Wildalaska
Moderator
The influence of Sea Power on History by Mahan is a must read for anyone who wants to be taken seriously in a debate about military force and projection.
WildcarryonAlaska ™
Would Obama Disarm the Military?
- Thread starter mountainclmbr
- Start date
The influence of Sea Power on History by Mahan is a must read for anyone who wants to be taken seriously in a debate about military force and projection.
WildcarryonAlaska ™
Saves money for more free stuff and money for our own leeches. Them entitlements need fundin'. That military is a waste of money better spent getting the freeloaders to subscribe to any way of thinking that justifies their handouts and therefore their support politically. After all, who would even attempt to consider a perspective that affirms their conscience nagging at them when there is an alternative that affirms denying their conscience and even justifies the suckling.
Got to be truly sold out to think free stuff trumps national defense on the national budget priorities. Of course give almost anyone free stuff long enough they will start thinking up any excuse to justify maintaining the flow.
Got to be truly sold out to think free stuff trumps national defense on the national budget priorities. Of course give almost anyone free stuff long enough they will start thinking up any excuse to justify maintaining the flow.
Military funding cuts...
Are a double edged sword, hiltless, with no crossguard. Look at what we got out of the "peace benefit" the Clintons "found" when the Cold War ended. 9/11 among other things. No matter what your personal views, it remains a fact that there are people in this world who hate us, hate our ideals, envy and resent our success. And some of them have the means to make their displeasure felt. Some of them have no respect for human life, their own or anyone else's. Some of them are absolutely convinced that God is on their side, and we are agents of Satan, therefore nothing they do to us can be wrong or evil. And some of them are just evil.
But they do have one thing in common, and that is that they respect military might, when it is matched with the determination to use it. Without both of those, we are seen as a "paper tiger", and they can do as they please with impunity. It is because of where we have been that we are where we are now. I do not agree with all the tactical and strategic decisions of the current administration, but one thing is clear, they are, at least, doing something. And the something that they have been doing may have been responsible for the fact that there have been no further attacks in the US since 9/11/01. It may not have been, but since we'll never know for certain, the argument is moot.
Cutbacks in military spending should be done, BUT not without careful forethought. We may not have a nation state as combat enemy today, but that doesn't mean that we never will again. There are two basic problems with military spending, and a host of smaller ones. One problem is the actual cost of what is procured (and the procurement system is as flawed as anything any bureaucrat ever came up with), and the other basic problem is the apparant benefit seen by the public for the money spent. In training it is a well recognised fact that sweat saves blood. What is not well understood, outside the military, is that when it comes to equipment, money saves blood as well.
Just look at some of the crap we have been through with our troops in Iraq. We have a significant portion of the country that constantly bemoans the fact that our boys and girls are "being sent out to die", and yet these same folks don't want to spend the money for the tools that will help keep our boys and girls from dying!
We are flying 20+ year old airplanes, in some cases 40+ years old. And because there is only so much money to go around, we aren't doing as well as we should keeping up the spare parts. Priorities. Ground pounders carry the load today, and get the biggest share. Deservedly so. But the other components must not be neglected, or we risk not have them when needed. Yes, new designs are horrendously expensive. This is, after all, the USA, where we have made a national icon of profit. But another reason they are so expensive is that they (by our demand) must be capable of meeting and defeating the most powerful enemy equipment that they might concievably be up against. And if they can't, our boys and girls will die. To have even reasonable sureity that our equipment will meet the acid test costs money. And today, it cost a lot of money. But how much are the lives of our sons and daughters worth?
We may not have a visiable need for new aircraft carriers, today. But what about the day after tomorrow? These kinds of things are not made overnight. They cannot magically be conjured into existance at need. But the idea that we will be able to, as we did in WWII, still exists, and even persists, despite the clear facts that first, we did not win WWII overnight, that it took us a couple of years, with the whole nation on a war footing (rationing, wage and price controls, etc.) to produce those ships, planes, tanks and troops that did win the war. And second, the nation today is not even remotely the same kind of nation, as far as manufacturing capacity as it was then. Not even close.
Other small problems with military spending are the civilians who make their living building what we do buy and use, having a vote, and a voice in government, and nobody I know of will vote for somebody who will put them out of work, at least not knowingly. And then there are the boys and girls actually in uniform. We pay them. Not well, certainly not as well as they deserve, although better today than ever in the past. There is a big chunk of money, right there. And it only gets less if you reduce the number of people you pay. We have an all volunteer military. The people in it are there because they want to be. They have chosen to take the risks that come with putting on the uniform as a way of life. One huge benefit of this is that they do this so others of us won't have to. I have been there, my children are there now. Where are yours? In college? At the mall?
Also remember that when you cut military spending, not all of the decisions about where the remaining money gets spent are made by people with a vested interest in the military. Congress can kill this program, or that one at will, and will do so for percieved political gain. Base closings, reduced maintenance, skilled, competent people being forced out of the military (re enlistment bar) to save money, all these things and more will happen. It isn't just the fat that gets trimmed.
And before you go too far on those lines, consider also that the VA is figured into the mix as well. The care and benefits given to our veterans for their service is often shameful from a nation as blessed as ours. In my opinion, if we can live without another aircraft carrier, we should take that money and put it in veterans benefits. NOT in the VA bureaucracy, but in real benefits.
Yes, we are spending way more than we used to on our military. But in case you didn't notice, we are at war. You may not agree with it, you may not believe it is being handled correctly, that the money is being spent wrongly, and most of it is only going to line the pockets of fat cat contractors, and you may even be right. But you cannot, and should not deny the fact that we are at war with a real, if neblous enemy, and war costs. It costs lives, and it costs money. Short one, and you will spend the other to make up the difference. I prefer to spend money. How about you?
Are a double edged sword, hiltless, with no crossguard. Look at what we got out of the "peace benefit" the Clintons "found" when the Cold War ended. 9/11 among other things. No matter what your personal views, it remains a fact that there are people in this world who hate us, hate our ideals, envy and resent our success. And some of them have the means to make their displeasure felt. Some of them have no respect for human life, their own or anyone else's. Some of them are absolutely convinced that God is on their side, and we are agents of Satan, therefore nothing they do to us can be wrong or evil. And some of them are just evil.
But they do have one thing in common, and that is that they respect military might, when it is matched with the determination to use it. Without both of those, we are seen as a "paper tiger", and they can do as they please with impunity. It is because of where we have been that we are where we are now. I do not agree with all the tactical and strategic decisions of the current administration, but one thing is clear, they are, at least, doing something. And the something that they have been doing may have been responsible for the fact that there have been no further attacks in the US since 9/11/01. It may not have been, but since we'll never know for certain, the argument is moot.
Cutbacks in military spending should be done, BUT not without careful forethought. We may not have a nation state as combat enemy today, but that doesn't mean that we never will again. There are two basic problems with military spending, and a host of smaller ones. One problem is the actual cost of what is procured (and the procurement system is as flawed as anything any bureaucrat ever came up with), and the other basic problem is the apparant benefit seen by the public for the money spent. In training it is a well recognised fact that sweat saves blood. What is not well understood, outside the military, is that when it comes to equipment, money saves blood as well.
Just look at some of the crap we have been through with our troops in Iraq. We have a significant portion of the country that constantly bemoans the fact that our boys and girls are "being sent out to die", and yet these same folks don't want to spend the money for the tools that will help keep our boys and girls from dying!
We are flying 20+ year old airplanes, in some cases 40+ years old. And because there is only so much money to go around, we aren't doing as well as we should keeping up the spare parts. Priorities. Ground pounders carry the load today, and get the biggest share. Deservedly so. But the other components must not be neglected, or we risk not have them when needed. Yes, new designs are horrendously expensive. This is, after all, the USA, where we have made a national icon of profit. But another reason they are so expensive is that they (by our demand) must be capable of meeting and defeating the most powerful enemy equipment that they might concievably be up against. And if they can't, our boys and girls will die. To have even reasonable sureity that our equipment will meet the acid test costs money. And today, it cost a lot of money. But how much are the lives of our sons and daughters worth?
We may not have a visiable need for new aircraft carriers, today. But what about the day after tomorrow? These kinds of things are not made overnight. They cannot magically be conjured into existance at need. But the idea that we will be able to, as we did in WWII, still exists, and even persists, despite the clear facts that first, we did not win WWII overnight, that it took us a couple of years, with the whole nation on a war footing (rationing, wage and price controls, etc.) to produce those ships, planes, tanks and troops that did win the war. And second, the nation today is not even remotely the same kind of nation, as far as manufacturing capacity as it was then. Not even close.
Other small problems with military spending are the civilians who make their living building what we do buy and use, having a vote, and a voice in government, and nobody I know of will vote for somebody who will put them out of work, at least not knowingly. And then there are the boys and girls actually in uniform. We pay them. Not well, certainly not as well as they deserve, although better today than ever in the past. There is a big chunk of money, right there. And it only gets less if you reduce the number of people you pay. We have an all volunteer military. The people in it are there because they want to be. They have chosen to take the risks that come with putting on the uniform as a way of life. One huge benefit of this is that they do this so others of us won't have to. I have been there, my children are there now. Where are yours? In college? At the mall?
Also remember that when you cut military spending, not all of the decisions about where the remaining money gets spent are made by people with a vested interest in the military. Congress can kill this program, or that one at will, and will do so for percieved political gain. Base closings, reduced maintenance, skilled, competent people being forced out of the military (re enlistment bar) to save money, all these things and more will happen. It isn't just the fat that gets trimmed.
And before you go too far on those lines, consider also that the VA is figured into the mix as well. The care and benefits given to our veterans for their service is often shameful from a nation as blessed as ours. In my opinion, if we can live without another aircraft carrier, we should take that money and put it in veterans benefits. NOT in the VA bureaucracy, but in real benefits.
Yes, we are spending way more than we used to on our military. But in case you didn't notice, we are at war. You may not agree with it, you may not believe it is being handled correctly, that the money is being spent wrongly, and most of it is only going to line the pockets of fat cat contractors, and you may even be right. But you cannot, and should not deny the fact that we are at war with a real, if neblous enemy, and war costs. It costs lives, and it costs money. Short one, and you will spend the other to make up the difference. I prefer to spend money. How about you?
Wildalaska
Moderator
I could cut the military budget by 20% without even trying and without hurting readiness. 
WildpriceslashingAlaska
WildpriceslashingAlaska
The "Peace Dividend" was vaporware, supposedly a method to shift military spending over to fund endless social programs. It never happened to any meaningful extent.
Further, changes in the military under Clinton had absolutely no relationship to the attacks on 9/11/2001. You might wish to view the congressional report on those attacks to find out additional facts, though this report is somewhat a flyweight in that it exonerates too many of those directly responsible for dereliction of duty. 9/11/2001 was a form of blowback, as written about in depth by international affairs expert Chalmers Johnson.
So the report is VALID where you agree with it but a 'flyweight' where you do not. Selective reasoning is what I think that's refereed to as. The links may have similar weight as the rest of the rational.
The 'paper tiger' reference is from the lips of OBL himself. The Clinton administrations actions in Somalia are what HE said showed him that the US was a 'paper tiger' and that is what inspired the 9/11 planning. Maybe OBL is a neocon.........
Well put post 44Amp.
The 'paper tiger' reference is from the lips of OBL himself. The Clinton administrations actions in Somalia are what HE said showed him that the US was a 'paper tiger' and that is what inspired the 9/11 planning. Maybe OBL is a neocon.........
Well put post 44Amp.
Wildalaska
Moderator
You mean agenda driven "anti imperialist" international affairs expert Chalmers Johnson?
Qualifications do not make one unbiased or intellectually honest. Funny Pat how all the sources you cite fit your agenda. Ever read anything else?
WildintellectualhonestyisathingofthepastAlaska TM
While I am not for excessive spending I am firmly confident that Reagan spent the commies into submission... No other president was willing to take that leap into DEEP water. Had he failed we would have lost and the reds would have won...
I want us to be the HANDS DOWN super power military. I do not care if corporations move manufacturing overseas. It is the American Right of FREE enterprise to make and sell your product for the most profit. It is not the duty of big brother to affect this freedom. It is the duty of American workers and consumers to work and buy efficiently. I do however, feel the gubmint should choose contractors employing americans to build military products... War should always feed the economy and so should peacetime military construction...
As for the Osprey... It has been around over 20 years so we may as well finish the product or we WASTED the invested $$$.
Will Obama gut the military? That is almost a given as it is with Slitlery. They will also raise taxes and submit to other socialist concepts!
Brent
I want us to be the HANDS DOWN super power military. I do not care if corporations move manufacturing overseas. It is the American Right of FREE enterprise to make and sell your product for the most profit. It is not the duty of big brother to affect this freedom. It is the duty of American workers and consumers to work and buy efficiently. I do however, feel the gubmint should choose contractors employing americans to build military products... War should always feed the economy and so should peacetime military construction...
As for the Osprey... It has been around over 20 years so we may as well finish the product or we WASTED the invested $$$.
Will Obama gut the military? That is almost a given as it is with Slitlery. They will also raise taxes and submit to other socialist concepts!
Brent
The Soviet Union's demise was predicted well and truly well before Reagan took office. It's economic engine was deeply flawed and unable to keep up with the west, not in military spending, though that was true as well, but in what we consider normal, everyday, supplies for our homes, our cars, and our food.
There were constant shortages of those staples; that, more even if we had doubled Reagan's military spending, is what made the Soviet Union collapse. It was of it's own ponderous, inefficient, central planning weight that did it in.
Imagine if your wife, or husband, went to the store and there was not only no multiple selection of laundry powder to purchase, but only one brand and it wasn't on the shelf. Imagine only being able to buy pork one day a week, and standing in line on that day, same with beef, same with chickens. Imagine all that, and much more, and it being in the 1980's.
Fighting Chinese troops on continental US soil is almost certainly not going to happen. Fighting Chinese troops or hardware in various areas of strategic importance is almost certainly going to happen. When we need them so much for our economy, and they do not need us as badly for theirs (due to the growth of their EU market as well as tremendous internal market currently in development) expect them to go out and take what they want in the way of resources. That is doubly true if we follow the American tradition of gutting our military and "ain't gonna study no more war." We will then have to put up or shut up.
If we put up then I would rather it not be with the latest iteration of a 1970s fighter and limited force projection do to a lacking of carrier forces. If we have to fight I would rather the Marines spend as little time at their most vulnerable by flying in on V-22s instead of CH-46 target drones.
Wild, I did not say our view of the world is better than theirs, I said we have a different view of the value of human life. We do. Chinese and the majority of Chinese influenced Asian society looks at human life in a different way. The moderate influence of the west in the last half of the 20th century is minimal when compared to a couple thousand years of societal conditioning. It is our misinterpreting their values and motivations (and vice versa) that will lead to the shooting. Thinking they have the same values as us is the surest way to misinterpret.
If we put up then I would rather it not be with the latest iteration of a 1970s fighter and limited force projection do to a lacking of carrier forces. If we have to fight I would rather the Marines spend as little time at their most vulnerable by flying in on V-22s instead of CH-46 target drones.
Wild, I did not say our view of the world is better than theirs, I said we have a different view of the value of human life. We do. Chinese and the majority of Chinese influenced Asian society looks at human life in a different way. The moderate influence of the west in the last half of the 20th century is minimal when compared to a couple thousand years of societal conditioning. It is our misinterpreting their values and motivations (and vice versa) that will lead to the shooting. Thinking they have the same values as us is the surest way to misinterpret.
The first published prediction I know of was from Herb Meyer while serving in the CIA under Reagan. Most laughed at him but Reagan and Casey didn't. They took his views on the economic collapse of the Soviet Union and did everything possible to grease the rails. One of the items was military expenditures and luring them into a GNP draining Star Wars escalation they could never support. Then just watch the wheel come off.
I remember the food handouts in the usa during the 1980's. But I also remember seeing shed/warehouses full of thousands of tons of wheat we were selling cheap or giving to our russian enemies to feed them some much needed bread. We could have sped the collapse of their economy had we not "helped" out their people. But we knew thatwhen it collapsed it needed to be seen as an inspiration for their people to look at our success and EXCESS. we did feed the ideal of the MAFIA as well so not all is golden...
But I do feel that Regan sped up an inevitable demise of a "WASTEFUL SPENDING GUBMINT" (take hint obama and sillary)...
Brent
But I do feel that Regan sped up an inevitable demise of a "WASTEFUL SPENDING GUBMINT" (take hint obama and sillary)...Brent
we do need to redirect military spending but cutting is different, do we really need stealth fighters? or computerized howitzers? missiles in space wouldn't be a bad idea for any agressor that has sattelites in space by blowing up their sattelites that would be used to aim missiles.
more heavily armored trucks is the priority right now, above all.
more heavily armored trucks is the priority right now, above all.
A president has quite limited power in what HE can do. A presidential candidate is a bull-****er with no power at all so can spout whatever they want! Personally, I have more fear of the Clinton twins than Saddam OBOMB ... but with a little luck we will not have a Clinton or a Obama in the whitehouse!
Wildalaska
Moderator
China is an economic Potemkin Village. Here is an example. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080227/ap_on_re_as/oly_beijing_water_woes
Remember the words "Mandate of Heaven"
I'd be far more worried about Russia, which is historically an expansionist power and has the resources to be such.
Keep in mind that there are two choices in life: Capitalism or Socialism. The international system is capitalist...compete, compete, compete. That mandates a strong military that can project power and the will to project it.
Dont like that?...then lets all Kumbaya, have a world government and become socialist. Those are your alternatives, enjoy.
WildgoodthreadmostlyAlaska ™
That's correct. The Chinese have almost no foreign conquests in their culture (Ghenghis Khan wan't Chinese).
Why? Are you an advocate of stealing what we want from other countries, like the British did at the height of their empire?
Either the British or the French, on their worst day, could take the Chinese out. I'm afraid that your assertion is rife with inaccuracies.
The chance that the US government will need to fight the Chinese, in any fashion, is next to zero.
America will compete for the goods, resources, and other things it needs on the world market. We Americans will have to force the US government to stop any merchantilistic activities in which it may attempt to participate.
That may be true, but the Chinese have substantially less history in global hegemony than the US government does.
Wildalaska
Moderator
You sure about that?
And which culture/political entity are you referring to? Han? Han/Mongol (the post Genghis Khanate?) Quing? Qin? Tang? Ming? Guess there was never an attempt to invade japan, or seek hegemony over Korea.
In point of fact, the history of China is replete with conquest, by either force of arms, or social/economic hegemony. Illustrative examples of Chinese economic/cultural expansionism can be found in places diverse as Malaysia and Thailand.
The Chinese Type 56 is a wonderful military weapon, it's nice to talk about guns isn't it.?
WildboldandweepingstatementsshouldbeaccurateAlaska ™
beyond any doubt, the only thing sillier than that statement on the net is Al Gores claim that he invented it. Want to play historical hegemony counting?
Redworm stated that we don't have the right to control the seas.
The Red Man can make that statement because--He has the God Given Right to make that statement---
Why doe's he have that Right?
Because for the past 75yrs the USA has "Controlled the Seas" and defeated anybody who would hang our Red Man, and anybody else to the nearest post, for free thought, and free speech.
MAD kept the wolves at bey, until Ronald Reagan came along with our 500 ship Navy, which "Controlled the Seas"--Which Defeated the bad guys.
You ain't making much sense Mr. Red Man.
You sound like a Ron Paul type of guy. [With all due respect]
Eric
The Red Man can make that statement because--He has the God Given Right to make that statement---
Why doe's he have that Right?
Because for the past 75yrs the USA has "Controlled the Seas" and defeated anybody who would hang our Red Man, and anybody else to the nearest post, for free thought, and free speech.
MAD kept the wolves at bey, until Ronald Reagan came along with our 500 ship Navy, which "Controlled the Seas"--Which Defeated the bad guys.
You ain't making much sense Mr. Red Man.
You sound like a Ron Paul type of guy. [With all due respect]
Eric
Wow, America had a credible threat to our shores in the last 75 years? Who, or what, praytell did that threat come from?
I must disagree. I was in the military during the whole of the Reagan years, and a bunch before and after, and I saw nothing of that.
The only thing the 500 ship Navy did was spend a whole lot of money, and that made a select few Americans very wealthy, or in many cases, a lot more wealthy.