This via the Daily Caller...
The Marine Corps would be cut by 30%, from 202,000 to 145,000, and the other funding cuts planned for the Corps mean the United States will not be able to mount a major amphibious landing on any hostile shore. Marine Corps programs to be killed include the V-22 Osprey tilt rotor aircraft and the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.Wow.
Read the whole article.
The Department of Defense (if this person is correct) is about to be kicked in the nuts.
A few weeks ago I predicted that a personnel cut to around 165,000 from 202,000 was possible. I thought I was being extreme.
To slash the Marines to below 150,000 is extreme. Crazy extreme.
Oh and for all my Navy readers, your cuts are just as brutal if not more so. Check this out....
The Navy will be reduced to eight aircraft carriers (from twelve planned) and seven air wings. Eight ballistic missile submarines will be cut from the planned force of 14, leaving just six. Building of nuclear attack submarines will be cut in half, leaving a force of 40 by 2020. The four active guided missile submarines would be cut, too. Destroyer building would be frozen and the new DDG-1000 destroyer program cancelled. Among other huge cuts, the fleet is to be reduced to 230 combat ships, eliminating 57 vessels from a current force level of 287.Are you an Army bubba? I feel your pain and Congress is about to apply it liberally (pun intended)...
Active duty Army personnel will be slashed from 562,400 to 360,000. That includes elimination of about five active-component brigade combat teams (the report is not exactly). The Army will also suffer a myriad of other cuts, including closure of overseas bases.Even the fly guys (Air Force) get a piece of this hurt...
The Air Force must retire six fighter air wings equivalents, and at the same time build 301 fewer F-35 fighters. The nuclear bomber force will be completely eliminated in the name of unilateral disarmament—the B-1 and B-2 and B-52 and other bombers will still be able to drop bombs, but their nuclear weapon wiring and controls will simply be removed. Procurement of the new refueling tanker and the C-17 cargo aircraft will be cancelled. Directed energy beam research and other advanced missile and space warfare defense projects will also be eliminated or curtailed.I don't know if this is real or just another proposal being floated by some "Think Tank" in someones' basement but to think that cuts this large are even being contemplated is...astonishing.
We couldn't do a repeat of Afghanistan. Iraq 1 would be impossible.
Considering our world wide responsibilities even doing another Grenada would be challenging.
Wow.
Remind you, perhaps, of the article I sent you earlier today about the American national debt and national security?
ReplyDeleteWow is right..this is astonishing as you say. I know the deficit is out of control and everything but this surely isnt the right way to go about reducing it. Obama and his team of Wall Street hacks have no idea how to manage the military, this should confirm all doubts and suspicions. All this because the population screams for tax cuts in the middle of a war...go figure
ReplyDeleteOh, shit.
ReplyDeleteFerran.
This ties in with a report from the Air Force Council, the primary advisory board to the USAF chief of staff about major cuts in the offing.
ReplyDeleteStuff like: "retiring the entire B-1B bomber fleet, Air National Guard F-15C/Ds (and possibly the remaining active duty squadrons as well), and pre-Block 50 F-16s". The pre-block 50's are anything older then 1991. That means a good chunk of the ANG.
Isn't there some Congressional mandate, that states the US Navy can't have fewer than ten carriers?
ReplyDeleteDrastic? Yes. Necessary? Unfortunately yes. It is time to cut the cash flow to the military and invest the money elsewhere. Now I'm gonna be "boring" and suggest investing it on education, energy and research. Why that you say? Because that is the future and the US needs to keep its leading edge and the only way to accomplish it is through doing just that. Sure, it was "cool" that the USN had almost 600 ships during the cold war, but was it really necessary? Where is the need to have 10 or more aircraft carriers when the USN's displacement is larger than all eleven subsequent nation's navies combined? The US needs to refocus, it won't be able to conquer the world or secure needed resources through military action, not without loosing world wide support which is critical to the nation's economy and in the long run the welfare of individual US citizens. Only cooperating with allies will bring peace and sustainable development. Large scale war will be very hard to achieve in the future, because of the globalisation, so put resources into winning the local conflicts, and off course to defend your home soil.
ReplyDeleteConclusion: Maintaing the cutting edge in a competitive world through science and technology, not necessarily through the barrel of a gun.
/Capitao
then again, tech in itself aids a lot if you need weapons in the future ;)
ReplyDelete/capitao
interesting that mention globalization as a reason why war won't be waged in the future.
ReplyDeleteyou see, i view the current economic crisis as the unwinding of the framework of globalization.
the future is going to be messy. liberals will have us fighting not for economic interests but for the human rights of others (remember the foolishness that Bush Sr. got us into in Somalia?)
we still protect Europe, S. Korea, Japan and Taiwan.
cut that fat...not the meat of our defense forces.
One thing I hate about the plans that Solomon linked to was the cutting of the R&D and the like. We can't build more? Stinks but okay. That we can't even research for better stuff is insane! Besides, how much do you really save by dumping the R&D?
ReplyDeleteAs the economies become more and more entangled, war will simply be to costly to risk. But local skirmishes or conflict will still exist.
ReplyDeleteWar has always been about economics, but is is a noble act to fight for human rights as well, through peacekeeping missions and humanitarian efforts (not using humanitarian reasons to conceal economic ones). I've always wondered why the US doesn't participate in more UN peacekeeping missions? (like the indian army)
I'm right with you when it comes to troops overseas, but cooperation and alliances should still be used. (the europeans should also come and help the americans if the russians invade alaska ;) )
Tell me solomon, what is Liberalism to you?
/Capitao
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteThere was a book, which I can't remember the title at the moment, that came out just prior to World War One that suggested ideas along those same lines. I'm not saying that you're wrong, just that the stupidity of man exceeds logical thinking all the time.
As the opinion piece makes clear, it is drawing its inspiration for these scenarios from Barney Frank's Sustainable Defense Task Force. He was wanting to whack defense spending by 25% as soon as Obama was elected, got no traction on that notion, and then empowered this panel to offer a different route to his plan to turn the DoD into an ATM for social spending.
ReplyDeleteI'd agree that defense needs reform, most definitely. But the idea of "reform" being lead by Barney Franks brings to mind an old Vulcan proverb that goes, "Only Nixon could go to China".
Budget reform needs to encompass both the military and social side of matters. To grab from one to cover exploding costs on the other is ultimately futile, as there won't be enough of "X" to cover "Y". You could totally eliminate the baseline defense budget for the next decade and we're still running red ink as far as the eye can see.
Finally, with electoral trends predicting more Elephants at the expense of Donkeys come November, and even with the influence of the Tea Party vote on those Elephants, I doubt a call for 20-30% reductions in defense spending will gain traction...esp if R's happen to take over one chamber of Congress.
I'm just a civvie with a soft spot for those who serve. My father was a lifer in the AF; my uncle a lifer in the Navy and my youngest brother a Marine (and way too many cousins to count in the Armed Forces).
ReplyDeleteAll I can say about your post is WHY? WHY? WHY?
It's absolutely insane
Wow is right..this is astonishing as you say. I know the deficit is out of control and everything but this surely isnt the right way to go about reducing it. Obama and his team of Wall Street hacks have no idea how to manage the military, this should confirm all doubts and suspicions. All this because the population screams for tax cuts in the middle of a war...go figure
Obama is an idiot who is destroying our country piece-by-piece on a daily basis. My biggest fear: The liberal retard will be re-elected.
God help us all.
@kateykakes
ReplyDeleteI just need to ask, what is the problem that many americans have with liberalism?
/capitao
All of those cuts add up to around 400,000 service members and defense contractors. In addition to all of census workers who will be losing their jobs in 12 months that is almost 1,000,000 people. I get the out of control spending has to stop, but do we really want to add that many people without jobs to our economy? Holy Crap!
ReplyDeleteSemper Fi, Wil
Kateykakes....Amen again brother!
ReplyDeleteWill Price...I'm with you ... 100%! We're in serious economic trouble and everyone seems to be caught up in a normalcy bias.
No matter how bad stuff gets people still want to act as if all is well...reminds me of stories of the Titanic.
"As the economies become more and more entangled, war will simply be to costly to risk. But local skirmishes or conflict will still exist."
ReplyDeleteYes, the Germans found this to be true circa 1930, didn't they?
There was no way Germany could pay her WWI war debt and if it weren't for that debt, I would strongly argue WWII wouldn't have happened in Europe--Hitler wouldn't have a platform. Hence our forgiveness of debt after WWII.
The reality is that economic turmoil makes war more likely as nations default/cover debt with war. Many economists claim the US didn't fully exist the depression until late 1930s when we began filling orders for our allies.
We have a lot of debt folks! As does the rest of the "1st World."
Read the news about all those Greek protestors thinking they are entitled to the labor/property of their European cousins? What do you think happens when they say "no?"
What happens when Zero & Co spend us into oblivion and we can't service the debt we owe China and other sovereigns?
A peaceful reset? Exchange of debt for land/property? Pledging future generations of Americans as collateral?
My crystal ball predicts this doesn't end well...
Okay let's see if I understand this logic.
ReplyDeleteMy pay is cut, I'm barely making do. My neighborhood is unstable and dangerous. So I should cut the security to my house first?
How about cutting pensions for bloated politicians? How about cutting THEIR pay? How about they never write a book and become rich?
Insane? No. Obama is neither crazy nor insane. There is a plan here and sheeple better wake up.
Semper Fi!