• 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!

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

apdst said:
They didn't teach you to charge head-long into it, though. They taught you to use cover, concealment and maneuver to attack from the most advantageous avenue of approach and reduce as much risk as possible, not necessarily eliminate it.

That being said, there were plenty of times during training that, as a squad leader/platoon sargeant I said, "Yeah, ok, but in a real world scenario we're not going to do it like that". There were a number of times where my platoon leader wanted to attack an objective, mounted, then dismount the rifle squads on the objective. Blew me away how even the greenest 2nd lieutenant could think that was a good idea.
Click to expand...

Well it is nice to see that nobody is shooting at our soldiers any more. Dream on. As you move between cove and concealment you become a target. If that is not charging into harms way then nobody should get killed or injured fighting for our country. I think I will ride my unicorn into battle. No enemy shoots at unicorns so I will be perfectly safe.
 
Oozlefinch said:
So how about just eliminate the military altogether then.

We just disband every branch, and get the UN to pass a resolution to make wars illegal.

Oh yea, and good luck the next time you need help in the event of a major disaster anywhere in the country.

Whenever there is a major disaster in the US, the Military is always the fastest and largest responder. Katrina, over 12,000 personnel responded (most within 24 hours). Northridge Earthquake, the first Tent Cities were going up less than 12 hours later, by some of the over 3,000 military personnel that responded. Loma Prieta, over 24,000 military personnel responded.

Those are to old for your taste? Hurricane Sandy, over 10,000 military personnel responded to that one.

Sorry, but some of us live in the real world. Not in some kind of weird Loosertarian Fantasyland.
Click to expand...

The military budget is going to be cut. It is not sustainable. It is simply a matter of time and severity. I am simply presenting this as thought exercise, and gave extreme scenarios so people would be forced to think outside the box and possibly find viable ways of maintaining a formidable defense in light of substantial budgetary constraints. I am definitely not doing this to piss in peoples cheerios.

To be honest with you I am surprised at the response to the thread and some of the ideas presented. There are some that are interesting.
 
PirateMk1 said:
The military budget is going to be cut. It is not sustainable. It is simply a matter of time and severity. I am simply presenting this as thought exercise, and gave extreme scenarios so people would be forced to think outside the box and possibly find viable ways of maintaining a formidable defense in light of substantial budgetary constraints. I am definitely not doing this to piss in peoples cheerios.

To be honest with you I am surprised at the response to the thread and some of the ideas presented. There are some that are interesting.
Click to expand...

It's a valuable thought exercise. I doubt we will become more isolationist which is my preference but agree cuts to the military are inevitable.

As is the rise of china
 
Evilroddy said:
Vegas Giants:

The problem with downsizing militaries too fast and dumping too many former military on to civil-street all at once is that it produces pools of very skilled, very dangerous and potentially very angry folks who can pose a real and present danger to the Republic and to the the maintenance of peace, order and good governance.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

I very much agree that downsizing can not be done quickly. Time must be given for other countries to ramp up their military. But the only way to do that is to start down sizing. Other countries will never pull their weight until they have too
 
Oozlefinch said:
Ahh, but that is done because of choice, not because they could not send in a piloted aircraft. That is not the same thing.

And here is the main thing about drones, I simply do not think they are going to perform a fraction as well as advertised the first time we (or somebody) has to use them in a conflict with an even half-way decent adversary with more than 1980's level technology. This is the one thing that the drone fanbois keep missing over and over again.

Russia has already publicly stated that they have been degrading US drone capability in Syria over the last year to the point that they are barely even used anymore. Iran has already brought down one of our drones electronically, in addition to shooting one down. And the only reason why it was shot down recently is because it was a drone. If it had been a piloted aircraft, they would not have done it because that would be just a fraction of a hair short of starting an all-out war.

No, if the enemy is say Afghanistan, or Saddam's Iraq or Somalia-Venezuela, then odds are drones would be able to operate almost totally unmolested. But against a more advanced adversary, like say Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, India, Pakistan, or one of a hundred others I fairly sure that they will perform only a fraction as well as many expect. And by the same token, I expect that anybody that tried to use drones against us would have the same issue.

We have similar capabilities ourselves as what we have seen from Russia in Syria. The Army has already started fielding the Silent Archer system into the field. And at this point it is only an ECM system to defeat drones, but in testing now is a capability to integrate it into other Air Defense systems to actively shoot them down. And this is only one of several systems being worked on, and since it is primarily made by a civilian company the few that much is known about.

Silent Archer Counter-UAS Technology | SRC, Inc.

But when it comes to larger drones, then it really is no different than any other aircraft when it comes to shooting one down as well. Although I believe that if they were used in a major conflict, ECM would eliminate the majority of them from being used.
Click to expand...

Are you presuming the drones are remotely piloted?
 
cpwill said:
As I pointed out to you - drones and cruise missile technology is verging - you are correct that in the era of CT we have wanted a human finger to be the instrument of release of munitions - that may not hold true in a near-peer conflict, especially if the drone is a munition. And when do you count the moment of “handing off”? If I hit fire on a cruise missile, or launch on a drone, both with a mission to detect (say) electronic impulses consistent with an S-300-associated radar (or, for that matter, an ECM emitter) and strike it?
Click to expand...

You are combining two different terms.

By the same token, cruise missile and aircraft technology have been merging, since in 2001 airplanes were used to attack buildings.

Single use kamikaze aircraft are known as cruise missiles. There is absolutely no interaction with them once they are launched. They fly their pre-set flight path, and hit the target assigned. Period.

Drones are recoverable tools, and are not intended to crash into their target like a Jihadi going to meet their 72 virgins.

And yes, some drones are autonomous. They are known as observation drones, and these are indeed capable of flying without interaction along a set path, like a cruise missile. But at the end of their trip they return to base. Autonomous drones do not conduct attacks. And I can't see any conflict where there is no "finger on the button". Just imagine the blowback if say a bunch of an allies soldiers or non-combatants were killed in such an attack. Who was responsible? Why nobody! The drone just up and killed them all on it's own!

It is just not going to happen.

As for "defeating" ECM, yea it can always be done. With say VOA we used more powerful transmitters, but we could still only punch a short distance through the Iron Curtain. Not really "defeating" at all.

Distance does no good, if the jamming is centered around the area you need to get to. Yea, there is no jamming over Alaska, so fly your drones over Alaska. Does no good if the conflict is in the South China Sea.

And a portion of the spectrum that is not being jammed. Yea, it is not hard to figure out what frequencies a drone (or any piece of equipment) is using. And it is not like you can just flip a switch and move them to something different. Otherwise we would have done that to all of our electronic communication equipment.
 
vegas giants said:
It's a valuable thought exercise. I doubt we will become more isolationist which is my preference but agree cuts to the military are inevitable.

As is the rise of china
Click to expand...

Ah China, now aren't they just a peachy bunch? Too bad there are a million Chinese locked up in concentration camps. Not mention the unhappy Tibetans. I bet they could make things very interesting for their Chinese brethren if they had proper tools to do so. You know those low altitude satellites network that Elon wants to employ might be just the ticket if phones and modems suddenly appeared that could take advantage of the access.
 
cpwill said:
I'd point out that, even if his estimate is correct, and they merely knocked the carrier out of commission, then they've put a carrier out of commission, and more directly to what is under discussion here, if they are a credible threat to put a carrier out of commission, the President probably isn't going to risk the carrier in the first place.
Click to expand...

Read again. That "putting out of action" was not the result of the DF-21D. it was the result of an undeveloped cluster type munition that used multiple long rod penetrators. Think of it as the DF being a single .32 caliber pistol shot, and the fictional weapon that was similar was a double barrel shotgun firing both barrels with 00 buckshot.

In the event of a hit, analysts have often looked at the potential for a hypersonic missile to cause damage with kinetic energy alone. Andrew Davies of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute is skeptical, calculating that the energy of an inert object of a 500 kg RV at an impact velocity of Mach 6 would be comparable to the kinetic and explosive energy of a subsonic Boeing AGM-84 Harpoon, and only a quarter of Russia's supersonic Tactical Missiles Corp./Raduga P-270 Moskit. Raduga's Cold War “carrier-killer,” the Kh-22, is a 12,800-lb. weapon that hits at a speed above Mach 4 with a 2,200-lb.-class, shaped-charge warhead. However, classified studies carried out by McDonnell Douglas in the 1980s also showed that much smaller warheads—for instance, dispenser weapons with long-rod penetrators—would cause enough damage to a warship to put it out of commission, pending major repairs.
Click to expand...

In other words, a single Harpoon missile, the carrier shrugs it off. A dozen Harpoon missiles all hitting at once, bad day for the carrier.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Ah China, now aren't they just a peachy bunch? Too bad there are a million Chinese locked up in concentration camps. Not mention the unhappy Tibetans. I bet they could make things very interesting for their Chinese brethren if they had proper tools to do so. You know those low altitude satellites network that Elon wants to employ might be just the ticket if phones and modems suddenly appeared that could take advantage of the access.
Click to expand...

Tibet cant do anything with help from another country. And no one wants to take on China yet. It will be decades before they are a real threat but it is inevitable. And the threat may come more from their economy than their military
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
I was in the military. I wonder why they wasted all that time teaching me how to attack a machine gun fortification. We were told straight up that some had to die to accomplish certain objectives. A sad part of fighting a battle. Unfortunately taking fortified locations are a part of battles and war. I guess you never heard of the battle of Normandy or Guadalcanal. I can look up thousand of more instances even recently where are soldiers bravely charged into harms way to accomplish their mission. Call of duty is based on real men and women who did charge into very dangerous situations because they were ordered to not because they were stupid. Welcome to reality. Friendly fire and collateral damage are unfortunately a reality of war and being in the military. Nobody wants it to happen but happen it does.
Click to expand...

Uh-huh. And what was your MOS? Something I bet about as far away from Infantry as you can get, going by what you have been posting about how the Infantry operates.

And no, Normandy and Guadalcanal were not just suicidal charges right into enemy machine gun positions.

Amazing, and you still believe that CoD is reality. Well, I say stick to the video games then, that is another forum however.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Are you presuming the drones are remotely piloted?
Click to expand...

Because other than observation drones, they are.

Technically, a satellite viewing the surface from LEO is an "autonomous drone". It flies over a target area, with little to no input from a human operator. This is also a perfect example of an observation drone.

For drones that actually attack a target, they are all piloted. In fact, the vast majority are piloted by people a short distance from Las Vegas. Yes, the drones are operated out of bases scattered all over the globe, with teams locally to perform maintenance on them and prepare them for the next mission. But the actual pilots mostly work out of Creech Air Force Base.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Because other than observation drones, they are.

Technically, a satellite viewing the surface from LEO is an "autonomous drone". It flies over a target area, with little to no input from a human operator. This is also a perfect example of an observation drone.

For drones that actually attack a target, they are all piloted. In fact, the vast majority are piloted by people a short distance from Las Vegas. Yes, the drones are operated out of bases scattered all over the globe, with teams locally to perform maintenance on them and prepare them for the next mission. But the actual pilots mostly work out of Creech Air Force Base.
Click to expand...

I know all about that and what the current situation is and why. We dont use autonomous drones for political reasons only. Thats it. Boeing had autonomous drones that were very, very good back in the 90's with the X-45 systems. Boeing X-45 - Wikipedia
There are systems in prototype stages now that make the Terminator scenarios seem tame.
This Israeli system is a primitive system compared to what we have had in prototype stages for decades. Blog | The National Interest
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
I know what the difference is. I served in the military. There is a big difference between the payroll clerk and the marine who will hit the beach. As I said nobody wants to charge into harms way but that unfortunately is a job you may be ordered to do when fighting a war. It would be wonderful if the enemy didn't shoot back.
Click to expand...

And one is useless without the other. Our war machine only works when all its parts are working together, and working properly.
 
apdst said:
They didn't teach you to charge head-long into it, though. They taught you to use cover, concealment and maneuver to attack from the most advantageous avenue of approach and reduce as much risk as possible, not necessarily eliminate it.

That being said, there were plenty of times during training that, as a squad leader/platoon sargeant I said, "Yeah, ok, but in a real world scenario we're not going to do it like that". There were a number of times where my platoon leader wanted to attack an objective, mounted, then dismount the rifle squads on the objective. Blew me away how even the greenest 2nd lieutenant could think that was a good idea.
Click to expand...

Sometimes you need to charge head on, the vast majority of the time you do not. You will use the terrain, hide behind cover, and use the best path to engage the enemy. When I was in ait the new guys got to go against trained infantry who were reclassing, I said to push forward with suppressing fire but the squad leader in the mock battle said stay put, they pinned us down quick and explained the tactics they used were not even american infantry tactics but rather copying the taliban which they had fought.

In the end they explained that it is essential to scope out the battle before you attack and take enough time for a plan, but not to take too much time as the enemy will pin you down if you take too long. This puts stress on leadership to evaluate the battlefield in a short period of time and rapidly put the plan into action, but in no way dopes it push just charging the enemy blindly unless no other option is available.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
And one is useless without the other. Our war machine only works when all its parts are working together, and working properly.
Click to expand...

When did say otherwise? Clearly not a rebuttal. Just a useless attempt to deflect from what I actually stated. Try again.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
I was in the military. I wonder why they wasted all that time teaching me how to attack a machine gun fortification. We were told straight up that some had to die to accomplish certain objectives. A sad part of fighting a battle. Unfortunately taking fortified locations are a part of battles and war. I guess you never heard of the battle of Normandy or Guadalcanal. I can look up thousand of more instances even recently where are soldiers bravely charged into harms way to accomplish their mission. Call of duty is based on real men and women who did charge into very dangerous situations because they were ordered to not because they were stupid. Welcome to reality. Friendly fire and collateral damage are unfortunately a reality of war and being in the military. Nobody wants it to happen but happen it does.
Click to expand...

Oozlefinch said:
Uh-huh. And what was your MOS? Something I bet about as far away from Infantry as you can get, going by what you have been posting about how the Infantry operates.

And no, Normandy and Guadalcanal were not just suicidal charges right into enemy machine gun positions.

Amazing, and you still believe that CoD is reality. Well, I say stick to the video games then, that is another forum however.
Click to expand...

A little respect and discussion would be appropriate thx.

The direct lecturing, scolding and putdowns reveal much about the dismissive personality. None of it good. Being unable to recognize and accept a valid and reasoned analysis being one of 'em.

Ground and waterborne engagements against a near peer enemy continue to be a part of Army doctrine and Marine Corps doctrine. It's basic warfare. It will continue. So we are returning to preparations for state to state warfare.

The return includes close in air support of assaults and offensive maneuvering to include of course the defense of areas protected in place or gained. Close in air support and all operations ground and maritime will look like 21st century state to state warfare because that's what it is in the present. That is, the new battlespace will be simultaneously more complex and simpler.

Number one however concerning your posts is that you don't respect this or any of it, and number two you're on an ego trip in which only you know and you are ultimate authority. This is a fail. Your approach needs fundamental revisions.
 
Oozlefinch said:
So how about just eliminate the military altogether then.

We just disband every branch, and get the UN to pass a resolution to make wars illegal.

Oh yea, and good luck the next time you need help in the event of a major disaster anywhere in the country.
Click to expand...

Being dismissive, absurd and contemptuous means you don't get taken seriously. What we're looking for instead are reasoned arguments and supporting data.








Whenever there is a major disaster in the US, the Military is always the fastest and largest responder. Katrina, over 12,000 personnel responded (most within 24 hours). Northridge Earthquake, the first Tent Cities were going up less than 12 hours later, by some of the over 3,000 military personnel that responded. Loma Prieta, over 24,000 military personnel responded.

Those are to old for your taste? Hurricane Sandy, over 10,000 military personnel responded to that one.

Sorry, but some of us live in the real world. Not in some kind of weird Loosertarian Fantasyland.
Click to expand...

The real world has the National Guard to include of course the Coast Guard and the Army Corps of Engineers. It includes the 5th Army which is the continental Army at home to defend the United States itself. The troops deployed to the southern border are elements of the 5th Army which has HQ at Peterson AFB in Colorado.

No one except you in your posts is talking about eliminating the military. The reason no one is talking this nonsense is that it is, well, nonsense. It's not an argument. It's stuff that comes from some strawman fantasyland that's been created by people who are OTT. So I look forward to the great day you make an argument instead of give a scolding speech or an excessively detailed and dismissive lecture that concludes with a bomb throwing rhetorical flair.
 
Tangmo said:
A little respect and discussion would be appropriate thx.

The direct lecturing, scolding and putdowns reveal much about the dismissive personality. None of it good. Being unable to recognize and accept a valid and reasoned analysis being one of 'em.

Ground and waterborne engagements against a near peer enemy continue to be a part of Army doctrine and Marine Corps doctrine. It's basic warfare. It will continue. So we are returning to preparations for state to state warfare.

The return includes close in air support of assaults and offensive maneuvering to include of course the defense of areas protected in place or gained. Close in air support and all operations ground and maritime will look like 21st century state to state warfare because that's what it is in the present. That is, the new battlespace will be simultaneously more complex and simpler.

Number one however concerning your posts is that you don't respect this or any of it, and number two you're on an ego trip in which only you know and you are ultimate authority. This is a fail. Your approach needs fundamental revisions.
Click to expand...

I was in the military and I was trained how to attack a machine gun position and other fortified areas. A fact. Training is what may keep you alive. Learning from mistakes when there is nobody actually shooting at you. Sorry if this offends you.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
I was in the military and I was trained how to attack a machine gun position and other fortified areas. A fact. Training is what may keep you alive. Learning from mistakes when there is nobody actually shooting at you. Sorry if this offends you.
Click to expand...

Offended not.

I spent four years in Infantry via an Rotc commission. 11A. You were 11B or 11A I gather from your posts.

I'm lending some support to your posts yet you seem to be missing the fact. Or perhaps reject it. There seems anyway to be a possible misunderstanding about my post, motivation, purpose.

So to be more clear, I see the antagonist poster I'm addressing as a lifer NCO who got his start via GED. Most or many Lifer NCO do it this way, ie, the self made low education type. Perhaps Ozzlefinch got his start in a different way which is his business anyhow. Then after 20 years or more the GED NCO career lifer retires to a college on the government dime. As with most Self Made GED Lifer NCO they are certain they are omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. On retirement they often expand to include impudent (or contract). They're also Right Wingers always and forever.

I noted in my post that your post was valid and presented a well reasoned analysis. I went on to state I thought the guy was dismissive of you and disrespectful of your post and that he is wrong to do this -- so very wrong. I put your post in with his reply to illustrate the points I made and to make clear he was not posting to me. I'm sure he said one time recently he doesn't read my posts which is his unfortunate choice of course.
 
Tangmo said:
Offended not.

I spent four years in Infantry via an Rotc commission. 11A. You were 11B or 11A I gather from your posts.

I'm lending some support to your posts yet you seem to be missing the fact. Or perhaps reject it. There seems anyway to be a possible misunderstanding about my post, motivation, purpose.

So to be more clear, I see the antagonist poster I'm addressing as a lifer NCO who got his start via GED. Most or many Lifer NCO do it this way, ie, the self made low education type. Perhaps Ozzlefinch got his start in a different way which is his business anyhow. Then after 20 years or more the GED NCO career lifer retires to a college on the government dime. As with most Self Made GED Lifer NCO they are certain they are omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. On retirement they often expand to include impudent (or contract). They're also Right Wingers always and forever.

I noted in my post that your post was valid and presented a well reasoned analysis. I went on to state I thought the guy was dismissive of you and disrespectful of your post and that he is wrong to do this -- so very wrong. I put your post in with his reply to illustrate the points I made and to make clear he was not posting to me. I'm sure he said one time recently he doesn't read my posts which is his unfortunate choice of course.
Click to expand...

I bolded the usual Tangmobabble...

A combination of insults and ignorance that a real officer would never utter.

The kind of stuff that makes real veterans consider the claims of "four years in Infantry via an Rotc commission" a lie.

Tangmo said:
Being dismissive, absurd and contemptuous means you don't get taken seriously. .
Click to expand...

Irony.
 
Last edited:
Tangmo said:
Offended not.

I spent four years in Infantry via an Rotc commission. 11A. You were 11B or 11A I gather from your posts.

I'm lending some support to your posts yet you seem to be missing the fact. Or perhaps reject it. There seems anyway to be a possible misunderstanding about my post, motivation, purpose.

So to be more clear, I see the antagonist poster I'm addressing as a lifer NCO who got his start via GED. Most or many Lifer NCO do it this way, ie, the self made low education type. Perhaps Ozzlefinch got his start in a different way which is his business anyhow. Then after 20 years or more the GED NCO career lifer retires to a college on the government dime. As with most Self Made GED Lifer NCO they are certain they are omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. On retirement they often expand to include impudent (or contract). They're also Right Wingers always and forever.

I noted in my post that your post was valid and presented a well reasoned analysis. I went on to state I thought the guy was dismissive of you and disrespectful of your post and that he is wrong to do this -- so very wrong. I put your post in with his reply to illustrate the points I made and to make clear he was not posting to me. I'm sure he said one time recently he doesn't read my posts which is his unfortunate choice of course.
Click to expand...

95B back in 1977. Nothing much going on at that time. Just listened to a lot of great advice from the career soldiers who survived Vietnam. I trained more than I actually did my job. I was lucky to get several weeks Police survival training from the Oakland Swat Team. With no war all we did is train. In 2 years I was so certified I became certifiable. It was only then did an old Sergeant inform that the more qualified the more likely to be sent into harms way. A real eyeopener. The funny part is I actually wanted to be an accountant. My recruiter did the bait and switch and I fell for it. At the last minute I was informed they had no openings and he talked me into the MP's. I ended up a plumber.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
95B back in 1977. Nothing much going on at that time. Just listened to a lot of great advice from the career soldiers who survived Vietnam. I trained more than I actually did my job. I was lucky to get several weeks Police survival training from the Oakland Swat Team. With no war all we did is train. In 2 years I was so certified I became certifiable. It was only then did an old Sergeant inform that the more qualified the more likely to be sent into harms way. A real eyeopener. The funny part is I actually wanted to be an accountant. My recruiter did the bait and switch and I fell for it. At the last minute I was informed they had no openings and he talked me into the MP's. I ended up a plumber.
Click to expand...

One thing you will learn about Lt. Fuzz here, is that he is not what he claims he is. He has been caught in so many lies about his service that I am amazed that he keeps trying to convince people he served.

Hench, I chuckled when he said you had to be an 11B. I knew several posts back you were not, the things you said and how you said them just did not add up if you actually had been a grunt. And not disparagement there, grunts simply think different than non-grunts. I was not dismissing you, but your mischaracterization of the Infantry and how we operate.

You will notice however that for somebody who claims to be an "Officer", he is absolutely dismissive 100% of anybody who serves as an NCO, and routinely insults them at every chance.

I can not even begin to tear down his last post about me, it is so far off base it is not even funny. Yes, I have now spent over 20 years in the military true. The first 10 from 1983-1993 in the Marines. Medboarded because you can't be a grunt with bad knees.

Then I went back in in 2007, after 14 years as a civilian. Walked away from my stable and well paying computer job to join the Army and work on the PATRIOT missile. Did that for another 5 years, then moved to the Reserves where I am now (as a 25B). So yea, I guess I am the "Lifer NCO" he dismisses all the time. Although it has taken me over 36 years to get where I am now.

Oh, and I do not have a GED, I graduated. And I have not gone to college either, I was attending a tech school with my GI Bill until the school closed a few years ago.

However, when comparing who is most credible, realize that a week or so back Tangmo stated quite clearly that he had an "Under Honorable Conditions" discharge. Now I can't think of a single individual who would brag about that kind of discharge, but he acted as if he was a perfect Soldier. And took great offense when myself and another pointed out to him that that discharge meant that he had screwed up.

Of course, we were dismissed with his usual round of insults since we were both NCOs and therefore complete idiots. In all my years of service, I have never heard any officer speak so dismissively of NCOs as this joker does. Just the fact he was sure you were a grunt when it was obvious you were not only adds more to his list of face-palms.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Ok, a thought exercise for today and however long people are interested.

Pretend that we have to cut our military budget drastically for the foreseeable future. By one quarter, by one half, and by three quarters. In each of these three scenarios, how would you do it? Would there be priority differences between the three different size cuts in budget, or would you maintain similar priorities regardless the size of cut?

As the Iron Chef says "Begin!!!"
Click to expand...

Origami

Imagine you train like 10,000 people to be experts in origami, your only costs are going to be paper.
 
Oozlefinch said:
One thing you will learn about Lt. Fuzz here, is that he is not what he claims he is. He has been caught in so many lies about his service that I am amazed that he keeps trying to convince people he served.

Hench, I chuckled when he said you had to be an 11B. I knew several posts back you were not, the things you said and how you said them just did not add up if you actually had been a grunt. And not disparagement there, grunts simply think different than non-grunts. I was not dismissing you, but your mischaracterization of the Infantry and how we operate.

You will notice however that for somebody who claims to be an "Officer", he is absolutely dismissive 100% of anybody who serves as an NCO, and routinely insults them at every chance.

I can not even begin to tear down his last post about me, it is so far off base it is not even funny. Yes, I have now spent over 20 years in the military true. The first 10 from 1983-1993 in the Marines. Medboarded because you can't be a grunt with bad knees.

Then I went back in in 2007, after 14 years as a civilian. Walked away from my stable and well paying computer job to join the Army and work on the PATRIOT missile. Did that for another 5 years, then moved to the Reserves where I am now (as a 25B). So yea, I guess I am the "Lifer NCO" he dismisses all the time. Although it has taken me over 36 years to get where I am now.

Oh, and I do not have a GED, I graduated. And I have not gone to college either, I was attending a tech school with my GI Bill until the school closed a few years ago.

However, when comparing who is most credible, realize that a week or so back Tangmo stated quite clearly that he had an "Under Honorable Conditions" discharge. Now I can't think of a single individual who would brag about that kind of discharge, but he acted as if he was a perfect Soldier. And took great offense when myself and another pointed out to him that that discharge meant that he had screwed up.

Of course, we were dismissed with his usual round of insults since we were both NCOs and therefore complete idiots. In all my years of service, I have never heard any officer speak so dismissively of NCOs as this joker does. Just the fact he was sure you were a grunt when it was obvious you were not only adds more to his list of face-palms.
Click to expand...

And remember... He "double checked" his box 24..... Which wasn't the location of the purported "Honorable" until half a decade after when he claimed termination of his time in.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom