Rebuilding the military

[OGIS]

The arguments on each side for this tend to throw around competing pie charts.

14206 14207

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-j7fymd5BM

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/17/facebook-posts/pie-chart-federal-spending-circulating-internet-mi/

Thoughts on this?

Ad hom and the usual trolling BS will - unless I am amused - get TBs.

[PNW]

The amount we spend on military is insane, if anything we need to cut about 30% of our spending and see where we are in a year, then cut 30% more.

Yes, yes I know the evil scary Muslims are coming to get you! The military hasn't and will not stop them.
Get over it.

[Peter1469]

The amount we spend on military is insane, if anything we need to cut about 30% of our spending and see where we are in a year, then cut 30% more.

Yes, yes I know the evil scary Muslims are coming to get you! The military hasn't and will not stop them.
Get over it.

You couldn't cut the military budget by 30% in one year. You would break the force.

Practically, you would get laughed off the floor of Congress if you proposed it.

[Common Sense]

If pie charts are on the menu...

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ncTe79HlQ4g/S_10gMqF7yI/AAAAAAAAAWc/UkDkdn3hDbM/s1600/Military+spending+country-distribution-2008.png

[PNW]

You couldn't cut the military budget by 30% in one year. You would break the force.

Practically, you would get laughed off the floor of Congress if you proposed it.

Sure you could.
Wouldn't 'break' anything.

[Peter1469]

Sure you could.
Wouldn't 'break' anything.


You don't have a clue. And you presented no argument.

[PNW]

You don't have a clue. And you presented no argument.

And what makes you think you do, or present any 'argument'?

[OGIS]

You don't have a clue. And you presented no argument.


And what makes you think you do, or present any 'argument'?

Both of you sound like two children in the sandbox going "NO YOU!" at each other. Please either present some intelligent arguments, without ad hom, or leave the thread.

[Standing Wolf]

Funny how so many of the most insanely expensive weapons programs - many of which the DoD will tell anyone willing to listen they don't even want or need - call for manufacturing and development contracts in the home states of the Congress's most influential members. It's a welfare program for the Defense Industry and a political tool for other political tools.

The U.S. military could be run more efficiently and for substantially less money if you could somehow ever manage to pry the politicians - including the ones in uniform - out of the process.

[Dr. Who]

Funny how so many of the most insanely expensive weapons programs - many of which the DoD will tell anyone willing to listen they don't even want or need - call for manufacturing and development contracts in the home states of the Congress's most influential members. It's a welfare program for the Defense Industry and a political tool for other political tools.

The U.S. military could be run more efficiently and for substantially less money if you could somehow ever manage to pry the politicians - including the ones in uniform - out of the process.
DoD is generally working on tech that will remove the grunt soldiers from the equation eventually. Give it 15-20 years and there will be an increasing number of robot soldiers, assuming there isn't a general economic collapse of the first world.

[Ethereal]

The military-industrial complex needs to get fed...

[Standing Wolf]

DoD is generally working on tech that will remove the grunt soldiers from the equation eventually. Give it 15-20 years and there will be an increasing number of robot soldiers, assuming there isn't a general economic collapse of the first world.

Those "grunt soldiers" do not contribute to the cost of running the military to nearly the extent that a useless, redundant or outmoded-before-it's-even-built weapons system (or ten) does.

[Dr. Who]

Those "grunt soldiers" do not contribute to the cost of running the military to nearly the extent that a useless, redundant or outmoded-before-it's-even-built weapons system (or ten) does.
True, but I expect that some of the new weapons tech will be integrated into those robot soldiers, which is not to say that the inherent corruption of the electoral system will just go away. Either candidates will reward their benefactors in tax breaks or elected officials will try to kill two birds with one stone by advocating for one industry or another that provides employment, no matter how unnecessary the product, just in order to assure their own popular support.

[OGIS]

DoD is generally working on tech that will remove the grunt soldiers from the equation eventually. Give it 15-20 years and there will be an increasing number of robot soldiers, assuming there isn't a general economic collapse of the first world.

The popular meme is that DARPA is 5 to 10 years ahead of where they say they are.

I just wish it would go in a slightly different direction. Rep to the first one who ID's this....

http://www.whkeith.com/graphics/bolo-mark-xx.jpg

[Dr. Who]

Bolo - self aware tank.

[Cigar]

The amount we spend on military is insane, if anything we need to cut about 30% of our spending and see where we are in a year, then cut 30% more.

Yes, yes I know the evil scary Muslims are coming to get you! The military hasn't and will not stop them.
Get over it.

All you need to do is Fly once over The Pima County Air Space Museum and look at the bone yard next to it.

Those are working aircraft rotting in the dessert

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/64/c5/25/64c525380cde4672e76737c9530555aa.jpg

[OGIS]

Bolo - self aware tank.

Before I die, I would like to see a Continental Siege Unit.

From a safe distance.

Totally a TJ, but:

A Brief Technical
History of the Bolo From
Bolos in Their Own Words
Prof. Felix Hermes, Ph.D.,
Laumer Chair of Military History
New Republic University Press
© 4029 The Bolo's role as humanity's protector and preserver after the Human-Melconian conflict is, of course, known to all citizens of the New Republic. So much knowledge—historical, as well as technological—was lost during the Long Night, however, that the Bolo's earlier history is, at best, fragmentary. Much of what we do know we owe to the tireless activities of the Laumer Institute and its founder, yet there is much confusion in the Institute's records. As just one example, Bolo DAK, savior of the Noufrench and Bayerische colonists of Neu Europa, is identified as a Mark XVI when, on the evidence of its demonstrated capabilities, it must in fact have been at least a Mark XXV. Such confusion is no doubt unavoidable, given the destruction of so many primary sources and the fragmentary evidence upon which the Institute was forced to rely.
It was possible to assemble the material in this monograph, which confirms much of the Institute's original work, corrects some of the inevitable errors in chronology, and also breaks new ground, only with the generous assistance of Jenny (Bolo XXXIII/D-1005-JNE), the senior surviving Bolo assigned to the Old Concordiat's Artois Sector. Jenny, the protector of our own capital world of Central during the Long Night, has very kindly made the contents of her Technical Support and Historical memories available to the author, who wishes to take this opportunity to extend his sincere thanks to her.
This monograph is not the final word on the Bolo. Even a Mark XXXIII's memory space is finite, and the units built during the Last War did not receive the comprehensive Historical data bases of earlier marks. Research continues throughout the sphere of the Old Concordiat, and the author has no doubt future scholars will fill in many of the gaping holes which remain in our understanding of the enormous debt humanity owes to the creations which have so amply repaid their creators.

* * *
The General Motors Bolo Mark I, Model B, was little more than an upgrade of the Abrams/Leopard/Challenger/LeClerc/T-80-era main-battle tank of the final years of the Soviet-American Cold War. (At the time the first Bolo was authorized, GM decided that there would never be a "Model A" or a "Model T," on the basis that the Ford Motor Company had permanently preempted those designations.) Equipped with a high-velocity main gun capable of defeating the newest Chobham-type composite armors at virtually any battle range and with a four-man crew, the Mark I was an essentially conventional if very heavy (150 metric tons) and fast (80 kph road speed) tank in direct line of descent from World War I's "Mother" via the Renault, PzKpf IV, T-34, Sherman, Panther, Tiger, Patton, T-54, M-60, Chieftain, T-72, and Abrams.
The classic challenge of tank design had always been....



http://hell.pl/szymon/Baen/At%20All%20Costs/Bolo/0743498720__32.htm

[OGIS]

Also:


A Bolo is a fictional type of artificially intelligent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence) superheavy tank (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superheavy_tank). They were first imagined by Keith Laumer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Laumer) in the short story "Combat Unit" in 1960.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolo_%28tank%29#cite_note-1) They have since been featured in science fiction novels (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction_novel) and short story anthologies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthology) by him and others. While stories are partly set in the near future, most take place in the 27th to 33th century or even later. The fictional universe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictional_universe) of Bolo stories is populated by alien races, which forced humanity and human colonists on distant planets to defend themselves with a large military....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolo_%28tank%29

[Peter1469]

And what makes you think you do, or present any 'argument'?

You made a fantastic claim. It isn't up to me to disprove it until you back it up.

Go.

[Peter1469]

Those "grunt soldiers" do not contribute to the cost of running the military to nearly the extent that a useless, redundant or outmoded-before-it's-even-built weapons system (or ten) does.

Personnel costs are the second largest chunk of the DoD budget. From wiki (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/USA_2010_Military_Budget_Spending.jpg)

[Peter1469]

We scavenge parts from them. We couldn't afford to keep them all in service.
All you need to do is Fly once over The Pima County Air Space Museum and look at the bone yard next to it.

Those are working aircraft rotting in the dessert

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/64/c5/25/64c525380cde4672e76737c9530555aa.jpg

[PNW]

Those "grunt soldiers" do not contribute to the cost of running the military to nearly the extent that a useless, redundant or outmoded-before-it's-even-built weapons system (or ten) does.
I can see how you might think that however when you consider the pensions and the fact that we pay for health care for everyone that enters service...for life, plus the schooling and all the other freebies, the "grunts" as you call them are in fact the largest chunk of DOD spending.
After all most of the 47% that romney whined about are military pension recipients. Most of the cons whining about everyone else getting the 'free stuff' live off of a Govt check, get Govt. healthcare and have most of their lives.

[PNW]

You made a fantastic claim. It isn't up to me to disprove it until you back it up.

Go.

I made no "fantastic claim" I offered my opinion, if you don't like it or disagree with then it IS up to you to disprove it. "Na-uh" isn't going to do it.
Go.

[Cigar]

We scavenge parts from them. We couldn't afford to keep them all in service.

NO that's NOT true ... The US Air-force still makes NEW parts for Old Aircraft ... sure some parts are refurbished, but not the Avionics.

[Peter1469]

I made no "fantastic claim" I offered my opinion, if you don't like it or disagree with then it IS up to you to disprove it. "Na-uh" isn't going to do it.
Go.

It would be extremely difficult to go through the DoD budget process and show how cutting the budget by 30% in one year would break the force. There is no responsible way to do that without completely eliminating capability.

Here (http://comptroller.defense.gov/budgetmaterials/budget2016.aspx)is the official DoD info on the 2016 budget. It is a lot to read.

[Peter1469]

NO that's NOT true ... The US Air-force still makes NEW parts for Old Aircraft ... sure some parts are refurbished, but not the Avionics.

I am talking about the ones in the grave yard. We can't have our new planes and all of those at the same time. Money doesn't grow on trees.

[Standing Wolf]

I can see how you might think that however when you consider the pensions and the fact that we pay for health care for everyone that enters service...for life, plus the schooling and all the other freebies, the "grunts" as you call them are in fact the largest chunk of DOD spending.
After all most of the 47% that romney whined about are military pension recipients. Most of the cons whining about everyone else getting the 'free stuff' live off of a Govt check, get Govt. healthcare and have most of their lives.

If I'm not mistaken, those costs were shown on the pie charts separately from Defense costs - as "Veterans" and "Veterans' Benefits", I think.

[birddog]

There s waste in much of our budget. Military could be cut by closing by closing about 1/3 of the overseas bases we don't need. However, the military must first be equipped and have proper leadership to prevent and win wars.

There are a few areas of the budget that could drastically be cut.

[OGIS]

There s waste in much of our budget. Military could be cut by closing by closing about 1/3 of the overseas bases we don't need. However, the military must first be equipped and have proper leadership to prevent and win wars.

There are a few areas of the budget that could drastically be cut.

Agreed. We have military bases in virtually every country in the world. One of the first we should close is our presence in South Korea. Privately tell the PRC beforehand (as a courtesy), then give a warning to the NORKS to play nice and not antagonize the South Koreans. And leave a month later and let the chips fall where they may.

[MisterVeritis]

Those "grunt soldiers" do not contribute to the cost of running the military to nearly the extent that a useless, redundant or outmoded-before-it's-even-built weapons system (or ten) does.
Do you have examples of systems, weapons or otherwise that are redundant, useless, or outmoded before being built?

[MisterVeritis]

All you need to do is Fly once over The Pima County Air Space Museum and look at the bone yard next to it.

Those are working aircraft rotting in the dessert

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/64/c5/25/64c525380cde4672e76737c9530555aa.jpg
I spent several weeks in the boneyard. Those aircraft are not rotting. They are reasonably well taken care of. They are not working aircraft. They have been carefully prepared for long term storage and are maintained so they could be returned to service.

[Peter1469]

In 2013 this is where the DOD money went:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/bc/31/30/bc31302a8ca141a46187f7f2c0b288bb.jpg
The second largest expenditure was on personnel (https://www.google.com/search?q=defense+budget+pie+chart&client=opera&hs=ag6&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjz7eun_JPLAhUKBBoKHR_mDhcQsAQILw&biw=768&bih=379#imgrc=VDhpJKDVJqy6ZM%3A).

[MisterVeritis]

I can see how you might think that however when you consider the pensions and the fact that we pay for health care for everyone that enters service...for life,
Really? I pay co-pays for every visit and pay a monthly fee as well. Health care for me goes from retirement to age 65. Then I get dumped into Medicare. Unless you retire health care ends when your service ends.


...plus the schooling and all the other freebies,
Where can I go to get a list of all of the freebies? I suspect I am missing out. Can you link a website to the freebies please?


the "grunts" as you call them are in fact the largest chunk of DOD spending. After all most of the 47% that romney whined about are military pension recipients. Most of the cons whining about everyone else getting the 'free stuff' live off of a Govt check, get Govt. healthcare and have most of their lives.
Perhaps it is just me but doesn't the massive welfare state dwarf every other part of the budget?

"In FY 2015 total US government spending on welfare — federal, state, and local — was “guesstimated (http://usgovernmentspending.blogspot.com/2011/03/change-to-guesstimated-state-and-local.html)” to be $1,017 billion, including $565 billion for Medicaid, and $452 billion in other welfare."

This does not appear to include social security, the most massive, pervasive welfare program in world history.

[OGIS]

Do you have examples of systems, weapons or otherwise that are redundant, useless, or outmoded before being built?

Pretty sure that the F-35 qualifies in that regard. From what I understand, no one in the Pentagon (and certainly no one in actual flight ops) actually wants the damned thing, but it is one of those M.I.C. congressional money-sinks, so they are gonna get it, hell or high water.

A sorta-kinda example are the persistent efforts to torpedo the perfectly excellent A-10 Warthog and replace it with, I've heard, at least two other aircraft types that - together - have only 75% the mission capability of the Warthog... and are 8 to 10 times as expensive to operate.

Indeed, a LOT of the fat in the military is due to Congressmen greasing the skids for favorite districts.

THEN AGAIN.... an unknown amount of this money may be black budget fill-ins. Gotta pay for those Rod of God kill-sats, and those secret divisions of armored and exoskeleton-clad super-soldiers that we have stashed away in out-of-the-way bases.... :justkidding:

Actually, based on my navy service in the 70s, I know for a FACT that we had stuff then that was at least five years ahead of anything in the commercial sector. I suspect that this lead has not changed.

[OGIS]

I spent several weeks in the boneyard. Those aircraft are not rotting. They are reasonably well taken care of. They are not working aircraft. They have been carefully prepared for long term storage and are maintained so they could be returned to service.

All of them? I had heard that the really obsolete stuff gets put on ignore lists. Every few years they add more stuff to those lists, and then occasionally go in and break up the old planes for recycling or (in some cases) parts.

The existence of all those excess planes does not speak well for our procurement planning. And I assume that PM on the planes has a fairly rigorous pricetag.

[Standing Wolf]

Pretty sure that the F-35 qualifies in that regard. From what I understand, no one in the Pentagon (and certainly no one in actual flight ops) actually wants the damned thing, but it is one of those M.I.C. congressional money-sinks, so they are gonna get it, hell or high water.

A sorta-kinda example are the persistent efforts to torpedo the perfectly excellent A-10 Warthog and replace it with, I've heard, at least two other aircraft types that - together - have only 75% the mission capability of the Warthog... and are 8 to 10 times as expensive to operate.

Indeed, a LOT of the fat in the military is due to Congressmen greasing the skids for favorite districts.

THEN AGAIN.... an unknown amount of this money may be black budget fill-ins. Gotta pay for those Rod of God kill-sats, and those secret divisions of armored and exoskeleton-clad super-soldiers that we have stashed away in out-of-the-way bases.... :justkidding:

Actually, based on my navy service in the 70s, I know for a FACT that we had stuff then that was at least five years ahead of anything in the commercial sector. I suspect that this lead has not changed.

Yeah...what he said.

:smiley-char092:

[MisterVeritis]

Pretty sure that the F-35 qualifies in that regard. From what I understand, no one in the Pentagon (and certainly no one in actual flight ops) actually wants the damned thing, but it is one of those M.I.C. congressional money-sinks, so they are gonna get it, hell or high water.
If the F-35 is outdated why would our competitor nations steal the designs and get them into production before us?


A sorta-kinda example are the persistent efforts to torpedo the perfectly excellent A-10 Warthog and replace it with, I've heard, at least two other aircraft types that - together - have only 75% the mission capability of the Warthog... and are 8 to 10 times as expensive to operate.
That is more of a battle between the Air Force, who would prefer NOT to have to support the Army, and the Army that needs the support. That battle was ongoing when I was in the Army from 1975-1995.


Indeed, a LOT of the fat in the military is due to Congressmen greasing the skids for favorite districts.
So you gave me one potentially unwanted, outdated program followed by a hand-wave. Cool.


THEN AGAIN.... an unknown amount of this money may be black budget fill-ins. Gotta pay for those Rod of God kill-sats, and those secret divisions of armored and exoskeleton-clad super-soldiers that we have stashed away in out-of-the-way bases.... :justkidding:
I am familiar with black programs. Some of them failed to work. We take risks every day. If everything were certain, there would be no risks.


Actually, based on my navy service in the 70s, I know for a FACT that we had stuff then that was at least five years ahead of anything in the commercial sector. I suspect that this lead has not changed.
It is a mixed bag.

The SGT York air defense artillery weapon system was a very costly failure. The idea was sound. The problem for the combat developers and material developers was the constant additions and changes to the requirements.

[MisterVeritis]

All of them? I had heard that the really obsolete stuff gets put on ignore lists. Every few years they add more stuff to those lists, and then occasionally go in and break up the old planes for recycling or (in some cases) parts.

The existence of all those excess planes does not speak well for our procurement planning. And I assume that PM on the planes has a fairly rigorous pricetag.
It is true that old airframes are retired. While I was there the nuclear-capable bombers were being cut up within the view field of Soviet satellite photo-recce. I was there doing a site survey for a major engineering project.

[Peter1469]

Probably much more than five years for some equipment.
Pretty sure that the F-35 qualifies in that regard. From what I understand, no one in the Pentagon (and certainly no one in actual flight ops) actually wants the damned thing, but it is one of those M.I.C. congressional money-sinks, so they are gonna get it, hell or high water.

A sorta-kinda example are the persistent efforts to torpedo the perfectly excellent A-10 Warthog and replace it with, I've heard, at least two other aircraft types that - together - have only 75% the mission capability of the Warthog... and are 8 to 10 times as expensive to operate.

Indeed, a LOT of the fat in the military is due to Congressmen greasing the skids for favorite districts.

THEN AGAIN.... an unknown amount of this money may be black budget fill-ins. Gotta pay for those Rod of God kill-sats, and those secret divisions of armored and exoskeleton-clad super-soldiers that we have stashed away in out-of-the-way bases.... :justkidding:

Actually, based on my navy service in the 70s, I know for a FACT that we had stuff then that was at least five years ahead of anything in the commercial sector. I suspect that this lead has not changed.

[donttread]

The amount we spend on military is insane, if anything we need to cut about 30% of our spending and see where we are in a year, then cut 30% more.

Yes, yes I know the evil scary Muslims are coming to get you! The military hasn't and will not stop them.
Get over it.


One good way to cut the military budget is to bring them home where they can provide a "common defense" vs our current "common offense"

[MisterVeritis]

One good way to cut the military budget is to bring them home where they can provide a "common defense" vs our current "common offense"
We could bring back the draft. That will reduce the personnel costs enormously. A slave force does not have to be paid very well.

[OGIS]

If the F-35 is outdated why would our competitor nations steal the designs and get them into production before us?

I never said it was outdated. Your question asked "redundant, useless, or outmoded." The F-35 is the wrong tool for the wrong mission at the wrong price, and it has far too many bells and whistles added, apparently, at random. Oh yes, it is also a man-killer and military pilots are refusing to fly the damned thing. The F-35 is sorta like this:
http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/simpsons/images/0/05/TheHomer.png/revision/latest?cb=20090908145331



That is more of a battle between the Air Force, who would prefer NOT to have to support the Army, and the Army that needs the support. That battle was ongoing when I was in the Army from 1975-1995.

There is, indeed, a strong element of that involved. But it is not the entire story.


So you gave me one potentially unwanted, outdated program followed by a hand-wave. Cool.

So.... how many examples do you want? 10? 20? 50? That's not the way debate works. I gave one clear example and one partial example. That's enough to prove the point that there is an element of waste in military procurement.


I am familiar with black programs. Some of them failed to work. We take risks every day. If everything were certain, there would be no risks.

Not relevant.


The SGT York air defense artillery weapon system was a very costly failure. The idea was sound. The problem for the combat developers and material developers was the constant additions and changes to the requirements.

You've just identified another area for improvement. Again:

http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/simpsons/images/0/05/TheHomer.png/revision/latest?cb=20090908145331

[MisterVeritis]

I never said it was outdated. Your question asked "redundant, useless, or outmoded." The F-35 is the wrong tool for the wrong mission at the wrong price, and it has far too many bells and whistles added, apparently, at random. Oh yes, it is also a man-killer and military pilots are refusing to fly the damned thing. The F-35 is sorta like this:
http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/simpsons/images/0/05/TheHomer.png/revision/latest?cb=20090908145331
And yet our opponents have managed to steal the prints and get it into operation well ahead of us. Nothing is added randomly. The service(s) develop the top-level requirements. Then industry interprets them.


So.... how many examples do you want? 10? 20? 50? That's not the way debate works. I gave one clear example and one partial example. That's enough to prove the point that there is an element of waste in military procurement.
A couple would be good. You gave me one that we can disagree over. Do you have any examples that would be obvious?

[OGIS]

And yet our opponents have managed to steal the prints and get it into operation well ahead of us. Nothing is added randomly. The service(s) develop the top-level requirements. Then industry interprets them.

Really? Those Chinese hackers have succeeded in building and flying their own version of the F-35? Really??? Citation PLEASE!


A couple would be good. You gave me one that we can disagree over. Do you have any examples that would be obvious?

Not my job. Do your own research. Here, let me help you:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=obvious+military+boondoggles

[OGIS]

A couple would be good. You gave me one that we can disagree over. Do you have any examples that would be obvious?

But hey, just cuz they are choice...

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/09/contractor-waste-iraq-KBR

The All-Time 10 Worst Military Contracting Boondoggles

[MisterVeritis]

Really? Those Chinese hackers have succeeded in building and flying their own version of the F-35? Really??? Citation PLEASE!
Okay. But it is very easy to find. You don't need me to do this simple a search for you: http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2015/09/more-questions-f-35-after-new-specs-chinas-copycat/121859/

[MisterVeritis]

This is where we started, with your statement, "useless, redundant or outmoded-before-it's-even-built weapons system (or ten) does.

But hey, just cuz they are choice...

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/09/contractor-waste-iraq-KBR

The All-Time 10 Worst Military Contracting Boondoggles


What things on your list are weapon systems?

[OGIS]

Okay. But it is very easy to find. You don't need me to do this simple a search for you: http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2015/09/more-questions-f-35-after-new-specs-chinas-copycat/121859/

Your constant attempts at condescension betray, I think, an certain existential inner uncertainty on your part. They are unsubtle and annoying, and you are actually not impressing anyone other than yourself.

Why no, I do not need you to do the simple search for me. It is your job to do that search. The maker of a positive assertion has the burden of proof on their side.

Otherwise I could say, for example, that "MisterVeritis is a child molester" and then invite you to disprove that assertion. Which you would not be able to do, since it is logically impossible to prove an existential negative.

BTW, thanks for your post. I'm glad you posted the above, since it gave me the opportunity to remind readers about the importance of logic in argument.

[MisterVeritis]

Your constant attempts at condescension betray, I think, an certain existential inner uncertainty on your part. They are unsubtle and annoying, and you are actually not impressing anyone other than yourself.

Why no, I do not need you to do the simple search for me. It is your job to do that search. The maker of a positive assertion has the burden of proof on their side.

Otherwise I could say, for example, that "MisterVeritis is a child molester" and then invite you to disprove that assertion. Which you would not be able to do, since it is logically impossible to prove an existential negative.

BTW, thanks for your post. I'm glad you posted the above, since it gave me the opportunity to remind readers about the importance of logic in argument.
All that logic and yet you fail.

[OGIS]

Okay. But it is very easy to find. You don't need me to do this simple a search for you: http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2015/09/more-questions-f-35-after-new-specs-chinas-copycat/121859/


Your constant attempts at condescension betray, I think, an certain existential inner uncertainty on your part. They are unsubtle and annoying, and you are actually not impressing anyone other than yourself.

Why no, I do not need you to do the simple search for me. It is your job to do that search. The maker of a positive assertion has the burden of proof on their side.

Otherwise I could say, for example, that "MisterVeritis is a child molester" and then invite you to disprove that assertion. Which you would not be able to do, since it is logically impossible to prove an existential negative.

BTW, thanks for your post. I'm glad you posted the above, since it gave me the opportunity to remind readers about the importance of logic in argument.


All that logic and yet you fail.

Really? How is that? Please share your illuminated mystical revelations with us common dirt folks, LOL!

[MisterVeritis]

Really? How is that? Please share your illuminated mystical revelations with us common dirt folks, LOL!
Are you unable to read your own messages without adult help? Amazing.

[PNW]

One good way to cut the military budget is to bring them home where they can provide a "common defense" vs our current "common offense"

I can agree with that, we do some presence in some counties over seas but nothing like we have now.
Just doing this would cut more than 30% I think we should cut.

[MisterVeritis]

I can agree with that, we do some presence in some counties over seas but nothing like we have now.
Just doing this would cut more than 30% I think we should cut.
What parts of our intelligence collection and logistical support do you want to give up?

[Peter1469]

I can agree with that, we do some presence in some counties over seas but nothing like we have now.
Just doing this would cut more than 30% I think we should cut.

That would not cut 30% of the budget. Even if you fired all of the military and civilians stationed there. If you don't fire them, then you move them back to the States.

[Dr. Who]

MisterVeritis has been thread banned at the request of the OP, please do not respond to this member's posts.

[OGIS]

That would not cut 30% of the budget. Even if you fired all of the military and civilians stationed there. If you don't fire them, then you move them back to the States.

LOL, if Trump gets elected, then when all the illegals are kicked out the workforce can absorb the ex-military people. Win-Win. It might not be quite 30%, but then again we have some freaking HUUUUGE military bases in other nations.

[Peter1469]

LOL, if Trump gets elected, then when all the illegals are kicked out the workforce can absorb the ex-military people. Win-Win. It might not be quite 30%, but then again we have some freaking HUUUUGE military bases in other nations.

If you cut all of those soldiers and civilians you would have significant cuts. The bases, not so much.

[OGIS]

If you cut all of those soldiers and civilians you would have significant cuts. The bases, not so much.

Of relevance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases

[Mac-7]

If you cut all of those soldiers and civilians you would have significant cuts. The bases, not so much.

Cut the federal civilian workforce not the uniformed services

[OGIS]

Cut the federal civilian workforce not the uniformed services

Are you referring to civilian military contractors? Or civilians who are employees of the US military? Both? Or other federal workers, for example, the various bureaucrats of the different federal agencies?

If talking just military, I'm pretty sure that there may be available cuts in each of the first two areas. But I think that these groups are there to replace regular military personnel who used to do those functions.

The Pentagon claims that it is more cost effective to have civilian contractors. I don't know if that is true or not.

This is interesting:

http://www.armycivilianservice.com/

But if you are talking non-military federal employees, then one proposal that has been kicking around with the GAI theorists is to slash federal employment by consolidating all social service entitlement functions into the single GAI payment. That would be a huge cut to federal spending, and the economists who want this say that the savings would more than offset any fraud that would happen if you removed all of the expensive audit functions of umpteen different social services agencies.

[Mac-7]

Are you referring to civilian military contractors? Or civilians who are employees of the US military? Both? Or other federal workers, for example, the various bureaucrats of the different federal agencies?

Both.

and federal workers in every department.

Reduce the civilians first

[OGIS]

Both.

and federal workers in every department.

Reduce the civilians first

What specific departments would you cull?

[Mac-7]

What specific departments would you cull?

If I had my way I would close the dept of education and severely cut the EPA

But that is politically difficult in a democracy

So the only practical way is equal cuts in every dept throughout the federal government

[Peter1469]

Cut the federal civilian workforce not the uniformed services

They are pretending that it is possible to cut the DoD budget by 30% in one year- without breaking the force.

Cutting all the civilians won't get to anything close to a 30% cut. And the DoD could not operate without them.

[OGIS]

Cut the federal civilian workforce not the uniformed services


They are pretending that it is possible to cut the DoD budget by 30% in one year- without breaking the force.

Cutting all the civilians won't get to anything close to a 30% cut. And the DoD could not operate without them.

We seem to be arguing back and forth. Anybody got any statistics of companies where they have done cutbacks of 30% in one year and survived? What do you do with the 30% of ex-employees who are now jobless? Can the economy absorb them? Do they go on welfare?

[donttread]

We could bring back the draft. That will reduce the personnel costs enormously. A slave force does not have to be paid very well.


The draft is in fact slavery and wholly unecessary

[Peter1469]

We seem to be arguing back and forth. Anybody got any statistics of companies where they have done cutbacks of 30% in one year and survived? What do you do with the 30% of ex-employees who are now jobless? Can the economy absorb them? Do they go on welfare?

The army is not a company. What happens to soldiers kicked out isn't really part of the issue so far as breaking the force goes. Cutting 30% of the budget is just not something that can be done easily or at all. In one year.