Pentagon Plans To Cut U.S. Military to pre World War II Levels!!

Yet the accounts from your cousins trump oldfella's? How is that reasonable?

I'll disregard my cousins accounts and oldfella's simultaneously.

Fair enough?

Who said A-10 Warthogs? I loaded ordnance (30 mil rounds, 2.75 WP rockets, missiles, bombs, etc.) on A-10's in the Air Force in the 80's.
In 2003 (while in the Army) I saw A-10's bring the noise/funk to a power plant (or some big ass factory complex) unleashing the fury and performing their signature move....letting loose of their bombs then turning 90 degrees to the ground then doing a 180 at full speed - which is basically a loop-de-loop but parallel to the ground. Google a bit to see what they are capable of - it's insane!
And when that 30 mil burps on some armored vehicles, all you see is sparks and twisted metal. Imagine a dozen guys shooting 12 gauges point blank at a couple of soda cans, then triple it.
It's the pinnacle of performance art.

I always loved A-10s. During the Cold War groups of 2-4 routinely made low passes (and sometimes circled) my parents house and farm.

Never failed to scare the hell out of the cows.

IIRC, the most common thing to get cut from the military budget always relates to "readiness". That is cuts in training time, fuel, spare parts for maintenance, and of course munitions.

The basic reason being that cutting those things impacts military contractors and employers the least

Don't discount anyone's account! Everybody has a different viewpoint depending on their job. Our unit could only see our little corner of the fishbowl. We had to watch Fox/CNN just to find out how the war was going! Matter of fact we had to tell our company commander the war started after hearing it from our wives on the phone. Our embedded reporter had to call her news office Italy to find out why the road was blocked and we were stuck on the side of the road. Turns out there was a big ass battle a couple of miles away so we had to move over so the tanks and grunts could get through.
That's how chaotic war gets.

No. We know oldfella actually served, we know nothing of your cousins.

Exactly! These days combined joint-forces operations are the newest doctrine. We have portable forward based operations centers that can manage artillery, air combat, ground forces, everything all at once.
I work with them every day. Ask a grunt pinned down by enemy ground forces if they appreciate the A-10's, for example.

Yeah. Two of my buddies in the USAF just got RiF'd. One was a pilot. But, his RiF was a long time coming because they simply don't fly anymore. His F-15E Squadron is budgeted at 55% readiness. For those playing the home game that means:

Typical F-15E Squadron: 24 Aircraft

Actually ready for combat: 13
Could, theoretically, be readied for combat within two weeks: 7
Birds that are stripped for parts that simply aren't budgeted to be bought: 4

Only 13 of 24 Pilots are actually flying on any given month. When my buddy RiF'd, his bird simply had no engines. He was one of the hanger queens that month so his engines had been put into other aircraft. They'd have to take two engines out of other planes next month when his plane comes off it's month's rotation. Further, the last time they did an "emergency" readiness exercise they attempted to forward deploy the 13 active planes to South Korea. 8 of them had to abort and return to base before reaching the point of no return due to mechanical faults.

So, relying on the USAF? Yeah. Good luck with that.

Sure... Just like you also thought about how such things would totally never be used on Americans, right?

I seem to remember an F-15 squadron late last year that due to sequester cuts, all they could afford to do was tow the fighters around once a week to the tires wouldn't get flat and run the engines up to power once a month.

It said the pilots assigned were worried that it would be more than six months (I think) before they got to actually fly again which means lots of them would lose flight certification.

Sure seems like a back asswards way of trying to save money out of the federal budget.

So let them. It's not our place, our problem. If the nations want help, they better be sincere about it, and frankly, our adventures in the ME haven't endeared us to them.

"Stop helping us!" sounds about right.

Well with all this cost cutting if we do get involved in a major land war it's going to be fun watching all the ones supporting the cuts sending their kids off to war after their kids get drafted. Cannon fodder until the industry can get going........

Right now we have an all volunteer force that is being cut to the bare-bones and is being abused by politics on all sides.

I suggested conflicts where the U.S. has direct economic, political or strategic interests that could be severely damaged if we did nothing.

There are 100,000 American civilians living and working around Seoul, South Korea. And SK is one of our major trading partners.
Iran on the warpath in the Gulf region would send global oil prices skyrocketing regardless of whether we imported any from there.
Egypt could shut down the Suez Canal which is a vital waterway for both military and commercial traffic of the U.S.
And I'm not even going to bother explaining a revitalized Russia.............

Okay, Miss Cleo.

Here's the thing about the US having to build up to prepare for another major ground war.

SO WOULD ANYONE WHO WE WOULD FIGHT A MAJOR GROUND WAR AGAINST!

Seriously, that shit doesn't come out of no where. Who would we fight on the ground that would pose a threat? China? In what scenario do we end up in a ground war with them? All scenarios are naval/air. Russia? Have you been paying attention to how much all their former subject states hate them? Did you see how badly they got fucked up fighting GEORGIA?!?! A country on their border, where they controlled the high ground AND IS SMALLER IN POPULATION THAN METRO ATLANTA. And that was with all the best Georgian troops in Iraq and with almost no Air Force to speak off. Still, using some Ukrainian SAMs they were able to shoot down 7 Russian planes and deny the Russians airspace access up until the ceasefire. Only way the Russians could deal with the SAMS was send in ground troops in to capture them, their planes couldn't do it. We wouldn't have the problem of no Air Force, plus our Air Defense Artillery is a step or two above some Ukrainian upgrades to 20 year old Soviet tech. Yeah Russia could totally professionalize (they're still conscription based) and modernize their military, then somehow take over some of those former subjects that hate them, convince Europe (who are desperately building pipelines to cut the Russians out of the NG network) to stay out, and then yeah, the US could end up in a ground war with Russia. But that shit ain't happening tomorrow.

Here's the thing......

The fools running the country, the media, and people in general in this country will totally ignore others building up. Until it's too late.

Seeeeeeeerrrrrriously? "Psh! Mo fackah, you only saw it with your own eyes! I read it on Wikipedia!"



(And now I know why that smiley is named for you...)

Given the fanatical, hysterical devotion to all things military amongst a large proportion of the population and establishment, you have got to be fucking kidding.

http://pgpf.org/Chart-Archive/0053_defense-comparison





Americans, please stop shitting yourselves. Your military spending is greater than the next ten biggest spenders combined.

The budget could be cut in half and still would be the biggest in the world by a large margin.

America is in zero danger of being invaded by foreign powers. Even were the budget to be halved.

If I were POTUS I would cut at least 150 billion from that, maybe even 200 billion, and redirect it into the space program. And contrary to the ridiculous caterwauling that would then certainly issue forth from certain quarters, this would not be irresponsible and would not endanger US national security.

For once, MF makes a reasonable argument. Zombie, CaptainX, and Dayton: when you make Midnight Funeral look sane, you've really got to take a step back to reevaluate your position.

Once again, the stat MF cites is largely meaningless. What means more is

1) How a budget is spent.
2) The obligations the U.S. has.

and saying the U.S. "faces no threat of invasion" is completely meaningless as well. The U.S. hasn't been threatened by a serious invasion in 200 years. Very little of the U.S. military is oriented to protect the United States. Almost all U.S. forces are expeditionary meant to be used to protect and advance U.S. interests and that of its allies overseas.

Given the size and nature of the U.S. you cannot defend the U.S. by waiting until an enemy actually threatens. It would be like trying to play defense in football by allowing your opponent to get to your five yard line before reacting.

I for one do not like MF's stat at all.

If China and Russia and the others decided to band together against US interests then they would be able to match us.

To ensure against this threat we need a budget of AT LEAST $10 trillion. I guess at least that much is being wasted on food stamps and other welfare right now.
I would like to see some serious money put into researching photon torpedos as well.

But.

There is no point in just spending more money. We need to make sure our army is battle-ready. That means a war every few years to defend our interests. 10,000 casualties is more than an acceptable price. Something I keep telling my students as I encourage them to enlist.

You're either out of your fucking mind or trolling. I still can't figure out which one it is.

Fear has ruled American politics since your country was founded. It's time to grow up and realize that your government/big business/media machine has vested interests in keeping you all fearful.

18th century - The British are coming!

19th century - The British are still coming!

20th century - The Commies are coming!

21st century - The Muslims are coming!

Check the username again, hoss.

Understandable mistake, though.

I believe that NotDayton is better than the original.

Hey if you want the world to burn then just say it.

I've got no problem with bringing home all the military and telling the rest of the world, especially Europe, "it's your problem". But if you want America to play games overseas then we've got to have the firepower to back it up.