An Exercise in Defense Spending

[champu 1]

I think it's fair to say most people want to cut back defense spending, particularly in light of current budget constraints. When asked to elaborate, though, people tend to break down into, "By Half! We spend more than blah blah blah!" and/or "If we didn't piss people off we wouldn't need a military at all!" Which are statements that, right or wrong, I think lack focus.

So my question to start this discussion is, if you're in the United States' position, what would your military look like? What kind of the following and where? Aircraft? Ships? Subs? Electronic warfare? Bases? Ground units? Special Forces? Space? Cyberspace? ICBMS? Transportation? Communication? Missile defense?

Lay out what you think we should have or what we should focus on.

[kelpdiver 2]

the model for our military had been to be able to fight two major wars simultaneously. Now we seem to be at one major, one minor.

we also have always maintained technological superiority. The best airplanes, in particular. This is valuable in a fight with a major power, but it's been overkill in places like Iraq or Afghanistan.

But the financial realities of maintaining this force lead us to a point where we might have to use our military just to keep our foreign creditors at bay. (many of those same creditors like the benefits of our policing, but freeload off it)

I think we can (well, must) reduce our sphere of influence to North/Central America. So do we need the number of soldiers we have? Do we need the F35 or F22? We certainly don't need as many carrier groups as we have. One trident sub carries a couple hundred warheads. We don't need too many - just enough to prevent the loss of a single sub or two removing that deterrent.

[Butters 0]

First thought, shut down all bases outside of the United States of America except base(s) in Korea. Interested in what others think about this ...

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[nanook 1]

That would make the issue of being able to get to a hot spot without a serious sortie from U.S. a huge issue. We are on the other side of the world. We will always go to those "hot spots". However, not having a pre-staged area: Germany, Japan, Med areas, Bahrain, Diego Garcia, ect ect. . . It would make it immensly more expensive.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

That would make the issue of being able to get to a hot spot without a serious sortie from U.S. a huge issue. We are on the other side of the world. We will always go to those "hot spots". However, not having a pre-staged area: Germany, Japan, Med areas, Bahrain, Diego Garcia, ect ect. . . It would make it immensly more expensive.

well, the point is to generally stop doing those sorts of actions. It's too expensive acting as the world's cop without pay.

[Kennedy 0]

Just curious: why does Korea get a pass in your plan?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[nanook 1]

Quote

well, the point is to generally stop doing those sorts of actions. It's too expensive acting as the world's cop without pay.

We don't play "worlds cop" by ourselves. Pretty much all of the western world contribute. If you think it is expensive acting like the "worlds cop", imagine how costly it would be if we didn't. Imports have to leave countries to go to other countries. No sherriffs out there but us "world cops". Denying a nation's ability to cheaply wage war or unfair competitive actions against our allies makes them reconsider said actions. ect. ect.

Unfortunately, countries of the world are not passive shy socially awkward people who you can always ignore and turn your backs on without worry. Practically all countries are the extrovert who go for the prize. And they constantly push.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

We don't play "worlds cop" by ourselves. Pretty much all of the western world contribute.

bullshit. How much do we spend on our military forces this year? How much do the next 10 nations spend?

Yes, there are costs to having a reduced military. We won't always get what we want. But it's quite clear that we can't afford to maintain our current level...in time our debt situation will force our hand. And that time is pretty damn close. Better to start a gradual transitioning now, rather than the economic shock of having to cut it 60% in a year.

[nanook 1]

Quote

bullshit. How much do we spend on our military forces this year?

It doesn't matter. True we spend way more but those other countries are much smaller and can't support the equal amount of assistance even if they put themselves at our debt loads. Mostly this is because, where are they going to park their ships? Troops? Constantly out at sea? Over here in the US? That would take the ability to respond impossible. Some countries are land locked and have inadequate ports that barely supports ours. Their infastructure to produce weaponry at adequate levels is filled with bottlenecks by the nature of their economies of scale, land usage, resources, people, logistical ability and such.

Quote

Yes, there are costs to having a reduced military. We won't always get what we want. But it's quite clear that we can't afford to maintain our current level...in time our debt situation will force our hand. And that time is pretty damn close. Better to start a gradual transitioning now, rather than the economic shock of having to cut it 60% in a year.

I agree with you here. However, regardless whether we pull back, there still has to be an equal amount of protectionism out there. Someone else will have to step up. Or, things are going to go to some level of degradation.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[nanook 1]

Quote

Lay out what you think we should have or what we should focus on

Since I hijacked enough, I'll at least give you my opinion.

Overall reduction of forces. This will require new strategic and global planning. This will make cuts asymetrical as the actual strategies in place is what shapes forces component numbers and manning. We will need Allies to step up elsewhere and possibly integrate non-traditional ports/countries around the world to open their arms to the West. US and European countries assisting(creating?) emerging economies may be in order in some of those countries. It will help european countries to expand their ability to step up by allowing their economy to expand enough to support such spending.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[Butters 0]

Quote

Just curious: why does Korea get a pass in your plan?

Honestly, I didn't give it much thought which is why I asked what others thought. The reason I gave Korea a pass was because it provides a base on the other side of the world that is located in close proximity to our biggest threat(s).

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

That would make the issue of being able to get to a hot spot without a serious sortie from U.S. a huge issue. We are on the other side of the world. We will always go to those "hot spots". However, not having a pre-staged area: Germany, Japan, Med areas, Bahrain, Diego Garcia, ect ect. . . It would make it immensly more expensive.

well, the point is to generally stop doing those sorts of actions. It's too expensive acting as the world's cop without pay.

Exactly. If we have to play cop then we can launch cruise missiles and send in special forces ... no base needed.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Just curious: why does Korea get a pass in your plan?

Honestly, I didn't give it much thought which is why I asked what others thought. The reason I gave Korea a pass was because it provides a base on the other side of the world that is located in close proximity to our biggest threat(s).

But, obviously, there multiple critical sides of the world. That's why, for example, we have a presence in places like Bahrain.

I'm the first to say that not all military spending is truly "defense". "Defense", as often as not, is the name of a commercial product. Realistically, I think the US can probably reduce its off-shore military presence by about one-third without a significant detriment to our national security or international influence. And that will save huge amounts of money that can be well-used at home (like maybe a viable universal health care program like every other industrialized country on the planet has- or even one far better). But I don't think it can be reduced to nil.

[theonlyski 8]

Quote

Exactly. If we have to play cop then we can launch cruise missiles and send in special forces ... no base needed.

And how do you plan on getting support to those SF teams when they need it. Clean water is sometimes hard to come across... shelters, sometimes food (if they can't beg, borrow, steal), fuel, long term medical care.

Not to mention, you could lose an entire ODA in a matter of minutes, and then take hours or days to get to what was left.

An ODB is a C2 element for the ODA's, without air assets, logistics (food, water, shelter, fuel) support, power, or even a semi safe place for them to set up shop, you would be sending that 12-14 man ODA into hostile territory with no support, probably a lack of communications packages that can talk that distance. You wouldn't even be able to know they're being over run or turned on by the indigs.

"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

Exactly. If we have to play cop then we can launch cruise missiles and send in special forces ... no base needed.

And how do you plan on getting support to those SF teams when they need it. Clean water is sometimes hard to come across... shelters, sometimes food (if they can't beg, borrow, steal), fuel, long term medical care.

Not to mention, you could lose an entire ODA in a matter of minutes, and then take hours or days to get to what was left.

An ODB is a C2 element for the ODA's, without air assets, logistics (food, water, shelter, fuel) support, power, or even a semi safe place for them to set up shop, you would be sending that 12-14 man ODA into hostile territory with no support, probably a lack of communications packages that can talk that distance. You wouldn't even be able to know they're being over run or turned on by the indigs.

As far as assistance, planes. As far as communication, satellites.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[theonlyski 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Exactly. If we have to play cop then we can launch cruise missiles and send in special forces ... no base needed.

And how do you plan on getting support to those SF teams when they need it. Clean water is sometimes hard to come across... shelters, sometimes food (if they can't beg, borrow, steal), fuel, long term medical care.

Not to mention, you could lose an entire ODA in a matter of minutes, and then take hours or days to get to what was left.

An ODB is a C2 element for the ODA's, without air assets, logistics (food, water, shelter, fuel) support, power, or even a semi safe place for them to set up shop, you would be sending that 12-14 man ODA into hostile territory with no support, probably a lack of communications packages that can talk that distance. You wouldn't even be able to know they're being over run or turned on by the indigs.

As far as assistance, planes. As far as communication, satellites.

With no bases on that side of the world, the planes would take hours (if not longer) to get there, and since, we have no places for it to land, don't forget the mid air refuel for it, atleast a couple times.

satellites have footprints, The satellites currently serving Iraq and Afghanistan are generally shooting into media ports located in Germany, Austrailia, or Qatar... all three places, over seas.

"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

I think it's fair to say most people want to cut back defense spending, particularly in light of current budget constraints. When asked to elaborate, though, people tend to break down into, "By Half! We spend more than blah blah blah!" and/or "If we didn't piss people off we wouldn't need a military at all!" Which are statements that, right or wrong, I think lack focus.

So my question to start this discussion is, if you're in the United States' position, what would your military look like? What kind of the following and where? Aircraft? Ships? Subs? Electronic warfare? Bases? Ground units? Special Forces? Space? Cyberspace? ICBMS? Transportation? Communication? Missile defense?

Lay out what you think we should have or what we should focus on.

I would be one of those who says "cut out the waste and fraud first". Example:

The price the military paid for each item shipped rarely reached $100 and totaled just $68,000 over the six years in contrast to the $20.5 million paid for shipping, she said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aY5OQ5xv9HR8


Businesses which defraud the government should get more publicity than the next loser from American Idol. And when lawmakers are shown video of companies which are regularly abusing their contracts I would like to hear them react with anger towards the contractor, not the whistle blower. And if they respond by saying "do you think profit is evil?" then I think that lawmaker should be removed from Congress.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsNM5zbe4Pk

Exposing of the waste and fraud has been done by numerous organizations.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/10/50-Examples-of-Government-Waste#_edn11
This stuff is the low hanging fruit. Grab it first, then tackle the more difficult programs.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Lay out what you think we should have or what we should focus on.

A good start is to cut every program that the military didn't want but had forced upon it by Congress.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,107]

>And how do you plan on getting support to those SF teams when they need it.

Sometimes you couldn't. Sometimes they might fail at their mission (or worse, end up dead) because they couldn't get support in time. That might make politicians reconsider whether they should be used at all.

[GQ_jumper 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Exactly. If we have to play cop then we can launch cruise missiles and send in special forces ... no base needed.

And how do you plan on getting support to those SF teams when they need it. Clean water is sometimes hard to come across... shelters, sometimes food (if they can't beg, borrow, steal), fuel, long term medical care.

Not to mention, you could lose an entire ODA in a matter of minutes, and then take hours or days to get to what was left.

An ODB is a C2 element for the ODA's, without air assets, logistics (food, water, shelter, fuel) support, power, or even a semi safe place for them to set up shop, you would be sending that 12-14 man ODA into hostile territory with no support, probably a lack of communications packages that can talk that distance. You wouldn't even be able to know they're being over run or turned on by the indigs.

As far as assistance, planes. As far as communication, satellites.

Although as usual I'm going to guess that my experience is discounted as usual, being overshadowed by the keyboard warriors serving in every conflict simultaneously through the DZ.com forums, I'll throw it out anyways. theonlyski had it right Butters. I'm an ODB team sergeant, and trying to make a broad stroke as simple as planes and satellites is a ridiculous statement. Supporting our teams requires us to have logistical hubs here in the region. The biggest ones are in Germany and then every step of the way they get smaller and have a chain going all the way down to the teams. The amount of extra work it would take to get support to our operators if everything had to come all the way from the US would make us incapable of doing our mission continuously and largely ineffective. All of the overseas stations serve as support centers for all of our forces who are forward deployed. And the delay that would be caused by shutting them down and having to re-establish them would make us ineffective as a military. Yes we have rapid deployment units that can go anywhere in the world at the drop of a hat, but as soon as they start to spin up so does the logistics monster to follow them and emplace a sustainable footrpint once they take the initial ground. Our military is set a certain way for a reason.

i do agree however, that we have a lot of fat that can be trimmed. How bout we start at the ground level, tighten standards, and any soldier that cannot meet them gets their walking papers. Out of shape soldiers, those with "emotional problems" who have never even seen combat, soldiers who conveniently find themselves pregnant or injured every time a deployment comes up, get the fuck out, we don't need you. Then take a good hard look at a lot of the fat in terms of units who don't contribute to the fight. How much do we spend funding the demo teams for each service? If a soldier wants to join the military to go straight to the Knights and avoid combat they should be a fucking civilian. Trim down our demo teams and fill them with wounded warriors, those guys and gals still deserve a paycheck and would do tons for the public image. How about Air force SERE instructors, a job that you can sign up for to guarantee you'll never contribute to the fight, if they don't go to combat, get them out. Then put some serious checks and balances on the services for efficiency. I've lost count of the number of times I've watched the Air Farce intentionally botch things so they could get out of flying shitty missions, or spend an extra day or two in a nice locale, collecting per diem. I've seen more fake aircraft breakdowns than I can count. Get rid of these endless amount of support units that don't deploy and don't serve a purpose, if you're in the military your job is too deploy and serve in combat, not sit on your hands back in the states. Nix all of these officers that aren't getting commands and just end up going to a job that was created to house officers who didn't make the cut to move up, I run across so many that fill billets just for the sake of staying in the army even though they've been passed up for command. You missed the boat, you failed, go try something else. And heres the big kicker, get rid of KBR!!! Or put them under a serious microscope, they have so many people over here who don't do crap. I walk into a support office and there is one soldier doing nothing and seven KBR workers making three times as much who jump through every hoop to not do what their contract brings them here to. If that soldiers is so worthless they get stuck in a support office over here, doing something like managing who gets what billeting assignments, then make them work themselves to death until, they either get out or learn to earn their keep. And all the ridiculous spending on weapons programs, and searching for technology we will never see or use, get rid of it. The Army has been looking for a replacement to my M4 since I joined and I still have an M4. After all the squabbling they have decided to field the Scar, the absolute last choice on the list of every soldier who tested all the options, there's 15 years of studies for you. We don't always need something new and shiny, we need something that works, and more of what we already have.

We have 8 support soldiers for every combat arms soldier in the military, is it just me or does that seem a little off?

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

[DaVinci 0]

Cut overseas bases. There is no reason for the US to have bases all over the World.

Quote

And how do you plan on getting support to those SF teams when they need it.

Carrier Battle groups. they can be moved to the hot spots.

Quote

An ODB is a C2 element for the ODA's, without air assets, logistics (food, water, shelter, fuel) support, power, or even a semi safe place for them to set up shop, you would be sending that 12-14 man ODA into hostile territory with no support,

1. Don't send them.
2. CBG's can provide most of what you ask for.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Cut overseas bases. There is no reason for the US to have bases all over the World.

Quote

And how do you plan on getting support to those SF teams when they need it.

Carrier Battle groups. they can be moved to the hot spots.

Quote

An ODB is a C2 element for the ODA's, without air assets, logistics (food, water, shelter, fuel) support, power, or even a semi safe place for them to set up shop, you would be sending that 12-14 man ODA into hostile territory with no support,

1. Don't send them.
2. CBG's can provide most of what you ask for.

We need to get rid of the NAVY.... unneeded

We need to get rid of the Air Farce...unneeded

We need to get rid of ALL women in the military.... unneeded

Captain America and his merry band of door kickers can take care of ALL of our military needs.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

We need to get rid of the NAVY.... unneeded

We need to get rid of the Air Farce...unneeded

We need to get rid of ALL women in the military.... unneeded

Captain America and his merry band of door kickers can take care of ALL of our military needs.

I never said any of the above.... That was all you.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

We have 8 support soldiers for every combat arms soldier in the military, is it just me or does that seem a little off?

well, bear in mind you started your very informative (if in dire need of some paragraph breaks for readability) post talking about the logistical requirements to support deployed forces. And having the most efficient, potent soldiers means lot of trainers. And other personnel. So it starts adding up.

As I talked about earlier, we have to ask ourselves do we need, and can we still afford to have the ability to deploy troops anywhere in the world at the drop of a hat. In the short term, that exercise of power helps the US. But the costs are killing it in the long term, and that long term is getting shorter.

[GQ_jumper 4]

well, bear in mind you started your very informative (if in dire need of some paragraph breaks for readability) post talking about the logistical requirements to support deployed forces. And having the most efficient, potent soldiers means lot of trainers. And other personnel. So it starts adding up.

As I talked about earlier, we have to ask ourselves do we need, and can we still afford to have the ability to deploy troops anywhere in the world at the drop of a hat. In the short term, that exercise of power helps the US. But the costs are killing it in the long term, and that long term is getting shorter.

Quote

Agreed on the comment about my lack of editing! I gave up trying to put well-written posts up a long time ago as a form of protest to the lack of intelligent replies that infect this place It was more of a rant than anything!

I agree that there is a heavy logisitcs requirement to sustain today's forces, but trust me, its over inflated, and we are killing ourselves indulging in creating all these jobs. We seriously need to trim the fat, lean down the military, and take a good hard look at what it really takes to support the troops in the fight. Which people seem to forget is what the military is all about. Everything the military does is geared towards supporting the combat arms, but unfortunately nobody sees it that way anymore.

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower