In Order to Cut U.S. military spending dramatically would you be willing to......

[Dayton3]

Pentagon says China has ‘largest navy in the world’ after buildup

The Defense Department says in a new report to Congress that China now has the world’s largest navy, at least in number of battle-ready ships. “[China] has the largest navy in the world…

nypost.com

xPentagon says China has ‘largest navy in the world’ after buildup

The Defense Department says in a new report to Congress that China now has the world’s largest navy, at least in number of battle-ready ships.

“[China] has the largest navy in the world, with an overall battle force of approximately 350 ships and submarines including over 130 major surface combatants,” the report says. “In comparison, the U.S. Navy’s battle force is approximately 293 ships as of early 2020.”

The comparison isn’t necessarily qualitative. For example, the US Navy has 11 massive nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and bases across the world. China has just two non-nuclear aircraft carriers, and lacks a significant overseas presence.

Of course China does not practice "sea control" as the U.S. has to do for geopolitica/economic reasons.

China practices (as the Soviets did) "sea denial" which requires far, far fewer naval assets.

 

[Kilroy2]

There are currently 36 military bases in Germany. Now at the end of WW2 it might have been necessary but today is it still necessary to have that many bases. What is the threat? Russian Communism has fallen. Germany and American relations are good. Japan has 23 bases. Is Japan still a threat. I mean militarily and not economically. At some point you got to let it go as there is no need for that many bases. They have cut military bases in the US which directly effects the local communities that the bases are located.

Most U.S. bases in German and Japan support more distant U.S. operations. German bases support U.S. operations in the Middle East for example and Japanese bases throughout the Western Pacific and Asia.

For example when a young soldier who grew up down the road from me lost both legs in a grenade attack in Baghdad he was med evaced to the big U.S. medical center in Germany where the first of his life saving surgeries was conducted and he began the first of his rehab.

Now he's back home riding his motorcycle doing just fine. His experience with his artificial limbs was detailed in a story in Popular Mechanics.

Happy ending is always good.

I am just saying that they can cut back on the number of bases (36) and still maintain a presence. It would save money. They only have 5 bases in the UK. They also have about 8 bases in Turkey.

 

[Dayton3]

There are currently 36 military bases in Germany. Now at the end of WW2 it might have been necessary but today is it still necessary to have that many bases. What is the threat? Russian Communism has fallen. Germany and American relations are good. Japan has 23 bases. Is Japan still a threat. I mean militarily and not economically. At some point you got to let it go as there is no need for that many bases. They have cut military bases in the US which directly effects the local communities that the bases are located.

Most U.S. bases in German and Japan support more distant U.S. operations. German bases support U.S. operations in the Middle East for example and Japanese bases throughout the Western Pacific and Asia.

For example when a young soldier who grew up down the road from me lost both legs in a grenade attack in Baghdad he was med evaced to the big U.S. medical center in Germany where the first of his life saving surgeries was conducted and he began the first of his rehab.

Now he's back home riding his motorcycle doing just fine. His experience with his artificial limbs was detailed in a story in Popular Mechanics.

Happy ending is always good.

I am just saying that they can cut back on the number of bases (36) and still maintain a presence. It would save money. They only have 5 bases in the UK. They also have about 8 bases in Turkey.

I could be wrong but IIRC a fair number of the bases in Turkey are in order to support various operations in Syria.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

There are currently 36 military bases in Germany. Now at the end of WW2 it might have been necessary but today is it still necessary to have that many bases. What is the threat? Russian Communism has fallen. Germany and American relations are good. Japan has 23 bases. Is Japan still a threat. I mean militarily and not economically. At some point you got to let it go as there is no need for that many bases. They have cut military bases in the US which directly effects the local communities that the bases are located.

Most U.S. bases in German and Japan support more distant U.S. operations. German bases support U.S. operations in the Middle East for example and Japanese bases throughout the Western Pacific and Asia.

For example when a young soldier who grew up down the road from me lost both legs in a grenade attack in Baghdad he was med evaced to the big U.S. medical center in Germany where the first of his life saving surgeries was conducted and he began the first of his rehab.

Now he's back home riding his motorcycle doing just fine. His experience with his artificial limbs was detailed in a story in Popular Mechanics.

Happy ending is always good.

I am just saying that they can cut back on the number of bases (36) and still maintain a presence. It would save money. They only have 5 bases in the UK. They also have about 8 bases in Turkey.

If you look at those bases, you will find that the vast majority have few troops stationed there. According to the DoD, back in the 80s there was a naval base in Montgomery Alabama, about 120 miles inland. What was actually there was a Commander, XO, two Officer Recruiters, one Medical Recruiting Officer, and one Enlisted Programs Officer (yours truly). We had about 20 enlisted personnel and our "base" was a half floor in an office park. We had 15 other personnel located at Gunter Air Force Station and 23 enlisted recruiting stations and two officer recruiting stations spread over large portions of two states.

A better question would be how many battalions or brigades are assigned there, and again you would find very few, as they deploy to the Middle East , Eastern Europe, and Africa.

 

[Kilroy2]

There are currently 36 military bases in Germany. Now at the end of WW2 it might have been necessary but today is it still necessary to have that many bases. What is the threat? Russian Communism has fallen. Germany and American relations are good. Japan has 23 bases. Is Japan still a threat. I mean militarily and not economically. At some point you got to let it go as there is no need for that many bases. They have cut military bases in the US which directly effects the local communities that the bases are located.

Most U.S. bases in German and Japan support more distant U.S. operations. German bases support U.S. operations in the Middle East for example and Japanese bases throughout the Western Pacific and Asia.

For example when a young soldier who grew up down the road from me lost both legs in a grenade attack in Baghdad he was med evaced to the big U.S. medical center in Germany where the first of his life saving surgeries was conducted and he began the first of his rehab.

Now he's back home riding his motorcycle doing just fine. His experience with his artificial limbs was detailed in a story in Popular Mechanics.

Happy ending is always good.

I am just saying that they can cut back on the number of bases (36) and still maintain a presence. It would save money. They only have 5 bases in the UK. They also have about 8 bases in Turkey.

I could be wrong but IIRC a fair number of the bases in Turkey are in order to support various operations in Syria.

They have been there a while as I can remember them while I was in station in Spain. Just before they kicked us out.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

There are currently 36 military bases in Germany. Now at the end of WW2 it might have been necessary but today is it still necessary to have that many bases. What is the threat? Russian Communism has fallen. Germany and American relations are good. Japan has 23 bases. Is Japan still a threat. I mean militarily and not economically. At some point you got to let it go as there is no need for that many bases. They have cut military bases in the US which directly effects the local communities that the bases are located.

Most U.S. bases in German and Japan support more distant U.S. operations. German bases support U.S. operations in the Middle East for example and Japanese bases throughout the Western Pacific and Asia.

For example when a young soldier who grew up down the road from me lost both legs in a grenade attack in Baghdad he was med evaced to the big U.S. medical center in Germany where the first of his life saving surgeries was conducted and he began the first of his rehab.

Now he's back home riding his motorcycle doing just fine. His experience with his artificial limbs was detailed in a story in Popular Mechanics.

Happy ending is always good.

I am just saying that they can cut back on the number of bases (36) and still maintain a presence. It would save money. They only have 5 bases in the UK. They also have about 8 bases in Turkey.

I could be wrong but IIRC a fair number of the bases in Turkey are in order to support various operations in Syria.

They have been there a while as I can remember them while I was in station in Spain. Just before they kicked us out.

Kicked us out of where?

 

[Kilroy2]

There are currently 36 military bases in Germany. Now at the end of WW2 it might have been necessary but today is it still necessary to have that many bases. What is the threat? Russian Communism has fallen. Germany and American relations are good. Japan has 23 bases. Is Japan still a threat. I mean militarily and not economically. At some point you got to let it go as there is no need for that many bases. They have cut military bases in the US which directly effects the local communities that the bases are located.

Most U.S. bases in German and Japan support more distant U.S. operations. German bases support U.S. operations in the Middle East for example and Japanese bases throughout the Western Pacific and Asia.

For example when a young soldier who grew up down the road from me lost both legs in a grenade attack in Baghdad he was med evaced to the big U.S. medical center in Germany where the first of his life saving surgeries was conducted and he began the first of his rehab.

Now he's back home riding his motorcycle doing just fine. His experience with his artificial limbs was detailed in a story in Popular Mechanics.

Happy ending is always good.

I am just saying that they can cut back on the number of bases (36) and still maintain a presence. It would save money. They only have 5 bases in the UK. They also have about 8 bases in Turkey.

I could be wrong but IIRC a fair number of the bases in Turkey are in order to support various operations in Syria.

They have been there a while as I can remember them while I was in station in Spain. Just before they kicked us out.

Kicked us out of where?

Spain and yes there WAS an AF base in Spain

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

There are currently 36 military bases in Germany. Now at the end of WW2 it might have been necessary but today is it still necessary to have that many bases. What is the threat? Russian Communism has fallen. Germany and American relations are good. Japan has 23 bases. Is Japan still a threat. I mean militarily and not economically. At some point you got to let it go as there is no need for that many bases. They have cut military bases in the US which directly effects the local communities that the bases are located.

Most U.S. bases in German and Japan support more distant U.S. operations. German bases support U.S. operations in the Middle East for example and Japanese bases throughout the Western Pacific and Asia.

For example when a young soldier who grew up down the road from me lost both legs in a grenade attack in Baghdad he was med evaced to the big U.S. medical center in Germany where the first of his life saving surgeries was conducted and he began the first of his rehab.

Now he's back home riding his motorcycle doing just fine. His experience with his artificial limbs was detailed in a story in Popular Mechanics.

Happy ending is always good.

I am just saying that they can cut back on the number of bases (36) and still maintain a presence. It would save money. They only have 5 bases in the UK. They also have about 8 bases in Turkey.

I could be wrong but IIRC a fair number of the bases in Turkey are in order to support various operations in Syria.

They have been there a while as I can remember them while I was in station in Spain. Just before they kicked us out.

Kicked us out of where?

Spain and yes there WAS an AF base in Spain

When was this? I was in Spain in 1986 and many times since at out Navy base in Rota.

 

[Kilroy2]

There are currently 36 military bases in Germany. Now at the end of WW2 it might have been necessary but today is it still necessary to have that many bases. What is the threat? Russian Communism has fallen. Germany and American relations are good. Japan has 23 bases. Is Japan still a threat. I mean militarily and not economically. At some point you got to let it go as there is no need for that many bases. They have cut military bases in the US which directly effects the local communities that the bases are located.

Most U.S. bases in German and Japan support more distant U.S. operations. German bases support U.S. operations in the Middle East for example and Japanese bases throughout the Western Pacific and Asia.

For example when a young soldier who grew up down the road from me lost both legs in a grenade attack in Baghdad he was med evaced to the big U.S. medical center in Germany where the first of his life saving surgeries was conducted and he began the first of his rehab.

Now he's back home riding his motorcycle doing just fine. His experience with his artificial limbs was detailed in a story in Popular Mechanics.

Happy ending is always good.

I am just saying that they can cut back on the number of bases (36) and still maintain a presence. It would save money. They only have 5 bases in the UK. They also have about 8 bases in Turkey.

I could be wrong but IIRC a fair number of the bases in Turkey are in order to support various operations in Syria.

They have been there a while as I can remember them while I was in station in Spain. Just before they kicked us out.

Kicked us out of where?

Spain and yes there WAS an AF base in Spain

When was this? I was in Spain in 1986 and many times since at out Navy base in Rota.

Your right. I was at Torrojon De Ardoz AB and there was a lot of talk of closing it and a lot of anti American sentiment They eventually did closed that base but the navel base and Moron AB remained open. I assumed that all the bases was closed.

 

[Stanton]

As Chalmers Johnson said in the documentary Why We Fight, "We have an empire. There is not excuse for 725 military bases in 130 foreign countries."

When we got the empire, we lost the republic.

Not sure I agree completely with all his assessments of the Blowback series of books. I am right in line with the quote of him in "Cold Warrier In A Strange Land", saying "I was a cold warrior. There's no doubt about that. I believed the Soviet Union was a genuine menace. I still think so." Cannot write of someone that astute and accurate.

It's the understanding of the American empire that is the problem. All those bases cost a huge amount of money to maintain, so from a fiscal point of view it's completely unnecessary. With a $1 trillion dollar defense budget at the moment that has only increased since the end of WWII and the fact we have been on a permanent war time budget since 1941, along with the understanding that the budget cannot be audited is besides a fiscal waste, but a huge government bureaucracy that as Eisenhower suggested would "undermine our liberties and democratic processes."
Most people already take it as fact the government consists of liars who over tax, over spend, over regulate and have a miserable track record on constitutional protections. But I still try to reason among many that the same government they hate is not all of a sudden altruistic when it comes to foreign policy and simply wants to protect the security of our allies and the world when the record shows the overthrow of many governments due to a disagreement with their economic policy. The installment of dictatorships within these nations (Iran, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Chile, Cuba, just to name a few) is not small government policy and represents the loss of our Republic so many years ago.

 

[White 6]

As Chalmers Johnson said in the documentary Why We Fight, "We have an empire. There is not excuse for 725 military bases in 130 foreign countries."

When we got the empire, we lost the republic.

Not sure I agree completely with all his assessments of the Blowback series of books. I am right in line with the quote of him in "Cold Warrier In A Strange Land", saying "I was a cold warrior. There's no doubt about that. I believed the Soviet Union was a genuine menace. I still think so." Cannot write of someone that astute and accurate.

It's the understanding of the American empire that is the problem. All those bases cost a huge amount of money to maintain, so from a fiscal point of view it's completely unnecessary. With a $1 trillion dollar defense budget at the moment that has only increased since the end of WWII and the fact we have been on a permanent war time budget since 1941, along with the understanding that the budget cannot be audited is besides a fiscal waste, but a huge government bureaucracy that as Eisenhower suggested would "undermine our liberties and democratic processes."
Most people already take it as fact the government consists of liars who over tax, over spend, over regulate and have a miserable track record on constitutional protections. But I still try to reason among many that the same government they hate is not all of a sudden altruistic when it comes to foreign policy and simply wants to protect the security of our allies and the world when the record shows the overthrow of many governments due to a disagreement with their economic policy. The installment of dictatorships within these nations (Iran, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Chile, Cuba, just to name a few) is not small government policy and represents the loss of our Republic so many years ago.

I could see some base reductions, though, they are not the main reason for the size of the defense budget. Main reason appears to be the price tag of newer war toys. Totally agree with "Most people already take it as fact the government consists of liars who over tax, over spend, over regulate and have a miserable track record on constitutional protections." I do not foresee President Elect Biden misusing the military in ways I would not approve of, but who knows what 4 years could bring.
Did you see where aides, intelligence and defense advisers talked Donnie out of direct attacks in Iran on their nuclear sites during his lame duck presidential period? He green-lighted them to move as fast toward a nuclear weapon as they wanted to when he pulled out of the deal? Guess he should have stuck around in the agreement, so he would have a right to complain.

 

[Stanton]

As Chalmers Johnson said in the documentary Why We Fight, "We have an empire. There is not excuse for 725 military bases in 130 foreign countries."

When we got the empire, we lost the republic.

Not sure I agree completely with all his assessments of the Blowback series of books. I am right in line with the quote of him in "Cold Warrier In A Strange Land", saying "I was a cold warrior. There's no doubt about that. I believed the Soviet Union was a genuine menace. I still think so." Cannot write of someone that astute and accurate.

It's the understanding of the American empire that is the problem. All those bases cost a huge amount of money to maintain, so from a fiscal point of view it's completely unnecessary. With a $1 trillion dollar defense budget at the moment that has only increased since the end of WWII and the fact we have been on a permanent war time budget since 1941, along with the understanding that the budget cannot be audited is besides a fiscal waste, but a huge government bureaucracy that as Eisenhower suggested would "undermine our liberties and democratic processes."
Most people already take it as fact the government consists of liars who over tax, over spend, over regulate and have a miserable track record on constitutional protections. But I still try to reason among many that the same government they hate is not all of a sudden altruistic when it comes to foreign policy and simply wants to protect the security of our allies and the world when the record shows the overthrow of many governments due to a disagreement with their economic policy. The installment of dictatorships within these nations (Iran, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Chile, Cuba, just to name a few) is not small government policy and represents the loss of our Republic so many years ago.

I could see some base reductions, though, they are not the main reason for the size of the defense budget. Main reason appears to be the price tag of newer war toys. Totally agree with "Most people already take it as fact the government consists of liars who over tax, over spend, over regulate and have a miserable track record on constitutional protections." I do not foresee President Elect Biden misusing the military in ways I would not approve of, but who knows what 4 years could bring.
Did you see where aides, intelligence and defense advisers talked Donnie out of direct attacks in Iran on their nuclear sites during his lame duck presidential period? He green-lighted them to move as fast toward a nuclear weapon as they wanted to when he pulled out of the deal? Guess he should have stuck around in the agreement, so he would have a right to complain.

That's very true, the budget is mostly for the cost of new weapons. But the problem is much of these weapons are redundant and unnecessary since we are not at war with any major power minus cyber warfare and economic entanglements. Contracts that are sold to Congress by these military contractors where they over value it's worth, undercut the cost and then the tax payer gets hit with the cost overruns is appalling at best. Especially when the weapons are not needed and all they do is feed into the way the military industrial complex is built. Where a jet or helicopter is made in as many districts as possible to ensure the program never dies.
The main gripe I have is the waste, unaccountable government and the immorality of empire. A bureaucracy as large as the Pentagon and CIA that has, in the words of Chalmers Johnson, "have taken on lives of their own" can only end in disaster due to their shear mass and secrecy where they run the country and not the civil government.
I'm no fan of Donny when it came to a lot of things. Seemed he was trying to provoke war earlier in his term. But intelligence officers are not going to advocate attacking a nation, whether it be Iran or N. Korea, that can defend themselves. Both parties are aligned with the bureaucracy and the only difference between Trump and Biden besides locking down the country, is Trump seemed to be a no man to the military establishment in regards to how to do things, Biden like Bush and Obama is a yes man.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's very true, the budget is mostly for the cost of new weapons

Are you sure? Link?

 

[Stanton]

That's very true, the budget is mostly for the cost of new weapons

Are you sure? Link?

An incorrect use of words on my part. I can't say I have recently looked at weapons spending within the current defense budget but I have read in the past large sums being spent on new fighter jets, upgrading bombers, and/or adding to the nuclear stockpile. So I could be wrong in regards to the actual dollar amount spent on weapons in comparison to everything else that's within the budget. I heard that the average cost to run all the bases world wide might be around $100 billion. But it seems to me it's probably more. Here's an old piece that dives into a little detail. Giant Pentagon Budget Is Unauditable Year After Year

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's very true, the budget is mostly for the cost of new weapons

Are you sure? Link?

An incorrect use of words on my part. I can't say I have recently looked at weapons spending within the current defense budget but I have read in the past large sums being spent on new fighter jets, upgrading bombers, and/or adding to the nuclear stockpile. So I could be wrong in regards to the actual dollar amount spent on weapons in comparison to everything else that's within the budget. I heard that the average cost to run all the bases world wide might be around $100 billion. But it seems to me it's probably more. Here's an old piece that dives into a little detail. Giant Pentagon Budget Is Unauditable Year After Year

Nader is a twit.
Thanks for the link.
You were right when you said "little detail".

It didn't break down the annual budget. Not even a little.

 

[harmonica]

As Chalmers Johnson said in the documentary Why We Fight, "We have an empire. There is not excuse for 725 military bases in 130 foreign countries."

When we got the empire, we lost the republic.

Not sure I agree completely with all his assessments of the Blowback series of books. I am right in line with the quote of him in "Cold Warrier In A Strange Land", saying "I was a cold warrior. There's no doubt about that. I believed the Soviet Union was a genuine menace. I still think so." Cannot write of someone that astute and accurate.

It's the understanding of the American empire that is the problem. All those bases cost a huge amount of money to maintain, so from a fiscal point of view it's completely unnecessary. With a $1 trillion dollar defense budget at the moment that has only increased since the end of WWII and the fact we have been on a permanent war time budget since 1941, along with the understanding that the budget cannot be audited is besides a fiscal waste, but a huge government bureaucracy that as Eisenhower suggested would "undermine our liberties and democratic processes."
Most people already take it as fact the government consists of liars who over tax, over spend, over regulate and have a miserable track record on constitutional protections. But I still try to reason among many that the same government they hate is not all of a sudden altruistic when it comes to foreign policy and simply wants to protect the security of our allies and the world when the record shows the overthrow of many governments due to a disagreement with their economic policy. The installment of dictatorships within these nations (Iran, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Chile, Cuba, just to name a few) is not small government policy and represents the loss of our Republic so many years ago.

I could see some base reductions, though, they are not the main reason for the size of the defense budget. Main reason appears to be the price tag of newer war toys. Totally agree with "Most people already take it as fact the government consists of liars who over tax, over spend, over regulate and have a miserable track record on constitutional protections." I do not foresee President Elect Biden misusing the military in ways I would not approve of, but who knows what 4 years could bring.
Did you see where aides, intelligence and defense advisers talked Donnie out of direct attacks in Iran on their nuclear sites during his lame duck presidential period? He green-lighted them to move as fast toward a nuclear weapon as they wanted to when he pulled out of the deal? Guess he should have stuck around in the agreement, so he would have a right to complain.

aides talking him out of attacking is total bullshit

 

[Dayton3]

IIRC, the amount of the annual defense budget spent on weapons and equipment is roughly 30%. The biggest element of the defense budget is for personnel.