downsizing US military

[Hauldren Collider]

It's ridiculous. We spend too much on the military. I don't even think we should have a small military. But no sane person can look at things as they are now and say "yeah, that makes sense". We have ridiculous amounts of duplication between branches based on the rather flimsy reasoning of "lol they have different doctrines". Everyone at the top seems to be drinking the kool aid for programs that are plainly failing--such as the LCS, where the ships are dissolving into the ocean from galvanic corrosion or their engines are breaking down in the middle of the Pacific--while in the meantime saying that cuts will kill everything that is right and good in the world. Come on. Maybe we need ships. I don't know that we do, but let's assume for the sake of argument that we need a lot more ships. Okay. Do we need ships that can't even fight?

[Ben Kenobi]

HC - why are all the cuts coming from the military and not from entitlements?

[Hauldren Collider]

They should be coming from entitlements, too. Those need to get cut a lot more than the military does, since they grow without bound. But that doesn't mean the military should get let off the hook.

We have expensive programs that are essentially throwing money into a giant hole, never to be seen again. We keep funding them because if we didn't, the people who are responsible for flushing the cash away would lose their jobs. Things like the LCS don't do jack **** for our military. They're a jobs program. An entitlement unto itself.

[pchang]

If we cut back on the military, we will see what the "real" unemployment numbers are. We can't have that!

[Al B. Sure!]

The US military went into Iraq driving these:



The military austerity of the 1990's produced untold deaths that could have been avoided with armored humvees. It was known as far back as Somalia that there would be a problem but the money wasn't there. Armored humvees would ultimately raise the cost of the vehicles from $65K to $140K a piece.

One of the many official studies of the issue, a 1997 paper by Maj. Clifford E. Day at the Air Command and Staff College in Alabama, concluded the reliance on soft-skinned Humvees “needlessly put their troops in harms way without the proper equipment to successfully complete the mission.”

Then when the armor kits finally showed up, humvees proved to be IED deathtraps. The MRAP's were developed and fielded as a result but too late for many servicemembers.

MRAP's, however, are 10x the cost of a light-skinned humvee ($650K vs $65K) but save lives.




It will happen again. Fifteen years from now, we'll go to war again with outdated equipment and lives will be needlessly lost.

[pchang]

Or maybe 15 years from now, we figure out a way to not go to war in the first place.

[Al B. Sure!]

Or maybe 15 years from now, we figure out a way to not go to war in the first place.

Yeah when unicorns fart rainbows

[Hauldren Collider]

Look, alby, the programs that are on the table are not armored humvees. That's actually getting funded. What's not getting funded are boondoggles that serve no purpose other than employing defense contractors and helping get general's dicks up. They're pipe dream projects for Clancyland threats.

Under this budget, we are still funding a new long-range strategic bomber.
We're still funding 11 aircraft carriers.
We're still funding the largest army in NATO.
We're still funding a new utility helicopter for the Army.
We're still funding new fighter jets for the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Air Force.
And we may be funding a new frigate for the Navy that doesn't blow chunks like the LCS.

And we're actually increasing the size of by far the most cost-effective (as well as just generally effective) part of our armed forces, the special forces and special operations groups.

Now, tell me more about how cutting the size of our armed forces and ****canning the Bradley replacement and (only half of ) the LCS puts our troops at risk.

[regexcellent]

We're having to leave all those MRAPs behind in Afghanistan because getting them out is so ludicrously expensive.

The Bradley replacement is kind of a ****show because the requirements list looks like this:
- Armored like a tank
- Armed with a 30mm cannon and ATGMs
- Holds 9 people

You can find tons of vehicles out there with 2 out of 3 of those requirements but you won't find one with all three because having a vehicle large enough to hold a 30mm and anti-tank missile plus the ammo, plus nine people is going to be ginormous. And the weight of the vehicle goes up with the surface area; the bigger it is, the more you have to armor. That means the vehicle was going to weigh like 70 tons and be ridiculously expensive.

Also, the lack of news about the GCV over the past two years means the army has probably only been continuing it so that it has a bargaining chip in budget cuts.

The Little Crappy Ship is especially egregious because it does nothing at all that's useful. It has no meaningful armament. It literally falls apart in the ocean from galvanic corrosion. Its armor is nonexistent and the crew is too small for effective damage control. At best it'll serve as a respectable minesweeper. It cannot replace the OHP frigates.

Our equipment sucks. Can we get something nice and not hand-me-downs from the 1970's for once? Or are we going to keep flying Harriers for 30 more years?

Better yet stop flying STOVL jets entirely because they suck and are useless. There is absolutely no need whatsoever to operate fixed wing jets off of gators or out of parking lots.

[Hauldren Collider]

The minesweeper package was cancelled for the LCS actually. The helicopters that fit on the flight deck aren't big enough to tow the minesweeping equipment. It's literally useless. Unless you want a minesweeper that can only sweep one mine.

[Guynemer]

**** your ****ing AAV, alby. STFU. The marines are never gonna do D-Day again. Oh wait, that was the Army. So yeah. Not happening. And why should you get the F-35 when you manage to get your harriers blown up by the dozen on the ground by a bunch of ****ing goat herders?

We don't need both the first and second largest armies in NATO. They should cut two marines for every Army personnel cut.

Yes, but this isn't going far enough.

We don't need a Cold War sized military any more. The threats we face are not giant nation states; they are religious extremists without national affiliation.

[Guynemer]

The US military went into Iraq driving these:

That's the point, Al:

WE NEVER SHOULD HAVE GONE INTO IRAQ AT ALL.

We have the biggest ****ing hammer the world has ever seen, so every goddamned pissant tinpot dictator looks like the sluttiest nail in the box.

[Al B. Sure!]

Yes, but this isn't going far enough.

We don't need a Cold War sized military any more. The threats we face are not giant nation states; they are religious extremists without national affiliation.

Gee. If only we had an expeditionary ready reaction force capable of quick global response using combined arms assets with air, land, and amphibious capability that cut its teeth in counterinsurgency operations way back during the Banana Wars, through to Vietnam and now Iraq and Afghanistan. If only...

The US Army is obsolete. The Marine Corps is not a redundancy. It is built to fight America's future wars.

[Guynemer]

Thanks bunches, Al. I literally just pulled a muscle rolling my eyes at your post.

[Al B. Sure!]

Thanks bunches, Al. I literally just pulled a muscle rolling my eyes at your post.

The US Army is big, heavy, expensive, with a giant logistical footprint. It exists to fight conventional wars.

If you don't think we'll fight another conventional war, why have an Army?

You should be the Marine Corps' biggest supporter, Guy. We're especially built for small wars, counterinsurgency, rescue operations, embassy security, and peacekeeping.