Mandated defense cuts could lead to war, top US military official says

[whitehall]

War with who? We are already at war with the jihad. I doubt if the cancellation of one of the Navy or Air Force's expensive toys will lead to anything but saving taxpayers needless expense.

 

[g5000]

There goes Obama, shitting on the military again.

November can't get here any faster?

The sequestration bill which will drastically cut the entire federal budget, not just the military, was passed by the Republican House of Representatives, dipshit. Not just Obama.

Budget Control Act of 2011. P.L. 112-25.

Welcome back to reality.

 

[g5000]

The battle is now on to pass a budget before January which will replace the sequestration bill. Which means one will probably be passed at midnight December 31, if the past is prologue.



Dempsey and Pannetta are just a couple of many more sacred cows to come which will be brought to the House floor to moo for the peanut gallery. Anyone have any guesses which cow will represent the top marginal income tax bracket whose Bush tax cut will also expire in January? Any guesses what cow will represent welfare mothers everywhere?

This is a circus. Grab some popcorn.

 

[ClosedCaption]

This claim is outlandish that I don't see how anyone takes it seriously.

Everytime someone talks about taking away the defense toy budget they play the fear card.

 

[VaYank5150]

Weakness begets agression. Historically, it always has.
After the events of September, 1938 in Munich, the Japanese were astonished at just how graciously accomodating the Western Democracies were and began making their own plans. Fifty million dead was the eventual result.
Islam desperately wants to evict the Israelis from their little abode there on the Meditteranean shore and a United States unable and unwilling to prevent their actions or even to defend its territory elsewhere would be a moment they would be hesitant to let pass by.
If all the predictions of the coming of Armageddon be true, its moment is certainly brought nearer by these events.

At last count (early 2012), the US maintains approximately 8,000 nuclear warheads as well as nearly 800 "nuclear delivery systems" such as aircraft, submarines, surface ships and the like. As far as I can tell, that is enough to kill everyone on the planet at least twice. You call that weakness?

 

[g5000]

Weakness begets agression. Historically, it always has.
After the events of September, 1938 in Munich, the Japanese were astonished at just how graciously accomodating the Western Democracies were and began making their own plans. Fifty million dead was the eventual result.
Islam desperately wants to evict the Israelis from their little abode there on the Meditteranean shore and a United States unable and unwilling to prevent their actions or even to defend its territory elsewhere would be a moment they would be hesitant to let pass by.
If all the predictions of the coming of Armageddon be true, its moment is certainly brought nearer by these events.

At last count (early 2012), the US maintains approximately 8,000 nuclear warheads as well as nearly 800 "nuclear delivery systems" such as aircraft, submarines, surface ships and the like. As far as I can tell, that is enough to kill everyone on the planet at least twice. You call that weakness?

You going to nuke an Al Qaeda house?

 

[VaYank5150]

Weakness begets agression. Historically, it always has.
After the events of September, 1938 in Munich, the Japanese were astonished at just how graciously accomodating the Western Democracies were and began making their own plans. Fifty million dead was the eventual result.
Islam desperately wants to evict the Israelis from their little abode there on the Meditteranean shore and a United States unable and unwilling to prevent their actions or even to defend its territory elsewhere would be a moment they would be hesitant to let pass by.
If all the predictions of the coming of Armageddon be true, its moment is certainly brought nearer by these events.

At last count (early 2012), the US maintains approximately 8,000 nuclear warheads as well as nearly 800 "nuclear delivery systems" such as aircraft, submarines, surface ships and the like. As far as I can tell, that is enough to kill everyone on the planet at least twice. You call that weakness?

You going to nuke an Al Qaeda house?

You don't quite understand how a nuclear weapon works, do you? You don't target "a" house with a nuclear weapon. You target "a" city.

 

[Toro]

The top U.S. military official suggested Wednesday that scheduled Pentagon budget cuts could lead to war.

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before a Senate committee Wednesday alongside Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Both offered dire warnings about the potential impact of the automatic budget cuts, known as sequestration, which will go into effect starting next January unless Congress intervenes.

Dempsey said the cutbacks could lead to the cancellation of weapons systems and disrupt "global operations." In turn, he warned, the U.S. could lose global standing -- opening the door for enemies to test American military might.

"We can't yet say precisely how bad the damage would be, but it is clear that sequestration would risk hollowing out our force and reducing its military options available to the nation," Dempsey told the senators. "We would go from being unquestionably powerful everywhere to being less visibly globally and presenting less of an overmatch to our adversaries, and that would translate into a different deterrent calculus and potentially, therefore, increase the likelihood of conflict."

Panetta made a similar argument last year when he said the sweeping cuts could weaken the military substantially, and invite "aggression" abroad

Read more: Mandated defense cuts could lead to war, top US military official says | Fox News

Vested interests usually offer reasons why their funding shouldn't be cut. The military is no different.

 

[BlindBoo]

If I was President, I'd cut that god-damn defense budget in half! We don't need to be spending a fucking trillion dollars a year on god-damn defense, when our economy is in the shape it's in now.

And what does having over 800 military bases all around the world have to do with defense anyway? How does our military, protect this country, when they're not physically in the country they're defending? Why should the Pentagon take 1/3 of every US taxpayer dollar every year? And finally, why do all these tea baggers who say they're upset over un-necessary government spending, say nothing about cutting defense spending?

Perhaps if you served in the military, you'd have some appreciation for it. Defense cuts include cutting base pay and other benefits from our brave men and women and their families. It also results in equipment not being repaired, buying substandard - lowest bid - parts, ships rot at piers, morale declines, etc. etc. etc. I experienced it under Carter and then under Clinton when I served. Democrats always target the military.

Why don't you fucking enlist and see for yourself, asswipe.

The military budget increased from 286.5 billion dollars in 1978 to 317.4 billion in 1981. So your attempt to denigrate President Carter falls flat on its face. Furthermore you seem to want to ignore that George W.H. Bush cut military spending more than Clinton did in his first term. Clinton of course raised military spending in his second term. But both of those presidencies were forced to cut the spending by mandates put in place by none other than the pseudo-cons St. Raygun.

 

[VaYank5150]

Weakness begets agression. Historically, it always has.
After the events of September, 1938 in Munich, the Japanese were astonished at just how graciously accomodating the Western Democracies were and began making their own plans. Fifty million dead was the eventual result.
Islam desperately wants to evict the Israelis from their little abode there on the Meditteranean shore and a United States unable and unwilling to prevent their actions or even to defend its territory elsewhere would be a moment they would be hesitant to let pass by.
If all the predictions of the coming of Armageddon be true, its moment is certainly brought nearer by these events.

At last count (early 2012), the US maintains approximately 8,000 nuclear warheads as well as nearly 800 "nuclear delivery systems" such as aircraft, submarines, surface ships and the like. As far as I can tell, that is enough to kill everyone on the planet at least twice. You call that weakness?

You going to nuke an Al Qaeda house?

Besides, do you believe having ready access to nearly 8,000 nuclear warheads is a sign of weakness? If so, why is Mitt Romney so afraid of Russia? At last count, they had nearly 10,000 nuclear warheads in their aresenal. In your mind, I guess they are REALLY weak, and Romney is nothing more than a warmongering fool?

 

[BlindBoo]

If I was President, I'd cut that god-damn defense budget in half! We don't need to be spending a fucking trillion dollars a year on god-damn defense, when our economy is in the shape it's in now.

And what does having over 800 military bases all around the world have to do with defense anyway? How does our military, protect this country, when they're not physically in the country they're defending? Why should the Pentagon take 1/3 of every US taxpayer dollar every year? And finally, why do all these tea baggers who say they're upset over un-necessary government spending, say nothing about cutting defense spending?

You haven't got a clue what you are talking about. You knuckleheads think you can arbitrarily slash funding to our Military without regard to protecting America's interests and assets Worldwide. We live in a Global economy stupid, a lot of the goods you take for granted must transit very nasty places, and be protected from rogue nations, to lowly pirates. We have China undergoing a massive arms race, including the purchase of an Aircraft Carrier from the Soviets, etc., etc., etc.... You want to make America a Third World Country, you dismantle its Military. We must continue to fund weapon systems for now, and the future to protect our soldiers, so they may protect our Nation. Even when the Cold War was coming to a conclusion, our own leaders recognized that even though there was less of a need for things like Nuclear Attack Submarines, they still maintained a production program... Why? Because our leaders RIGHTFULLY knew they had to retain the people with the skills to build those Subs, rather than forever lose their expertise to the private sector. You idiots think you can just sweet talk evil dictatorships, and militant ideologies with diplomacy alone, and that they will suddenly play nice with America are living in a Dreamworld. If you have never laid your own eyes on the Middle East as I HAVE (while I served in our Military) you can never fully grasp that there are people in this world who would chop your head off for the ONLY reason that you were born in America. Wise up morons. It's not as simple as slashing funding as you simpletons try to make others believe it is.

After the cold war was called over, cuts to the military budget were mandated. In the 1990's their budget was slashed by about 100 billion dollars. With increased terrorist attacks in the later part of the decade, Clinton began increasing spending in his second term.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Dempsey said the cutbacks could lead to the cancellation of weapons systems and disrupt "global operations." . . . sequestration would risk hollowing out our force and reducing its military options available to the nation," Dempsey told the senators. "

Not for sure, but only for possible. He's a bureaucrat after all. Careful budgeting and priority targeting and solid auditing will protect our national security and our force structure.

We are not the Rome of the 21st Century, and any who want that can move to Italy.

 

[Polk]

This claim is outlandish that I don't see how anyone takes it seriously.

Everytime someone talks about taking away the defense toy budget they play the fear card.

Sure. The same people who seem to be hyper-aware that bureaucrats constantly try to justify their budgets lose that knowledge entirely when the bureaucracy in question is the military.

 

[NeoTemplar]

The Generals right, things like this show weakness and embolden our enemies to further action while at the same time it reduces our fighting strength, what they should do is not cut things across the board but make those things more financially efficient so they use the least amount of money possible.

 

[onecut39]

Been where done what, asswipe?

I just love the toy soldiers who have anonymous names like "warrior". It is just so damn..........impressive!!

The Warrior was a 102 cubic inch motorcycle (Roadstar Warrior) I once owned, non-serving numbnuts. It's got nothing to do with my military service or your lack thereof, assbrain.

Well why didn't you say so? That is even less impressive.

 

[Polk]

The Generals right, things like this show weakness and embolden our enemies to further action while at the same time it reduces our fighting strength, what they should do is not cut things across the board but make those things more financially efficient so they use the least amount of money possible.

Right, because if Lennox Lewis lost 10 pounds, I'd definitely think I could kick his ass...

 

[NeoTemplar]

The Generals right, things like this show weakness and embolden our enemies to further action while at the same time it reduces our fighting strength, what they should do is not cut things across the board but make those things more financially efficient so they use the least amount of money possible.

Right, because if Lennox Lewis lost 10 pounds, I'd definitely think I could kick his ass...

You'd be surprised how many people would think that, its been shown through history whenever a country decreases its defense budget or military in general that theres always someone there to take advantage of it and it always turns out badly.

 

[Too Tall]

The top U.S. military official suggested Wednesday that scheduled Pentagon budget cuts could lead to war.

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before a Senate committee Wednesday alongside Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Both offered dire warnings about the potential impact of the automatic budget cuts, known as sequestration, which will go into effect starting next January unless Congress intervenes.

Dempsey said the cutbacks could lead to the cancellation of weapons systems and disrupt "global operations." In turn, he warned, the U.S. could lose global standing -- opening the door for enemies to test American military might.

"We can't yet say precisely how bad the damage would be, but it is clear that sequestration would risk hollowing out our force and reducing its military options available to the nation," Dempsey told the senators. "We would go from being unquestionably powerful everywhere to being less visibly globally and presenting less of an overmatch to our adversaries, and that would translate into a different deterrent calculus and potentially, therefore, increase the likelihood of conflict."

Panetta made a similar argument last year when he said the sweeping cuts could weaken the military substantially, and invite "aggression" abroad

Read more: Mandated defense cuts could lead to war, top US military official says | Fox News

Where in the Constitution does it state that these are purposes of our military????

We would go from being unquestionably powerful everywhere to being less visibly globally and presenting less of an overmatch to our adversaries, and that would translate into a different deterrent calculus and potentially, therefore, increase the likelihood of conflict.

In the first paragraph.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

And here:

Section. 8.

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The President and Congress make the decisions on what is required to 'provide for the common defense" of the US. That includes determining what is the purpose of our military.

They rely on the knowledge of the military members of the Joint Chiefs and the appointed Secretary of Defense, et al to make their decisions.

 

[signelect]

Of course they don't want the budget cut, that is how they make their money. The military depends on the money for their jobs, expecially the higher ups. The complex as it is called is self perpetuating but is is not just a R issue the D's do pretty well too. We just don't need to be fighting wars that can't be won in places that we don't care about. Blow up Irans oil fields and be done with it.

 

[g5000]

At last count (early 2012), the US maintains approximately 8,000 nuclear warheads as well as nearly 800 "nuclear delivery systems" such as aircraft, submarines, surface ships and the like. As far as I can tell, that is enough to kill everyone on the planet at least twice. You call that weakness?

You going to nuke an Al Qaeda house?

You don't quite understand how a nuclear weapon works, do you? You don't target "a" house with a nuclear weapon. You target "a" city.

Exactly. So what does the number of nukes have to do with our actual military readiness?

Nothing. Zip. Zilch.