• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

‘Pentagon’s Worst Nightmare’

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,990
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
During a decade of warfare, the Pentagon mostly had its way with budgets, as
Congress was reluctant to turn down many spending requests for troops in the
field. There was billions here for IED-detection and billions there for weapons
like the F-35 joint strike fighter, the Virginia class of
submarines, or the Predator drone.

And while the Pentagon was just beginning to trim its spending over the last
year, the debt deal approved by Congress this week raises the
possibility of steeper cuts between $350 billion and $800 billion over the next
decade. And that has left even the most veteran Pentagon budget watchers
surprised.

Nearly everyone in Washington, including Panetta, has known for some time
that the defense budget would be cut: al Qaeda is now vanquished, or nearly so,
as Americans learned recently from White House officials, and
troops are coming home from Afghanistan. Analysts believe the defense cuts for
the short term will be modest, and that cuts over the next decade or so may
sound nasty, but they will be determined by the next president and consequently
may never be enacted.

‘Pentagon’s Worst Nightmare’ - Yahoo! News

Well - I support efforts to quell the beast and downgrade things. I don't think it's as dramatic as people are making it out to be.
 
This reminded me of a picture I saw...
Obama%2BDefense%2BCuts.jpg
 
Defense, along with entitlements, need to reduce themselves by at least 1/3rd over the next decade. We do not need war time level spending as the norm for our defense budget. Its not sustainable, nor intelligent, nor fiscally responsible, nor even necessary and would produce an atmosphere and beuracracy of waste as we move farther from the ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will however be a slow trickle in a larger budget if entitlements aren't cut along side with it.
 
Defense, along with entitlements, need to reduce themselves by at least 1/3rd over the next decade. We do not need war time level spending as the norm for our defense budget. Its not sustainable, nor intelligent, nor fiscally responsible, nor even necessary and would produce an atmosphere and beuracracy of waste as we move farther from the ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will however be a slow trickle in a larger budget if entitlements aren't cut along side with it.

Our armed forces have been cut in half over the past two decades. If we decrease it by another third, what will be left?

All these cuts will cost lives.
 
Our armed forces have been cut in half over the past two decades. If we decrease it by another third, what will be left?

All these cuts will cost lives.

Not if we pull our ass out of the Middle East.
 
Not if we pull our ass out of the Middle East.

What about the next war that comes along?...and yes...there will be another one. It would be idiotic not to mention very dangerous to assume that there won't be.
 
‘Pentagon’s Worst Nightmare’ - Yahoo! News

Well - I support efforts to quell the beast and downgrade things. I don't think it's as dramatic as people are making it out to be.

"Analysts believe the defense cuts for
the short term will be modest, and that cuts over the next decade or so may
sound nasty, but they will be determined by the next president and consequently
may never be enacted."

Why am I not surprised? I bet when a republican is elected, they'll beef the spending back up... :roll:
 
"Analysts believe the defense cuts for
the short term will be modest, and that cuts over the next decade or so may
sound nasty, but they will be determined by the next president and consequently
may never be enacted."

Why am I not surprised? I bet when a republican is elected, they'll beef the spending back up... :roll:

Yes - that' actually a very frustrating thing per our government: they give long-term projections (good or bad) but there's never any assurance that they'll stick.

Like: I want to cull excessive spending (I think a lot of people do) - as long as it's done carefully and with a well-thought out plan. But what's the point of really trying when in just two years the tide will shift and everyone will be onto something new.

Change sin government are like fashion trends.
 
What about the next war that comes along?...and yes...there will be another one. It would be idiotic not to mention very dangerous to assume that there won't be.

when that war comes, then we spend money like we are in a war... simple as that
 
What about the next war that comes along?...and yes...there will be another one. It would be idiotic not to mention very dangerous to assume that there won't be.

deal with that when/if it happens. for now you could always take a break from spreading "freedom and democracy" when it suits.

think of all the money you will save in the meantime.
 
Our military spending is greater than the rest of the world's military spending combined. It's absurd.
 
I'm in favor of defense cuts by decreasing it to its 2/3 size.
However, a much more serious issue in the US military is not about spendng cuts, but about how to cut waste that occurs in truckloads in the forms of cost overruns, etc...
If the defense budget is fully reformed, it would be like cutting the budget to 1/2 of its size while still maitaining every troop, every piece of equipment, everything but those civilian bureaucrats that have jobs giving them lavish bonuses every time a military personnel does a better job, and the bureaucrat receives the credit, hence the bonus
 
Our military spending is greater than the rest of the world's military spending combined. It's absurd.

Hence the reason the rest of the world thinks twice before ****ing with us and the reason we can kick the crap out of a million man army, with and army half that size, in a week and only take 100 KIA's.

Absurd? Not hardly, sir!
 
Hence the reason the rest of the world thinks twice before ****ing with us and the reason we can kick the crap out of a million man army, with and army half that size, in a week and only take 100 KIA's.

Absurd? Not hardly, sir!

Iraq's army was a joke, and even then it took us five years to effectively secure the country. Afghanistan's army is practically in the stone age and we're not exactly putting the fear of God into them.

Our army was built to fight the Cold War -- not the spot conflicts we're facing. If something really bad crops up there is always the option of instituting a draft.
 
Hence the reason the rest of the world thinks twice before ****ing with us and the reason we can kick the crap out of a million man army, with and army half that size, in a week and only take 100 KIA's.

Absurd? Not hardly, sir!

Afganistan - October 7th 2001 - August 3rd 2011.

9 years, 9 months 28 days.

still there.

hardly an ass kicking.
 
I'm in favor of defense cuts by decreasing it to its 2/3 size.
However, a much more serious issue in the US military is not about spendng cuts, but about how to cut waste that occurs in truckloads in the forms of cost overruns, etc...
If the defense budget is fully reformed, it would be like cutting the budget to 1/2 of its size while still maitaining every troop, every piece of equipment, everything but those civilian bureaucrats that have jobs giving them lavish bonuses every time a military personnel does a better job, and the bureaucrat receives the credit, hence the bonus

I bet you wouldn't be saying that if the KPA had just crossed the wire at Yujeong and were cruising down highway 3, through Jeongok and Dongducheon, headed straight for downtown Seoul, in the west and another column in the east going down highway 55, with their sights set on Taegu and then Pusan.

Let's face facts, bro, the ROKs won't be able to stop them, because when the Kocoms cross the 38th Parallel, they're not coming by the thousands; they're going come by the millions.
 
Iraq's army was a joke, and even then it took us five years to effectively secure the country. Afghanistan's army is practically in the stone age and we're not exactly putting the fear of God into them.

Iraq's army was a joke, because our army is so bad ass. I bet the Iranian army didn't think the Iraqi army was a joke.

Our army was built to fight the Cold War -- not the spot conflicts we're facing.

Not anymore it's not. The United States military is the most proficient military in the world at fighting an uncoventional force. No other army in the world has the level of experience that we have



If something really bad crops up there is always the option of instituting a draft.

That was the attitude during the 30's. We lost nearly a half million soldiers, in less than four years because of that attitude.
 
I'm in favor of defense cuts by decreasing it to its 2/3 size.
However, a much more serious issue in the US military is not about spendng cuts, but about how to cut waste that occurs in truckloads in the forms of cost overruns, etc...
If the defense budget is fully reformed, it would be like cutting the budget to 1/2 of its size while still maitaining every troop, every piece of equipment, everything but those civilian bureaucrats that have jobs giving them lavish bonuses every time a military personnel does a better job, and the bureaucrat receives the credit, hence the bonus

I bet you wouldn't be saying that if the KPA was cruising down highway 3, towards downtown Seoul.
 
Our armed forces have been cut in half over the past two decades. If we decrease it by another third, what will be left?

All these cuts will cost lives.

That's so undeniably incorrect and patently false I don't know where to begin.

In 1990 Defense spending was roughly just under 6% of GDP. "Two Decades" after it was just over 6% GDP. Even at its absolute lowest, around 98/99, it was still solidly more than 3% GDP so was not "half".

How about in straight dollars adjusted for inflation? In 1990 we would've been just shy of 500 Billion. In 2010 we would've been just over 800 Billion. That's not cutting in half, that's raising it by more than half and is actually double what it was at its lowest, which would've been a shade under 400 Billion in 98/99.

How about just flat out dollars, not even adjusted? You go from just over $300 billion to just over $600 billion.

You got numbers saying otherwise, please present them. But from what I've seen you're math isn't just wrong...its devastatingly wrong depending how you look at it. Best case scenario is that over the past 2 decades we maintained roughly the same amount of average defense spending as a percent of GDP.

As I said, I'd be happy to see numbers to the contrary, but right now it looks like you're just factually horribly incorrect. Also, interesting note. Cutting it by 1/3rd would bring it down to roughly 4% GDP. Still not close to "half" of its high of the past two decades of just over 6, and still higher than 1996 - 2002.

link
 
Last edited:
Afganistan - October 7th 2001 - August 3rd 2011.

9 years, 9 months 28 days.

still there.

hardly an ass kicking.

By that logic, we lost the battle of Iwo Jima, too.
 
That's so undeniably incorrect and patently false I don't know where to begin.

In 1990 Defense spending was roughly just under 6% of GDP. "Two Decades" after it was just over 6% GDP. Even at its absolute lowest, around 98/99, it was still solidly more than 3% GDP so was not "half".

How about in straight dollars adjusted for inflation? In 1990 we would've been just shy of 500 Billion. In 2010 we would've been just over 800 Billion. That's not cutting in half, that's raising it by more than half and is actually double what it was at its lowest, which would've been a shade under 400 Billion in 98/99.

How about just flat out dollars, not even adjusted? You go from just over $300 billion to just over $600 billion.

You got numbers saying otherwise, please present them. But from what I've seen you're math isn't just wrong...its devastatingly wrong depending how you look at it. Best case scenario is that over the past 2 decades we maintained roughly the same amount of average defense spending as a percent of GDP.

As I said, I'd be happy to see numbers to the contrary, but right now it looks like you're just factually horribly incorrect.

link

You can throw up all the GDP numbers you want, but I prefer to reside in the real world.

The United States military fields half the combat power it did in 1990. You can through those GDP numbers in the enemy's face and he'll shoot your ass. You'll probably die, because the defense cuts didn't allow enough money for dustoff assets to evac you from the battlefield.
 
You can throw up all the GDP numbers you want, but I prefer to reside in the real world.

The United States military fields half the combat power it did in 1990. You can through those GDP numbers in the enemy's face and he'll shoot your ass. You'll probably die, because the defense cuts didn't allow enough money for dustoff assets to evac you from the battlefield.

It's hard to understand exactly what you are debating, because your posts are not very clear...
 
It's hard to understand exactly what you are debating, because your posts are not very clear...

You think that our service members are parasites, so I don't expect you to get it, anyway. The more of them that die on the battlefield, the fewer of them that we have to support when they come home. Right?
 
You think that our service members are parasites, so I don't expect you to get it, anyway. The more of them that die on the battlefield, the fewer of them that we have to support when they come home. Right?

:roll:

Anything else you'd like to tell me that I believe and think about other people?
 
Not if we pull our ass out of the Middle East.

excellent idea.


um.



so, how do you propose rebuilding the world economy after it collapses following the implementation of your excellent idea?
 
Back
Top Bottom