Debts, deficits and defense....

[coastal89]

or Obamas plan to gut the military. Not to lower the deficit, but inorder to keep spending on vote buying programs.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/28/debts ... z0sHtTdthk

The Obama administration intends to slash the defense budget in order to pay for its riotous spending on bailouts, “stimulus bills,” their signature healthcare program, and massive pork bribes for votes from congressmen who hopefully will not survive this November’s balloting. To continue the spending spree, the White House plans to eliminate over a trillion defense dollars in the next ten years. Details of those proposed cuts were laid out by Rep. Barney Frank’s (D-MA) Sustainable Defense Task Force in a 56 page report titled: Debt, Deficits, & Defense – A Way Forward. None of the service arms are spared.

The Navy will be reduced to eight aircraft carriers (from twelve planned) and seven air wings. Eight ballistic missile submarines will be cut from the planned force of 14, leaving just six. Building of nuclear attack submarines will be cut in half, leaving a force of 40 by 2020. The four active guided missile submarines would be cut, too. Destroyer building would be frozen and the new DDG-1000 destroyer program cancelled. Among other huge cuts, the fleet is to be reduced to 230 combat ships, eliminating 57 vessels from a current force level of 287.

[Col Hogan]

Yea, I've been watching the cuts as the budget is prepared...

We're returning to the Carter Hallow Force...but you won't see any drop in the overall federal budget...

[hank scorpio]

Moving from the largest down to, the largest.

The U.S. Navy is the largest in the world; its battle fleet tonnage is greater than that of the next 13 largest navies combined.

[AZGrizFan]

Yea, I've been watching the cuts as the budget is prepared...

We're returning to the Carter Hallow Force...but you won't see any drop in the overall federal budget...

THIS is the issue. I have no problem with the cuts (as long as our obligations are cut similarly), but the money is NOT going to be returned to the taxpayer, they just use it to fund THEIR wet dreams instead of conservative wet dreams.

[hank scorpio]

Yea, I've been watching the cuts as the budget is prepared...

We're returning to the Carter Hallow Force...but you won't see any drop in the overall federal budget...

THIS is the issue. I have no problem with the cuts (as long as our obligations are cut similarly), but the money is NOT going to be returned to the taxpayer, they just use it to fund THEIR wet dreams instead of conservative wet dreams.

+1

[OL FU]

I don't even pretend to know how large our military should be, but I have no problem with scaling it back. In fact, (maybe someone can explain this), Why don't we get the heck out of Okinawa. The people on that island have wanted us gone for 30 years. and come to think of it since Europe is doing so well , we should tell them it's time for them to grow up and defend themselves Perhaps we will worry that if they do they will start blowing each other up again.

Seriously, the military is used by Congress people all the time to pump up the economic pork in their districts, it needs to be scaled down.

[BDKJMU]

I don't even pretend to know how large our military should be, but I have no problem with scaling it back. In fact, (maybe someone can explain this), Why don't we get the heck out of Okinawa. The people on that island have wanted us gone for 30 years. and come to think of it since Europe is doing so well , we should tell them it's time for them to grow up and defend themselves Perhaps we will worry that if they do they will start blowing each other up again.

Seriously, the military is used by Congress people all the time to pump up the economic pork in their districts, it needs to be scaled down.

Agreed but ONLY if the cuts are ACROSS THE ABOARD. If you cut the military say 20%, then cut everything else 20%. Then manybe we could start to pay down some of this mountain of national debt. But no, Obama and the donk Congress will take the $ saved from cutting the military and just spend it somewhere else.

[OL FU]

I don't even pretend to know how large our military should be, but I have no problem with scaling it back. In fact, (maybe someone can explain this), Why don't we get the heck out of Okinawa. The people on that island have wanted us gone for 30 years. and come to think of it since Europe is doing so well , we should tell them it's time for them to grow up and defend themselves Perhaps we will worry that if they do they will start blowing each other up again.

Seriously, the military is used by Congress people all the time to pump up the economic pork in their districts, it needs to be scaled down.

Agreed but ONLY if the cuts are ACROSS THE ABOARD. If you cut the military say 20%, then cut everything else 20%. Then manybe we could start to pay down some of this mountain of national debt. But no, Obama and the donk Congress will take the $ saved from cutting the military and just spend it somewhere else.

I agree that we need cuts and eliminations everywhere, but hell at this point cutting one place to spend somewhere else at least would involve breaking even.

[CitadelGrad]

Moving from the largest down to, the largest.

The U.S. Navy is the largest in the world; its battle fleet tonnage is greater than that of the next 13 largest navies combined.

That's because we have carrier battle groups. Without those, we are no longer a Pacific power. We might as well get out of Korea and Japan now if we are unable to project naval and air power from one end of the Pacific Rim to the other. We can put a bow on Taiwan, Japan, Korea and Australia, then give them to the Chinese.

[Chizzang]

Moving from the largest down to, the largest.

That's because we have carrier battle groups. Without those, we are no longer a Pacific power. We might as well get out of Korea and Japan now if we are unable to project naval and air power from one end of the Pacific Rim to the other. We can put a bow on Taiwan, Japan, Korea and Australia, then give them to the Chinese.

Wow...
So basically you're predicting World War 3



do they grow you clowns at the Citadel or are you incubated and hatched..?

[Col Hogan]

That's because we have carrier battle groups. Without those, we are no longer a Pacific power. We might as well get out of Korea and Japan now if we are unable to project naval and air power from one end of the Pacific Rim to the other. We can put a bow on Taiwan, Japan, Korea and Australia, then give them to the Chinese.

Wow...
So basically you're predicting World War 3



do they grow you clowns at the Citadel or are you incubated and hatched..?

Obviously, you disagree with President John Kennedy...

Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.

We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

Sure...why not....the Chinese have no ill intentions...they're honorable people...

[CitadelGrad]

That's because we have carrier battle groups. Without those, we are no longer a Pacific power. We might as well get out of Korea and Japan now if we are unable to project naval and air power from one end of the Pacific Rim to the other. We can put a bow on Taiwan, Japan, Korea and Australia, then give them to the Chinese.

Wow...
So basically you're predicting World War 3



do they grow you clowns at the Citadel or are you incubated and hatched..?

I'm not predicting WWIII. I'm acknowledging that our capitulation will probably make WWIII unnecessary. It's hard to believe you managed to get a Harvard sheepskin with such poor reading comprehension skills.

[houndawg]

China can take Korea, Japan, and Taiwan whenever they want to. We'd have to borrow money from China to intervene.

[bobbythekidd]

China can take Korea, Japan, and Taiwan whenever they want to. We'd have to borrow money from China to intervene.

Sad but true Hound

[AZGrizFan]

China can take Korea, Japan, and Taiwan whenever they want to. We'd have to borrow money from China to intervene.

Yeah, but they're fucked if we don't honor all the treasuries they've bought.

[Chizzang]

China can take Korea, Japan, and Taiwan whenever they want to. We'd have to borrow money from China to intervene.

Exactly...
I read a book in the 90's that basically said that WW3 is being fought now and it's entirely economic
It outlined the expenses associated with military occupation (fascinating actually)
unless you completely monopolize the natural resources of the nation you're occupying it actually makes no sense to occupy when you can control economically

anyway... none of that matters because apparently WWIII will ensue - as soon as we reduce the size of our Navy

[Pwns]

China can take Korea, Japan, and Taiwan whenever they want to. We'd have to borrow money from China to intervene.

Exactly...
I read a book in the 90's that basically said that WW3 is being fought now and it's entirely economic
It outlined the expenses associated with military occupation (fascinating actually)
unless you completely monopolize the natural resources of the nation you're occupying it actually makes no sense to occupy when you can control economically

anyway... none of that matters because apparently WWIII will ensue - as soon as we reduce the size of our Navy

Yup, and that's exactly why we should all thank God that nuclear disarmament has yet to win out. Elites won't wage war on a whim when they know they are in range of weapons of war at all times.

[CitadelGrad]

China can take Korea, Japan, and Taiwan whenever they want to. We'd have to borrow money from China to intervene.

Not at the present time.

[CID1990]

Our military deterrent is the single thing that has kept China out of Taiwan. The question is, should we care?

Does the security of the US depend on the integrity of the Taiwanese state? Maybe not.

Does the security of the US depend on the integrity of the southeast Asian peninsula? Maybe not.

Would China be emboldened by a strategic retreat by the US? Maybe. Would that spell problems for the entire East-Asia-Pacific region? Maybe.

Does anyone on this board really know? Absolutely not.

Was the last Asian country to wage a war of aggression in the Pacific a threat to the US? Yes, it was. Would the next one be? Yes, it would.

The problem here is not what we need to project power in East Asia and the Pacific. The problem is to figure what we need to protect our own west coast. Are military reductions calculated to give us the ability to keep China out of the US, but reduce our ability to project power abroad? If that is the case, then I would not be averse to the reductions.

Moreover, can a military that is capable of simply guarding the physical boundaries of our own country also be capable of staving off a China that is capable of swallowing the entire Pacific Rim? There must be a magic number there, and it surely means a military that is more than adequate for simply guarding our own borders.

However, history and common sense tell me that the reductions are an accounting measure meant to remove red ink on a different part of the balance sheet. There are likely no strategic calculations involved. Prior to WWI and WWII, the US had undergone a significant military reduction prior to each of those conflicts. Our relative weakness played heavily in the calculations of our adveraries in both wars. I would say that we should reduce what we can but do it with a mind more to our capabilities and less to how much money we need to free up for corporate and social welfare.

Let's not forget that defense is our government's constitutional duty #1.

[houndawg]

China can take Korea, Japan, and Taiwan whenever they want to. We'd have to borrow money from China to intervene.

Exactly...
I read a book in the 90's that basically said that WW3 is being fought now and it's entirely economic
It outlined the expenses associated with military occupation (fascinating actually)
unless you completely monopolize the natural resources of the nation you're occupying it actually makes no sense to occupy when you can control economically

anyway... none of that matters because apparently WWIII will ensue - as soon as we reduce the size of our Navy

To do that the Chinese would need factories here and only whack jobs like Chomsky think that's going to happen........oh, wait.......well, let's just say that we've "strategically squandered" a large part of our natural resources in order to deny the enemy use of them.



BTW, I believe that our Congresspersons will very soon be getting more pork from Chinese captains of industry than from the Pentagon.