• 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!

US military cutbacks

Higgins86

Higgins86

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2011
Messages
18,113
Reaction score
10,118
Location
England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
BBC News - Obama unveils new strategy for 'leaner' US military



This is an interesting move from Obama and one that I agree with to a degree. I agree that the US should spend less money on foreign wars and try and should switch the focus to the economy my only problem is how can you cutback and then switch focus to Asia.

"Obama said in November on a visit to Canberra, Australia that the Asia-Pacific was now a top priority for the US. That speech was seen as a challenge to the rising regional power of China."
China have increased their defence budget significantly for the past 5 years and you are not going to challenge them by decreasing the size of the military and poking China is only going to make it worse. Either cut the budget and bring back the troops and concentrate on domestic policy or challenge China which is it going to be?
 
Higgins86 said:
BBC News - Obama unveils new strategy for 'leaner' US military



This is an interesting move from Obama and one that I agree with to a degree. I agree that the US should spend less money on foreign wars and try and should switch the focus to the economy my only problem is how can you cutback and then switch focus to Asia.

"Obama said in November on a visit to Canberra, Australia that the Asia-Pacific was now a top priority for the US. That speech was seen as a challenge to the rising regional power of China."
China have increased their defence budget significantly for the past 5 years and you are not going to challenge them by decreasing the size of the military and poking China is only going to make it worse. Either cut the budget and bring back the troops and concentrate on domestic policy or challenge China which is it going to be?
Click to expand...

Obama is not going to threaten China and China isn't going to be a threat very soon.

Also, it should be noted that the Pentagon is going to cut its budget by doing less spending on the Army and the Marine Corps. Much less spending cuts will be applied to the Navy and the Air Force. This is so that the U.S. can maintain global power projection while cutting costs.

Most of our intervention with China can be done by the Navy, so it makes sense to cut spending by reducing soldiers and marines. It's only if the **** hits the fan that we'll need to increase the number of soldiers and marines again, and if that happens we have a group of very experienced veterans that we can recall if we need to.
 
samsmart said:
Obama is not going to threaten China and China isn't going to be a threat very soon.

Also, it should be noted that the Pentagon is going to cut its budget by doing less spending on the Army and the Marine Corps. Much less spending cuts will be applied to the Navy and the Air Force. This is so that the U.S. can maintain global power projection while cutting costs.

Most of our intervention with China can be done by the Navy, so it makes sense to cut spending by reducing soldiers and marines. It's only if the **** hits the fan that we'll need to increase the number of soldiers and marines again, and if that happens we have a group of very experienced veterans that we can recall if we need to.
Click to expand...


what makes you say that China will not be a threat in the future?
 
Higgins86 said:
what makes you say that China will not be a threat in the future?
Click to expand...

Because so much of the Chinese military is used to maintain domestic security that it cannot project substantial military power without decreasing the government's authoritarianism.

So the Chinese Communist Party has a choice. It can either increase the freedoms and liberties available to its citizenry and free up the military for power projection abroad or it can maintain its stranglehold on the Chinese people but be unable to become a global military power. It cannot do both.

Also, the PRC Navy has yet to really develop itself as an effective rival to the US Navy.

So I think that in the near term there isn't much to worry from China. Sure, the PRC may become a major threat in the future, but I don't think it will in the near future. So we should spend the money to prepare for that when that becomes a more likely scenario.
 
our military is too big and too costly.

its time to slim things down. fight smarter...not harder.
 
Thunder said:
our military is too big and too costly.

its time to slim things down. fight smarter...not harder.
Click to expand...
You read that in a book?
 
we should honor our commitments to veterans, and we should bring troops home and nation build here.
 
Not even close to the cuts that are needed. We will still be spending as much as the next top 10 spending countries combined.

Too bad we don't have a liberal candidate in the running for President.
 
I don't get the **** why people are so worried about the cuts.
China is decades away from achieving what the US has already gotten right now. Even with hundreds of billions in cuts, the US will still have a defense budget that is bigger than the next 10 nations combined. Russia has proven itself inept in Georgia. Iran is far back from China. South Korean can handle North Korea alone, except for very high civilian casualties and damages, which can't be avoided even with US intervention (DMZ artillery).
Sure, they will leave their marks, but it's like comparing a small cut on an athelete, then complaining how overweight kids might catch him/her up in sports.
 
Stands to reason. Iraq done, Libya done, Afghanistan, starting to wind down, osama dead. Declare victory and get our ass out of there.:2wave:
 
Higgins86 said:
BBC News - Obama unveils new strategy for 'leaner' US military



This is an interesting move from Obama and one that I agree with to a degree. I agree that the US should spend less money on foreign wars and try and should switch the focus to the economy my only problem is how can you cutback and then switch focus to Asia.

"Obama said in November on a visit to Canberra, Australia that the Asia-Pacific was now a top priority for the US. That speech was seen as a challenge to the rising regional power of China."
China have increased their defence budget significantly for the past 5 years and you are not going to challenge them by decreasing the size of the military and poking China is only going to make it worse. Either cut the budget and bring back the troops and concentrate on domestic policy or challenge China which is it going to be?
Click to expand...
I have a problem with these cuts because this president and congress won’t cut any social programs but they’ll take a meat cleaver to our national security. There are more cuts coming for the military, to the tune of another trillion dollars, while costly new government agencies are being created and funded at breakneck speeds and congress does victory laps after passing a 60 day tax cut bill.
 
GPS_Flex said:
I have a problem with these cuts because this president and congress won’t cut any social programs but they’ll take a meat cleaver to our national security. There are more cuts coming for the military, to the tune of another trillion dollars, while costly new government agencies are being created and funded at breakneck speeds and congress does victory laps after passing a 60 day tax cut bill.
Click to expand...

"Meat cleaver".........LOL! We will still be spending 3 times whats needed to meet the Constitutional requirement for National Defense, after the so-called cuts. It makes sense to cut our most wasteful spending first, but this is not nearly enough. Ron Paul has it right on National Defense.
 
Catawba said:
"Meat cleaver".........LOL! We will still be spending 3 times whats needed to meet the Constitutional requirement for National Defense, after the so-called cuts. It makes sense to cut our most wasteful spending first, but this is not nearly enough. Ron Paul has it right on National Defense.
Click to expand...

"Constitutional requirement"? What would that be, pray tell?
 
Thunder said:
our military is too big and too costly.

its time to slim things down. fight smarter...not harder.
Click to expand...

"but...but...but...massive government spending will improve the economy!"
 
apdst said:
"Constitutional requirement"? What would that be, pray tell?
Click to expand...

I'll give you a hint, I named it in the post you just responded to.
 
GPS_Flex said:
I have a problem with these cuts because this president and congress won’t cut any social programs but they’ll take a meat cleaver to our national security. There are more cuts coming for the military, to the tune of another trillion dollars, while costly new government agencies are being created and funded at breakneck speeds and congress does victory laps after passing a 60 day tax cut bill.
Click to expand...

But the reason why defense spending is being cut but social programs aren't is because defense spending is so bloated that it merits it. I mean congressmen funding jet engines that the Air Force doesn't want because their manufacture provides his district or state with jobs.

We need to cut military spending and force the Pentagon to be much more efficient in how it spends money. Because there's a lot of waste there.
 
samsmart said:
But the reason why defense spending is being cut but social programs aren't is because defense spending is so bloated that it merits it. I mean congressmen funding jet engines that the Air Force doesn't want because their manufacture provides his district or state with jobs.

We need to cut military spending and force the Pentagon to be much more efficient in how it spends money. Because there's a lot of waste there.
Click to expand...

We do and that will be good as long as politicians don't take this money and simply create new ways to waste it.
 
Yeah, yeah, cut spending while bulding another canoe?

USS GERALD R. FORD: A Close Look At The Single Most Expensive Piece Of Military Hardware Ever

Read more: A close look at the USS Gerald R. Ford
 
1Perry said:
We do and that will be good as long as politicians don't take this money and simply create new ways to waste it.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of truth in that.
 
When your military spending is more than that of the next ten countries in line, then even halving it still leaves you spending much more than your nearest potential threats.
 
You are lying to yourself if you call this a cut. It is a spending slow down. The defense budget with the propossed spending changes will still increase over the next decade.
 
I'm all for the cuts. Cut, cut, cut. I just find it ironic that liberals are so behind it when, in the same breath, they bemoan that any cuts in spending will hurt the economy and cost Americans jobs. Using the "greater than the next top 10 combined" argument seems disingenuous when insisting that other spending be measured as a % of GDP and military spending be measured in nominal dollars.

Military % of GDP.jpg

I agree with samsmart that it's smart to cut the Army and Marine Corps first. I'm no expert on military strategy but it seems to me that in the age when we can put a bomb in someone's office from a drone at 80,000 feet that there is no need to continue supporting an infrastructure designed for outdated warfare.
 
I'm all for the cuts. Cut, cut, cut. I just find it ironic that liberals are so behind it when, in the same breath, they bemoan that any cuts in spending will hurt the economy and cost Americans jobs.
Click to expand...

Because the alternative is cuts in services that help everyday citizens. If there is a choice between guns and butter liberals come down on the side of butter.

Using the "greater than the next top 10 combined" argument seems disingenuous when insisting that other spending be measured as a % of GDP and military spending be measured in nominal dollars.
Click to expand...
Other spending is internal and when the economy and GDP expand it's assumed more resources are needed. Military spending is how we compare outselves to other countries. Just because North Korea spends more as a % of their GDP in no way are they beating us or close to beating us in the arms race.
 
I hope it is done slowly because I don't think the economy would react well to a lot of soldiers suddenly looking for private sector work. We may cut military costs only to increase unemployment/welfare costs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom