[Honealals]

Thats still disengenuous. In the case of the tactical aircraft for instance, I highly doubt they are including the carrier services provided by our CVNs and LHDs/LHAs whose operational and procurement costs are covered entirely by the Navy.

Also, while they provided 31% of the ground forces that is almost entirely light infantry. We can debate how much it is still needed, but the Marine corps is not going to stand up well at all against a peer competitor fielding heavy weapons and mechanized arms. Things like tanks and the like are more expensive than light infantry and thats the Army's bag.

In short, of course the Marines are cheap because their mission areas rarely cover the expensive portions of the overall defense budget.

How many tank battles are we getting into these days?

[Vipvlad]

Why do the Marines fly the same aircraft as the Navy from US Navy carriers?

Marine Aviation has been around since May 22, 1912 and has a storied history.





Its purpose is to provide close air support for the infantry within the Marine command structure.

The Marines are the military's quick-strike combined-arms task force.

[lovespellszz]

I don't give a **** about history. Same planes from the same carrier, no need for an entirely ****ing different organization to pilot them.

I just said Marine aviation provides close air support for Marine forces. That's why it exists.

The Marines are a combined-arms force. You know, that whole land, sea, AND air thing?

[konanoileaski]

Marines are redundant. That's why we love having them. Who else in the world does what we do? We take the usual stale boring Westernized democracy, and we crank the crazy up to 11. We have an absurd electoral college, we have widespread gun ownership, we play weird sports like football and baseball, and we have a whole separate branch of our military just for storming beaches. How ****ing cool is that?

[Enjknsua]

Yeah, obviously the Marines don't need any boats or planes.

And no more security contractors.

JM

[amotoustict]

You said carriers, there is a lot more to the Navy than carriers
Isn't this the problem?

[IdomeoreTew]

Wow, Asher is being a dumbass.

[Ggskbpbz]

One simple suggestion to cut some defense dollars I think is viable and does not sacrifice any core mission:

Replace half our submarine fleet with modern diesel electric submarines.

The US got away from diesels in the eighties, our last two being decommissioned in the mid nineties. The idea was to standardize the force to all nuclear and by doing so keep the most advanced and capable boats during the drawdown of the same period. There is some merit to this, as by the nineties there weren't any modern diesels to keep around anyway but this also meant we kept the most expensive units and we continue to build to this expensive high end capability.

What I would suggest is that the US purchase and Americanize the German Type 212 submarine. It is just as advanced in all its capabilities it has as a US Virginia-class SSN and all the capabilities it lacks we can add to it for the most part.

The only real hit in capability it will take is sustainability. Sustainability is nice, but can it really be claimed that with our current overseas naval bases and all our allies around the world we really need a sub that can go around the world three times without stopping? And when sustainability beyond the 212s range becomes a problem I am only suggesting making half the force diesels, that still leaves a few dozen SSNs to do that work. We could station 212s at Guam and China and NK would still be in normal deployment range, station them in Bahrain (we already have ships there) and all of 5th Fleet is in deployment range and station a few in Europe for our Med needs if these are required. They are non nuclear so they have more of a range of options as far as operating from allied facilities as well as not needing the extensive facilities required to station a nuclear vessel somewhere. On top of that, forward deployed 212s would not have to waste time and money transiting from the the US proper all the time which is what most of them do now. Additionally, there is a whole lot of savings in not having to provide nuclear trained crews for these subs, which requires at least a year of expensive schools (to include the mainenance of three reactors just for training) between joining and actually hitting the fleet.

There are currently 55 SSNs in the US fleet. A Virginia-class sub costs 1.8 billion, a 212 costs 500 million. Assuming a full production run of both outfitting our Navy with 60 submarines and 30 of each thats a savings of 39 billion over the entire production window over building just Viriginia-class boats for procurement savings alone.

Thats just rough back or the napkin figures, there would be costs for the contracting of the design and modification to US needs and I don't expect the 60 submarine requirement to last but its a place to start.

[warrgazur]

Basically what Asher has said in this thread:

1. Abolish the Navy because coastal patrol boats are good enough and other countries don't like losing wars
2. Abolish the Marine Corps because it's another army
3. America doesn't need an army because Canada is sooooo great!
4. Canadians! yaaaaaaaaaaaaaay
5. There have been a few friendly fire incidents in the Afghanistan war, therefore see 4

The only thing that has any merit at all is #2, except that you may as well just cut the number of soldiers in the Army by the number that are in the Marine Corps and accomplish the same thing. Everyone (who is intelligent) is basically in agreement that procurement and such should all be under one agency anyways and that the level of separation between branches is counterproductive. So if you're talking about actual cuts and not just making the place more efficient, you really have no reason to believe that getting rid of infantry in the Marines would be a better idea than getting rid of infantrymen in the Army. So I'm just going to assume that you're trying to troll Alby.

At any rate, I think I can condense Asher's views down to one statement: No one will ever attack the United States if they didn't have a military! Or, alternatively: People hate the USA because it fights wars and wins!

Asher, you have no way to support that. Your thesis of "people only hate you because you fight in wars" is one of those things that can't be proven. Yet you like to back it up with "well it's true because your enemies say so!" I'm not sure what sort of brain damage causes you to take anything terrorists and dictators say at face value but I hope you someday make a full recovery.

To give you an example where your thesis could actually (theoretically) be put to the test, one of the proposals for the North Korean problem is for America to entirely withdraw from the Korean peninsula. North Korea insists that this will only promote peace and reduce tensions. China also thinks an American withdrawal would be a very good thing. If you are in any way consistent in your thinking (you aren't), then you would agree with China and North Korea. Given your past history of completely retarded beliefs, I wouldn't be surprised if you do.

So let's do some critical thinking here. America spends say 40 billion dollars keeping troops in the Korean peninsula. In return we have a country we can basically always depend on to be our ally and has, since the end of the Korean war, prospered into an economic giant with which we have enormously profitable trade. But no, we should take our troops out, because it makes the North Koreans hate us! Never mind that if we pulled out they'd try to conquer the South, thus losing us an ally, a trading partner, and allowing millions of people to die needlessly because we were worried about some crackpot dictator thinking we are meanie-heads.

America has to pick sides. We can't just sit everything out, it isn't possible, not for a country of our size and influence. When you are on top you don't have the luxury of trying to be everyone's best friend, because someone will always be trying to take your place. You really have no ground to stand on when you claim it is more in our interest to be a mega-Switzerland than try to arrange the world in our favor.

[mireOpekrhype]

Why don't you read the rest of the post instead of the first two sentences? Or maybe just grabbing one out of the middle and attacking it with precisely the rhetoric I was making fun of.

[benderkoz]

See, this is why you aren't worth debating with. You just make one or two indefensible antagonistic statements and loop through your standard trolls.

[ambientambien]

See, this is why you aren't worth debating with. You just make one or two indefensible antagonistic statements and loop through your standard trolls.

Yet they still work.
Largely because they're true.

[poekfpojoibien]

Or here.

Basically what Asher has said in this thread:

1. Abolish the Navy because coastal patrol boats are good enough and other countries don't like losing wars
2. Abolish the Marine Corps because it's another army
3. America doesn't need an army because Canada is sooooo great!
4. Canadians! yaaaaaaaaaaaaaay
5. There have been a few friendly fire incidents in the Afghanistan war, therefore see 4

The only thing that has any merit at all is #2, except that you may as well just cut the number of soldiers in the Army by the number that are in the Marine Corps and accomplish the same thing. Everyone (who is intelligent) is basically in agreement that procurement and such should all be under one agency anyways and that the level of separation between branches is counterproductive. So if you're talking about actual cuts and not just making the place more efficient, you really have no reason to believe that getting rid of infantry in the Marines would be a better idea than getting rid of infantrymen in the Army. So I'm just going to assume that you're trying to troll Alby.

At any rate, I think I can condense Asher's views down to one statement: No one will ever attack the United States if they didn't have a military! Or, alternatively: People hate the USA because it fights wars and wins!

Asher, you have no way to support that. Your thesis of "people only hate you because you fight in wars" is one of those things that can't be proven. Yet you like to back it up with "well it's true because your enemies say so!" I'm not sure what sort of brain damage causes you to take anything terrorists and dictators say at face value but I hope you someday make a full recovery.

To give you an example where your thesis could actually (theoretically) be put to the test, one of the proposals for the North Korean problem is for America to entirely withdraw from the Korean peninsula. North Korea insists that this will only promote peace and reduce tensions. China also thinks an American withdrawal would be a very good thing. If you are in any way consistent in your thinking (you aren't), then you would agree with China and North Korea. Given your past history of completely retarded beliefs, I wouldn't be surprised if you do.

So let's do some critical thinking here. America spends say 40 billion dollars keeping troops in the Korean peninsula. In return we have a country we can basically always depend on to be our ally and has, since the end of the Korean war, prospered into an economic giant with which we have enormously profitable trade. But no, we should take our troops out, because it makes the North Koreans hate us! Never mind that if we pulled out they'd try to conquer the South, thus losing us an ally, a trading partner, and allowing millions of people to die needlessly because we were worried about some crackpot dictator thinking we are meanie-heads.

America has to pick sides. We can't just sit everything out, it isn't possible, not for a country of our size and influence. When you are on top you don't have the luxury of trying to be everyone's best friend, because someone will always be trying to take your place. You really have no ground to stand on when you claim it is more in our interest to be a mega-Switzerland than try to arrange the world in our favor.

[KixdricyArrip]

Alby thinks "reducing the Marines to their traditional role" means "eliminating them".

We don't need two armies. We do need a large naval force for sea control.

[AOE6q4bu]

Yes, the American forces are historically quite skilled at locating and bombing the Canadian forces actually on the ground doing the dirty work.

Careful, we'll tighten your leash and burn down your capital again. Remember 1812!

[SiM7W2zi]

Careful, we'll tighten your leash and burn down your capital again. Remember 1812!

I thought our capital was the one burned down?

[oronozopiy]

I thought our capital was the one burned down?

Ever seen Canadian Bacon? John Candy et al are invading Canada, and Dan Aykroyd tells them to go to the capital for some reason, and they decide that he means Toronto.

It's funnier in the movie.