Obama Cuts Could Make Air Force Smallest Ever And Make Navy Smallest Since 1915

[USArmyRetired]

If Obama were to do this, our country would be in great peril for our national security would be at dire risks. Right now, Russia and China are having massive buildups to their military hardware. They are developing at a rapid pace new weapons platforms that would pose a threat to our vital interests around the globe. I am not for reducing our Air Force down to the smallest level ever as well as lower the number of Naval vessels to WW1 levels in 1915 of 147 ships when we now have 436 ships. I believe by doing this, Obama would send a signal to our adversaries that our nation is weak and they would probably perceive it that way. In reality, we would definitely be weaker. This is a foolish move if it happens. These cuts was determined when the Super Committee was giving the task of coming up with a solution to reduce our spending and our deficit. Democrats walked out the other day rejecting the Republicans fair proposal putting our national security at serious risk. In a statement, John McCain said the automatic cuts "would set off a swift decline of the United States as the world's leading military power. ... This is not an outcome that we can live with, and it is certainly not one that we should impose on ourselves. The sequester is a threat to the national security interests of the United States, and it should not be allowed to occur." I agree. We should never put our status as the worlds superpower in jeopardy and should instead be on a constant buildup of technological advance weapons systems that no country can rival.

Panetta Warns Of Smallest Air Force Ever If Deep Defense Cuts Made | Fox News

The number of U.S. ground forces would drop to levels not seen since 1940, the Navy would drop to the smallest number of ships since 1915 and the Air Force would be the smallest ever, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said in warning Congress of the dire implications of deeper defense cuts.

» GOP Offers Deal for Higher Tax Revenue, Dems Reject, Walk Out of Super Commitee Talks - Big Government

 

[NYcarbineer]

You need to have a talk to the poster who started the thread the other day saying that when the President has a Congress that isn't of the same party he is,

things like this are out of his control.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You know when the money interests in the defense lobby wake up and start to stir,

things are going to get ugly.

 

[Lakhota]

If Tea-Tards weren't such chicken shits we wouldn't need a large military.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

If Obama were to do this, our country would be in great peril for our national security would be at dire risks. Right now, Russia and China are having massive buildups to their military hardware. They are developing at a rapid pace new weapons platforms that would pose a threat to our vital interests around the globe. I am not for reducing our Air Force down to the smallest level ever as well as lower the number of Naval vessels to WW1 levels in 1915 of 147 ships when we now have 436 ships. I believe by doing this, Obama would send a signal to our adversaries that our nation is weak and they would probably perceive it that way. In reality, we would definitely be weaker. This is a foolish move if it happens. These cuts was determined when the Super Committee was giving the task of coming up with a solution to reduce our spending and our deficit. Democrats walked out the other day rejecting the Republicans fair proposal putting our national security at serious risk. In a statement, John McCain said the automatic cuts "would set off a swift decline of the United States as the world's leading military power. ... This is not an outcome that we can live with, and it is certainly not one that we should impose on ourselves. The sequester is a threat to the national security interests of the United States, and it should not be allowed to occur." I agree. We should never put our status as the worlds superpower in jeopardy and should instead be on a constant buildup of technological advance weapons systems that no country can rival.

Panetta Warns Of Smallest Air Force Ever If Deep Defense Cuts Made | Fox News

The number of U.S. ground forces would drop to levels not seen since 1940, the Navy would drop to the smallest number of ships since 1915 and the Air Force would be the smallest ever, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said in warning Congress of the dire implications of deeper defense cuts.

» GOP Offers Deal for Higher Tax Revenue, Dems Reject, Walk Out of Super Commitee Talks - Big Government

What power does Obama have over the super-committee?

 

[rdean]

Who could possibly believe this nonsense? Next, these morons will be saying Obama took a trip costing 200 million dollars a DAY.

Oh, wait......

 

[1ManRev]

Panetta: "Oh noes, don't take away the military's mountain of money! How will we pay for our overpriced pet projects?"

If such drastic cutbacks were to be made, I would give Obama a standing ovation. We might still have the largest military budget in the world after that; that's how much money the DoD is wasting right now. Also, I've said it before and will say it again; what the U.S is doing with its military right now is doing the country more harm than good in more ways than one (creating more enemies for us, wasting American lives on futile nation-building missions, wasting valuable resources and money, etc). It's a win-win-win situation.

Scratch that last thought, there would be losers: Weapons/military equipment manufacturers, uber-hawks in the GOP that financially benefit from said manufacturers... and that's all I can think of.

 

[USArmyRetired]

Panetta: "Oh noes, don't take away the military's mountain of money! How will we pay for our overpriced pet projects?"

If such drastic cutbacks were to be made, I would give Obama a standing ovation. We might still have the largest military budget in the world after that; that's how much money the DoD is wasting right now. Also, I've said it before and will say it again; what the U.S is doing with its military right now is doing the country more harm than good in more ways than one (creating more enemies for us, wasting American lives on futile nation-building missions, wasting valuable resources and money, etc). It's a win-win-win situation.

Scratch that last thought, there would be losers: Weapons/military equipment manufacturers, uber-hawks in the GOP that financially benefit from said manufacturers... and that's all I can think of.

If the proposed cuts in defense are made, how long will it be before another 9/11 happens only this time they may take out a whole city like L.A. or New York. I saw the world on the brink in the Cuban Missile Crisis and don't ever want to be that close to total destruction again, so unless you've been there, don't comment on something you've never experienced.

 

[Lakhota]

Yeah, we can thank Bush for 9/11.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Panetta: "Oh noes, don't take away the military's mountain of money! How will we pay for our overpriced pet projects?"

If such drastic cutbacks were to be made, I would give Obama a standing ovation. We might still have the largest military budget in the world after that; that's how much money the DoD is wasting right now. Also, I've said it before and will say it again; what the U.S is doing with its military right now is doing the country more harm than good in more ways than one (creating more enemies for us, wasting American lives on futile nation-building missions, wasting valuable resources and money, etc). It's a win-win-win situation.

Scratch that last thought, there would be losers: Weapons/military equipment manufacturers, uber-hawks in the GOP that financially benefit from said manufacturers... and that's all I can think of.

If the proposed cuts in defense are made, how long will it be before another 9/11 happens only this time they may take out a whole city like L.A. or New York. I saw the world on the brink in the Cuban Missile Crisis and don't ever want to be that close to total destruction again, so unless you've been there, don't comment on something you've never experienced.

In 1960 we spent twice as much, as a % of GDP, on defense as we do now. So if doubling what we now spend on defense couldn't prevent another Cuban missile crisis,

how much do you think would?

 

[Lakhota]

Maybe we can get the military small enough to drown in a bathtub...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yep, god forbid we ever reduce this comparative expense by a few percentage points:

 

[Lakhota]

The military is sucking valuable resources out of the economy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If Obama were to do this, our country would be in great peril for our national security would be at dire risks. Right now, Russia and China are having massive buildups to their military hardware. They are developing at a rapid pace new weapons platforms that would pose a threat to our vital interests around the globe. l]

List our vital interests around the globe.

 

[Sallow]

Panetta: "Oh noes, don't take away the military's mountain of money! How will we pay for our overpriced pet projects?"

If such drastic cutbacks were to be made, I would give Obama a standing ovation. We might still have the largest military budget in the world after that; that's how much money the DoD is wasting right now. Also, I've said it before and will say it again; what the U.S is doing with its military right now is doing the country more harm than good in more ways than one (creating more enemies for us, wasting American lives on futile nation-building missions, wasting valuable resources and money, etc). It's a win-win-win situation.

Scratch that last thought, there would be losers: Weapons/military equipment manufacturers, uber-hawks in the GOP that financially benefit from said manufacturers... and that's all I can think of.

If the proposed cuts in defense are made, how long will it be before another 9/11 happens only this time they may take out a whole city like L.A. or New York. I saw the world on the brink in the Cuban Missile Crisis and don't ever want to be that close to total destruction again, so unless you've been there, don't comment on something you've never experienced.

Interesting you brought up 9/11. All the military spending stopped 9/11, how exactly?

 

[martybegan]

Yep, god forbid we ever reduce this comparative expense by a few percentage points:

That chart ignores several points.

The first is that Japan, Germany, UK and France rely on a strong US military to allow them to keep their defense budgets low.

As for China and Russia, they remove a signifcant poriton of the cost by government manufacture of weapons, as well as conscription.

The final thing is that the US has always preferred technology and firepower vs. manpower. Basically we pay extra to assure our troops outgun, outbomb, and outfly anyone they will face.

The last point is that defense spending on new equipment provides for very good jobs from manufacture, to design, to maintenance and testing. Weapons are one of the last good exports we have, along with planes, heavy construction equipment, and agricultural products.

 

[Seawytch]

Hmmm, cut wasteful military spending or cut Medicare and SS...

I'll take wasteful military spending for $1000, Alex.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The military is sucking valuable resources out of the economy.

Maybe we could save money by having the Chinese build weapons for us.

lol, then again, when you think about it, the Chinese and other foreign countries are already building and selling us tens of billions of dollars worth of materials - think computers and related hardware - that go to defense...

...and we're borrowing the money from them to do it.

In short, we're borrowing money from the Chinese to supply our means to defend ourselves from the Chinese.

 

[1ManRev]

Panetta: "Oh noes, don't take away the military's mountain of money! How will we pay for our overpriced pet projects?"

If such drastic cutbacks were to be made, I would give Obama a standing ovation. We might still have the largest military budget in the world after that; that's how much money the DoD is wasting right now. Also, I've said it before and will say it again; what the U.S is doing with its military right now is doing the country more harm than good in more ways than one (creating more enemies for us, wasting American lives on futile nation-building missions, wasting valuable resources and money, etc). It's a win-win-win situation.

Scratch that last thought, there would be losers: Weapons/military equipment manufacturers, uber-hawks in the GOP that financially benefit from said manufacturers... and that's all I can think of.

If the proposed cuts in defense are made, how long will it be before another 9/11 happens only this time they may take out a whole city like L.A. or New York. I saw the world on the brink in the Cuban Missile Crisis and don't ever want to be that close to total destruction again, so unless you've been there, don't comment on something you've never experienced.

If such cuts in military spending were made (I say "military" instead of "defense" because our military has had little use in defending the country in the past 50 years), we would be safer as we would be less likely to suffer another 9/11. Once again, OUR FOREIGN POLICY HURTS US MORE THAN PROTECTS US. We've already killed bin Laden, we have no reason to occupy the Middle East at this point. In fact, by prolonging our stay there, we feed into Al Qaeda's propoganda machine that claims we're there to take over. If we leave that region alone, bring back the troops to defend our own borders, we remove the #1 factor that motivates most of Al Qaeda's recruits into joining.

Look at Switzerland. Strong military (for the country's size), strong economy, enjoy all the freedoms that Americans do. Why aren't they attacked by Islamic extremists? Maybe it's because THEY MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yep, god forbid we ever reduce this comparative expense by a few percentage points:

That chart ignores several points.

The first is that Japan, Germany, UK and France rely on a strong US military to allow them to keep their defense budgets low.

And why are we allowing those countries to do that? What is the material, tangible net gain that the US gets by being a free of charge defense force for those countries?