It's time for BIG cuts in our military

Because most things can't easily be cut.

A huge percentage of the money in the budget is already contracted. Construction, refurbishment, equipment, maintenance, upgrades, payrole, these make up the vast majority of the military budget.

And these are already contracted. You can't just cancel a contract, not without paying essentially huge penalties in which you will get nothing. This would be a huge waste of money.

I know on my base we have already seen a lot of cuts. We had 2 chow halls on post, one military run and the other civilian run. They laid off all the civilians at the one and it is now run by the military also. Sure it saves money, but it also put about 100 people out of work at the same time.

And you now can't go anywhere on post without seeing a sign stating that this construction project and that renovation project is part of the Presidents Revitalization project. Even though many of these projects started 4 years ago, there are the jobs created in making all of the signs.

And you can't just stop the construction. Not only would you throw probably 2,000 construction workers out of work, you would leave the 1st Armoured Division with noplace to go. Most of the buildings being made are their future quarters and facilities.

 

Drawdowns can start remarkably quickly. I closed one base and drew down 2 in my career. One base had contractors renovating the control tower long after the last aircraft was gone.

This debate is talking about cuts up to 10 years out. There's plenty that can be cut between now and then.

 

.

I think we need a military .. but we need a new perspective:

First off we need to define what a strategic interest is. A main strategic interest of today is in maintaining economic hedgemony, protecting our economic assets abroad. Another would be to be able to deal with various skirmishes that may come up from time to time.

What is not a strategic interest is pretending that were are going to war with a major power. This is just not realistic.

The world is a changed place where military is of much less significance.

When Chavez stole US assets in Venezuela did we go in and take them back ? We did not. There are only specific situations where the military is required.

When Saddam attacked Kuwait .. sure we helped out and had broad support from our allies and even from middle eastern nations.

Total military spending when all is factored in exceeds 1 Trillion annually. We currently take in 2.2 Trillion in revenues and will spend about 3.8 T this year. We simply cannot afford this.


It is not like WWII days where wars with major powers were possible. Nukes have made that unthinkable and pointless. We need only to protect our interests internationally.

History shows that the costs of maintaining military and thus economic hegemony increase with time and the return on investment decreases.

The British had the gatling gun. With one gunship they could take over a country in Africa .. fighting back with sticks and stones. The tendency of technology is to spread out with time.

Historically the gatling gun proved to be a better defensive than offensive weapon. Sooner or later that African country got the gatling gun. Now one ship was not enough. You needed to send an entire armada. This was expensive and you were going to take many casualties.

Today we cannot even fight a war with a small country like Iraq (who did not even fight back) without bankrupting our coffers. What was the return on investment ?

We need to wake up. The battlefield of today is not military but economic.

The rest of the world is laughing at us for trying to gear up for a fight on a battlefield that, for the most part does not exist.

The Russians figured this out long ago and as much as folks would like to give Reagan credit for "toppling Russia" we should really be criticizing Reagan for spending money like crazy on a threat that did not exist.

Missile Defense is a prime example: Lets say we build it and it works !

How are the Russians going to deal with this ?

1) Put a nuke on a satelite that orbits above our heads .. now rather than 30 minutes away the nuke is 30 seconds away and even if you do manage to blow it up before impact this is worse because the fallout will spread over a larger area.

2) Submarine launched nukes

3) unmanned Drones

The smart thing to do would be to develop missile defence technology in secret. The dumb thing to do is to announce that you have these missiles and that you are going to put them on the border of Russia.

 

The Reserve components are the most cost-effective means for retaining military capabilities...
at least in terms of meeting the demands of more predictable missions.

They have lower peacetime sustaining costs which can result in a larger and
more experienced Total Force within a given budget.

 

And the system is more in line with the original intent of the military. We need a similar system for congress.

 

I agree but think that a change in persepective is also needed.

The military is big business and the is responsible for employment of vast number of people.

The military industrial complex is engrained into the fabric of our society and welds considerable political power.

Unfortunately .. we are going bankrupt trying to maintain it.

The perspective that the military, of the scope and size that presently exists, is required to maintain the security of our borders is flawed.

The perspecive that the military has as much influence as it used to in relation to economic superiority is also flawed.

The perspective that we are winning the arms race is flawed. ( We crossed the finish line a long time ago ... the race is over .. nuclear war with a major power is unthinkable)


The new battlefield is not military, it is economic. The sooner we realize this the better.

 

"flawed."


Nice understatement.

 

An America diminished by leftism won't be able to sustain much of a military.

America isn't a nation as much as it is a pension/medical plan.

 

There are several problems with this.

To begin with, Russia has signed and ratified several treaties that prohibit space based weapons, including the Outer Space Treaty (1967) and SALT II (1979).

Also, such satellites would be easy to destroy.

And destroying such a weapon in space will not create much fallout. Fallout is mostly the result of earth and water becomming radiated in the explosion and being blasted into the atmosphere. High air bursts create very little radiation.

And satellites with nuclear power plants have falled ot Earth many times, with little environmental impact.

This capability has been available since 1960.

And it would still not affect the ability to destroy such weapons.

Ballistic missiles are destroyed in the Ballistic part of their flight path. In other words, as it is hurtling towards earth. Not at the upwards or apogee of their flight.

In other words, it does not matter where it takes off from, it is destroyed shortly before detonation.

Same thing. This technology is even older then ballistic missiles, available since the mid 1940's. And they are even easier to destroy then ballistic missiles. Something as simple as a picket line of conventional fighters can destroy any of these comming towards a country.

No fancy "missile defense system" needed.

Once again, you have to know and understand how such defenses work.

Missile defense does not work by placing the systems near where the missiles are launched. There is no way an Anti-Ballistic Missile can catch or destroy a ballistic missile when it is launched. They can only intercept it when it is in the terminal phase of it's trajectory.

You can place a million ABM launchers all around Russia. In the event of war, they will not bring down a single target. They are only effective in the last moments before it explodes.

The reason why Poland wants such systems is that they are worried that Russia might use the threat of nukes to force them to change political policies. The two countries have had an antagonistic relationship for centuries. And it should be no wonder that Poland wants som ekind of defense against a nation that has invaded them several times.

 

I agree with almost everything you say .. and I learned a few things too.

Why the hell then would we build missile defense and put it on the russian border if it is not provide security for the US there ?

If the Russians want to nuke Poland .. they will nuke Poland and there is nothing we can do about it.

The one disagreement is about your comments on SaltII

If the Russians thought that we had an system that would put them at a serious disadvantage they would do what ever was required.

Indeed and so are ours .. are we going to start blowing each others satellites out of the sky now ?

Considering they have manned space technology and we do not but even without that .. Im sure they could put a nuke in space and we would not know about it.

Last .. if a nuke was launched from space... rockets would not be needed until the last last stage . .probably best to use a MIRV .. you would just need push the missile out (using pressurized gas thrusters would suffice) thing at the right location and gravity would do the rest.

The bottom line here is that missile defense gives a false sense of security.

You would not see a drone comming ?? Todays technology is a hundred times more advanced.. especially after the satellites had been knocked out ?

You could park the sub within a reasonable range and develop special torpedos that would sail a 20 megaton warhead right into the harbor of a major city.

God forbid they really used their imagination.

Bottom line is that we need to realize that security is a fantasy in relationto major powers

If the Russians really wanted to unleash hell they would not need nukes.
Biological terrorism .. it is so easy for a major power it is pathetic.

We have no business selling missile defense to Poland unless you are ok with Russia selling nukes to Iran so they can defend themselves against the Big bad USA.

Security is a fairy tale sold to the ignorant masses to maintain the military industrial complex, and, to some degree the social order.

 

What kind if a completely ignorant and uniformed statement is that ?

Leftists can be just as militant as Conservatives ?

Is Russia right or left .. is China right or left .. was Hitler right or left ..

You might as well have posted "the sky is blue" as it would have contributed more to the conversation.

 

Aside from the " if we do not want Russia selling nukes to Iran ... we should not be selling missile defense to Poland" comment .. there is a bigger issue here.

Russians are not stupid .. and neither are the Chinese.

Russia's economy is growing leaps and bounds as the price of commodities rises. We already know where China is at.

Why would they mess up a good thing ? They are both relatively stable and do not want a fight with the US.

We need to be focusing our efforts on those who do want a fight.

The massive military might of the US is, for the most part, a complete waste of time, money and energy.

 

Let's have a debate one on one downstairs on this subject?

 

Some form of "debate" would be lovely .. as opposed to throwing out meaningless nonsensical comments.

 

Excellent.

America's share of the global economic pie is shrinking relative to other powers. The affluence of the past is gone.

America can't afford its current military because its entitlement commitments are increasing exponentially as the Baby Boomers retire and illegal aliens and others demand benefits. That means America will have to cut the relative size of its military so that it can fund entitlements.

You can't afford what you can't pay for. And no foreign power will loan America the money it needs to maintain global reach. Imo America will have no choice but to retreat from its former commitments. In other words, entitlements are cutting America down to size.

Please state your agreement or disagreement with what I've posted and we can continue.

 

I agree with almost everything you say and partially agree with

Entitlements are only part of the problem. Medicare is funded in part by payroll contributions and part by the states.

The govornment has been putting those contributions into general revenue and spending them rather than putting them towards funding future payouts.

There is a demographic time bomb that is happening .. I agree with that and that changes need to be made to entitlements .. but will only give a relatively small savings.

Current revenue is 2.2 Trillion .. spending for 2011 is estimated at 3.8 Trillion.

"Total" military spending .. all in .. which includes stuff like war spending, homeland security .. and so on .. is in excess of 1 Trillion per year.

This is almost half our total revenue.

Average Govt worker salary "all in . including pension benefits " 120,000K

Check out how much of the time of the Police is spent on busting pot smokers and growers .. you will be astounded .. add that to the cost of keeping these folks in prison.

The list goes on ..

Entitlements are a problem but only part of the problem.

I do not see much of an impact from Illegal aliens.

 

So it has nothing to do with the trillions of dollars that we've spend invading two countries?

How about a deliberately crippled revenue stream?

Malfeasance in the financial arena leading to a financial meltdown?

These had nothing to do with our debt problems?

 

I think you meant social security. Medicare has collected far less than it has spent for many years now.

 

^^^ This ^^^

 

Both in fact but you are right .. Social security is the big one .. I was just using one as an example.

I realize that both are in deficit as well, and that both need to be revamped, but we can not balance the budget completely on the back of entitlements.

For one .. we could eliminate these programs completely and the deficit would not be reduced enough

2) we cant just eliminate social security. We made a promise .. you put in so much and we will put in so much and you will have something to fall back on in your retirement.

defaulting on that promise completely would cause pandamonium

 

We will not build such a system, because it violates 2 seperate treaties.

And they would do one of 2 things in response. Either build their own, starting a nuke in space race. Or they would launch a pre-emptive strike.

And we have had the capability to destroy satellites for decades now. Since 1985 in fact. But other then tests, it has never been used.

What makes you think we do not have "manned space technology"? Unless you think that everything from Mercury to the Space Shuttles was a fraud.

Manned capability has no bearing on the ability to put items such as weapons in space.

Nope. It would indeed need rockets.

Remember, trajectories have to be very precise when an object is re-entering the atmosphere. The idea that you just have to "kick it out" is very bad pseudoscience.

Even if the launching platform is directly overhead of your target (something that nobody would allow a space weapon to do), you still have to get it in the right attitude to re-enter the atmosphere. Otherwise, it would more then likely just burn up in the atmosphere.

Oh trust me, you would see a drone comming.

The term for an incomming threat like a drone is "ABT", or Air Breathing Threat. This covers everything from a cruise missile to a helicopter or fighter jet. They all breathe air (as opposed to a rocket which has it oxidizer self-contained in it's fuel). And they are all easily detected on conventional RADAR.

Satellites are needed to detect Ballistic Missiles. And then they detect the thermal exhaust fiven by the launch and it's ascent.

Well, let's consider the possability.

The most advanced Russian torpedo can carry only around 13k.

A 20MT warhead has a kill radius of 11 kilometers. Out to almost 20 kilometers, everything will be heavily damaged.

And that torpedo can only carry warheads under 500 lbs, much to small to have a nuke anywhere that large.

Besides, you can't launch from outside a harbor from miles away and have it sail in. No harbors I know of have straight shots from the ocean in to them. They all have sea walls and turns to break up the swells from ocean storms. Such a torpedo will impact the first time it fails a turn or hits the bottom or a ship comming in or out of the channel.

One is a purely defensive system, the other is an offensive system.

What you are saying is the same as if I told you that selling your neighbor a bullet proof vest is a threat to you, so in response you are going to sell my enemy a shotgun.

That makes absolutely no sense at all.

Besides, Russia has been selling Air Defense systems (including ABM systems) to Iran for years. These include the S-200, S-75, S-125, SA-6, as well as China with it's HQ-7.

If we have not been making huge waves and threats over this, what right does Russia have to complain when we sell similar defensive weapons to their neighbors?

Unless they plan on attacking Poland, these will do nothing.

 

No.

Negligence vs. Intent

Misfeasance not malfeasance

No.

 

Mushroom: Nope. It would indeed need rockets.

Remember, trajectories have to be very precise when an object is re-entering the atmosphere. The idea that you just have to "kick it out" is very bad pseudoscience.

I think the Russians are quite capable of getting the trajectory precise.

You would not "just" kick it out. It would not take much propellant to get a precise trajectory.

The satelite could orbit ..

.

Satellites are needed to detect Ballistic Missiles. And then they detect the thermal exhaust fiven by the launch and it's ascent.

It would not have to be 20MT .. They could easily design something.

Think outside the box.

Nuclear deterrence implies a defensive purpose.

 

Wow, quote hell here, let me see if I can make any of this out at all.

That is not the issue. There are so many variables, let me see if I can cover just a few of them.

First off, what kind of orbit is it going to have? Geocentric? Inclined? Polar? Circular? Elliptic? Syncronous? Sem-Syncronous? Geosyncrous? Geostationary? Supersyncronous? Subsyncronous? Areostationary?

I think this alone should show the dificulties just to start.

Well, for a weapons platform, the most obvious would be geosyncronous or geostationary. However, the placement of such a satellite over another nation by itself is generally considered to be a hostile act all by itself, and possibly an act of war. And as soon as it is identified, it could be shot down.

Do not expect a hostile weapons platform above another nation to remain in place for more then a few hours.

Then there is re-entry angles. I mentioned this before. The incomming warhead would have to be going at a predetermined speed, at a predetermined angle. Otherwise, it will just burn up on re-entry, or skip off into space again.

So no, it will take more then just a bit to get it to the right speed and angle.

Yes, and then other systems take over. Such as radar satellites. Even powerful ground radar systems can detect object in space once they know what to look for.

We have been tracking satellites and other orbital objects for decades.

There is "thinking outside the box", then there is "waste of time".

Before somebody would go to all the work of designing a "nuclear torpedo" to sail into a harbot, they would just find a suicide pilot or dupe and have them just sail into a harbot with such a nuke in the hold of a ship.

Much easier, much simpler, and much more guaranteed to work.

Let's see. I am a small foreign organization, and I want to find a way to kill thousands of people. I can work on making elaborate cruise missile systems, and then steal submarines to take them to my enemy. Or I can try and subvert a ship crew to take them to this nation and fire the missiles once we get into the harbor.

Or I could just train a small group to take over large jumbo jets and crash them into a bunch of buildings. After all, it is notmally not hard to find zealots who are willing to die for a cause. Be it "Liberty", "Socialism", "Equality", or "religion".

Both are "thinking outside the box". However, which of the two is most likely to actually work?

 

.

Fair enough .. It would take some doing.

I am not knowledgable enough about the specifics of re-entry but what I am certain of is that it would not be a good thing to encourage weaponization of space.

Yes, and then other systems take over. Such as radar satellites. Even powerful ground radar systems can detect object in space once they know what to look for.




There is "thinking outside the box", then there is "waste of time".

I agree. Bottom line here is that there are ways to subvert missile defense.

That we can realistically prevent such a thing should a Nation such as Russia or China wish to do it is fallacy.

Fortunately both the Russians and Chinese are not Crackpots. The leadership in the US, certainly under Bush, was more mentally unstable that either.

As such we rather than bankrupting the Country by focusing so much on this unlikely threat and focus on more real threats such as religious extremists.