Try to reach the $450 billion threshold for military spending cuts: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/02/us/you-cut-the-defense-budget.html?ref=us I was able to make over $800 billion in cuts.
Dood, our economy is so dependent on military expenditures. That is the role of America in the new world disorder. We're no good for anything else, it's been offshored.
You would need a more complete list than this to make the cuts. It is not complete. Also there is nothing detailing the areas of waste within the military which should be the first thing looked at.
There is no mention of base closures or training programs...just alot of money the military spends is not on this list.
Yes. The New York Times is missing a plethora of other options. However, try your luck with the ones they provide you with.
303 million for me. I am not willing to let our boys get a pay cut to defend this country. I am not willing to take benefits from veterans and I am certainly not willing to lower the quality of equipment used. I would be willing to pull most of our troops home. But that wasn't on the list.
Speaking of which, whatever came of this? Oh well, 2.3 trillion lost <shrug> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml We've lost control of our nation. No doubt.
Well I would pull out the majority of troops stationed overseas on permanent bases. That would go far deeper than whats on this list. I would also eliminate our nuclear ballistic delivery systems on both bombers and subs, which isn't on their either, I would also probably close bases throughout Europe such as in Iceland and there is your savings. I would also upgrade our carrier fleet to deal with the loss of bases.
The only option for payment was a cap. That does not mean our military personnel will receive pay cuts. On the contrary, it means that any military pay increases from 2012 to 2015 would be one half percentage points less than usual.
That might cost more money in the long run because when they're sent overseas they'll require expensive air or sea transport. One thing people forget about our troops in Europe is that they are "two thirds of the way to the Middle East". Thus cutting down on time and costs to deploy them while keeping them in safe, long time reliably allied nations.
The USA is screwed. All the things i see going around today i think America may be going communist or a new world government. Obama has increased our debt by 13 trillion and maybe even more. OUR OWN STIMULUS BILL went back to the Chinese which help them out.(Because when the workers got their pay they would go to walmart and buy cheap china made stuff. Now i believe china has a monopoly of almost all things.)The worst thing i see today is all the stupid cuts (like NASA and the military). Also the government in my opinion is taking away power of the people (congress) and giving it to the president.
The key is to not need ground forces to go to the middle east. I would design the military to respond to specific threats, no more of this long term nation building. I would also eliminate the marines and all programs associated with them as their specialized duties could be absorbed by the regular army. Also there is no need for heavy tank and artillery divisions in this day and age. We should be focused more on what threats we are likely to face and not cold-war era type of conflicts. There is no reason we need troops stationed in Japan and the ones in Korea are pointless. They will be nothing more than a speedbump if the North attacks. All situations like this could be eliminated going in the trillion dollar range of savings if not higher.
There is a big difference between the active military which is government, and the defence contractors industry which is private. Cuts on military mean less for soldiers. Not less for the private contract agencies. Sounds like the media and political propaganda is trying to convince the massess, that cutting the military will solve the financial problems of the USA. Fact is the trillions spent on private contractors for the past 10 years far outpace the military spending. But then againg the Jew York times is a corporate influenced orgainzation with strong ties to keep the taxpayer paying for defense contracts.
Airpower could have provided the same results. We had far more than we needed for the job in Iraq and though it is always nice to so many different variety's of weaponry you have to way the cost against the reasonable expectations of what you need. Reducing the cost of the military in these demanding times means some stuff must be cut. We can get by without large tank or artillery divisions.
And air power once again proved itself more useful. Light tanks and mobile gun systems are superior given advances in technology.
Oh please. I take it you never heard what the Iraqi Colonel said after the war. "When we entered Kuwait, I had 30 tanks." "After three weeks of bombings, I had 24 tanks". "After 30 minutes fighting the Abrams, I had no tanks". Weeks of bombing did not come close to forcing Iraq out of Kuwait.
Potential enemies in the Middle East might not give the U.S. that choice you know. You see, while it might seem hard to understand, nation hostile to the interests of the United States don't have to fight in a way that the U.S. wants them to fight.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBG_G678Trg"]M1 Abrams Battle of 73 Easting, Gulf War 1991 - YouTube[/ame]
The most effective tank battle in the Gulf War involved 2ACR, a brigade sized element. The heavy divisions weren't flexible enough to keep up and had a logistic train miles long. Getting rid of heavy divisions is exactly right. And even since 1991, advanced wheeled tanks (the Centauro, Stryker MGS, Rookivat, etc) have shown themselves to be far more useful, especially in expeditionary warfare.
You might have a point in eliminating the heavy divisions and limiting the heavy armor role to Armored Calvary Regiments (about 5,000 troops each basically, just under a third the size of a division). But I was responding to the person above who sounded like they wanted to eliminate large armor formations entirely.
