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

[White 6]

Not my party. Still an Independent. I did vote Democrat this year (except for Senator Elect Hagerty). But, I knew Joe Biden was more centrist than left.

Its your party now and for the next 4 years

every dumb thing democrats do is your responsibility

That's alright. Joe's got this. Ain't his first time to the rodeo.

 

[esalla]

ou were better with your first sentence,

Given a Democrat one-party state its not speculation about what will happen after libs gut the military

China will rule the world including the US

Gee, I been around a long time, including at least 6 to 9 democrat administrations (depending on how you count) and they have never gutted it before. Sounds like hysterical nonsense to me.

After inflation military spending during the Clinton Admin. declined by something on the order of 30-40% as did the size of the active duty military.

I was in the military at that time. We trained. We were equipped, we supported/ led the effort in Bosnia, and Kosovo. Heck, I was at V Corp, G3 shop part of the time when that was going on. We did the missions that needed done during all the Clinton years and under the budget forced by New Gingrich. So was the US not ready to kick ass after 9/11?

No it wasn't. I followed this issue closely during that time period. After 9/11 and prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq the U.S. defense industries went into overdrive purchasing new munitions and supplies. Everything from small arms ammunition to the specialize guidance kits that turned regular bombs into guided weapons and to the basic bombs themselves.

Several of those munitions plants I studied were working around the clock, three shifts a day, seven days a week in order to replenish U.S. weapons stocks.

Oh, and you falsely thought that was unusual for getting ready to go to war. Nah. Not so much. Always happens in times of mobilization. No getting around the fact we handled everything that came up. Manpower was at level necessary for the missions that were necessary for what was going on. I was in contact with RCPAC in St Louise within 36 hours of 9/11, they hadn't even started any mobilization and almost seemed surprised I told them they better be dusting off the MOBE books in prep for an Afghanistan mission, they didn't even have, reconfirmed contact info and told them to call me if they needed, as I was already officially retired but not reached 60 yet.
You may have heard of the phrase "peace dividend" as was expected after the supposed end of the cold war and Gulf War One. You don't get a peace dividend if you keep right on spending at higher levels that were not supposed to be needed. You don't think Newt spent enough on the military when he forced the balance budget thing on Bill Clinton, back in the days where we consistently passed budgets? Well it didn't take much forcing and worked out well for the country until, Bush Cheney had it killed and ran simultaneous wars off budget.
I am as pro-military as is sensible, but the spending level made sense, and especially in retrospect. You looked at it from the outside. I looked at it from the inside and had all the resources, equipment updates, ammunition, training areas and manpower to use and staff units at 100 to 110 percent manning levels and to adequately train my troops. If your company or state did not get a juicy military contract during the Clinton administration, tough $hit. The purpose of our military is not to guarantee a full employment civilian workforce in the defense industry and troops strength levels on bases to support local economies. Sorry. It's just not what we do.

Yo, no arguing with the 8 year olds

 

[verker]

One of President-elect Joe Biden’s leading contenders to be Defense secretary wouldn’t challenge Washington's defense orthodoxy, but she would break barriers in another way.

She would be the first woman in the job.

Michele Flournoy, who held the No. 3 civilian Pentagon job during the Obama administration, is widely seen as the odds-on favorite to be Biden’s Pentagon chief.

 

[Dayton3]

ou were better with your first sentence,

Given a Democrat one-party state its not speculation about what will happen after libs gut the military

China will rule the world including the US

Gee, I been around a long time, including at least 6 to 9 democrat administrations (depending on how you count) and they have never gutted it before. Sounds like hysterical nonsense to me.

After inflation military spending during the Clinton Admin. declined by something on the order of 30-40% as did the size of the active duty military.

I was in the military at that time. We trained. We were equipped, we supported/ led the effort in Bosnia, and Kosovo. Heck, I was at V Corp, G3 shop part of the time when that was going on. We did the missions that needed done during all the Clinton years and under the budget forced by New Gingrich. So was the US not ready to kick ass after 9/11?

No it wasn't. I followed this issue closely during that time period. After 9/11 and prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq the U.S. defense industries went into overdrive purchasing new munitions and supplies. Everything from small arms ammunition to the specialize guidance kits that turned regular bombs into guided weapons and to the basic bombs themselves.

Several of those munitions plants I studied were working around the clock, three shifts a day, seven days a week in order to replenish U.S. weapons stocks.

Oh, and you falsely thought that was unusual for getting ready to go to war. Nah. Not so much. Always happens in times of mobilization.

You call what happened after 9-11 "mobilization"?

 

[esalla]

ou were better with your first sentence,

Given a Democrat one-party state its not speculation about what will happen after libs gut the military

China will rule the world including the US

Gee, I been around a long time, including at least 6 to 9 democrat administrations (depending on how you count) and they have never gutted it before. Sounds like hysterical nonsense to me.

After inflation military spending during the Clinton Admin. declined by something on the order of 30-40% as did the size of the active duty military.

I was in the military at that time. We trained. We were equipped, we supported/ led the effort in Bosnia, and Kosovo. Heck, I was at V Corp, G3 shop part of the time when that was going on. We did the missions that needed done during all the Clinton years and under the budget forced by New Gingrich. So was the US not ready to kick ass after 9/11?

No it wasn't. I followed this issue closely during that time period. After 9/11 and prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq the U.S. defense industries went into overdrive purchasing new munitions and supplies. Everything from small arms ammunition to the specialize guidance kits that turned regular bombs into guided weapons and to the basic bombs themselves.

Several of those munitions plants I studied were working around the clock, three shifts a day, seven days a week in order to replenish U.S. weapons stocks.

Oh, and you falsely thought that was unusual for getting ready to go to war. Nah. Not so much. Always happens in times of mobilization.

You call what happened after 9-11 "mobilization"?

Well didn't stuff get mobile?

Yawn

 

[White 6]

ou were better with your first sentence,

Given a Democrat one-party state its not speculation about what will happen after libs gut the military

China will rule the world including the US

Gee, I been around a long time, including at least 6 to 9 democrat administrations (depending on how you count) and they have never gutted it before. Sounds like hysterical nonsense to me.

After inflation military spending during the Clinton Admin. declined by something on the order of 30-40% as did the size of the active duty military.

I was in the military at that time. We trained. We were equipped, we supported/ led the effort in Bosnia, and Kosovo. Heck, I was at V Corp, G3 shop part of the time when that was going on. We did the missions that needed done during all the Clinton years and under the budget forced by New Gingrich. So was the US not ready to kick ass after 9/11?

No it wasn't. I followed this issue closely during that time period. After 9/11 and prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq the U.S. defense industries went into overdrive purchasing new munitions and supplies. Everything from small arms ammunition to the specialize guidance kits that turned regular bombs into guided weapons and to the basic bombs themselves.

Several of those munitions plants I studied were working around the clock, three shifts a day, seven days a week in order to replenish U.S. weapons stocks.

Oh, and you falsely thought that was unusual for getting ready to go to war. Nah. Not so much. Always happens in times of mobilization.

You call what happened after 9-11 "mobilization"?

It is just the military term for call up in prep for larger operation. So, yes. I do.

 

[esalla]

ou were better with your first sentence,

Given a Democrat one-party state its not speculation about what will happen after libs gut the military

China will rule the world including the US

Gee, I been around a long time, including at least 6 to 9 democrat administrations (depending on how you count) and they have never gutted it before. Sounds like hysterical nonsense to me.

After inflation military spending during the Clinton Admin. declined by something on the order of 30-40% as did the size of the active duty military.

I was in the military at that time. We trained. We were equipped, we supported/ led the effort in Bosnia, and Kosovo. Heck, I was at V Corp, G3 shop part of the time when that was going on. We did the missions that needed done during all the Clinton years and under the budget forced by New Gingrich. So was the US not ready to kick ass after 9/11?

No it wasn't. I followed this issue closely during that time period. After 9/11 and prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq the U.S. defense industries went into overdrive purchasing new munitions and supplies. Everything from small arms ammunition to the specialize guidance kits that turned regular bombs into guided weapons and to the basic bombs themselves.

Several of those munitions plants I studied were working around the clock, three shifts a day, seven days a week in order to replenish U.S. weapons stocks.

Oh, and you falsely thought that was unusual for getting ready to go to war. Nah. Not so much. Always happens in times of mobilization.

You call what happened after 9-11 "mobilization"?

It is just the military term for call up in prep for larger operation. So, yes. I do.

Perhaps he thinks mobilization means linking cell phones

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

He ordered the dropping and detonations of several nuclear weapons across the North Pacific.

Eisenhower supporting tests in the Pacific is very different than dropping them on an enemy or on civilian populations. Indeed, “Ike” later claimed in 1948 and 1963 that he had opposed the dropping of the bomb on Japan — he may have been exaggerating his opposition on those occasions.

It is true that Eisenhower never ruled out using atomic bombs and oversaw an expansion of U.S. atomic bomb production. In this he was in the mainstream of military thinking. But his comments on the MIlitary Industrial Complex — made at a high point of the Cold War and after the USSR had its own nuclear weapons — still stands. His farewell speech about the MIC was seriously considered beforehand and consciously made. It was an important warning and expression of his genuine views about how a permanent MIC was a growing danger to our whole political system.

Actually, the UN should decide. It was made to solve conflicts like that.

If china invades Taiwan ... it wont ask the UN for permission.

Actually, the UN (and technically the U.S.) has already “decided”: Taiwan is part of China. Taiwan is not recognized as an independent nation.

The Chinese leadership has always insisted on this. Their position may not be one that we or most Taiwanese today like, but China has been completely consistent (since the KMT army fled to Taiwan at the end of the Civil War — with U.S. naval protection) that they consider Taiwan’s eventual return a vital national interest. It was on the basis of this understanding that the U.S.-China resumption of diplomatic relations was made.

 

[White 6]

He ordered the dropping and detonations of several nuclear weapons across the North Pacific.

Eisenhower supporting tests in the Pacific is very different than dropping them on an enemy or on civilian populations. Indeed, “Ike” later claimed in 1948 and 1963 that he had opposed the dropping of the bomb on Japan — he may have been exaggerating his opposition on those occasions.

It is true that Eisenhower never ruled out using atomic bombs and oversaw an expansion of U.S. atomic bomb production. In this he was in the mainstream of military thinking. But his comments on the MIlitary Industrial Complex — made at a high point of the Cold War and after the USSR had its own nuclear weapons — still stands. His farewell speech about the MIC was seriously considered beforehand and consciously made. It was an important warning and expression of his genuine views about how a permanent MIC was a growing danger to our whole political system.

Actually, the UN should decide. It was made to solve conflicts like that.

If china invades Taiwan ... it wont ask the UN for permisdion

Actually, the UN (and technically the U.S.) has already “decided”: Taiwan is part of China. Taiwan is not recognized as an independent nation.

The Chinese leadership has always insisted on this. Their position may not be one that we or most Taiwanese today like, but China has been completely consistent (since the KMT army fled to Taiwan at the end of the Civil War — with U.S. naval protection) that they consider Taiwan’s eventual return a vital national interest. It was on the basis of this understanding that the U.S.-China resumption of diplomatic relations was made.

See, the Brits should have listened to Frank Burns, If you steel something, never give it back. It will only cause more problems.

 

[harmonica]

they said the same thing if we had lost Vietnam----and then we lost Cambodia and Laos also, to communism --guess what?? the US is still here

uh, no.

no one claimed that vietnam was going to decide the outcome of the Cold War

ironically as china grows and expands outward vietnam is in US defense plans in a big way once again

yes--if we don't win in Vietnam, the commies will take over the world!!!!!
..we didn't need to be in Nam or Korea--and my father fought there

Domino Theory: Definition, Cold War & Vietnam War | HISTORY

The domino theory, a now-discredited Cold War idea, held that communism in one nation would spread communism into nei...

www.history.com

 

[harmonica]

...make it the policy of the U.S. to use nuclear weapons liberally if necessary?

Across four separate political discussion boards I see the repeated whining about how the U.S. spends too much on its military. Some have even insisted the U.S. could cut its annual military by 50%.

One of the main things used as a basis for this is President Eisenhower's famed "military industrial complex speech" (actually military industrial governmental complex).

But what almost everyone ignores is that Eisenhower was a big supporter of using nuclear weapons if necessary as a response to conventional military attacks. And Eisenhower took it seriously. When he took office the Korean War was still going on. Eisenhower threatened the Chinese with the use of nuclear weapons. And Ike meant it. He ordered the dropping and detonations of several nuclear weapons across the North Pacific.

So in order to cut the U.S. defense budget by half, would you be willing to support the casual use of nuclear weapons by the U.S.? For example if North Korea attacks South Korea again would you support the U.S. conducted a wide ranging nuclear attack on the North? If Iran attacked Saudi Arabia or tried to close the Straits of Hormuz would you support the U.S. making selected nuclear strikes on Iran?

Don't pretend that if the U.S. cuts its defense budget that the other nations on Earth are simply going to "act nice".

.....this is another idiotic OP---well, let's drop a nuke there......and there....how about over here.....and over there......
do you know what happens when a nuke goes off?????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
you people are like 14 year olds playing pc games

 

[Clinton Baptiste]

We can military spending easily by closing the vast majority of our military bases around the world, stop fighting other people's wars, and bring our solider back to our own borders.

Which military bases would you like closed? It's funny how people trot out that line, but can never name specific bases to close because they don't know shit from Shinola about the military and its usage on foreign relations.

All of them.

Tosser!

 

[Jarlaxle]

...make it the policy of the U.S. to use nuclear weapons liberally if necessary?

Across four separate political discussion boards I see the repeated whining about how the U.S. spends too much on its military. Some have even insisted the U.S. could cut its annual military by 50%.

One of the main things used as a basis for this is President Eisenhower's famed "military industrial complex speech" (actually military industrial governmental complex).

But what almost everyone ignores is that Eisenhower was a big supporter of using nuclear weapons if necessary as a response to conventional military attacks. And Eisenhower took it seriously. When he took office the Korean War was still going on. Eisenhower threatened the Chinese with the use of nuclear weapons. And Ike meant it. He ordered the dropping and detonations of several nuclear weapons across the North Pacific.

So in order to cut the U.S. defense budget by half, would you be willing to support the casual use of nuclear weapons by the U.S.? For example if North Korea attacks South Korea again would you support the U.S. conducted a wide ranging nuclear attack on the North? If Iran attacked Saudi Arabia or tried to close the Straits of Hormuz would you support the U.S. making selected nuclear strikes on Iran?

Don't pretend that if the U.S. cuts its defense budget that the other nations on Earth are simply going to "act nice".

Yes. Tehran should have vanished in a nuclear fireball in early 1980. Beirut should have vanished in nuclear fire in 1982. I would also support extensive stockpiles (and use) of chemical weapons. Sometimes, nerve gas is simply the right tool for the job.

 

[Jarlaxle]

We can military spending easily by closing the vast majority of our military bases around the world, stop fighting other people's wars, and bring our solider back to our own borders.

Which military bases would you like closed? It's funny how people trot out that line, but can never name specific bases to close because they don't know shit from Shinola about the military and its usage on foreign relations.

Start with all of them in Europe. Then all of them in Japan. Keep going from there.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Do you know how many people you are contaminating, how small the both Koreas are?

I am thinking that the OP does not want to use nukes in Korea and he is pointing out the danger of reducing the US conventionsl military to levels that would make it impossible to defend S Korea

This seems like a perfect place for a couple billion cubic feet of nerve gas.

 

[Jarlaxle]

It is not your issue anyway. First, South Korea is not a weak spot, they can defend themselves, second, without that Uncle Sam in their back, Seoul would have more interest in an understanding with the north. Just walk away and watch the things solving themselves.

Under the current lib president S Korea has bent over backwards to improve relations with the North

just walking away as you suggest will lead to south korea becoming a chinese puppet state

Too bad, so sad, not my problem.

 

[harmonica]

We can military spending easily by closing the vast majority of our military bases around the world, stop fighting other people's wars, and bring our solider back to our own borders.

you mean fight the next major war on American soil?

thats a terrible idea

.I'm waiting for your scenario of fighting on the American soil

 

[harmonica]

...make it the policy of the U.S. to use nuclear weapons liberally if necessary?

Across four separate political discussion boards I see the repeated whining about how the U.S. spends too much on its military. Some have even insisted the U.S. could cut its annual military by 50%.

One of the main things used as a basis for this is President Eisenhower's famed "military industrial complex speech" (actually military industrial governmental complex).

But what almost everyone ignores is that Eisenhower was a big supporter of using nuclear weapons if necessary as a response to conventional military attacks. And Eisenhower took it seriously. When he took office the Korean War was still going on. Eisenhower threatened the Chinese with the use of nuclear weapons. And Ike meant it. He ordered the dropping and detonations of several nuclear weapons across the North Pacific.

So in order to cut the U.S. defense budget by half, would you be willing to support the casual use of nuclear weapons by the U.S.? For example if North Korea attacks South Korea again would you support the U.S. conducted a wide ranging nuclear attack on the North? If Iran attacked Saudi Arabia or tried to close the Straits of Hormuz would you support the U.S. making selected nuclear strikes on Iran?

Don't pretend that if the U.S. cuts its defense budget that the other nations on Earth are simply going to "act nice".

Historicaly everytime this nation has let its military slide it has soon been caught up short and had to bust its ass scrambling to recover from its stupidity. Its good to remember that when WWII broke out US troops were training with broom sticks for guns and small trucks in place of tanks while its AF was practically non existant. Its the epitome of pennywise and pound foolish.

post WW2 examples please..we did not need to be in Korea - or Vietnam -
..the AF had better bombers than the Japanese or Germans ....

 

[Jarlaxle]

If china invades Taiwan or India it wont ask the UN for permisdion

If China invades Taiwan, Beijing should vanish in the fire of split atoms.

 

[harmonica]

...make it the policy of the U.S. to use nuclear weapons liberally if necessary?

Across four separate political discussion boards I see the repeated whining about how the U.S. spends too much on its military. Some have even insisted the U.S. could cut its annual military by 50%.

One of the main things used as a basis for this is President Eisenhower's famed "military industrial complex speech" (actually military industrial governmental complex).

But what almost everyone ignores is that Eisenhower was a big supporter of using nuclear weapons if necessary as a response to conventional military attacks. And Eisenhower took it seriously. When he took office the Korean War was still going on. Eisenhower threatened the Chinese with the use of nuclear weapons. And Ike meant it. He ordered the dropping and detonations of several nuclear weapons across the North Pacific.

So in order to cut the U.S. defense budget by half, would you be willing to support the casual use of nuclear weapons by the U.S.? For example if North Korea attacks South Korea again would you support the U.S. conducted a wide ranging nuclear attack on the North? If Iran attacked Saudi Arabia or tried to close the Straits of Hormuz would you support the U.S. making selected nuclear strikes on Iran?

Don't pretend that if the U.S. cuts its defense budget that the other nations on Earth are simply going to "act nice".

Do you know how many people you are contaminating, how small the both Koreas are?

....thank you...like I just posted, he wants to use them like firecrackers on the 4th of July !!!