Pentagon Plans to Shrink Army to Pre-World War II Level

[Two Thumbs]

wow, gullible repeaters of history.


This time when we shrink the military and do away with readiness, no one will ever attack us. It'll work this time, b/c we say so.

 

[rightwinger]

wow, gullible repeaters of history.


This time when we shrink the military and do away with readiness, no one will ever attack us. It'll work this time, b/c we say so.

Oh no!

If we reduce our forces to where they are only as powerful as the next eight nations combined, we are sure to lose

 

[eagle1462010]

Quite a while back I posted about the cuts to the commissaries, Tri-Care, and cost of living increases for Active military and retirees...........I haven't seen much talk about why they PURPOSELY target these basic benefits for those who served, and those who serve now.

This is utter BS areas of cuts. It's one thing to cut forces, but NOT BASIC services of those not cut.

I also posted the report of wasteful spending...........Duplicate programs that could save much more money than what is going on now. Why the refusal to make cuts in other areas of Gov't.............

Perhaps it is because the left gets their rocks off or tingling sensations in their legs every time they hear the military is getting cut..............Perhaps brain damage.

We live in a modern World. You can be across the world in a day. Which is why we should maintain a 2 front capable military, which we don't really have today. It takes a lot of time to train military in today's complex military systems.........You can't do it over night, and we should be very careful to not cut too deep. The World is a very dangerous place, and those who ignore it are fools.......

 

[JWBooth]

Aluminum Armor

Aluminum is much lighter than steel and relatively strong. Since it doesn't rust, it seems like the ideal metal for ships. However, no one uses aluminum for fighting ships because it can catch fire when hit, which produces intense heat that cannot be extinguished with water orHMS Sheffield regular fire extinguishers. In fact, aluminum is so volatile that powdered aluminum is a prime component in rocket fuel. The US Air Force 15,000 BLU-82B bomb contains 12,600 pounds of low-cost GSX slurry (ammonium nitrate, aluminum powder, and polystyrene). The British built a few frigates with aluminum in the 1970s. During the Falklands war, one of these ships, the HMS Sheffield, was hit by a single Exocet anti-ship missile. The damage was not fatal since the missile failed to explode, but its rocket fuel torched the Sheffield's aluminum hull, which ignited and burned until it sank. In contrast, the steel hull frigate USS Stark was hit by two Iraqi Exocet missiles in 1988 and survived.

Another disadvantage is that aluminum is less resistant to damage. A heavy machine gun round, rocket, or land mine striking a steel hull makes a small hole. However, cast aluminum shatters like plate glass. Hits cause large holes as hundreds of aluminum fragments blast forward causing casualties.

The US Army learned this when it tested early versions of the aluminum Bradley infantry fighting vehicle. In the Bradley tests, small RPG explosions caused only minor damage, but ignited the aluminum body and caused most vehicles to literally burn to the ground. Even worse, burning aluminum produces deadly fumes which instantly kill anyone inside. Only after heavy criticism and actual live-fire tests did changes occur. (see "The Pentagon Wars", by J. Burton, pp. 136-193) A steel armor coat was added and "spall liners" were installed inside to catch fragments. The latest model of the Bradley has an all-steel body.

This is what we refer to as a Class Delta Fire. Aluminum's ignition temperature is much much lower than steel. Once metal burns it is self sustaining and it CANNOT BE PUT OUT. It must be cut out and thrown over.

While some reports the aluminum fires on the HMS Sheffield disclaim the data on aluminum stating the superstructure was of steel, they later went away from aluminum in their Navy.

Aluminum has too many problems. I'm now stating another problem and that is specifically low ignition temps causing a Class Delta Fire. Once that occurs you are done.

As stated in the above article, the Stark took 2 hits and survived...

Superstructures of USN destroyers/ DDGs, cruisers, frigates are aluminum

 

[eagle1462010]

Aluminum Armor

Aluminum is much lighter than steel and relatively strong. Since it doesn't rust, it seems like the ideal metal for ships. However, no one uses aluminum for fighting ships because it can catch fire when hit, which produces intense heat that cannot be extinguished with water orHMS Sheffield regular fire extinguishers. In fact, aluminum is so volatile that powdered aluminum is a prime component in rocket fuel. The US Air Force 15,000 BLU-82B bomb contains 12,600 pounds of low-cost GSX slurry (ammonium nitrate, aluminum powder, and polystyrene). The British built a few frigates with aluminum in the 1970s. During the Falklands war, one of these ships, the HMS Sheffield, was hit by a single Exocet anti-ship missile. The damage was not fatal since the missile failed to explode, but its rocket fuel torched the Sheffield's aluminum hull, which ignited and burned until it sank. In contrast, the steel hull frigate USS Stark was hit by two Iraqi Exocet missiles in 1988 and survived.

Another disadvantage is that aluminum is less resistant to damage. A heavy machine gun round, rocket, or land mine striking a steel hull makes a small hole. However, cast aluminum shatters like plate glass. Hits cause large holes as hundreds of aluminum fragments blast forward causing casualties.

The US Army learned this when it tested early versions of the aluminum Bradley infantry fighting vehicle. In the Bradley tests, small RPG explosions caused only minor damage, but ignited the aluminum body and caused most vehicles to literally burn to the ground. Even worse, burning aluminum produces deadly fumes which instantly kill anyone inside. Only after heavy criticism and actual live-fire tests did changes occur. (see "The Pentagon Wars", by J. Burton, pp. 136-193) A steel armor coat was added and "spall liners" were installed inside to catch fragments. The latest model of the Bradley has an all-steel body.

This is what we refer to as a Class Delta Fire. Aluminum's ignition temperature is much much lower than steel. Once metal burns it is self sustaining and it CANNOT BE PUT OUT. It must be cut out and thrown over.

While some reports the aluminum fires on the HMS Sheffield disclaim the data on aluminum stating the superstructure was of steel, they later went away from aluminum in their Navy.

Aluminum has too many problems. I'm now stating another problem and that is specifically low ignition temps causing a Class Delta Fire. Once that occurs you are done.

As stated in the above article, the Stark took 2 hits and survived...

Superstructures of USN destroyers/ DDGs, cruisers, frigates are aluminum

They haven't had the test of a major fire their at temps that cause a Class Delta Fire. I don't like aluminum in combat ships, and I've seen what happens all aluminum hull boats. Hell I helped build them for a while and have repaired some of the problems with them.

I'll never accept that using it is a good thing.

 

[eagle1462010]

Cracks plague Ticonderoga-class cruisers | Navy Times | navytimes.com

Rather, it's an issue that is plaguing all 22 cruisers in service: cracks in the aluminum superstructure.

The problem, according to the Naval Sea Systems Command, is the aluminum alloy used in the superstructure of the cruisers, which have steel hulls.

"There have been various degrees of crack repair on every CG [guided-missile cruiser] in the past year," said Chris Johnson, a NAVSEA spokesman in Washington. "The decking is the most prevalent cracking area due to exposure to elevated temperatures caused by solar absorption and exhaust temperatures."

More than 3,000 cracks have been found so far across the entire Ticonderoga class, which originally numbered 27 ships. Twenty-two of the ships remain in service, and Port Royal, commissioned in 1994, is the newest.

Their superstructures are made of aluminum alloy 5456, a material used on numerous U.S. warships since 1958. The alloy, according to NAVSEA, relies on approximately 5 percent magnesium as an alloying element to develop strength. Over time, the magnesium leaches out of the material and forms a film, susceptible to stress-corrosion cracking in a marine environment.

Again, I show the data that the aluminum is a problem.............

 

[Synthaholic]

Hagel has a major uphill battle. He's talking about closing bases, cutting troop numbers, retiring the A-10, etc.
This means jobs will go bye-bye including civilian businesses that support and cater to the military and it's personnel. Some towns rely on those bases for their very existence. There are a lot of Senators and Congressmen on both sides of the aisle who will fight this tooth and nail.

Which just further proves that the military has become a government works program.

But wait a minute...I thought the government didn't create jobs???

Uuummmmm, kinda generalizing just a bit..... aren't we...... Missed the part about towns (local businesses) that cater to the military personnel as well as the civilian population.......

Yes. That's the government, by virtue of it's expanding size, creating jobs in places where there wouldn't be jobs otherwise.

And likewise, cutting government eliminates jobs, whether it's in those particular government offices, or the printers, restaurants, audio-visual, delivery, document management, document disposal, computer sales and service, etc., etc. which service those government jobs in that community. And that can be a branch of the EPA, or it could be a redundant military base. Still government.

 

[Synthaholic]

Hagel has a major uphill battle. He's talking about closing bases, cutting troop numbers, retiring the A-10, etc.
This means jobs will go bye-bye including civilian businesses that support and cater to the military and it's personnel. Some towns rely on those bases for their very existence. There are a lot of Senators and Congressmen on both sides of the aisle who will fight this tooth and nail.

Which just further proves that the military has become a government works program.

But wait a minute...I thought the government didn't create jobs???

Oh and thanks for proving my point about partisan politics.....

I never let an opportunity pass to remind people of why policy matters.

Exposing Right-Wing talking points is part of that.

Partisanship is not a bad thing, as long as both sides are able to honestly recognize facts. When you start denying or ignoring facts, that's when partisanship becomes twisted and bad for the country.

 

[RandallFlagg]

None of this is "Hagel's" plan, he isn't intelligent enough to put two sentences together.
This is all Obama

Couldn't agree more. It ISN'T Hagel's plan - the man doesn't have enough sense to pour piss out of a boot - it IS strictly Papa Doc's plan to take the money from the military and give it to the trash that lives off of the government. All part of the plan for the enslavement of our country.

Consider this - when finished, our Army will be the size of Turkey's Army. TURKEY'S ARMY!!!!


Just let that sink in for a minute. And to all you pussies out there that claim we can fight a war with technology - just shut the hell up. Until you have a man, with a rifle on the ground - there will NEVER be an end to the "enemy"

Get your heads out of your collective asses.

 

[Ringel05]

Which just further proves that the military has become a government works program.

But wait a minute...I thought the government didn't create jobs???

Oh and thanks for proving my point about partisan politics.....

I never let an opportunity pass to remind people of why policy matters.

Exposing Right-Wing talking points is part of that.

Partisanship is not a bad thing, as long as both sides are able to honestly recognize facts. When you start denying or ignoring facts, that's when partisanship becomes twisted and bad for the country.

And who's there to expose left-wing talking points....... Don't fool yourself, partisanship is not honestly recognizing facts, any other attempt at justifying it is nothing less than pure rationalization.

 

[Nosmo King]

None of this is "Hagel's" plan, he isn't intelligent enough to put two sentences together.
This is all Obama

Couldn't agree more. It ISN'T Hagel's plan - the man doesn't have enough sense to pour piss out of a boot - it IS strictly Papa Doc's plan to take the money from the military and give it to the trash that lives off of the government. All part of the plan for the enslavement of our country.

Consider this - when finished, our Army will be the size of Turkey's Army. TURKEY'S ARMY!!!!


Just let that sink in for a minute. And to all you pussies out there that claim we can fight a war with technology - just shut the hell up. Until you have a man, with a rifle on the ground - there will NEVER be an end to the "enemy"

Get your heads out of your collective asses.

You're forgetting about sequestration! If the congress wasn't so damn dysfunctional and ideologically driven rather than driven to serve, we would not HAVE to reduce our military, then increase it under the Hagel plan.

After the sequestration cuts are in effect, the budget provides for a military consisting of 400,000 troops. Hagel's plan calls for an INCREASE of 20,000!

Blame congress and their inability to govern for the problem, as you see it.

I, for one, am sick and tired of underwriting the security of our economic competitors like Japan and Korea and Latin America. They don't spend as big a percentage of their budget on defense as we do. So that capital can be spent on infrastructure, putting them to work and earning wealth, or given back to them as tax breaks.

 

[Ringel05]

Which just further proves that the military has become a government works program.

But wait a minute...I thought the government didn't create jobs???

Uuummmmm, kinda generalizing just a bit..... aren't we...... Missed the part about towns (local businesses) that cater to the military personnel as well as the civilian population.......

Yes. That's the government, by virtue of it's expanding size, creating jobs in places where there wouldn't be jobs otherwise.

And likewise, cutting government eliminates jobs, whether it's in those particular government offices, or the printers, restaurants, audio-visual, delivery, document management, document disposal, computer sales and service, etc., etc. which service those government jobs in that community. And that can be a branch of the EPA, or it could be a redundant military base. Still government.

The problem with that argument is most of those entrepreneurs will, by virtue of their nature, find other outlets that are not necessarily "government" related.
The employees will look for work that is not necessarily "government" related when those jobs are no longer available. So your argument is technically a null point because people create these jobs, not the government or necessarily a government presence.

 

[RandallFlagg]

None of this is "Hagel's" plan, he isn't intelligent enough to put two sentences together.
This is all Obama

Couldn't agree more. It ISN'T Hagel's plan - the man doesn't have enough sense to pour piss out of a boot - it IS strictly Papa Doc's plan to take the money from the military and give it to the trash that lives off of the government. All part of the plan for the enslavement of our country.

Consider this - when finished, our Army will be the size of Turkey's Army. TURKEY'S ARMY!!!!


Just let that sink in for a minute. And to all you pussies out there that claim we can fight a war with technology - just shut the hell up. Until you have a man, with a rifle on the ground - there will NEVER be an end to the "enemy"

Get your heads out of your collective asses.

You're forgetting about sequestration! If the congress wasn't so damn dysfunctional and ideologically driven rather than driven to serve, we would not HAVE to reduce our military, then increase it under the Hagel plan.

After the sequestration cuts are in effect, the budget provides for a military consisting of 400,000 troops. Hagel's plan calls for an INCREASE of 20,000!

Blame congress and their inability to govern for the problem, as you see it.

I, for one, am sick and tired of underwriting the security of our economic competitors like Japan and Korea and Latin America. They don't spend as big a percentage of their budget on defense as we do. So that capital can be spent on infrastructure, putting them to work and earning wealth, or given back to them as tax breaks.

Why is it that the left ALWAYS calls Congress "dysfunctional"? Why do you suppose that is? CONGRESS IS SUPPOSED TO BE DYSFUNCTIONAL!!!! That was ALWAYS the entire point of the three separate powers. Apparently, though now, it has been determined that the President should just "wave his pen" and everything works. That goes against everything this country was founded upon.

Granted, Congress as of late, has been dragging it's feet in a terrible way (thanks Democrats and especially Harry Reid) but again - that is the JOB of Congress.

Is there fat that can be cut? absolutely! I have no doubt whatsoever. However, to then, take whatever savings that are realized from the dismantling the military and give it to use for domestic spending is lunacy. Spending more and more and more on food stamps, unemployment "benefits: for people that haven't now worked in a couple of years is madness. Pure madness.

Eventually, the money will run out. What do we do then? Tax breaks!?!?! With Papa Doc in power!?!?!?! What the HELL happened to the 860 BILLION dollars ALREADY spent on "infrastructure"!?!?!?

 

[Nosmo King]

Couldn't agree more. It ISN'T Hagel's plan - the man doesn't have enough sense to pour piss out of a boot - it IS strictly Papa Doc's plan to take the money from the military and give it to the trash that lives off of the government. All part of the plan for the enslavement of our country.

Consider this - when finished, our Army will be the size of Turkey's Army. TURKEY'S ARMY!!!!


Just let that sink in for a minute. And to all you pussies out there that claim we can fight a war with technology - just shut the hell up. Until you have a man, with a rifle on the ground - there will NEVER be an end to the "enemy"

Get your heads out of your collective asses.

You're forgetting about sequestration! If the congress wasn't so damn dysfunctional and ideologically driven rather than driven to serve, we would not HAVE to reduce our military, then increase it under the Hagel plan.

After the sequestration cuts are in effect, the budget provides for a military consisting of 400,000 troops. Hagel's plan calls for an INCREASE of 20,000!

Blame congress and their inability to govern for the problem, as you see it.

I, for one, am sick and tired of underwriting the security of our economic competitors like Japan and Korea and Latin America. They don't spend as big a percentage of their budget on defense as we do. So that capital can be spent on infrastructure, putting them to work and earning wealth, or given back to them as tax breaks.

Why is it that the left ALWAYS calls Congress "dysfunctional"? Why do you suppose that is? CONGRESS IS SUPPOSED TO BE DYSFUNCTIONAL!!!! That was ALWAYS the entire point of the three separate powers. Apparently, though now, it has been determined that the President should just "wave his pen" and everything works. That goes against everything this country was founded upon.

Granted, Congress as of late, has been dragging it's feet in a terrible way (thanks Democrats and especially Harry Reid) but again - that is the JOB of Congress.

Is there fat that can be cut? absolutely! I have no doubt whatsoever. However, to then, take whatever savings that are realized from the dismantling the military and give it to use for domestic spending is lunacy. Spending more and more and more on food stamps, unemployment "benefits: for people that haven't now worked in a couple of years is madness. Pure madness.

Eventually, the money will run out. What do we do then? Tax breaks!?!?! With Papa Doc in power!?!?!?! What the HELL happened to the 860 BILLION dollars ALREADY spent on "infrastructure"!?!?!?

Congress is supposed to serve the people of the United States.

And as much as you would love to step on e necks of the poor and sneer, the handouts in pork to defense contractors could fund school lunch programs for generations.

 

[Interpol]

This is not "Chuck Hagel's plan". What an ignorant thread title.

This is the Obama administration's plan based on recommendations made by the Pentagon. And Chuck Hagel is for it. I respect Chuck Hagel more than most Republicans.

The plan is to bring active-duty military to about 450,000 from the 570,000 it's at currently.

It was expanded because we fought two really long wars simultaneously.

450,000 is fine. We're leaving wartime and entering back into peacetime. That's how it should work. But the neo-cons and their supporters insist on more welfare for the military even though we already spend more than the next 13 countries combined.

Current military budget is $711 billion. Should come back down by about $200 billion a year, which was where it was at pre-9/11.

Wars are fought differently now. It isn't the size of your active-duty force that matters; it's who's got the best toys, and we got 'em all.

 

[HenryBHough]

Remember, Obama cleaned out all the upper echelons of the military, apparently according whether they felt their obligation was to the nation or just to Him personally. So, from the leavings, you expected what?

 

[RandallFlagg]

You're forgetting about sequestration! If the congress wasn't so damn dysfunctional and ideologically driven rather than driven to serve, we would not HAVE to reduce our military, then increase it under the Hagel plan.

After the sequestration cuts are in effect, the budget provides for a military consisting of 400,000 troops. Hagel's plan calls for an INCREASE of 20,000!

Blame congress and their inability to govern for the problem, as you see it.

I, for one, am sick and tired of underwriting the security of our economic competitors like Japan and Korea and Latin America. They don't spend as big a percentage of their budget on defense as we do. So that capital can be spent on infrastructure, putting them to work and earning wealth, or given back to them as tax breaks.

Why is it that the left ALWAYS calls Congress "dysfunctional"? Why do you suppose that is? CONGRESS IS SUPPOSED TO BE DYSFUNCTIONAL!!!! That was ALWAYS the entire point of the three separate powers. Apparently, though now, it has been determined that the President should just "wave his pen" and everything works. That goes against everything this country was founded upon.

Granted, Congress as of late, has been dragging it's feet in a terrible way (thanks Democrats and especially Harry Reid) but again - that is the JOB of Congress.

Is there fat that can be cut? absolutely! I have no doubt whatsoever. However, to then, take whatever savings that are realized from the dismantling the military and give it to use for domestic spending is lunacy. Spending more and more and more on food stamps, unemployment "benefits: for people that haven't now worked in a couple of years is madness. Pure madness.

Eventually, the money will run out. What do we do then? Tax breaks!?!?! With Papa Doc in power!?!?!?! What the HELL happened to the 860 BILLION dollars ALREADY spent on "infrastructure"!?!?!?

Congress is supposed to serve the people of the United States.

And as much as you would love to step on e necks of the poor and sneer, the handouts in pork to defense contractors could fund school lunch programs for generations.

Congress is supposed to propose legislation and then debate legislation, as well as passing yearly operating budgets and then either passing them or not passing them. IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE A SLOW PROCESS. THAT WAS ALWAYS IT'S PURPOSE - TO PREVENT UNDO HASTE. And by that - serve their constituencies. PERIOD. It's called a Bicameral form of government. And that's what Congress was elected to do. Instead, we have a "president" (and I use that term VERY loosely - I prefer to call him a tyrant) Who believes "to hell with the process".

He claims to have been a "Constitutional Professor" for 10 years and I call BS. He seemingly knows NOTHING about the Constitution and, frankly, I don't believe that he gives a damn about it. He is quickly becoming a tyrant and seeks to do away with the very process that put him into power.

He tells his AG to "only enforce those laws that he agrees with" and his thug goes to a States AG conference and tells his State Attorney's General to "only force those laws that they actually believe in" Don't believe me" look it up. Just happened and I won't do YOUR work for you.


Now, he's decided to dismantle the military?? Yeah, rather than paying down a 17 TRILLION dollar deficit, he intends to steal the money and give it to lazy individuals. But, no, he isn't becoming a tyrant, is he.....


Wake the hell up.

 

[RandallFlagg]

This is not "Chuck Hagel's plan". What an ignorant thread title.

This is the Obama administration's plan based on recommendations made by the Pentagon. And Chuck Hagel is for it. I respect Chuck Hagel more than most Republicans.

The plan is to bring active-duty military to about 450,000 from the 570,000 it's at currently.

It was expanded because we fought two really long wars simultaneously.

450,000 is fine. We're leaving wartime and entering back into peacetime. That's how it should work. But the neo-cons and their supporters insist on more welfare for the military even though we already spend more than the next 13 countries combined.

Current military budget is $711 billion. Should come back down by about $200 billion a year, which was where it was at pre-9/11.

Wars are fought differently now. It isn't the size of your active-duty force that matters; it's who's got the best toys, and we got 'em all.

I stopped reading there.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Remember, Obama cleaned out all the upper echelons of the military, apparently according whether they felt their obligation was to the nation or just to Him personally. So, from the leavings, you expected what?

I don't remember the exact number (too lazy I guess) but it was in the range of 100 Staff Officers. Maybe a little less - maybe a few more. One thing I know for fact, however, you do NOT disagree with Papa Doc. It WILL cost you your career.

 

[aaronleland]

In today's world there is no need for 570,000 troops. Several countries combined required a fraction of that number for the Normandy landings. In the age of cruise missiles and drone strikes 400,000 is more than enough.