I do not agree with this cut. When other country's have millions of soldiers. We are heading back to pearl Harbor days. Do you agree with troop cuts?
Yes, I agree. Except for the fact that those 40,000 being cut will soon be joining the labor force. They should be kept in the military until there is a labor shortage. - - - Updated - - - Why? We had a many troops as we needed for Afgh. and Iraq and still couldn't pull of a victory.
you scared we will get into another Afgh' or another Iraq. there is a difference in defending or border at home then abroad
This is a splendid idea. Let others to fight for their freedoms and forget to use us to fight for them. Our military budget is surpassing 13 biggest next powers combined! To what end?
Exactly, the British Empire was the dominant power throughout the 19th century because their Navy was estimated to be able to fight and beat any TWO other Navies in the world and they knew from their own experience, rightly, that no coalition of more than 2 Great Powers would last for long. We now have a Navy that can easily beat THREE, or maybe FOUR and possibly every other Navy in the world combined. It's ridiculous, we are doing to the US what killed the Soviet Union; by neglecting our infrastructure we are becoming a Third World country to support a Superpower military, and the irony is our opponent in this arms race is ourselves.
ONE submarine armed with 24 Trident missiles, each with MIRV warheads, can destroy over 100 cities and this would surely ignite vast firestorms and rain down a hell of radioactivity that would kill everyone within a several thousand square mile area. One of these subs, which can be at any point in the world's oceans at any time could thus kill millions upon millions of people in the blink of an eye. We have (I think) 12. Yet strangely, a cadre of hill bandits in Toyota trucks can successfully hold us off for years. It is high time that we recognize that our vast numbers of tanks and huge aircraft carriers have been obsolete for years. It is a truism that militaries always fight the last war, but is may be a fatal mistake this time.
My biggest question about the troops cuts is - who will they cut? The generals and senior civilian employees who never seem to go away? Or the poor grunts who don't make one tenth of the above?
I go with the conservative position here, and follow Grover Norquist. I believe an 80% cut in the military budget would leave us with a solid defense, only the useless parts of the military would need to be removed to attain this. I mean it's the basis of the Bush Tax Cuts, they actually would have worked if we had followed through and cut the Pentagon by 80%, like the plan called for.
As long as the Navy and nuclear arm of the military is capable and we continue with research and development I am ok with personnel cuts. Our military needs to adapt to the current world and large militarily are for countries that cannot keep pace with technology. North Korea has a massive army but does anyone here actually think it would do them a bit of good if we decided to end them? China too has a massive army which is great for defense but without ships we could really care less about them militarily. (economically is a different story)
Do you have absolutely any evidence to back this up, or are you just going to write two sentences and expect us to take your word for it?
I suspect you probably agreed with the cuts when Cheney and Rumsfeld were cutting troops and consolidating bases all over the country. But I don't agree with troop cuts. I would agree with brass cuts. AND, contrary to Romney's opinion, we do not need more battleships.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/u...k-army-to-pre-world-war-ii-level.html?hp&_r=0 Looks like most of the cuts are coming from Afghanistan. They would 40,000 more to reach the goal of 450,000. Makes sense. Why would we need 566,000 after we leave Iraq and Afghanistan?
Imperialism is expensive. Why not cut the military? Because people are convinced that other countries dislike us because of our freedoms?
