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

[Wyatt earp]

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

Dont tell me you are that young and don't remember or were not even born during the Carter years, that Was some depressing scary shit. I know I was born in 65 so dont remember the height of the cold war and can imagine it was worse with duck and cover, but I thought we were so fucked Military and along came Ronald thank god

ou think we are less vulnerable to nuclear annihilation now? lol

That dont concern me, you do know like 3/4 of our Nuclear Arsenal is underwater on subs, the enemy knows it..

What I am more worried about is a EMP from renagades like
North Korea , or even a huge solar flare that our planet missed in 2012

Our outdated electrical grid could be down for years.

I was just reading more about pentagon news about this subject a few days ago

 

[Wyatt earp]

we spend WAYYYYYYYYYYYY TOO MUCH on Defense....

seems to me the Defense budget has been way out of control and lots and lots of WASTED MONEY going to the Military Industrial complex.....

Liberals are a Strange bunch, you do most of those jobs are High paying $40 dollar plus and hour private sector Union jobs right?

So are jobs in medical research, energy technologies, communications, space.......all which could use additional funding

You are aware of the military space budget dwarfs NASA correct?

And?

What's your point?

 

[rightwinger]

we spend WAYYYYYYYYYYYY TOO MUCH on Defense....

seems to me the Defense budget has been way out of control and lots and lots of WASTED MONEY going to the Military Industrial complex.....

Liberals are a Strange bunch, you do most of those jobs are High paying $40 dollar plus and hour private sector Union jobs right?

So are jobs in medical research, energy technologies, communications, space.......all which could use additional funding

You are aware of the military space budget dwarfs NASA correct?

And?

What's your point?

Point being we don't need military spending to support high tech jobs

 

[Wyatt earp]

Liberals are a Strange bunch, you do most of those jobs are High paying $40 dollar plus and hour private sector Union jobs right?

So are jobs in medical research, energy technologies, communications, space.......all which could use additional funding

You are aware of the military space budget dwarfs NASA correct?

And?

What's your point?

Point being we don't need military spending to support high tech jobs

Wow, catch 22 for you, so a straight face you want to eliminate all those hundred of thousands of highly paid Union military jobs and let them go to Alabama a RTW state? You are aware they have a bunch of Nasa contracts there?

This is funny from you, lmao

 

[Wyatt earp]

Here let me help you out, I have known this for 25 years

NASA opens door to world of government contracts at Huntsville small business meeting AL.com

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Relatively small cuts in DoD spending (10-20 bil/year) , could fund quite easily a huge 10-15 year infrastructure revitalization project that would employ way more people then are lost in DoD cuts.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The biggest thing is the electrical grid , but Obama and alarmist keeps man made climate change in the spotlight

Stupid propaganda

The next thing is the fucking 100 plus year old water delivery system

But Obama says man made climate change is the worst threat

Talk about ignorance

 

[rightwinger]

So are jobs in medical research, energy technologies, communications, space.......all which could use additional funding

You are aware of the military space budget dwarfs NASA correct?

And?

What's your point?

Point being we don't need military spending to support high tech jobs

Wow, catch 22 for you, so a straight face you want to eliminate all those hundred of thousands of highly paid Union military jobs and let them go to Alabama a RTW state? You are aware they have a bunch of Nasa contracts there?

This is funny from you, lmao

Hyperbole?

Now we are talking ALL military jobs? Someone brings up that we can make cuts in military spending and you go right to the hysterics

 

[Wyatt earp]

You are aware of the military space budget dwarfs NASA correct?

And?

What's your point?

Point being we don't need military spending to support high tech jobs

Wow, catch 22 for you, so a straight face you want to eliminate all those hundred of thousands of highly paid Union military jobs and let them go to Alabama a RTW state? You are aware they have a bunch of Nasa contracts there?

This is funny from you, lmao

Hyperbole?

Now we are talking ALL military jobs? Someone brings up that we can make cuts in military spending and you go right to the hysterics

Not hysterics I like being the best of the best

That simple

 

[rightwinger]

And?

What's your point?

Point being we don't need military spending to support high tech jobs

Wow, catch 22 for you, so a straight face you want to eliminate all those hundred of thousands of highly paid Union military jobs and let them go to Alabama a RTW state? You are aware they have a bunch of Nasa contracts there?

This is funny from you, lmao

Hyperbole?

Now we are talking ALL military jobs? Someone brings up that we can make cuts in military spending and you go right to the hysterics

Not hysterics I like being the best of the best

That simple

We spend 47 cents of every military dollar spent in the world

Nobody else is close to our "best"

 

[Wyatt earp]

Not good enough for me, want to see 57 cents

 

[Wyatt earp]

Relatively small cuts in DoD spending (10-20 bil/year) , could fund quite easily a huge 10-15 year infrastructure revitalization project that would employ way more people then are lost in DoD cuts.

Again liberal logic blows my mind away, so you want to tear away highly paid Union military workers pay roll and give it to $10 dollar and hour workers?

for temp jobs in construction re building the nations infrastructure?

Weird? Were are you going to get the Union vote from?

So strange

 

[rightwinger]

Relatively small cuts in DoD spending (10-20 bil/year) , could fund quite easily a huge 10-15 year infrastructure revitalization project that would employ way more people then are lost in DoD cuts.

Again liberal logic blows my mind away, so you want to tear away highly paid Union military workers pay roll and give it to $10 dollar and hour workers?

for temp jobs in construction re building the nations infrastructure?

Weird? Were are you going to get the Union vote from?

So strange

Again total bullshit on your part

R&D currently spent on defense can be spent on medical, energy, transportation, communications and other technologies at a greater benefit to our country

Infrastructure jobs pay as well as defense jobs

 

[Wyatt earp]

Remember 25 states at my last country is RTW

 

[orogenicman]

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. ... .

Perhaps if the Pentagon had spent money on needed items instead of spending nearly 1.5 trillion dollars on one weapons system that we don't need and doesn't work, we'd have a real military. But wait, even with this bloatware in the budget, we actually DO have a real military that actually does know how to fight. So I guess you are going to have to pedal your right wing propaganda elsewhere, bubba.

 

[Camp]

Relatively small cuts in DoD spending (10-20 bil/year) , could fund quite easily a huge 10-15 year infrastructure revitalization project that would employ way more people then are lost in DoD cuts.

Again liberal logic blows my mind away, so you want to tear away highly paid Union military workers pay roll and give it to $10 dollar and hour workers?

for temp jobs in construction re building the nations infrastructure?

Weird? Were are you going to get the Union vote from?

So strange

Why would you think infrastructure could be built with ten dollar per hour labor. Why wouldn't you use high paid skilled labor, perhaps union labor in many cases? Rebuilding and repairing infrastructure would require skilled professionals and tradesmen of every variety.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Relatively small cuts in DoD spending (10-20 bil/year) , could fund quite easily a huge 10-15 year infrastructure revitalization project that would employ way more people then are lost in DoD cuts.

Again liberal logic blows my mind away, so you want to tear away highly paid Union military workers pay roll and give it to $10 dollar and hour workers?

for temp jobs in construction re building the nations infrastructure?

Weird? Were are you going to get the Union vote from?

So strange

Again total bullshit on your part

R&D currently spent on defense can be spent on medical, energy, transportation, communications and other technologies at a greater benefit to our country

Infrastructure jobs pay as well as defense jobs

Construction jobs are Temporary in case you Didn't know

After 80 plus years are they still Building the hoover damn?

Military jobs are forever

 

[orogenicman]

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. ... .

Perhaps if the Pentagon had spent money on needed items instead of spending nearly 1.5 trillion dollars on one weapons system that we don't need and doesn't work, we'd have a real military. But wait, even with this bloatware in the budget, we actually DO have a real military that actually does know how to fight. So I guess you are going to have to pedal your right wing propaganda elsewhere, bubba.

I mean really. They are talking about axing the A-10 warthog, and using existing fighters (including the F-35) to take up its role in close in ground support of troops. But I have a huge problem with this concept. The A-10 has proven itself time and time again in actual combat that it is more than up to the challenge, carrying a formidable array of weapons, and ruggedness unmatched in any military, including our own. And considering its relative low cost per bang, and more importantly, its survivability and the fact that the pilots absolutely love flying it, why would you replace it with something that has an unproven track record, cannot tolerate being shot at, and costs as much a 10 A-10s to procure and keep in the air? It is decisions like these that put our forces in jeopardy.

And here is the simple answer. The Airforce doesn't like to work for the army. And so that is why they want to get rid of the A-10. It has nothing to do with capability or cost.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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. ... .

Perhaps if the Pentagon had spent money on needed items instead of spending nearly 1.5 trillion dollars on one weapons system that we don't need and doesn't work, we'd have a real military. But wait, even with this bloatware in the budget, we actually DO have a real military that actually does know how to fight. So I guess you are going to have to pedal your right wing propaganda elsewhere, bubba.

Relatively small cuts in DoD spending (10-20 bil/year) , could fund quite easily a huge 10-15 year infrastructure revitalization project that would employ way more people then are lost in DoD cuts.

Again liberal logic blows my mind away, so you want to tear away highly paid Union military workers pay roll and give it to $10 dollar and hour workers?

for temp jobs in construction re building the nations infrastructure?

Weird? Were are you going to get the Union vote from?

So strange

Why would you think infrastructure could be built with ten dollar per hour labor. Why wouldn't you use high paid skilled labor, perhaps union labor in many cases? Rebuilding and repairing infrastructure would require skilled professionals and tradesmen of every variety.

It's still temp jobs, once you built it..well its just built ..

Military jobs never finished

Not that hard to explain, always new work

 

[toxicmedia]

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. ... .

What a load of crap.

There is ZERO possibility the US could be invaded by anyone.

We're becoming more energy reliant every day.

The western hemisphere becomes more secure and peaceful every year. Our last enemy, Cuba, is no longer an official enemy.

The US military is stronger than all others combined.

What's the matter with you people?........I actually know the answer.

This BS the Republican dominated House Armed Services Committee came up with is for 2016 electioneering purposes.

And you're spreading it like parrot engaged in wishful thinking