It's time for BIG cuts in our military

Yes, there are. The most likely way to defeat a missile defense system is to either overwhelm the system with incomming targets, try to avoid detection, or to simply destroy the radars.

The first can go 2 ways. Either you send in wave after wave of missiles, with the hope that the first waves are destroyed leaving empty launchers when your later waves arrive. The other way is to launch a single massive wave, relying on the inability to target all incomming missiles to allow some to get through.

Then you have avoiding detection. This is through either stealth, or through misdirection (such as the initial assault on Afghanistan by the Soviet Union, where the planes were reporting themselves as passenger aircraft).

Then finally, you have taking out the radar. This is where High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missiles (HARM) come in. These ignore the launchers, and target the radar station. No radar, the missiles are useless.

But eliminating something because it is not perfect is rather stupid. Body Armour does not cover the entire body, yet we still use it. Air bags and seat belts do not save everybody in car crashes. Should we stop all use simply because it is not always effective?

And you have to realize, such systems are dual-purpose. All missile defense systems in use are effective against many different threats. Aircraft, helicopters, cruise missiles (nuclear and conventional) as well as ballistic missiles (nuclear and conventional). And they are not just land based, but also air and sea based.

PATRIOT is an ABM system. But it also fulfills it's original mission of being an anti-aircraft system. Same with the SM-2 and SM-3 missile systems on our ships.

 

Can you believe that Admiral Mullen actually said that if the govt. stops pays our troops their income, that they still have to go to work, what a dumb **** head. Is he crazy? How would you feel if you were told by your employer "Hey John, we've decided not to pay you anymore, but you still have to work up to 7 days a week and possibly in a hostile enviroment."
I understand that soldiers have signed a contract, however the soldiers getting paid is part of that contract! So apparently the govt. is allowed to break their end of the bargain, but not you. If the military stops paying their troops, I would be willing to bet that within 6 months of not recieving a paycheck...65% of soldiers would not show up to work anymore. The govt. just keeps screwing themselves over again and again. And unfortunatly they keep screwing us..the civilians in the process too. Plus for a soldier that is deployed, has a family back home, and not recieving a paycheck anymore, What happens? Their family loosing their house or apt, their on the street with the soldier having no way to help or protect them cause their deployed and both the family and the soldier default on all their loans which also screws their credit.
Amazing how the govt. really doesent give a rats *** about their troops. I WILL NEVER RE-ENLIST again and will try and talk everyone I know out of joining the military.
There is about 10 good things that come out of the military and about 500 bad things that come from it....you do the math. The military still hasent paid me my hazard pay for the 15 months I did in Iraq...which was over 4 years ago! Thats about $3,000 or $4,000 of money that the govt. owes me that I will never see. But dont you forget...if you owed the govt that kind of money...theyd have the cops and IRS at your door breaking it in to get that money.

 

I don't recall seeing gurranteed compensation anywhere in my contract when I signed it. As terrible as it is, soldiers are expected to do their duty, regardless of what happens. Would you expect them all to abandon their posts in a post-apocalyptic world because currency was longer valuable?

 

It won't be 6 months, more like 6 weeks if at all. When they did the same thing back in the 90's it never occurred to us to "not show up to work" because we didn't even call it work. We called it duty. I guess the indoctrination was stronger back then.

 

If you never got your hazard pay, that is your fault. You should have been in your S-1 shop screaming bloody murder within 30 days.

And there is actually no requirement that you be paid in a timely manner. If they want, they could open up base housing, and have you and your family all eat at the chow hall every day. In fact, during the budget crisis, my base did exactly that. All military and dependents were allowed to eat for free that weekend, and would have continued for as long as needed untill a budget was passed.

You obviously are young in the service, but I have seen these kinds of games going on for over 30 years now. In case you did not realize, the Military is the largest kicking bag of one of the parties. You will even have attempts to pass bills to guarantee military pay, but that party always rejects them.

So get used to it. We have a President and one house of Congress right now that see us all as nothing but pawns in a political game. And they could not care less about you or your family. To them, everybody in uniform is a moronic thug, and would be better off on welfare then working for the U$A.

 

Really these threats are just a reminder that even military members need to have money set aside for emergencies like these. We all had a warning a few months ago when the government threatened a shutdown.

Unfortunately I'm sure most members didn't take it to heart and still have almost no savings.

 

Considering that many totalitarian states have been established and backed by American operations....

 

Just because a nation or government is "Totalitarian", that does not in and of itself make it evil.

The same way, just because a nation is a "Democracy" or a "Republic", that does not in and of itself make it good.

If you believe that is wrong, I invite you to look into the French Republic and Nazi Germany.

 

Put the military to work upgrading our infrastructure - keeps them employed and productive while providing an invaluable service at a fraction of the cost our government would have to pay private contractors.

Seal our borders - isn't that what national defense is supposed to be about?

 

This isn't the 17th century. You don't push highly trained soldiers into doing construction work. That's a waste of talent and money. It would also seriously damage recruiting and the capability of the military.

 

Military needs to be out in the field training or PTing and preparing to fight and win wars. The best way to prevent the astronomical costs of war is to prepare for war. The best way to prevent a fight, is to train hard to win a tough fight. It's part of deterrence. Taxpayers investing money so that soldiers can train hard, will save themselves a whole a lot more money in the long term than what was paid to train them because deterrence prevents the much more higher, astronomical costs of actually having to fight a war because deterrence failed.

That being said, when you have a well trained military, politicians have a responsibility to use military power wisely and to not abuse military power. Some of the temptation that political leaders face is to abuse military power when they have a well trained military at their finger tips and that's a temptation that a political leader cannot succumb to. Political leaders need to know and understand the wise use of military power.

 

Have you been in the military?
They do a lot more than break things and kill people.

We certainly don't need them occupying sovereign foreign nations terrorizing people who live there at the behest of Big Oil and Foreign Interests.

 

No, because that is not the job of the US military. We are trained for very specific jobs. And maybe 0.05% for anything like what you are describing.

With my training, I can run an Infantry Platoon, guard weapons, or operate a section of PATRIOT launchers. None of these in any way qualifies me to build roads, replace outdated phone or electrical lines, or inspect dams.

No, that is not what the military is for. They can react to an invasion, but their job is not securing the borders.

You might want to look up the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 before bringing this up again. In short, it states that it is prohobited for Army and Air Force personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Navy and Marines are not covered by this act, but by seperate similar Department of Defense directives.

This is why back when Katrina happened, the President was forbidden from sending any military troops to New Orleans until the Governor expressly requested such assistance.

In fact, this is such a touchy issue with many states that President Bush requested that COngress make a change in the law, to enable this to be set aside during "major public emergencies". But the changes were almost immediately thrown out by the Supreme Court.

 

....."No, that is not what the military is for. They can react to an invasion, but their job is not securing the borders....."

So basically, until there is an invasion, or a need to invade another country, the military just sits there eats, maybe keep up its training, and collect a salary.

 

How many times have we heard American politicians justify some form of "action" against another state simply because they are operated under a "Totalitarian Regime" , whereas the USA is supposed to be some form of "Liberal Democracy". Yeah, we should bomb em because they hate our freedom.

 

Basically until there is a fire, the fire crews eat, maybe keep up their training and collect a salary.

It is one of those things you are glad to have when you need them, but they seem like a waste when you don't.

 

For those scare little people who think the US military should be bloated and dispersed all over the world...just in case...

You are generally the same people who howl about the deficit.
Look at this:


I don't know about you, but it appears to me that there is allot of room for "pruning" back.

 

Yeah, if the USA actually made significant spending on actual "Defence" rather than "Power Projection" Spending maybe, just maybe 9-11 would have been thwarted. Remember that on 9-11, the Pentagon was hit, not just WTC's. A nation that borrows and spends on its military what the rest of the world combined spends failed to stop a bunch of knife wielding terrorists from attacking its supposed Military Nerve center and from killing over 2000 of its citizens. How silly is that? Incompetence of leadership or Wilful Negligence?

 

You're silly for believing that conventional dominance equates to an ability to stop terrorists. It's not a zero sum game. You're probably one of the people who think counter-insurgencys can be defeated by conventional dominance. The military could have done very little to stop 9/11.....look to the FBI or CIA. Defense and intelligence are very gray areas where it's impossible to plan for and account for every possibility. Your comment is as silly as saying if we give the NYPD 10 billion dollars then 100% of crime BETTER BE STOPPED! It simply doesn't work that way.

Also, power projection is a very credible way of providing defense. When was the last time any foreign troops came even remotely close to threatening the U.S. mainland?

 

Our interest are HERE. Our big business interests are everywhere else.

 

We can't live with our heads under the pillow. Also, "big business interests" as you describe them are also your interests. "Big business interests" are required to propser in today's globalized economy. Our power projection capabilties help to ensure that the global economy can run.

 

For who's benefit are these military expenditures?

Certainly not for working class Americans who's tax money protects multinationals who make profits for a few CEO's and board members while moving jobs out of the country.

Since WWII there has been no military action that was justified by our need for self defense. Our wars have been for the economic advantage of a few of our richest manipulators.

 

Working class Americans own those massive corporations. Their 401ks, IRAs, pension funds, and stock portfolios make up the majority of corporate equity in America.

What CEOs have benefited from Iraq/Afghanistan? You think a few contractors like Haliburton are behind a trillion dollar war? Nope, American businesses, outside of a few contractors, have not benefited from these wars. You're just touting the cliche anti war line.

 

Working class Americans don't own much. Not when 1% of the population owns more than half of all stocks. That doesn't leave much to spread out over the remaining millions of us.

There are 100,000 contractors in Afghanistan right now. Who knows how many in Iraq. The Iraq invasion was 100% a war for profit. There is no other reason.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2009/08/17/daily62.html?page=all

2008 Was the financial crisis. The bursting of housing bubble. Looks like some people did really well in middle of the crisis. Theres an expression i've heard before - "Robbing a house, while its under fire". So much for American middle class.