Chuck Hagel Proposes Downsizing US Amry to Pre-WWII Size

Not exactly. Just because we have the largest military budget does not mean we have the greatest military might.

Let's look at the M2. Do you know how the M2 came to be? It was designed to replace the iconic M113 troop carrier. The M113 was poorly equipped and armored to defend the troops it was carrying. So, we decided to replace it with the M2. But one general said put a cannon on top of that thing. Another said we need more misses. A third general said we need more armor, and finally one general said it must keep up with the tanks. Eventually, we developed a weapon system that does not do very well for what it was intended and cost a hell of a lot more than originally projected.

the point is that we spend the most because we wasted the most of our dollar. We just have to spend the dollar more wisely but not diminish our military capacity at the same time.

And that is why the Stryker vehicle is replacing the Bradley vehicle in combat infantry battalions because it is a much better weapon system than that of a Bradley, not to mention it costs much less and does the job better than the M2 does.

 

They do not have a fraction of our technology or capability.

The fact we are the largest military in the world.

 

Exactly. Militaries will be used. That is the most solid understanding you can get from history. The question is do we want a fair fight when our is used and are we willing to deal with those casualties? I say no to both. This is a case where more government spending does actually save lives. Unlike welfare payments and the like.

- - - Updated - - -

They have a fraction for sure. Once they have 4th generation planes what do we have that is so much better then what they have? At their current pace how long before they surpass us? 15 years, 20?

You said we had a military larger then the next 20 combined didnt you? It is common knowledge we have the largest now.

 

Never claimed otherwise.

I think cons don't understand the constitution.

Which was wrong.

Unless we are attacked, no going to war.

 

75% of the defense budget is welfare, to Boeing, GD, SAIC, etc. There are many billion dollar a year corporations that do nothing but exist off the defense budget of the US and dont' produce a damn thing. The defense budget is supposed to be for defending the nation, not private profits.

 

A standing army is unconstitutional. Going to war without a declaration from congress is unconstitutional. Seriously, read the constitution.

 

If you cut the military budget and give away to our enemies the military advantage we hold more American soldiers will die because of inadequate equipment and training and numbers.

 

Yes, exactly. We are the largest military in the world. To pretend we aren't is delusional.

 

What about our allies? Would you be OK with mass genocide every where but here? Just curious.

Make your argument for why it is unconstitutional. I would like to hear it. Simply saying it isn't is not an argument.

- - - Updated - - -

Declaration from congress is fine. I am also a tea party member. What about a standing army is unconstitutional?

- - - Updated - - -

They produce aircraft and tanks and our military superiority. Crack heads on the government teet produce nothing. I think you are confused here.

 

I think our military power is a good thing.

We have the best military hands down and I don't want that to change because it saves American lives when we do go into combat.

 

If troops die because of inadequate training and equipment, who's fault is that? I'll tell you, it's the so-called military leadership's fault. Strength does not require large numbers.

- - - Updated - - -

You'd better check your head for cracks. I'd say you are leaking.

 

Point 1 - someone said the generals were responsible for massive cost over-runs. Most of the time it comes from pressure applied by members of congress who're doing everything they can to get business for the districts - along with the $$$$ they'll receive in political donations.

Point 2 - there can be big reductions in the military budget if they would:

a. Get rid of all the duplication and administrative organizations.

b. Combine the 5 uniformed branches under one capping organization and stop having different branches doing similar things. i.e, all pilots of all aircraft in one branch, all boats under another [did you know the Army operates boats?] and all armored craft under another.

c. Ammend and modernize the Civil Service System for the Armed Forces.

Been there, done that, and can't see a single reason why it wouldn't work.

 

The pentagon does not set the budget.

In this case isolationist libs are.

They are the ones condemning future American soldiers to death.

 

How many times in one thread do you need to be proven completely wrong before you finally give up? I know libs live in their own alternate reality, but it's been shown several times here that we do not have the largest military. Yet you absolutely refuse to accept it. I'd be embarrassed if I were you

 

It has everything to do with us. The Chinese know this. The Japanese know this. The Taiwanese know this. It is good that they are talking, but that is because of the continued policies of Deng Xiaoping, Hu Juntao, and Ma Ying-jeou. All moderates in the world of the CCP. If you have a hardliner like Zhang Qinli, things would be much different. Pray that no hardliner will emerge as President of the People's Republic of China.

 

We have the largest military budget which is used to maintain a military THAT CAN KICK ASS.

But libs want to turn America into the 98 pound weakling what gets sand kicked in our face instead.

 

No it doesn't, but it does decide where the money is spent.

Isolationist my arse. This country wasn't formed to rule the planet.

No, you are. You think they should be sent somewhere other than the US to get killed.

 

How do you reason with someone who thinks a standing army is unconstitutional?

I think we are wasting our time here.

 

What nations spend more money in real dollars on their military than we do?

 

It doesn't even decide that.

Congress has the final word on how every penny is spent.

- - - Updated - - -

None.

And that's the way it should be unless you want American soldiers to be cannon fodder for the enemy.

 

57% of all discretionary spending goes to the military. That is simply unsustainable. Which they are now figuring out (a little late, but whatever). Before we can talk about "welfare" spending you need to define what it is you consider "welfare".

 

Seriously, get a clue. Go get the defense budget and read it.

- - - Updated - - -

You want them to be cannon fodder. Stop pretending otherwise.

- - - Updated - - -

That would be anything they don't agree with.

 

The military budget is less than 18 recent of the federal budget.

What's unsustainable is the wipe-every-nose social welfare programs like food stamps, Section 8 housing, Medicaid, ObamaCare and all the rest.

 

Nonsense. They wouldn't die because they wouldn't be in the conflict. That's the point. Not going to war unless attacked, or attack is imminent.

 

"One regiment or both?"

I am thinking John Adams said this, but not sure.