U.S. military dominance ‘no longer assured,’ says House committee

Where_r_my_Keys

Gold Member
Jan 19, 2014
15,272
1,848
As is always the case toward the end of Leftist government, the US means to defend itself is once again in jeopardy... .

Such is, of course, the nature of those who advocate for Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle... and never less so, than where such subversives are elected to the office of the President of the United States.

From the Article:

"The House Armed Services Committee is warning that it should no longer be assumed that the U.S. military is either the most technologically superior or the most dominant fighting force, an assessment that comes just as the rise of the Islamic State and Russia is posing a real challenge to the United States.

“[W]ith the continued diffusion of advanced technology, U.S. military technological superiority is no longer assumed and the dominance U.S. forces have long enjoyed in the air, sea, space, and cyberspace domains is no longer assured,” the committee wrote in a report detailing the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2016. “Such a security environment demands that the nation’s armed forces are agile, efficient, ready, and lethal.”

The committee said that trend is especially worrying in light of the various national security challenges that have come up in the last year. Those include “the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, growing instability across the Middle East and Africa, and a revanchist Russian Federation.”

The committee said those threats “are a reminder of the continuing need for U.S. military engagement, presence, commitment, and strength to defend U.S. interests, deter would-be aggressors, and reassure allies and partners.”

The NDAA doesn’t fund the military, but it does set policy direction for the military, and authorizes specific spending levels within the Department of Defense. The 2016 NDAA authorizes $515 billion in discretionary spending, and $89.2 billion for “overseas contingency operations.”

The overseas operations account is generally used to fund war operations, but this year, it has become controversial because Republicans are using that account to boost Defense Department funding above the cap on spending that was agreed in 2011.

The Obama administration requested a total of almost $612 billion in total Defense Department funding, and the House NDAA matches that once mandatory spending items are added.

One frustration in Congress has been the Obama administration’s reluctance to send military aid to Ukraine to help that country stave off pro-Russia insurgents, who are still receiving support from Russian forces. The NDAA, however, would call on the U.S. to send this lethal aid to Ukraine. ... .
 
I see the GOP are playing shit they pants politicking, yet again.....We are never assured of our superiority, it's not a given...and it damn sure isn't from a lack of funding,,,,,sequester,,from just the Oblama administration.....Just ask Ted Cruzin'
 
How does donating lethal weapons to Ukraine improve US weapons development and military preparedness? How would supplying them with weapons help anyone other than American arms manufacturers?
 
How does donating lethal weapons to Ukraine improve US weapons development and military preparedness?

It provides the people being abused with the means to defend themselves.

Now be honest... you already knew that, but lacked the courage to admit it... right?
 
How does donating lethal weapons to Ukraine improve US weapons development and military preparedness?

It provides the people being abused with the means to defend themselves.

Now be honest... you already knew that, but lacked the courage to admit it... right?
That does not answer the question at all. It just shows that the topic of improving or advancing Americas weapons and advanced technology and competitiveness is being politicized by a Republican controlled House committee.
 
Why does America need weapons of any sort when we have a "leader" so adept at groveling apology?

That DOES make all the world love us........

Doesn't it?
 
How does donating lethal weapons to Ukraine improve US weapons development and military preparedness?

It provides the people being abused with the means to defend themselves.

Now be honest... you already knew that, but lacked the courage to admit it... right?
That does not answer the question at all.

It literally answers the question, entirely.

That you're unable to understand, doesn't invalidate the truth.
 
I've heard our covert Skunkworks weapons are so technologically advanced that no country can match their capabilities.
 
Military dominance never was, is not and never will be 'assured'.

What does it even mean, really?

One doesn't need to be ready for everything. One only needs to be ready for what happens.

Was the US 'ready' for Pearl Harbor?

Could the US have been ready for everything that WWII brought?

What should be worked on is reducing the necessity to be ready by trying to solve potential threats before they develop.

It's a lot cheaper and a lot more intelligent?
 
I've heard our covert Skunkworks weapons are so technologically advanced that no country can match their capabilities.

LOL! That's nearly verbatim what the French said about their technological advancements, the day before the Nazis ran over the Maginot Line, using it for traction.
 
Military dominance never was, is not and never will be 'assured'.

What does it even mean, really?

It means the means to control the battle field... Total military domination of the Air, Land and Sea... Nothing marches against us that is not immediately destroyed, Flies against us and is not immediately destroyed or sails against us, without immediately being destroyed.

See: Either of the US Invasions of Iraq.
 
Yeah, and the power to destroy a second-rate force like Iraq's seduced the Bush league into invading. If the means had not been there, they wouldn't have done it. As the famous 'Founders' feared, a standing central government army will be used by an irresponsible central government.
 
Yeah, and the power to destroy a second-rate force like Iraq's seduced the Bush league into invading. If the means had not been there, they wouldn't have done it. As the famous 'Founders' feared, a standing central government army will be used by an irresponsible central government.

ROFLMNAO!

Remember back when this same clown and his fellow clowns... were assuring us all that 'The Desert Will be covered with Dead US Soldiers, when they go up against THE BATTLE HARDENED FOURTH LARGEST MILITARY IN THE WOOoooorld!'

OH!
I almost forgot... Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
 
Never seen that story before....LOL
Like every year for the last 60 years

No, there is no other nation even close to us militarily
 
How does donating lethal weapons to Ukraine improve US weapons development and military preparedness?

It provides the people being abused with the means to defend themselves.

Now be honest... you already knew that, but lacked the courage to admit it... right?
That does not answer the question at all.

It literally answers the question, entirely.

That you're unable to understand, doesn't invalidate the truth.
You are evading giving an answer. If the answer to my question is so obvious, why won't you answer it? How would supplying Ukraine with lethal weapons contribute to improving our weapons technology or competitiveness? How would supplying Ukraine with conventional ground battle weapons advance our technology and advancement in the areas of most importance in respects to Russia and China. How would it advance aircraft, navel and missile development?
 
How does donating lethal weapons to Ukraine improve US weapons development and military preparedness? How would supplying them with weapons help anyone other than American arms manufacturers?
1. Is it better to have a West-leaning Ukraine or a Russia-leaning Ukraine?

2. If we do not provide aid to the West-leaning Ukrainian government, if there any chance of achieving the desired outcome for No. 1?
 
Never seen that story before....LOL Like every year for the last 60 years No, there is no other nation even close to us militarily
Well, I don't know about every year, but certainly in 1981, as we were saying goodbye to the disaster known as the Carter Presidency.
 
Never seen that story before....LOL Like every year for the last 60 years No, there is no other nation even close to us militarily
Well, I don't know about every year, but certainly in 1981, as we were saying goodbye to the disaster known as the Carter Presidency.

Carter ramped down the military after VietNam ended.
What a travesty
 
Never seen that story before....LOL Like every year for the last 60 years No, there is no other nation even close to us militarily
Well, I don't know about every year, but certainly in 1981, as we were saying goodbye to the disaster known as the Carter Presidency.

Carter ramped down the military after VietNam ended.
What a travesty
No, that was Ford, with Carter batting clean-up, wasn't it? And there's no escaping the idea that Carter went too far in finishing the job.
 

Forum List

Back
Top