How the military should be cut
 

I have identified five objectives of the US military:

(1) deterring and repelling any invasion

(2) deterring any long-range conventional, nuclear, biological, or chemical strikes on USA territory

(3) securing the borders and coastlines

(4) disaster relief

(5) embassy defense and hostage rescue

Notice that I have left "protect the interests of billionaire criminals who rape the US public left and right" off of the list. With these five objectives in mind, here are my proposed changes.

• Looking at a world map, it becomes very obvious that the USA has absolutely no good reason to maintain large standing ground forces. Therefore, the Army and Marines will be completely eliminated.
• All speacial operations forces (SOF) will be consolidated into a unified SOF, for efficiency, and will only be involved in embassy defense and hostage rescue.
• The CIA will be disbanded in disgrace, with the worst offenders tried for crimes against humanity.
• The National Guard will be tasked with disaster relief, as per usual, and with defending the borders from potential terrorists and other undesirables.
• The Coast Guard will prevent amphibious infiltration of our country by potential terrorists and other undesirables, and continue to deal with maritime emergencies.
• The Air National Guard will be eliminated as being redunant with the Air Force.
• The Navy and the Air Force will undergo extreme cuts. All foreign bases will be permanently closed, and the Navy and Air Force will be reduced to a size appropriate to fulfilling objectives 1-2 without wasting hard-earned taxpayer money.
• The nuclear arsenals of the Air Force and the Navy will not be cut.
• The GPS satellite constellation will be maintained, along with various observation satellites.

In the event of an attempted invasion, the Air Force and Navy, and, if necessary, the National Guard, will defeat the invasion force at sea (or at one of the borders, if applicable). The nuclear arsenal will continue to have its deterrent role. Hostages will continue to be rescued, and embassies will continue to be defended. However, with no Army and Marines, and with a much leaner Air Force and Navy, hundreds of billions of dollars will be saved. There will be absolutely no need for moronic wars, like the ones Dumbya started, and the National Guard and Coast Guard (along with customs officials), will keep potential terrorists out of our country. With the CIA gone, and with Pax Americana dead, our country will once again have the moral high ground. All defensive needs currently being met, will still be met under my proposal, yet the hard working citizens of our country will no longer be burdened with extremely wasteful military spending.

Wow, you've really got a hard-on for the military, don't you?

You say you've "identified the five objectives of the military". What qualifies you to do so? What vast experience do you possess, in military matters, permits you to speak intelligently on the subject?

I submit that your qualifications and experience amount to dick, and you're just whining...

Well, to be fair.... Who here actually would have the qualifications and experience to comment on the military or really much of anything else?

Few people engaging in military discussions here have been in an upper level military committee. Few people engaging in healthcare discussions have managed a hospital or been in upper management of a pharmaceutical company.

No, I have passion for defeating thieving scum.

You say you've "identified the five objectives of the military". What qualifies you to do so? My ability to read and comprehend the English language, the language that the US Constitution is in, the document from which the US military gets its mandate, qualifies me, a tax-paying US citizen.

What, aside from your ego, qualifies you to strut around like a wanna fascist and tell US citizens that they have no say in how their government operates if they disagree with you and your Bible thumping allies (an alliance that one Victor Stenger quote in your signature does not obscure)?

What vast experience do you possess, in military matters, permits you to speak intelligently on the subject? I have read several books, and I have a high enough IQ to understand why the Navy and Air Force could easily defeat any amphibious force crossing either of this country's moats.

I submit that your qualifications and experience amount to dick, and you're just whining... I submit that you have a long history of immature, belligerent-without-provocation posts that lack substantive content.

You are expecting fairness and sane thinking from a perpetually enraged man.

http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/images/smilies/lol.gifhttp://www.uspoliticsonline.net/images/smilies/lol.gifhttp://www.uspoliticsonline.net/images/smilies/lol.gif

Yes, it is quite amusing how a patriotic man like you has such little confidence in the Navy and Air Force.

Quite amusing indeed that you... seemingly... have no idea as to the nature of the world today.

Enjoy your stay in the 1920's...http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/images/smilies/ohmy.gif

Enjoy being too cowardly to attempt to explain how the Russian or Chinese navies could pull off an amphibious landing despite the actions of the Navy and Air Force.

The ignorance in your post shines with the light of a thousand suns...

SSGT Jones, on duty in Afghanistan, needs things. He needs bullets, he needs weapons. He needs food and he needs support. In what way is he "thieving scum"?

My ability to read and comprehend the English language, the language that the US Constitution is in, the document from which the US military gets its mandate, qualifies me, a tax-paying US citizen. So, you've absolutely zero experience in anything regarding the military. You are completely ignorant of what they require. You are completely ignorant of what they do.

Got it...

What, aside from your ego, qualifies you to strut around like a wanna fascist and tell US citizens that they have no say in how their government operates if they disagree with you and your Bible thumping allies (an alliance that one Victor Stenger quote in your signature does not obscure)? This is even more ignorant than your other bullshit. You're turning "ignorance" into an art form.

I have no "Bible thumping allies". I don't read (although I have), nor do I believe in, the Bible.

I've also never stated that citizens don't have a say in how their government operates. But, since you've made the claim that I have, you need to provide a link to where I made such a statement. Otherwise, you'll just look, you know... Ignorant...

I have read several books, and I have a high enough IQ to understand why the Navy and Air Force could easily defeat any amphibious force crossing either of this country's moats. You understand nothing...

I submit that you have a long history of immature, belligerent-without-provocation posts that lack substantive content. http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/images/smilies/lol.gifhttp://www.uspoliticsonline.net/images/smilies/lol.gifhttp://www.uspoliticsonline.net/images/smilies/lol.gifhttp://www.uspoliticsonline.net/images/smilies/lol.gifhttp://www.uspoliticsonline.net/images/smilies/lol.gif

You are beligerence personified...

Your ignorance dictates that you think they'd have to...

Me cowardly?

Hysterical...

How about you being willfully ignorant about the current state of the world economy? I say and mean 'willfully ignorant' because you are choosing to ignore it.

Until the BRIC eat our fucking lunch and it's too darn late.

Stupid, stupid, stupid proposal.

Much respect for you generally as a member here, but this proposal is just asinine.

Dude. I believe that we can cut a lot of waste from military spending but those changes.....no.

What we need to look into is defense research and development. We spend a lot of money on projects that go nowhere. The Bradley Fighting Vehicle is one such example of an unnecessary project that cost hundreds of millions to develop and is the most useless vehicle in the arsenal.

Another thing we need to do is close military bases. We have too many world wide. We should pull out all together from Iraq, we are still bleeding billions over there and we need to NOT put troops on the ground in Libya and keep our investment in that conflict to a minimum and let NATO and other countries bear the brunt of the cost.

Then finally put an end to no-bid contracts and get private security contractors out of official military business. We do not need them and they seem to do more harm than good anyway.

If you want to talk about agencies that we need to eliminate...one such agency would be the DEA. They are failures. They cannot win the war on drugs. Taking them out will save 50 billion right there between their operations, salaries and judicial costs. The legalize most recreational drugs and tax and regulate them which will bring in even more revenue.

We kind of need the CIA. They are a necessary evil that can save the country billions in war costs by defusing situations before they get out of hand and the Army and Marines are kind of important as are the Reserves and National Guard. If I need to explain why, then it's not worth explaining.

R&D costs were ridiculous, as were the survivability issues with early models.

As far as uselessness is concerned, the BFV was a MASSIVE improvement over its predecessor. If you made the transition from M113 to BFV as an Infantryman, as I did, you wouldn't call the BFV useless.

When you consider that during Operation Desert Storm (the last great armored battle of the 21st century and one of the biggest) the BFV racked up more kills, as a vehicle, than did the M1 tank while suffering only 4 vehicle killed as a result of enemy fire, you see that it's lethality and survivability under enemy contact isn't exactly useless.

As it stands there are really very few threat armored vehicles in the world that can go toe-to-toe with a BFV in its element, and when you throw Divisonal assets needed to build a combined team there are probably no armoered forces in the world that could beat American armor.

The M2 may not be suited for the modern urban battlefield, but it wasn't designed for the modern urban battlefield. At the time it was developed the main threat was from the 8th Guards Army rolling down the Fulda Gap. There probably weren't enough of them in Europe at the time of that threat to serve as more than a speed bump but, again, I'd have much prefered weathering Russian artillery in a BFV than in a Gavin.

I'd love to see how "modern" wheeled armored vehicles handle weeks in the German mud in October/November. If you've never been stuck in German mud in an armored vehicle you haven't lived. There are mud puddles that will literally swallow a BFV or an M1. As a driver of a BFV I had to crawl out of the turrett once because the vehicle was so far under the mud that everything other than the turrett hatches were submerged. The mechanics and I went swimming in mud with some tow cables, hooked the Brad up to an M88, pulled the bitch out, and drove it away. In a M113 I would have been dead - literally dead.

Not "useless".

Yeah, I agree with you more. Especially about closing all of those post WW2 Cold War bases. Since America is not an Empire, http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/images/smilies/lol.gif we are wasting money in trying to appear as one. We all know what eventually happens to empires, don't we? Let's avoid that, and dedicate our military to its original function. And save a helluva lot of dough in the process. Lets turn swords into plowshears again. http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

unclassifiable: on defense cuts... if you've 'lost' TomBlaze, you've lost.

http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/images/smilies/lol.gifhttp://www.uspoliticsonline.net/images/smilies/lol.gifhttp://www.uspoliticsonline.net/images/smilies/lol.gif

The lack of explanation, facts, and reasoning is blindingly bright in your posts.


SSGT Jones, on duty in Afghanistan, needs things. He needs bullets, he needs weapons. He needs food and he needs support. In what way is he "thieving scum"? He should not be there, period. This country gets absolutely no benefit from him being there. Morons think that he is taking care of the "turrism" problem there, but he's not. The best way to prevent "turrism" is to actually have our borders and coastlines seriously defended, for once. The National Guard and Coast Guard can do those things.

So, you've absolutely zero experience in anything regarding the military. You are completely ignorant of what they require. You are completely ignorant of what they do. That's quite a crooked game you want to run. Do you expect me to let you get away with framing the terms of the debate such that the only people who are allowed to criticize military policy are those who are or have been in the military? According to your thinking, the only people who should be allowed to criticize Scientology are Scientologists. That is bullshit.

You want me to give a huge fraction of what I earn to wasteful cocksuckers, and then when I protest, you tell me that my criticism isn't valid because I have "absolutely zero experience in anything regarding the military." How about we give NASA 500 billion dollars a year, and then when you protest, I'll give you a taste of your own medicine and ask to see your PhD in a related science.

Got it... Yeah, just like when you bitched about NASA smashing a probe into the Moon to look for water there. Where is your PhD in Physics, Astronomy, Geology, or anything remotely related to any of those fields?

This is even more ignorant than your other bullshit. You're turning "ignorance" into an art form. You turn hypocrisy into a nauseating habit. When do you plan on ceasing all criticism of all government spending that does not pertain to your area of expertise?

I have no "Bible thumping allies". I don't read (although I have), nor do I believe in, the Bible. You worship the military, which is loaded with Bible thumping freaks, and which is supported by tens of millions of Bible thumping freaks. That makes Bible thumping freaks very much your peeps.

I've also never stated that citizens don't have a say in how their government operates. But, since you've made the claim that I have, you need to provide a link to where I made such a statement. Otherwise, you'll just look, you know... Ignorant... So, should Congress, or shouldn't Congress, listen to the thoughts of people who want to cut military spending, whether or not they are veterans?

You understand nothing... You have a habit of making empty assertions, perpetually angry man.

You are beligerence personified... You're the one who delights in collateral damage as long as the people aren't US citizens.

Your immaturity dictates that you like to try to make your opponent play guessing games, like an 11 year old girl would do. Specify exactly what they could do that would allow them to prevail with my proposed cuts, or else you forfeit for being full of shit and unwilling to be man enough to back up your assertions with specific details.