• 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’

Disputatious71 said:
Specious argument since if this logic was applied to the US armed forces in general we either REALLY want to kill others and put our troops in harms way or if we do not then we should just do away with the military all together. After all do we really WANT to be doing war?
Click to expand...
George Washington discussed this with someone just like you at the very beginning of our nation's experiment in republicanism. The most effectual way to preserve the peace is to prepare for war. Weakness invites attack. Being unprepared for war just means quick defeat or horrendous casualties. Which do you prefer?
 
Flyersfan314 said:
Some of the conservatives on this thread make a good pint of preparedness. We need to keep some oversee bases open, especially in the middle east. We can reduce spending by reducing some of the projects we have going on. The decision to go with the F-35 or F-22 should have been made a long time ago. There is no reason to have both. Yes the F-35 is a better air/ground but the difference is not large enough to have both. We can cut back on personnel, most personnel don't see the front line. We do not need to have the large navy and air force that we have. We should be ready to increase it size but to have it right now is not necessary.

Technology is reducing cost through UAV and multipurpose tech like the F-22. Our military contacts are not efficient either; requirements and technology changes and a contract 20 years ago will need constant updating and more money. The faster companies are able to create an efficient tool the more they should be rewarded. Right now its the other way around where the longer it takes to create a tool the more money they request and receive due to contracts which can be open ended.

If we want to have a military budget this big and keep increasing it we need to raise taxes. Reforming mandatory spending won't be enough.
Click to expand...

Or, the government could stop making it harder for the private sector to get back to work. Just raising taxes won't work, as long as we have an anti-private sector government and the un-employment rate keeps rising.
 
The Barbarian said:
As to cutting defense spending, I believe that anything that has a nearly 600 billion dollar a year budget is capable of being cut, I wouldn't even dare to hazard a guess as to waste and fraud in handling such a $ figure, but even 5% ( which I believe to be low) would be a savings of 30 billion dollars a year.

I think anyone with half a mind, is in favor of cutting waste and fraud out of every program the US government is infused in, from welfare to our defense.
Click to expand...
I know that you already know this...but finding the waste and fraud is remarkably hard. I don't think anyone has every successfully found the waste and fraud. Ever.

Still, the smaller the number the harder fraud is to hide. Waste is a bit like beauty. It is in the eye of the beholder.
 
atrasicarius said:
They can be eliminated for the same reason tanks can be eliminated: They're completely ineffective in fighting modern wars. The only thing carpet bombing anyone will do is make us more enemies.
Click to expand...
Do you believe that we should restrict ourselves to one bomb per airframe?

We bomb as appropriate. Sometimes lots of bombs have just the right psychological effect on the enemy. More often we use one bomb, or two, to destroy one target. I prefer to let the military experts determine the right approach.
 
Polotick said:
The only war we should be involved in would be one where the US was actually threatened, not these empire building blood for oil excursions that we have seen recently. NEWSFLASH...We can no longer afford to be the world police, time to pass the baton.
Click to expand...
The Russians and the Chinese are ready to pick it up. Blood for oil notwithstanding...
 
AdamT said:
Seemed to work pretty well during WWII.
Click to expand...
Really? Do you really think so? I don't. We were largely unprepared and it took us years to get to the point where we knew what we were doing and could win. Had it not been for the Soviet Union we would not have won WWII.
We were third rate for most of that war.
 
DaveFagan said:
No problem, been lots of wars. Very profitable wars, I might add, if you are a Military Offense contractor.
Click to expand...
I prefer War Department to Department of Defense. Kick Ass and Take Names Department would be acceptable also.
 
atrasicarius said:
Well, the nukes half of it is already irrelevant because ICBM's make nuclear bombs completely redundant. As I said before, we have 14 submarines that are each capable of reducing an entire country to ashes.
Click to expand...
Once upon a time, in another life, far, far, away from here I had to get very familiar with our nuclear weapons and capabilities. The weapons we have are there to solve specific problems. The ones that are no longer there were given away for political purposes. We need to keep the remaining weapons so long as the problems they are meant to solve remain.
 
Deuce said:
Carpet bombing is made even more obsolete by precision weapons. A pack of A-10's can destroy more targets with less ordnance because you don't waste so much energy blowing up every random building in a four block area, not to mention that "doesn't mass-murder civilians" aspect.
Click to expand...
About half of the aging A-10s are on active duty. The other half are in the Reserves and National Guard squadrons.

Air operations have changed somewhat in the years since WWII and Viet-nam. We seldom "carpet bomb" except in those cases where it is appropriate. Most delivered weapons are one or two weapons to destroy one target. But I think you actually know how careful we are to prevent civilians from being killed.
 
obvious Child said:
We don't even need aircraft for this anymore. A single missile sub can destroy a hardened target with a single cruise missile. There really isn't any need for strategic bombers anymore, where I classify strategic to not include B-2s flying precision missions half way across the globe. When was the last time we carpet bombed anything? Vietnam?
Click to expand...
I am in awe of the tremendous, profoundly deep thinking on this subject. We no longer need aircraft because cruise missiles can be launched from submarines...I suppose there is no longer a need to find targets. We just know where they are. And targets no longer move around so there is no longer a need to actually put eyes on the target. And no enemy ever tries to get close to Americans any longer. So again, the requirement to adjust to the enemy, in real time, has clearly gone away.

Thank goodness for this board! We can eliminate most of our general officers, whole squadrons of aircraft, and just put more cruise missiles on submarines. And what a bargain! For $800K a pop we should use them for every purpose.

Awesome!
 
Last edited:
Mach said:
Link short-term war spending with short-term tax increases to pay for them.
We'll see how many republicans pursue sensless wars.
Click to expand...
I cannot imagine any Republican being for a senseless war.
Nor can I imagine any Democrat being for a war that furthers our national interests.
 
obvious Child said:
Iraq's army was a joke as evident by its crushing defeat in Desert Storm. 3 years later Iraq was pulverized. Anyone who thinks Iraq's military wasn't a joke has zero understanding of combat power and it's employment on the battlefield.
Click to expand...
I am in awe of your brilliance, as a strategist, as a tactician, in addition to your brilliance as an analyst. Or maybe it is much simpler to make sweeping pronouncements after the fact. Yep. That could be it.
 
Misterveritis said:
Do you agree with me that we ought to drill here, drill now? And do you also agree that the best form of power for all of our large scale fixed facility needs is nuclear power? Do you disagree with the one term Marxist president Obama on his scheme to destroy the coal industry?

Those things are crucial if we are to reduce out dependence on oil from the Middle East.
Click to expand...

Our consumption has exceeded our supply for the last 40 years. And that was with all the easy to get to oil that is now gone. Cheney and co-horts pointed this out in their call for war against Iraq. Do you realize the US alone uses 25% of the earth's oil???
 
Misterveritis said:
The Russians and the Chinese are ready to pick it up. Blood for oil notwithstanding...
Click to expand...

The Chinese have a $118 Billion dollar military budget and Russia's is even less. We spend more than 6 times what China does!
 
Misterveritis said:
I am in awe of your brilliance, as a strategist, as a tactician, in addition to your brilliance as an analyst. Or maybe it is much simpler to make sweeping pronouncements after the fact. Yep. That could be it.
Click to expand...

Only a fool or someone with an ulterior motive would claim that one of the most defenseless countries on the planet was a threat to the most powerful country on the planet.
 
Misterveritis said:
I cannot imagine any Republican being for a senseless war.
Nor can I imagine any Democrat being for a war that furthers our national interests.
Click to expand...

Catawba said:
You've never heard of the Iraq war???
Click to expand...

You ever hear about Vietnam?

card00222_fr.jpg
 
Catawba said:
Our consumption has exceeded our supply for the last 40 years. And that was with all the easy to get to oil that is now gone.
Click to expand...
Was that a yes? Drill here. Drill now? And you support far more nuclear power without all of those ridiculous rules and regulations that were intended to make it impossible to build any more plants? And o course you do not support the one term Marxist president Obama's jihad against the coal industry. Correct?

Catawba said:
Cheney and co-horts pointed this out in their call for war against Iraq. Do you realize the US alone uses 25% of the earth's oil???
Click to expand...
I would be delighted if we needed to us half. Or three-quarters. Or even all of it. So is your answer yes? Drill here and drill now?
 
Catawba said:
The Chinese have a $118 Billion dollar military budget and Russia's is even less. We spend more than 6 times what China does!
Click to expand...
And yet the Chinese are modernizing their forces with the specific intention of hegemony over the Pacific rim countries. And when the time comes they will win.
 
Catawba said:
Only a fool or someone with an ulterior motive would claim that one of the most defenseless countries on the planet was a threat to the most powerful country on the planet.
Click to expand...
I continue to stand in awe of your brilliance. You just might be the smartest person on the planet. Or maybe not.
 
Misterveritis said:
When we do that we fight the war in a "come as your are" fashion. That will cost American blood, American limbs, and American lives.

It is a far better thing to be prepared to fight the wars we must in the way we prefer to.
Click to expand...

the amazing thing is, these people were furious with Rumsfeld's comment about going to war with the military you have when the issue was armor, and why the troops went into Iraq without enough. it's like they really can't draw the connection between spending cuts in the 90's, and not having enough armor in the early 2000's.
 
cpwill said:
the amazing thing is, these people were furious with Rumsfeld's comment about going to war with the military you have when the issue was armor, and why the troops went into Iraq without enough. it's like they really can't draw the connection between spending cuts in the 90's, and not having enough armor in the early 2000's.
Click to expand...
True. Let's just wait for a war to come. Then we will get ready. These are rank amateurs. They play at knowing a thing without actually having done any serious thinking. Fortunately they are not in control. Unfortunately such people are exactly the sort who voted for the latest democratic charlatan.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1059724574 said:
You ever hear about Vietnam?

card00222_fr.jpg
Click to expand...

You going to try to tell me a majority of Congressional Republicans voted against the Vietnam war, as the majority of Democrats voted against the Iraq war?
 
Misterveritis said:
Was that a yes? Drill here. Drill now?
Click to expand...

What part of the fact that production hasn't been greater than our consumption for the last 40 years, did you not understand.

And you support far more nuclear power without all of those ridiculous rules and regulations that were intended to make it impossible to build any more plants? And o course you do not support the one term Marxist president Obama's jihad against the coal industry. Correct?
Click to expand...

I support safe nuclear power. Of course I wish we had a liberal president, but Obama will have to do until one comes along.


I would be delighted if we needed to us half. Or three-quarters. Or even all of it. So is your answer yes? Drill here and drill now?
Click to expand...

You would be happy if we used all the world's oil? Did I understand you correctly?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom