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

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

0b7ea9b398bc3d1defb7852c62eb50e3.png

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?

For Japan and Germany, it prevents the surrounding countries from going apeshit over possible re-militarism of the losers in WWII. This gives stability, which improves OUR economic situation.

With France and Britian, the question is a bit tougher. There it is more a question of population and reach.

Also the US has taken over Britian's role as queen of the seas. Since there is no one else to do that, a reduced US naval presence would result in increased piracy, hurting OUR economic situation.
 
Yep, god forbid we ever reduce this comparative expense by a few percentage points:

0b7ea9b398bc3d1defb7852c62eb50e3.png

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.

It also ignores the fact that we are 14 trillion dollars in debt,

ALL of which can be traced to our having not paid for military spending/wars over the past 30 years.
 
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?

For Japan and Germany, it prevents the surrounding countries from going apeshit over possible re-militarism of the losers in WWII. This gives stability, which improves OUR economic situation.

With France and Britian, the question is a bit tougher. There it is more a question of population and reach.

Also the US has taken over Britian's role as queen of the seas. Since there is no one else to do that, a reduced US naval presence would result in increased piracy, hurting OUR economic situation.

That is too nonsensical to even respond to.
 
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?

For Japan and Germany, it prevents the surrounding countries from going apeshit over possible re-militarism of the losers in WWII. This gives stability, which improves OUR economic situation.

With France and Britian, the question is a bit tougher. There it is more a question of population and reach.

Also the US has taken over Britian's role as queen of the seas. Since there is no one else to do that, a reduced US naval presence would result in increased piracy, hurting OUR economic situation.

That is too nonsensical to even respond to.

Tell Eastern Europe that we are withdrawing our forces from Germany, and see how those countries will react, or russia will react for that matter.

Tell Korea and China we are removing our forces from Japan, and allowing them to fully rearm, and see how stable the Western Pacific stays.

Reduce our navy down to just enough to protect our coasts, and see how international maritime trade suffers.

Just because you don't understand history, does not mean my points are "nonsensical"
 
Who said that if the U.S were to remove its bases from Germany and Japan, then they would re-arm and give world conquest another go? And why would Poland, Austria, Korea, etc. still hold such illogical grudges afters so many decades? By your logic Marty, the U.S should keep bases in Turkey and South Korea so Russians don't magically reincarnate Joseph Stalin to lead their country again.
 
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.

Isn't it odd, that even with a very large military budget, 9/11 DID happen?
 
Who said that if the U.S were to remove its bases from Germany and Japan, then they would re-arm and give world conquest another go? And why would Poland, Austria, Korea, etc. still hold such illogical grudges afters so many decades? By your logic Marty, the U.S should keep bases in Turkey and South Korea so Russians don't magically reincarnate Joseph Stalin to lead their country again.

Because that is what we agreed to after the second word war. With regards to Japan we still limit thier military due to concerns by the surrounding countries over Japanese militarism.

With regards to Germany, all the countries east of them wanted US forces to remain, even after the Reunification of Germany, due to fears over renewed German militarism.

The grudges may seem illogical to us, but america hasnt been invaded since 1812. Those other countries have been occupied by outside forces many times over the past 200 years.

Go ask a pole who they think is the biggest threat to thier country. It will probably be 1. Germany, and 2. Russia.
 
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

do you people on the right ever get tired of seeing blatant racists in your ranks?


This guy is proof positive that racism is alive and well within the republican party
 
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?

For Japan and Germany, it prevents the surrounding countries from going apeshit over possible re-militarism of the losers in WWII. This gives stability, which improves OUR economic situation.

With France and Britian, the question is a bit tougher. There it is more a question of population and reach.

Also the US has taken over Britian's role as queen of the seas. Since there is no one else to do that, a reduced US naval presence would result in increased piracy, hurting OUR economic situation.

That is too nonsensical to even respond to.

Why? They are about the only logical conservative rebuttal that I can see. And they do make sense.
 
For Japan and Germany, it prevents the surrounding countries from going apeshit over possible re-militarism of the losers in WWII. This gives stability, which improves OUR economic situation.

With France and Britian, the question is a bit tougher. There it is more a question of population and reach.

Also the US has taken over Britian's role as queen of the seas. Since there is no one else to do that, a reduced US naval presence would result in increased piracy, hurting OUR economic situation.

That is too nonsensical to even respond to.

Tell Eastern Europe that we are withdrawing our forces from Germany, and see how those countries will react, or russia will react for that matter.

Tell Korea and China we are removing our forces from Japan, and allowing them to fully rearm, and see how stable the Western Pacific stays.

Reduce our navy down to just enough to protect our coasts, and see how international maritime trade suffers.

Just because you don't understand history, does not mean my points are "nonsensical"

The idea that we are in Germany defending that country's interests for free because there is a real threat of another Hitler emerging is as nonsensical as nonsensical can be.
 
For Japan and Germany, it prevents the surrounding countries from going apeshit over possible re-militarism of the losers in WWII. This gives stability, which improves OUR economic situation.

With France and Britian, the question is a bit tougher. There it is more a question of population and reach.

Also the US has taken over Britian's role as queen of the seas. Since there is no one else to do that, a reduced US naval presence would result in increased piracy, hurting OUR economic situation.

That is too nonsensical to even respond to.

Why? They are about the only logical conservative rebuttal that I can see. And they do make sense.

We need to spend 7 times what the Chinese or Russians spend on defense for fear of pirates is not nonsensical?
 
That is too nonsensical to even respond to.

Tell Eastern Europe that we are withdrawing our forces from Germany, and see how those countries will react, or russia will react for that matter.

Tell Korea and China we are removing our forces from Japan, and allowing them to fully rearm, and see how stable the Western Pacific stays.

Reduce our navy down to just enough to protect our coasts, and see how international maritime trade suffers.

Just because you don't understand history, does not mean my points are "nonsensical"

The idea that we are in Germany defending that country's interests for free because there is a real threat of another Hitler emerging is as nonsensical as nonsensical can be.

Who needs a hitler? A Kaiser was enough for WWI, and prussia went to war multiple times under a King. Just ask the Poles how worried they are about Germany.

Plus if Germany fully rearmed, the Russians would increase thier military as well.

Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it. Also see below for a simpler explanation.

History%20Schmistory.jpg
 
Leon Panetta is already squealing at the mere mention of military budget cuts. I say cut - and cut deep except Veterans Affairs. Our veterans need to be taken better care of.
 

Forum List

Back
Top