| Author |
Message |
    
Bill0351
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 10:47 pm: | 
|
I just think too many people equate a huge bloated military with a strong military.
That Osprey fiasco is the sort of thing that comes to mind. We have the CH53 which does its job perfectly. So what is the best thing to do? Obviously the best solution is to spend $60,000,000,000.00 to develop a replacement.
Look at the picture in my profile. That M1114 in the background is "Big Truck." See that post looking thing in the back? That's a $70,000.00 (or so we were told) Warlock. It not only jammed IEDs, but also our radio transmissions between vehicles. Oh, and it took approximately ZERO time for the insurgents to outsmart it with a $.25 modification to their IEDs.
It just makes me sick to think of all the good that could come from all the money that's just flushed down the toilet. |
Bigdaddy
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 11:06 pm: |
|
We've found a common enemy too. The Warlocks, and various other iterations, would drop Blue Force Tracking to it's knees. BFT was outstanding in the planning phases and the test cases -- in fact it was nearly flawless while at NTC and Ft. Hood. Once we got it down range it sucked. Great plan, but the version we rolled out wasn't ready -- they're still pushing it too. |
Bill0351
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 11:19 pm: |
|
I know, and 25 feet of stereo wire between the receiver and the detonator makes it totally useless.
BLAM!
EFP right through your door, and no way for rear security to call and stop the convoy or even call for medivac until you get out of the vehicle, climb into the hatch and shut it off.
Bad piece of gear....
Bad and expensive.
(Now that .50cal on the turret on the other hand? THAT is a fine piece of gear!)
(Message edited by bill0351 on August 13, 2008) |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2008 - 07:07 am: |
|
The Army Deployed in Desert Storm was larger than the whole Army as of 2002.
Politicians always shrink the military too much in times of relative peace. Pick a war. We weren't ready. That always costs lives & money.
The contractor thing can be blamed on just about every dog robber in the Govt.
The M2 is what? a century old yet? Anyone who wants to get rid of the M2 .50 should be shot. It's worked that good for that long. ( but I prefer not to carry it, thank you ) |
Brumbear
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2008 - 09:05 am: |
|
The Ma duece is the best weapon I have ever seen the gun has the ability to do so many things. dollar for dollarit may be the best military invention ever. |
Bigdaddy
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2008 - 09:44 am: |
|
Hard to argue with that logic, but only because it's so accurate. Headspace + timing=performance. |
Bill0351
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2008 - 11:39 am: |
|
"Politicians always shrink the military too much in times of relative peace. Pick a war. We weren't ready. That always costs lives & money."
That is a matter of opinion, and I don't believe it's accurate. What has happened is that after every modern conflict our military has grown and then remained just a little more bloated than before.
In my opinion, when a country is at peace it has no use for a 2,000,000 man military.
Right now I don't think our country is being disciplined in the use of our military. I don't think they are being disciplined in the funding of our military.
I think the pre-sellout Colin Powell had an outstanding philosophy based in his combat experience.
I am paraphrasing, but I think he pretty much said to have an achievable goal, a time-line and plan for reaching it, and an exit strategy. Even his doctrine of "overwhelming force" doesn't need 2,000,000 guys to accomplish.
This wasn't a very focused response, but it's a good conversation and I wanted to take part.
This is a really interesting link. To my knowledge this is the newest information available. When you look at the statistics on our national debt, a lot of the numbers correlate.
http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/M01/fy05/m01 fy05.pdf
Bill |
Tramp
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2008 - 01:06 pm: |
|
+1 |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2008 - 01:56 pm: |
|
Bloated? true. The meat & potatoes gets shorted between wars. With the reduction in chances for promotion, the drones take over the upper ranks & you get what we get every time. Look at 1930's history & war games with logs for cannons & Model T's with "tank" painted on the side.
...I don't think our country is being disciplined in the use of our military...
I'd agree with that. It's not "right now", though. Clinton & his peacekeeping efforts in the Balkans & Africa...The stalemate in Korea..the forever war in Southeast Asia...The Moro insurrection...
...disciplined in the funding of our military...
True. Way too much b.s. to avoid the true costs, and way too low a real funding level. Compared to the 50's, it's a small fraction of old defense spending. We spend way more on social programs, & it's going to get worse as us old farts retire. ( feeling stiff today ) |
Bill0351
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2008 - 03:00 pm: |
|
I hate it when conversations about defense spending turn into discussions about comparative waste. In a macroscopic budget discussion it's valid to bring in social spending as an issue. This is about defense spending.
Even if we do bring it in, our military budget accounts for more than half of our discretionary spending, and that doesn't include our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq since they are not part of the formal military budget.
You can point to statistics of defense spending as percentage of GDP, but as of right now, our country is spending eight times what China is spending. As that country pours money into development, we pour money into a narrow band of our economy that has only marginal benefits to the general population.
Nobody has ever given me a satisfactory answer as to why our military spending is approaching the expenditures of the rest of the world combined.
Runaway defense spending is a tumor that is draining the vitality out of our nation. I don't think it is driven by any real need for security. It is driven by the people and corporations that are profiting at the expense of our REAL long term security. Our country may well have other diseases, but those are other topics for other discussions.
Bill |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2008 - 03:42 pm: |
|
I was under the impression that we spend today far less than the Soviets or Chinese did during the cold war, as a percentage of GDP. What they spend today I'm not sure. What were the last #'s from Putin?
Comparing the defense budget to the entitlement budget may not be germane to a discussion of defense spending, but since my childhood, the relative majorities have reversed. Today social spending far out strips defense.
I'm not sure what you mean by "discretionary" in this context.
What isn't? The debt to the banks & bond holders? The debt to the SSI fund? ( a book keeping scam ) SSI payments? Welfare payments? Farm Subsidies for Ethanol etc.?? Is paying the Navy's salary discretionary?, or just The State Dept's?
It sounds like my Dad's favorite saying. "Figures don't lie, but liers figure like crazy"
We both may be right in our statements on the face of it.
I think I disagree with you on the budget for defense... but there is real intersection in our views.
Do we spend enough? I say maybe, a bit more wouldn't hurt. You may disagree.
In the right places? I don't think so, & you may agree. The emphasis on privatizing...or piratizing the military does need consideration. |
Bill0351
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2008 - 04:12 pm: |
|
"Figures don't lie, but liers figure like crazy"
Then we can skip the statistics as far as percentage GDP vs USSR Cold War spending as a percentage of GDP and only focus on some basic statistics that aren't as difficult to understand in the proper context.
We spend nearly as much on our defense as the rest of the world combined.
Since I'm failing to see the need for our current level of spending, I'm completely failing to see the need to spend more.
I would like to see a smaller, tighter and better military backed by the full weight of what should be the mightiest industrial nation in the world.
Bill |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2008 - 05:48 pm: |
|
Since the rest of the planet depends on us to protect them from the rest of the planet.... seems like a good deal.... for them.
I'm good with the current level of spending. That doesn't count the stuff they don't tell us IS defense spending, or the occupation/terror war/foreign aid pile they make such a political football out of. I WANT some large amount of "black" spending for secret toys, like stealth bombers & UAV drones. These force multipliers save a lot of lives. On both sides.
How many Aircraft carriers do we need? What's the threat? If we decide that the classic 2 major & 2 minor wars is unrealistic, ( it is ) then we don't need WW2 manpower levels. If we decide that we need to be able to free Burma, ( conquer, occupy, pacify & leave...5-7 years ) AND protect Chad from Libya, we'd still better have a reserve big enough to deal with another superpower. Say, be credible at protecting Georgia from Russia, or Tibet from China.
Just enough means not enough, and lots of people die or are enslaved.
I would like to see a smaller, tighter and better military backed by the full weight of what should be the mightiest industrial nation in the world.
I'm in total agreement. We may not agree on the # of helicopters, etc. ( I want a XV-15 size Osprey version for camping ) But a military run for the shooters is much better able to make them not needed. Having the full support of our politicians would be nice too. ( a pipe dream, that. Read "Tommy" by Kipling ) The Military didn't lose Viet Nam, Congress did. After we left, they &^%(&d them. |
Tramp
| | Posted on Friday, August 15, 2008 - 05:50 am: |
|
" I WANT some large amount of "black" spending for secret toys, like stealth bombers & UAV drones. "
Then go buy them, yourself.
Our government needn't continue blowing
The American taxpayers' hard-earned dollars
to indulge your Tom Clancy fantasies.
America needs to reinvest in America, by bringing servicemen back here to protect our precariously exposed homeland.
Look at what our Stealth bombers failed to achieved in "Operation Shock and Awe".
Oh, yeah- let's up the taxpayers' bill on those brilliant programs.
 } |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Friday, August 15, 2008 - 09:24 am: |
|
While I would train nearly all troops by having them guard the borders, ( the precariously exposed homeland ) I would also give them the gear they need. What better training to guard the Pakistani border than guarding ours?
The money spent on "black" projects in minute compared to the Ethanol subsidy, etc. The stealth bombers saved lots of lives by eliminating C3 targets, it's been a good investment.
Just because GWB's PR machine sucks compared to ALQ or the Clinton's doesn't mean the gear is a failure. Like always, poor decisions by upper command muddy the perceived effectiveness of the military. The U.S. Army is meant to break things & kill people, not pacify & occupy a transitional land. That's the role of the U.N. troops. ( that & sex slavery rings.... see Africa & the Balkans ) Or maybe Mercs. ( lot of worms in that basket, though... isn't that this threads point?)
You only have 2 airplane companies left in the U.S. because of the Congress mandated paperwork mess. ( petty empire builders in the DOD crushed a few out of spite along the way )
So we seem to have a major diff. in opinion. I think the system is busted, & want to fix it. I'd rather buy Israeli RPG detonators than let troops die. I'd try & make decisions based on helping our troops do their job better & with less loss than the old ways. For that you want secure tac nets, mini drones, etc.
Also, don't send troops for any reason but to win. |
Ferris_von_bueller
| | Posted on Friday, August 15, 2008 - 09:36 am: |
|
I would like to see a smaller, tighter and better military backed by the full weight of what should be the mightiest industrial nation in the world.
Get used to us not being number one. |
Bigdaddy
| | Posted on Friday, August 15, 2008 - 10:46 am: |
|
Also, don't send troops for any reason but to win.
Absolute truth. Anything less is unacceptable and shouldn't be tolerated. Political correctness and appeasing politicians need not apply. |
Bill0351
| | Posted on Friday, August 15, 2008 - 11:10 am: |
|
I guess that is what bothers me the most Ferris. There is no reason under the Sun that we shouldn't be #1. There is no reason that an American shouldn't be producing nearly everything that Americans consume. That goes for everything from energy to the cars and motorcycles that use it.
There are a lot of different areas in our budget that suck up dollars that could be reinvested in our infrastructure. There are just as many areas in trade policy that do the same.
The 85 billion dollars mentioned in Tramp's original post is just another example of a missed step along the way.
Here is an example (federal budget '07):
We spend around 90 billion on education.
We spend around 245 billion on interest on the national debt.
We spend around 620 billion on defense/veterans.
We spent around 115 billion additional dollars on our current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We watch the core of our country rot as we pour money into the corporate pockets of the defense industry. We aren't making our country strong that way. We are killing it. In fact, we are doing more damage than our enemies ever could.
Bill |
Smokescreen
| | Posted on Friday, August 15, 2008 - 11:11 am: |
|
WAR AS AN INSTRUMENT OF POLICY
War does not exist for its own sake. It is an extension of policy with military force. The policy aim that is the motive for war must also be the foremost determinant for the conduct of war. The single most important thought to understand about our theory is that war must serve policy. As the policy aims of war may vary from resistance against aggression to complete annihilation of the enemy, so must the application of violence vary in accordance with those aims. Of course, we may also have to adjust our policy objectives to accommodate our means; we must not establish goals outside our capabilities.
When the policy motive of war is intense, such as the annihilation of an enemy, then policy and war's natural military tendency toward destruction will coincide, and the war will appear more military and less political in nature. On the other hand, the less intense the policy motive, the more the military tendency toward destruction will be at variance with that motive, and the more political and less military the war will appear.
The aim in war is to achieve our will. The immediate requirement is to overcome our enemy's ability to resist us, which is a product of the physical means at his disposal and the strength of his will. We must either eliminate his physical ability to resist or, short of this, we must destroy his will to resist. In military terms, this means the defeat of the enemy's fighting forces, but always in a manner and to a degree consistent with the national policy objective.
Quoted directly from FMFM1 Warfighting Manual. |
|
