Some ground truth on the military sequestration

[longknife]

Maj Pain @ One Marine's View blog puts a human face on the upcoming drastic cuts in the DOD budget
http://www.onemarinesview.com/.a/6a00d83452137a69e2017c36f91254970b-320wi
Exhausted-soldier

What does the military drawdown “sequestration” mean for your servicemembers, servicemember family members and our future?

The internal attack on our military comes at the worst time ever. Correct, the US down sized its military after WWII and even the Vietnam War and Cold war but to downsize it during the current war on terror, which is still currently under way for those that forgot that every day warriors are kicking butt in Afghanistan. Although, America has drawn down its forces in the past “after” a war, even then it quickly regretted it. Some may argue that we have to cut spending to balance the national budget. I would agree however does it make any sense to aim half of the proposed federal cuts onto the military when the military represents one fifth of our federal spending? (Note: many cuts are being justified to support other federal efforts i.e. Obama care instead of balancing the national budget)

The rest of this thoughtful piece can be read @ http://www.onemarinesview.com/one_m...(One+Marine's+View)&utm_content=Google+Reader

 

[g5000]

Here's some real ground truth:

That is defense spending since 1930 in 2005 dollars.

You mentioned WWII, the Vietnam War, and the Cold War? Well, look at that chart. We did not spend this much at the height of the Vietnam War, nor the Cold War, nor during Korea, nor during the Reagan buildup that ended the Cold War. We have not spent like this since WWII, and we do not have anywhere near the commitments now that we had in that war.

We can cut defense considerably and STILL be higher than what we spent during Vietnam, or the nuclear arms race, or the Cold War. And the Cold War was a much great existential threat to the United States than the current war on terror is. It isn't even close. There simply is no excuse for this kind of spending.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Here's some real ground truth:



That is defense spending since 1930 in 2005 dollars.

You mentioned WWII, the Vietnam War, and the Cold War? Well, look at that chart. We did not spend this much at the height of the Vietnam War, nor the Cold War, nor during Korea, nor during the Reagan buildup that ended the Cold War. We have not spent like this since WWII, and we do not have anywhere near the commitments now that we had in that war.

We can cut defense considerably and STILL be higher than what we spent during Vietnam, or the nuclear arms race, or the Cold War. And the Cold War was a much great existential threat to the United States than the current war on terror is. It isn't even close. There simply is no excuse for this kind of spending.

One point you are missing.. We are using a lot more technology now than what was ever used before.

Very expensive technology.

Very expensive technology that has saved American lives.

Plus, with the advances in battlefield medical, that "Golden Hour" is saving more lives, lives that would have not been saved in Viet Nam, let alone Korea or WW II.

A quick Bing found this article.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-10-02-845084092_x.htm

Outfitting a soldier for battle costs a hundred times more now than it did in World War II. It was $170 then, is about $17,500 now and could be an estimated $28,000 to $60,000 by the middle of the next decade

 

[Mad Scientist]

The internal attack on our military comes at the worst time ever. Correct, the US down sized its military after WWII and even the Vietnam War and Cold war but to downsize it during the current war on terror, which is still currently under way for those that forgot that every day warriors are kicking butt in Afghanistan.http://www.onemarinesview.com/one_m...(One+Marine's+View)&utm_content=Google+Reader

"Kicking butt" on what? The Afghan Heroin trade went from 10% to 80% Globally after the US invaded.

Tell us why are we in Afghanistan again?

 

[nodoginnafight]

the 12% cut in military spending is the best thing that could happen to our bloated military.

But THIS is a prime example of why no spending cuts will happen without the sequester.

Everyone is too busy screaming, "cut THEIR money not MINE." and doing everything they can to scare people into funding THEIR golden parachutes.

 

[Desperado]

The whining and crying begins
The Contractors - Military civilian workers: the furlough of 180,000 civilians, let the military go back to doing those jobs as they should.
Funding for war operations in Afghanistan would also be subject to cuts - They said it like it was a bad thing.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Maybe you have to think twice before launching two wars at the same time.
Maybe you have to prioritize a bit.
Maybe you have to pick and choose your battles a bit more carefully.

Now tell me again how this is a bad thing.

 

[g5000]

Here's some real ground truth:



That is defense spending since 1930 in 2005 dollars.

You mentioned WWII, the Vietnam War, and the Cold War? Well, look at that chart. We did not spend this much at the height of the Vietnam War, nor the Cold War, nor during Korea, nor during the Reagan buildup that ended the Cold War. We have not spent like this since WWII, and we do not have anywhere near the commitments now that we had in that war.

We can cut defense considerably and STILL be higher than what we spent during Vietnam, or the nuclear arms race, or the Cold War. And the Cold War was a much great existential threat to the United States than the current war on terror is. It isn't even close. There simply is no excuse for this kind of spending.

One point you are missing.. We are using a lot more technology now than what was ever used before.

Very expensive technology.

Very expensive technology that has saved American lives.

Plus, with the advances in battlefield medical, that "Golden Hour" is saving more lives, lives that would have not been saved in Viet Nam, let alone Korea or WW II.

A quick Bing found this article.

Costs of outfitting soldiers spiral up - USATODAY.com

Outfitting a soldier for battle costs a hundred times more now than it did in World War II. It was $170 then, is about $17,500 now and could be an estimated $28,000 to $60,000 by the middle of the next decade

The procurement process is incredibly corrupt. Much of that expense is because all the little pieces of hardware used to make a larger piece of military hardware are spread over umpteen congressional districts for political reasons. This is incredibly inefficient and adds to the cost of defense.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I wonder how much less it would cost to protect our country if military vendors and contractors were not allowed to make campaign contributions?

 

[BreezeWood]

but to downsize it during the current war on terror ...

Is that really a "war" that requires special funding by the Defense Dept. ? - or, just an excuse to keep funding an already bloated and out of control Pentagon budget.

answer: just an excuse.

 

[Foxfyre]

Here's some real ground truth:



That is defense spending since 1930 in 2005 dollars.

You mentioned WWII, the Vietnam War, and the Cold War? Well, look at that chart. We did not spend this much at the height of the Vietnam War, nor the Cold War, nor during Korea, nor during the Reagan buildup that ended the Cold War. We have not spent like this since WWII, and we do not have anywhere near the commitments now that we had in that war.

We can cut defense considerably and STILL be higher than what we spent during Vietnam, or the nuclear arms race, or the Cold War. And the Cold War was a much great existential threat to the United States than the current war on terror is. It isn't even close. There simply is no excuse for this kind of spending.

One point you are missing.. We are using a lot more technology now than what was ever used before.

Very expensive technology.

Very expensive technology that has saved American lives.

Plus, with the advances in battlefield medical, that "Golden Hour" is saving more lives, lives that would have not been saved in Viet Nam, let alone Korea or WW II.

A quick Bing found this article.

Costs of outfitting soldiers spiral up - USATODAY.com

Outfitting a soldier for battle costs a hundred times more now than it did in World War II. It was $170 then, is about $17,500 now and could be an estimated $28,000 to $60,000 by the middle of the next decade

The procurement process is incredibly corrupt. Much of that expense is because all the little pieces of hardware used to make a larger piece of military hardware are spread over umpteen congressional districts for political reasons. This is incredibly inefficient and adds to the cost of defense.

Yup. That and the fact that the current administration will not let a defense contract (or any other contract) to anybody but union shops, or if it absolutely has to use a non union shop, it requires the defense stuff to be done under prevailing union wages and benefits. That alone cuts the lowest bidders out of the process.

And everybody in Congress has some pet defense installation or process in his district that he or she is unwilling to let go. Even in DC, the defense department is scattered all over the place, well outside a crowded Pentagon. When you have so many different operations all making policy decisions and spending money, and add in duplications and the Peter Principle for those making the decisions, and then use only baseline budgeting to determine what will be spent, the waste is enormous. None of that will even be considered if the legislated cuts become a reality though. The necessary functions of the Defense Department will take the hits right along with those that should be scrapped altogether.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let the sequester happen. It's the only way we'll get anywhere near the defense cuts we need.

 

[Desperado]

Let the sequester happen. It's the only way we'll get anywhere near the defense cuts we need.

I believe both parties realize this and they will let it happen.
This way neither party will have to take the blame and both parties can blame it on the other party.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Let the sequester happen. It's the only way we'll get anywhere near the defense cuts we need.

I believe both parties realize this and they will let it happen.
This way neither party will have to take the blame and both parties can blame it on the other party.

I'm afraid that both parties will realize how much less money they will have for the re-election campaign without the defense contractor contributions, and we will get yet another "kick-the-can-down-the-road" measure.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Let the sequester happen. It's the only way we'll get anywhere near the defense cuts we need.

And it is the only way that we will get even a small portion of the non-defense cutst that are needed even worse.

At least the Defense Department funding is mandated by the Constitution. I can't find funding for Planned Parenthood anywhere in it.

 

[Foxfyre]

The internal attack on our military comes at the worst time ever. Correct, the US down sized its military after WWII and even the Vietnam War and Cold war but to downsize it during the current war on terror, which is still currently under way for those that forgot that every day warriors are kicking butt in Afghanistan.http://www.onemarinesview.com/one_m...(One+Marine's+View)&utm_content=Google+Reader

"Kicking butt" on what? The Afghan Heroin trade went from 10% to 80% Globally after the US invaded.

Tell us why are we in Afghanistan again?

We had a legitimate reason to be in Afghanistan. But the revised mission of nation building increasingly appears to be an exercise in futility and it is reasonable to ask why we continue to pour blood and treasure into it.

It is true that that heroin production has vastly increased since the Taliban was ousted from leadership in Afghanistan. Heroin is now Afghanistan's most lucrative and important export as Afghanistan is supply 90% of the world heroin supply.

Look at the photos at this site to gain a perspective on the magnitude of the problem and how ineffective we are in dealing with it:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/10/14066.html

The videos at the link are instructive as are the photos below the videos.

 

[Foxfyre]

The other dirty little secret about that HUGE defense cut if Congress doesn't find a way to stop it? It will actually be a $110 billion INCREASE in defense spending? It will just be a large reduction in what they otherwise would spend?

The $995 billion Sequester Cut Is Actually a $110 Billion Spending Increase - Forbes

 

[Billo_Really]

Maj Pain @ One Marine's View blog puts a human face on the upcoming drastic cuts in the DOD budget
http://www.onemarinesview.com/.a/6a00d83452137a69e2017c36f91254970b-320wi
Exhausted-soldier

What does the military drawdown “sequestration” mean for your servicemembers, servicemember family members and our future?

The internal attack on our military comes at the worst time ever. Correct, the US down sized its military after WWII and even the Vietnam War and Cold war but to downsize it during the current war on terror, which is still currently under way for those that forgot that every day warriors are kicking butt in Afghanistan. Although, America has drawn down its forces in the past “after” a war, even then it quickly regretted it. Some may argue that we have to cut spending to balance the national budget. I would agree however does it make any sense to aim half of the proposed federal cuts onto the military when the military represents one fifth of our federal spending? (Note: many cuts are being justified to support other federal efforts i.e. Obama care instead of balancing the national budget)

The rest of this thoughtful piece can be read @ One Marine's View: Some ground truth on the military sequestration

If we're kicking butt in Afghanistan, why are we paying the Taliban to guard our convoys out to remote outposts?

 

[Billo_Really]

How does our military protect this country, when they're
not physically in the country they're defending?​

 

[Redfish]

the 12% cut in military spending is the best thing that could happen to our bloated military.

But THIS is a prime example of why no spending cuts will happen without the sequester.

Everyone is too busy screaming, "cut THEIR money not MINE." and doing everything they can to scare people into funding THEIR golden parachutes.

Absolutely correct, just cut the number of generals and admirals in half and that probably does it. Or cut out a couple of overseas bases, that would do it. Why do we need bases in Korea and Japan and Germany? Tell those countries that if they want our protection they will have to pay the entire cost of the base.

DOD is full of waste, this is much ado about nothing