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

[R.C. Christian]

Cut that military shit and restore decency and fiscal sanity to this country.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Sorry but it was Bush and his cronies that didn't understand the threat, despite multiple warnings. They were pushing for Star Wars as the only way to deal with rogue nations who wanted to strike at us. Of course that was pre-9-11.

Actually SDI had no basis in reality. Reagan believed in it, but everyone around him didn't. But the good thing about that was the Soviets didn't know it had no roots in fact. It was SDI that brought Mikhail Gorbachev and the USSR to their knees. It had them all running scared.

No it isn't.

Gorbachev was a moderate that wanted to jettison Communism.

BS. Until 1991 he belonged to the Communist Party where he served as General Secretary.

 

[francoHFW]

Try and remain calm, hater dupes. This not going back to pre WW II, 1OOK and no tanks or machine guns...thanks to isolationist Pubs. No help to the French. argh

 

[francoHFW]

Gorby wanted openness and democracy- communism can't survive it. We're lucky Reagan's bluster and ugly Americanism didn't bring back the hardliners- and we only had to triple the debt, ruin our nonrich and infrastructure, and ruin OUR reputaion via Iraq, AFGHAN, eL sALVADOR, nIC ETC ETC. wHAT A DEMENTED FOOL...

 

[Political Junky]

What did 911 cost us? The federal debt is not caused by military spending.

What?

 

[Jroc]

Whine and bitch about spending, then when it's cut whine and bitch. See cons don't want less spending, they just want to fuck the poor and elderly.

Military spending is the job of the federal government idiot. All this social spending isnt

I thought Proecting the Nation was the job of the Federal Government.



Now I understand: "Military Spending" is actually the goal here.........

one in the same genus

 

[Jroc]

A-10s are among the better attack/ground support aircraft in our inventory, unless they're being replaced with something to fill that void, given how cheap they are and effective, it sounds ill-advised.

Shrinking the Army though is a good idea. Future wars dont rely on massive armies or fleets but electronic/cyber warfare. And given our poor-performance is Iraq and Afganistan if tightening our belts and putting money where it actually does us some good, I'm all for it.

Should drastically cut-back our nuclear forces too. If nuclear weapons aren't ever going to be used since future nuclear aggressors are more likely to be rogue states and terrorists, the need for ICBMs and bomber delivery systems has come and gone. Submarine-launched remains the best possible nuclear deterrent.

Should redirect those nuclear funds into planetary defense research for deflecting/destroying incoming asteroids. As well as set some aside for planetary defense against 'other/unknown threats.' May never encounter aliens, but if we do, and if they're hostile (like we are) a little forethought might go a long way.

Dude you've been watching too many Sci-Fi movies step back into reality man

 

[Jroc]

"We are repositioning to focus on the strategic challenges and opportunities that will define our future: new technologies, new centers of power, and a world that is growing more volatile, more unpredictable, and in some instances more threatening to the United States," Hagel said at a press conference at the Pentagon.


This is a man that knows his history. He knows we were not ready for WW2, so he plans on making us unready, even when he clearly knows it's a bad idea, based on what he said there

Hagal is the dumbest Secretary of Defense in American history. Obama surly knows a how to pick um.

 

[Jroc]

Does anyone know if they plan on closing foreign bases?

protecting other countries costs us a LOT

I don't have a problem with closing some bases and letting Japan and Europe cover more of their own expenses

 

[rightwinger]

"We are repositioning to focus on the strategic challenges and opportunities that will define our future: new technologies, new centers of power, and a world that is growing more volatile, more unpredictable, and in some instances more threatening to the United States," Hagel said at a press conference at the Pentagon.


This is a man that knows his history. He knows we were not ready for WW2, so he plans on making us unready, even when he clearly knows it's a bad idea, based on what he said there

Hagal is the dumbest Secretary of Defense in American history. Obama surly knows a how to pick um.

Hagar is just stating the obvious

 

[Jroc]

"We are repositioning to focus on the strategic challenges and opportunities that will define our future: new technologies, new centers of power, and a world that is growing more volatile, more unpredictable, and in some instances more threatening to the United States," Hagel said at a press conference at the Pentagon.


This is a man that knows his history. He knows we were not ready for WW2, so he plans on making us unready, even when he clearly knows it's a bad idea, based on what he said there

Hagal is the dumbest Secretary of Defense in American history. Obama surly knows a how to pick um.

Hagar is just stating the obvious

And it's obvious he isn't too bright

 

[JakeStarkey]

Pulling the fangs and emptying the venom of the neo-cons is good for America..

Why? Because it worked so well in Germany after WW I ?

Because the war mongers took charge because the people could not control them? We aren't Germany of post WWI.

Your mistake is a false derivative analogy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

In the Pre WW2 Army, all support roles were filled by military personnel. Today these jobs are done by civilian contractors. So even with the cuts we will still have more fighting men than the Pre WW2 Army.

Get rid of the civilian contractors in military service support. The military could hve won the peace in Iraq if it had supervised the rebuilding of Iraq with coalition forces and Iraqi labor (paid a decent wage so they would invest in the new Iraq) rather than the hideously costly civilian contract services.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Military spending is the job of the federal government idiot. All this social spending isnt

I thought Proecting the Nation was the job of the Federal Government.



Now I understand: "Military Spending" is actually the goal here.........

one in the same genus

You are wrong on the one and want to spend too much on the other.

Your time is over, neo-con.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hagal is the dumbest Secretary of Defense in American history. Obama surly knows a how to pick um.

Hagar is just stating the obvious

And it's obvious he isn't too bright

Hagal is an Einstein compared to you, Jroc.

 

[Samson]

Pulling the fangs and emptying the venom of the neo-cons is good for America..

Why? Because it worked so well in Germany after WW I ?

Because the war mongers took charge because the people could not control them? We aren't Germany of post WWI.

Your mistake is a false derivative analogy.

Ok, then why would "pulling fangs" of "neo-cons" be particulary "good for America?"



That's OK Jake, I actually don't expect you to support your opinion with a logical arguement.

 

[rightwinger]

Hagal is the dumbest Secretary of Defense in American history. Obama surly knows a how to pick um.

Hagar is just stating the obvious

And it's obvious he isn't too bright

The worldwide threat no longer justifies the size of our military

Doesn't take a genius to figure out

 

[Samson]

Military spending is the job of the federal government idiot. All this social spending isnt

I thought Proecting the Nation was the job of the Federal Government.



Now I understand: "Military Spending" is actually the goal here.........

one in the same genus

"Genus?"

"One in the same class or group of any kind?"

So you are saying, using as obscure language as possible, that Protecting the Nation means Military Spending, which is obvious.

What is NOT obvious, is how MORE Military Spending Protects a Nation BETTER. On our planet there's something called diminishing returns. This means that when you double your expenditures year-over-year, you may only experience a marginal return for the investment. Eventually, the return becomes infintessimal, and the expenditure is worthless.

 

[Samson]

Hagar is just stating the obvious

And it's obvious he isn't too bright

The worldwide threat no longer justifies the size of our military

Doesn't take a genius to figure out

Ironically, pre WWII, the worldwide threat was huge.....


And we won....

In 5 years.

 

[Jroc]

I thought Proecting the Nation was the job of the Federal Government.



Now I understand: "Military Spending" is actually the goal here.........

one in the same genus

"Genus?"

"One in the same class or group of any kind?"

So you are saying, using as obscure language as possible, that Protecting the Nation means Military Spending, which is obvious.

What is NOT obvious, is how MORE Military Spending Protects a Nation BETTER. On our planet there's something called diminishing returns. This means that when you double your expenditures year-over-year, you may only experience a marginal return for the investment. Eventually, the return becomes infintessimal, and the expenditure is worthless.

Developing, producing, and deploying, new technology costs money and it's well worth it Having the most advance military in the world is well worth the money spent.