class carriers to deadlier Ford class fleets - but all of the aforementioned weapons systems can render our incredible naval advantage useless if a hypersonic missile can damage a 30 billion dollar carrier group with one, cheap missile with no counter measure to stop it

Elon Musk and Space X have already brought the space revolution. Space X is sending up payloads for 60 million dollars a launch and military flights for 90 (with military security for military objectives) so independent of what happens, the space age has hit the privt secor for the type of affordable prices that Lockheed and Boeing could never dream up.

We are clearly not just ahead in the race, we're advancing our lead and heavily at that.

China and Russia are both competing in the same sphere, with the same saturated bureaucracy that's weighed us down for decades.

Getting back to the OP, the fact that these systems have been acknowledged as the priority and not building better fighters to root terrorists out of caves in Pakistan is a huge step forward in realizing the truth of world priorities. The US is the unquestioned hegemony, but we can't rest on our laurels and be surprised that our rivals are trying to catch up and overtake us, we have to get in the game.

The lat 16 years have been an enormous overreaction in terms of blood and treaure and they are redundant. We were unable to stabilize Afghanistan with 40,000 troops,; how does raising troop levels from 5 to 10 thousand help us? Why can't we use regional allies to defeat groups like ISIS (which we did) and whoever rises up to take their place?

The Middle East won't change but Asia will and we have acknowledged that which is incredibly hopeful for our nilitaries future and the transference of that technology inevitably to the private sector


therock

  • ********
  • 8871
  • +50/-65
    • View Profile
Re: How big does the military actully need to be
« Reply #12 on: February 09, 2018, 01:36:00 PM »
Well we added 300 billion or so to it

We rebuilding our millitary you guys....wooo...was nervous for a second that we wouldnt rebuild

Sure we have to rebuild it in another year, or the reoublcains will cut off funding for heat for poor people or some shit

Also that little parade trump wants will cost over 100 million

MTL76

  • ********
  • 10218
  • +1137/-119
  • "What if I know all your secrets, Your Eminence?"
    • View Profile
Re: How big does the military actully need to be
« Reply #13 on: February 09, 2018, 05:57:09 PM »
A former co-worker who was a Navy pilot gave me an insider's view on the bloated military budget. For example, a ton of money has been poured into the F-35 "stealth" fighter pilot... except the plane is only stealth to the type of radar used by other planes, not the type used by ground radar air defense. So its biggest feature actually doesn't work well. And since it had an unlimited budget, every Senator and Representative was pushing to have at least part of the plane's production take place in their state. So this plane's parts are built all over the country, which impairs efficiency.

Also, the top general and admirals will push the government to approve big-budget projects, because after they retire, a lot of them take jobs at the private arms companies who are the beneficiaries of these budgets. So they are lobbying on behalf of their future employees.

And some of these projects are so big and expensive that they are too valuable to actually use. The newest class of aircraft carrier will cost 13 billion dollars EACH! Ships get sunk in wars, but if you lose even one it's an absolute disaster and no admiral wants to be the one to lose one of these, so they are not going to be used aggressively.

Essentially, we are not getting bang for our buck. 


Minority Shareholder, Combine Honnete Ober Advancer Mercantiles (CHOAM)

The Create A Team / Power Set Combo Compendium