Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I'd have to go find the stat, so don't hold me to the exact numbers, but guard soldiers cost something like 1/3 of their active duty counterparts - and i think that's just the cost today. long term costs are also lower, with reserve retirement significantly cheaper than active duty.you misunderstood me. I'm saying we need to reduce the size of our active duty forces in favor of guard and reserve units where the roi is much higherWe have enough NG and Reserves. The Armed Service Committees are the most powerful committees in Congress and if we have to build up they will sway Congress. They always do.i dont know what you mean by saying the house and senate armed forces committees will solve any problem 'to get obama off his dead ass'The Defense Department has contingency plans and scenarios for any situation that could crop up. There are adequate amounts of armaments, equipment and reserves and a plan for a draft. . Factories are prepared to go on a war footing at a moments notice. Personnel and war equipment is located strategically around the world and units such as the 82d Airborne Division are a Quick Reaction Force. Currently the one big setback is funding and the House and Senate Armed Service Committees will solve that problem quickly to get Obama off his dead ass.
That's my analysis and opinion.
Any naysayers?
what does that even mean?
that said i think we spend too much on active duty personnel. we need to shift that money to build up guard and reserve units.
What do you mean a much higher ROI? I'm not calling into question if you are right or not, I am trying to understand what significant ROIs there are.
This post by Pumpkin Princess (age 14) is nonsense and everyone who "liked" it is at the mental level of a 14 year old.No, our military is never enough, it should be the most powerful military in the world to such an extent that even if every other nation banded together, we could crush them without a thought.What are your thoughts on the general force levels of the Army, Air force, Marines, and Navy? Are they enough? Too much? Too little? Composed of the right elements? Or no longer needed?
Geo political implications make this a complex issue.
China is the infantry king of the world and the USA can never catch them.
Russia is the tank and arty king of the world and the USA can never catch them either.
The USA is the king of air power and sea power, however those forces can only move nominal reactionary forces to hot spots. They cannot fight a world war.
Grow up people. Grow a brain. And stop emulating a little 14 year old b!tch.
Jake, we do spend about twice as much as the next guy, but that is because it costs that much more than the next guy. China can spend a little on espionage and get huge returns while polishing that stolen information up to their needs for a little more cost. Russia is now doing the same. While I would suspect we do some of the same stuff ourselves (espionage), our culture in general does not allow us to rely on others to provide us the information necessary to build a highly technical and capable armed forces. We must do it the hard way, by ourselves.hossfly gives some good advice, though I personally don't think end times are around the corner.
Ms Aflac above needs to stop quacking and offer some well thought out comments to the OP.
We currently spend about twice as much as the next twenty five countries put together.
I'd have to go find the stat, so don't hold me to the exact numbers, but guard soldiers cost something like 1/3 of their active duty counterparts - and i think that's just the cost today. long term costs are also lower, with reserve retirement significantly cheaper than active duty.you misunderstood me. I'm saying we need to reduce the size of our active duty forces in favor of guard and reserve units where the roi is much higherWe have enough NG and Reserves. The Armed Service Committees are the most powerful committees in Congress and if we have to build up they will sway Congress. They always do.i dont know what you mean by saying the house and senate armed forces committees will solve any problem 'to get obama off his dead ass'The Defense Department has contingency plans and scenarios for any situation that could crop up. There are adequate amounts of armaments, equipment and reserves and a plan for a draft. . Factories are prepared to go on a war footing at a moments notice. Personnel and war equipment is located strategically around the world and units such as the 82d Airborne Division are a Quick Reaction Force. Currently the one big setback is funding and the House and Senate Armed Service Committees will solve that problem quickly to get Obama off his dead ass.
That's my analysis and opinion.
Any naysayers?
what does that even mean?
that said i think we spend too much on active duty personnel. we need to shift that money to build up guard and reserve units.
What do you mean a much higher ROI? I'm not calling into question if you are right or not, I am trying to understand what significant ROIs there are.
then there's the fact that guard and reserve soldiers hold other jobs and are not just a net drain on tax dollars.
our dollars go much farther with guard and reserve troops.
there is an increased mobilization time with reserve units, that's true, but that's where the capability gap ends.I'd have to go find the stat, so don't hold me to the exact numbers, but guard soldiers cost something like 1/3 of their active duty counterparts - and i think that's just the cost today. long term costs are also lower, with reserve retirement significantly cheaper than active duty.you misunderstood me. I'm saying we need to reduce the size of our active duty forces in favor of guard and reserve units where the roi is much higherWe have enough NG and Reserves. The Armed Service Committees are the most powerful committees in Congress and if we have to build up they will sway Congress. They always do.i dont know what you mean by saying the house and senate armed forces committees will solve any problem 'to get obama off his dead ass'
what does that even mean?
that said i think we spend too much on active duty personnel. we need to shift that money to build up guard and reserve units.
What do you mean a much higher ROI? I'm not calling into question if you are right or not, I am trying to understand what significant ROIs there are.
then there's the fact that guard and reserve soldiers hold other jobs and are not just a net drain on tax dollars.
our dollars go much farther with guard and reserve troops.
I can see that. I'm just not sure the delta between active and reserve costs would be significant enough to justify the reduced capabilities inherent to reserves and NG as compared to active duty. I am not sure the current actives units would be enough to "hold the line" with anything significant long enough to bring up the reserves and NG. That's my main concern and I don't know the answer to that. Good thoughts all around.
We are not facing a ground war in Europe of immense proportions, and regardless of what China does, we should never introduce large forces into Asia in the foreseeable future.
A ground force of fifteen active division (including one Marine) backed by NG and AR capability of another fifteen divisions is more than enough.
The greater amount of investment should be made in air and naval shields, along with increasing Spec Ops forces.
Some of that destabilization also was/is to bring a change for the mutual benefit.I'd actually want to start a rebellion, since the government was oppressive. They are a different story, because they didn't treat other countries well, or their own people. Their people were already suffering.That's dumb. So if you were a German during WW2 you would wish Germany was powerful enough to conquer the rest of the planet because your citizens shouldn't suffer just because your government is ticking off other countries?Not true, and even if it were, it doesn't mean the citizens of the United States should suffer for the government ticking off all the other countries.True if we did something that caused the entire rest of the planet to unite against us, the we'll likely have become an evil, evil country.
Sure, we have a long rich history of destablizing other nations to gain access to resources and markets, or to undermine the liberty and democracy of others when we don't like what they're up to. Things we'd wail about if done to us.
I find little to argue about with the assessment made by the Heritage Foundation:
The State of the U.S. Military
I can live with increasing the force level, IF we withdraw most of our folks and units from overseas.
Okinawa and Korea in the Pacific, Kuwait in the ME, and token tripwire units in Germany would also be fine.
I find little to argue about with the assessment made by the Heritage Foundation:
The State of the U.S. Military
They have their agenda, so you agree with that then.
I find little to argue about with the assessment made by the Heritage Foundation:
The State of the U.S. Military
They have their agenda, so you agree with that then.
I certainly agree with the age of the military's assets. Those facts can be easily checked.
The problem with Okinawa is that it is vulnerable to Chinese air power.I can live with increasing the force level, IF we withdraw most of our folks and units from overseas.
Okinawa and Korea in the Pacific, Kuwait in the ME, and token tripwire units in Germany would also be fine.
I'd pull out of everything but Okinawa. Leave a small force in place where we can later surge to either South Korea or Taiwan. These seem to be the most significant potentially threatening areas where allies need some sort of presence around. It would take a while to surge from the Continental US to provide significant support, but a starting point in that area never the less. As for backing out of most other areas. I agree.
Putin is the king of Europe so it makes no sense to waste any tank and arty units there.I can live with increasing the force level, IF we withdraw most of our folks and units from overseas.
Okinawa and Korea in the Pacific, Kuwait in the ME, and token tripwire units in Germany would also be fine.
Every nation needs a ready reserve in case SHTF and the entire regular army deploys.I'd have to go find the stat, so don't hold me to the exact numbers, but guard soldiers cost something like 1/3 of their active duty counterparts - and i think that's just the cost today. long term costs are also lower, with reserve retirement significantly cheaper than active duty.you misunderstood me. I'm saying we need to reduce the size of our active duty forces in favor of guard and reserve units where the roi is much higherWe have enough NG and Reserves. The Armed Service Committees are the most powerful committees in Congress and if we have to build up they will sway Congress. They always do.i dont know what you mean by saying the house and senate armed forces committees will solve any problem 'to get obama off his dead ass'
what does that even mean?
that said i think we spend too much on active duty personnel. we need to shift that money to build up guard and reserve units.
What do you mean a much higher ROI? I'm not calling into question if you are right or not, I am trying to understand what significant ROIs there are.
then there's the fact that guard and reserve soldiers hold other jobs and are not just a net drain on tax dollars.
our dollars go much farther with guard and reserve troops.
I can see that. I'm just not sure the delta between active and reserve costs would be significant enough to justify the reduced capabilities inherent to reserves and NG as compared to active duty. I am not sure the current actives units would be enough to "hold the line" with anything significant long enough to bring up the reserves and NG. That's my main concern and I don't know the answer to that. Good thoughts all around.
What are your thoughts on the general force levels of the Army, Air force, Marines, and Navy? Are they enough? Too much? Too little? Composed of the right elements? Or no longer needed?
Geo political implications make this a complex issue.
