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.