Page 24 of 31 FirstFirst ... 142223242526 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 301

Thread: The US Military on the cheap. How would you do it?

  1. #231
    Sage
    Oozlefinch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    State of Jefferson
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    12,704

    Re: The US Military on the cheap. How would you do it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tlrmln View Post
    The first thing I read in the link you provided was the following: "To be eligible, a military member must have six or more years of active duty, and less than 20 years," which kind of throws a ton of water on a large portion of your claim. The page also has a reference to discharges during a downsizing of the military, which indicates that the military CAN in fact discharge people at will. So you'll have to forgive me if I no longer take your word for the rest of your claims. Do you have a citation for you claim that the military cannot discharge members at-will?
    And what you have completely missed is that these individuals were not even discharged!

    With the exception of those separated for medical reasons, all of those were individuals who had already completed their term of service, and were denied enlisting for another term.

    None of them were just discharged because they needed to cut numbers.

    Sorry, you failed again.

    When it comes time to downsize, the military does not go around discharging people. There is no need to do that, they simply retain less in service and recruit less and let attrition reduce the numbers naturally.

    Sorry, you can not prove a negative. It is you that has to come up with a citation that says that they can discharge people at will.

    So come on bubba, that should be easy to do, right? You are the one making that claim, it is up to you to validate that claim.
    War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. - John Stuart Mill

  2. #232
    Sage
    Oozlefinch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    State of Jefferson
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    12,704

    Re: The US Military on the cheap. How would you do it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fledermaus View Post
    Last time I checked there is indeed a contract between the service member and the government. At least for enlisted personnel.

    I ran into this when I reenlisted with an option to stay at my duty station for two years after reenlistment. The Marines tried to move me one year into my contract and I took it to our legal officer. He called Washington and effectively said if they broke the contract then I had the option of walking out a civilian, with my bonus intact. CMC then relented.

    As to the time in service thing. An initial enlistment is usually between four and six years. After the six year point they have committed to a second tour. The attrition rate is from 50-70% for first termers..
    And in more recent years, they have often been changing how people serve, so a great many nowadays actually serve more than 6 years on active duty.

    For a lot of more specialized training, the military requires 6 year initial entry contracts. Things like computers, electronics, RADAR maintenance, and a lot of others you just can not get with a 3-4 year contract, you need to serve for 6 years. And on top of that, they are no longer counting the time individuals serve in their basic training and AIT as part of that time! The "6 year clock" does not start until after their training is complete.

    That means that when they finish, they actually have closer to 6.5 years or more in.

    I know a lot of people that were shocked at this change in the 2010s. They had not read their contracts carefully enough, and simply were not aware that the term of contract was actually for their full active service, training was not included. So guys going in August 2007 were finding out that their discharges were not in August 2013, but in February 2014.

    So you still have the point that an individual has to choose to not stay in to get those payments. This is why when I was counseling younger soldiers coming towards the end of their enlistment, I always told them to indicate that they were intending to stay in the military. This way if they got caught in a RIF, they would get a check on the way out the door.
    War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. - John Stuart Mill

  3. #233
    Advisor BahamaBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    461

    Re: The US Military on the cheap. How would you do it?

    Much of the expense borne by the US military is due to being the world's policeman. We have bases in Germany to protect them from Russia. We have bases in Korea to protect them from North Korea and China. We have bases all over the Middle East to ensure stability and oil flow to our allies. We have bases in Africa to combat terrorists groups. In fact the US has about 800 bases in 80 different countries. There are also an estimated 138,000 military personnel and contractors based on these bases.

    In my opinion, Germany, Japan, Korea and many of these other countries no longer need our direct protection. I realize that not all these bases can be closed but many could be. We could also sell or commercially develop many of the assets associated with these bases.

  4. #234
    Professor Glitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Alaska (61.5N, -149W)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,621

    Re: The US Military on the cheap. How would you do it?

    Quote Originally Posted by BahamaBob View Post
    Much of the expense borne by the US military is due to being the world's policeman. We have bases in Germany to protect them from Russia. We have bases in Korea to protect them from North Korea and China. We have bases all over the Middle East to ensure stability and oil flow to our allies. We have bases in Africa to combat terrorists groups. In fact the US has about 800 bases in 80 different countries. There are also an estimated 138,000 military personnel and contractors based on these bases.

    In my opinion, Germany, Japan, Korea and many of these other countries no longer need our direct protection. I realize that not all these bases can be closed but many could be. We could also sell or commercially develop many of the assets associated with these bases.
    We were not in Germany, Japan, and Korea to protect them. We were in Germany, Japan, and Korea to protect others from these known aggressors. Russia only became the enemy after they became a nuclear power. We already had those military bases established in Germany and Japan by then, so it clearly wasn't to protect them from the USSR.

    I do agree that the US is over-stretched. We've been reducing our military presence in Europe and elsewhere since the 1980s, but it needs to happen at a faster pace. I'm also not opposed to moving the Marines from Okinawa to Guam, for example, in order to get them out of Japan. I also think our mission in South Korea is largely symbolic today. South Korea has an excellent military, quite capable of handling North Korea if they had outside logistical support. So there is no reason for the US to remain in South Korea.

    According to the DOD's own website, there are 1.3 million US troops deployed in 160 different countries, on all 7 continents, in 4,800 "defense sites." Most of this has to do with the US trying desperately to maintain its hegemony, which it has been steadily losing to China since the 1990s. Giving up foreign military bases now might seem like weakness.

  5. #235
    Advisor BahamaBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    461

    Re: The US Military on the cheap. How would you do it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
    We were not in Germany, Japan, and Korea to protect them. We were in Germany, Japan, and Korea to protect others from these known aggressors. Russia only became the enemy after they became a nuclear power. We already had those military bases established in Germany and Japan by then, so it clearly wasn't to protect them from the USSR.

    I do agree that the US is over-stretched. We've been reducing our military presence in Europe and elsewhere since the 1980s, but it needs to happen at a faster pace. I'm also not opposed to moving the Marines from Okinawa to Guam, for example, in order to get them out of Japan. I also think our mission in South Korea is largely symbolic today. South Korea has an excellent military, quite capable of handling North Korea if they had outside logistical support. So there is no reason for the US to remain in South Korea.

    According to the DOD's own website, there are 1.3 million US troops deployed in 160 different countries, on all 7 continents, in 4,800 "defense sites." Most of this has to do with the US trying desperately to maintain its hegemony, which it has been steadily losing to China since the 1990s. Giving up foreign military bases now might seem like weakness.
    I think your facts are confused. First of all we have treaties with Germany and Japan. The occupation of these countries has been over for decades. We stayed to make it known that a strike against any of these countries is a strike against the US. Russia was an enemy long before they obtained nukes. The Berlin conflict is evidence of this. South Korea has never been an aggressor. They have always been our ally. You are right they are more than capable of defending themselves. I said as much in my prior post. The US has four times as many troops in Korea as Afghanistan. I would hardly call that symbolic. I call that a huge expense.

    As far as having 1.3 million troops deployed at foreign bases, that is way off base. The US has a "total" of 1.3 million personnel. Most of which are stationed in the US.

    My position remains the same. Before the US can cut military spending, they need to stop being the world's policeman.

  6. #236
    Professor Glitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Alaska (61.5N, -149W)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,621

    Re: The US Military on the cheap. How would you do it?

    Quote Originally Posted by BahamaBob View Post
    I think your facts are confused. First of all we have treaties with Germany and Japan.
    Of course, that was part of their unconditional surrender. It isn't as if we gave them a choice. We were going to establish military bases in their country, whether they liked it or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by BahamaBob View Post
    The occupation of these countries has been over for decades. We stayed to make it known that a strike against any of these countries is a strike against the US.
    We stayed to protect other nations from these aggressors, and Korea was an aggressor before their was a South Korea.

    Quote Originally Posted by BahamaBob View Post
    The US has four times as many troops in Korea as Afghanistan. I would hardly call that symbolic. I call that a huge expense.
    Symbolic in the sense that they are not needed and serve no useful purpose.

    Quote Originally Posted by BahamaBob View Post
    As far as having 1.3 million troops deployed at foreign bases, that is way off base.
    Actually, the US military consists of 2.15 million military service members, and 732,079 civilians. I've cited my source - the Department of Defense. How about you citing yours that says the DOD is "way off base."

  7. #237
    Advisor BahamaBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    461

    Re: The US Military on the cheap. How would you do it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
    Of course, that was part of their unconditional surrender. It isn't as if we gave them a choice. We were going to establish military bases in their country, whether they liked it or not.

    We stayed to protect other nations from these aggressors, and Korea was an aggressor before their was a South Korea.

    Symbolic in the sense that they are not needed and serve no useful purpose.

    Actually, the US military consists of 2.15 million military service members, and 732,079 civilians. I've cited my source - the Department of Defense. How about you citing yours that says the DOD is "way off base."

    Hmm, what nations were we protecting from two countries with no military, no economies, and starving people?
    List all the countries invaded by the aggressive Koreans in the last century.

    News flash, our presence in all three of these countries is symbolic. Symbolic of our commitment to their protection.

    I'll post my source.
    Total active duty personnel for the five armed service were approximately 472,000 for the Army, 319,000 for the Navy, 319,000 for the Air Force, 184,000 for the Marine Corps and 41,000 for the Coast Guard.

    Military Active-Duty Personnel, Civilians by State

  8. #238
    Sage
    Oozlefinch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    State of Jefferson
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    12,704

    Re: The US Military on the cheap. How would you do it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
    We stayed to protect other nations from these aggressors, and Korea was an aggressor before their was a South Korea.
    Actually, it was not.

    Prior to there being a South Korea, it was a part of the Japanese Empire, having been forcefully annexed and their country abolished in 1910.

    Prior to that, for over a thousand years it had been a poppet empire of the Chinese. And invaded and occupied many times over those centuries. By the Mongols, the Chinese, even the Japanese.

    So when exactly during all of this time were they the aggressor nation? During the Gojoseon Period, prior to being conquered by the Han Dynasty in 108 BCE?
    War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. - John Stuart Mill

  9. #239
    Professor Glitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Alaska (61.5N, -149W)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,621

    Re: The US Military on the cheap. How would you do it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Oozlefinch View Post
    Actually, it was not.

    Prior to there being a South Korea, it was a part of the Japanese Empire, having been forcefully annexed and their country abolished in 1910.

    Prior to that, for over a thousand years it had been a poppet empire of the Chinese. And invaded and occupied many times over those centuries. By the Mongols, the Chinese, even the Japanese.

    So when exactly during all of this time were they the aggressor nation? During the Gojoseon Period, prior to being conquered by the Han Dynasty in 108 BCE?
    In June 1950 the newly created North Korea attacked the US. That is exactly when they became the aggressor nation. Funny how you managed to miss that piece of recent history.

  10. #240
    Professor Glitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Alaska (61.5N, -149W)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,621

    Re: The US Military on the cheap. How would you do it?

    Quote Originally Posted by BahamaBob View Post
    Hmm, what nations were we protecting from two countries with no military, no economies, and starving people?
    List all the countries invaded by the aggressive Koreans in the last century.

    News flash, our presence in all three of these countries is symbolic. Symbolic of our commitment to their protection.

    I'll post my source.
    Total active duty personnel for the five armed service were approximately 472,000 for the Army, 319,000 for the Navy, 319,000 for the Air Force, 184,000 for the Marine Corps and 41,000 for the Coast Guard.

    Military Active-Duty Personnel, Civilians by State
    There are a couple of problems with your source. First, the Coast Guard is not part of the military. They fall under the Department of Homeland Security, not the Department of Defense. Second, they failed to include the National Guard, which IS part of the Department of Defense and hence part of the military.

    Why would you rely on a faulty third-party source, when you can access the information directly from the Department of Defense?

Page 24 of 31 FirstFirst ... 142223242526 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •