Trump chooses mattis for secdef!!!

They would have to end filibusters totally from what I understand.

- - - Updated - - -

Already cited the military regulations forbidding it.

 

How many at the top are our enemies and how report credible spending numbers? You think China, Russia, NK, Iran do?

 

We are weak since we dont produce all we need to fight here. The number one thing entrusted to the government is to protect us. I dont like the government doing the investing at any rate. I would reduce defense spending by doing it wisely. I remember back when I was in the Marines. We had very specialized aircraft, there were only 36 in the whole Corps ,RF-4B Phantoms for \used for aerial recon. One of our cameras used a special aluminum bolt about 4 inches long and a half inch in diameter to mount it. They cost $97 each in 1969. Thats ridiculous.

 

We know what they spend not by what they report but by what they do. Trust me....we have people all over this

 

We are not weak.

PERIOD!!!

So, don't give me that.

As for your bolt example, you would have to produce a lot more than that in order to show that it was a ridiculous price. I'd point out that making ANY part is expensive when there are almost no buyers. The design, certification testing aspects can't be divided by the huge numbers that bring low prices. And, in the case of airplanes, there can be serious requirements that require inordinate materials and exacting work.

And, that's a problem faced by any corporation interested in building an airplane where there won't be more than about 2 sold - such as with AF1.

 

We have machine shops and could have made them ourselves

Thats only one example

https://www.thenation.com/article/only-the-pentagon-could-spend-640-on-a-toilet-seat/

http://articles.latimes.com/1986-07-30/news/vw-18804_1_nut

Now a businessman wont let this continue

 

Apology if i lacked clarity on your part. Keeping that advantage is my point.

 

I hope so, but I'm still going to point out that your examples don't have enough evidence behind them.

Plus, the large mistakes get made by congress as congressmen strive to have contracts go to their states - regardless of whether the product works or even whether it is needed.

Look at what happens when congress and the military try to create a new jet fighter.

 

Thats exactly what Im talking about, Its about politics not whats good for the country. We need leaders who will get us the best bang for our tax dollars

 

Non sequitur response that has nothing whatsoever to do with what I actually posted.

 

You can blame the Republican/Libertarian failed "free markets" outsourcing of jobs for the lack of parts for the military.

 

The point is that it is a monumental logistical job to invade the continental USA with conventional forces. It doesn't take a great deal of force to stop it from happening. In WW2 the Brits were vastly outnumbered in aircraft and yet they managed to maintain air superiorty and prevent an invasion.

The reality is the sheer distance across the Pacific alone is a massive deterrent. To move enormous numbers of troops, equipment and supplies plus provide them with air cover is an all but impossible task.

Wasting money on increased military spending is not going to stop the next attack on the USA because it will be a terrorist who can't be detected by military hardware that will be responsible.

- - - Updated - - -

That won't be Trump!

 

Why?.......

 

I will give you one. A diode that cost less than a buck at RadioShack is the same diode was the exact same one the military used and it cost $50. If we were in an emergency we would go to RadioShack to buy one instead of going through requisition.

 

We're holding a lot on their money aren't we? That's also leverage.

 

The base aircraft cost less than 1 billion for the two. Like the Marine 1 project that McCain got Obama to cancel because the cost were becoming so inflated I am more than happy to have Trump and his staff order a full review including why this was no bid the Boeing. If everything is in order and justified go forward. If there is a ton of money to be saves then do so. Especially why was Airbus cut out of the bidding.

 

First dogs name? Patton

 

Being indebted to the Chinese gives THEM a lot of leverage over the USA!

 

There is an old saying, the man with the money is the one with the power. We have 'their' money so also have power in negotiations.

 

Except that we don't have the money because the Republicans gave it all away to the 1%!

All we have is the onerous debt burden that is owed to the Chinese which gives them an enormous amount of leverage.

 

The Republicans gave it all to the 1%? LOL

 

You were claiming we had all we need for here. What about overseas? Look we both want to cut defense spending its just the how we seem to disagree on. Its not the size but the potency of the military that counts

 

Size counts. You can not successfully win or take control without feet on the ground. During WWII and according to my Uncle who won a Silver Star, the Germans had better equipment and were better fighters. We had the numbers.

 

As long as they are not your feet. Lol

 

Yes if your planning on fighting a major war but these days its smaller unconventional wars we face. I dont think Russia or China is thinking of invading the US. We need to figure out exactly what we need to handle todays threats and those of the future and plan accordingly. Marines have always proven that its not the size of the dog but the fight in the dog that counts