Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Mar 15, 2011 9:27:09 GMT -5
I can't take credit, a friend of mine was talking about and I thought it had some merit. I tried to get him to come to this board, but he isn't interested. Basically the idea is to keep 10% of the military active duty while keeping the other 90% Guard and Reserves. You would only have the 10% to keep paying continually for full time, and the reserves and guard would be ready to call up when necessary. Thoughts on the subject?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,495
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 15, 2011 9:32:18 GMT -5
I would see equipment maintenance to be a big hurdle.
|
|
|
Post by jarhead1976 on Mar 15, 2011 9:33:08 GMT -5
To much money made on the production of death. Never see any reduction in military spending. Unless its on veterans benefits.
|
|
wyouser
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:35:20 GMT -5
Posts: 12,126
|
Post by wyouser on Mar 15, 2011 10:30:18 GMT -5
Hmmm, the Swiss do somwthing like that. Though tere would be an uproar here. All male citizens are members of the reserves and do regular training. But can you imagine the uproar of having every home in the country armed??? (Swiss must keep their weapons at home) Would require some rethinking of foreign policy though...Other than a few guards at the Vatican, the Swiss dont station troops outside Switzerland.
|
|
wyouser
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:35:20 GMT -5
Posts: 12,126
|
Post by wyouser on Mar 15, 2011 10:32:15 GMT -5
on the other hand..since Napoleon...no one has considered it worth the effort to violate Swiss neutrality.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 15, 2011 10:33:31 GMT -5
I can't take credit, a friend of mine was talking about and I thought it had some merit. I tried to get him to come to this board, but he isn't interested. Basically the idea is to keep 10% of the military active duty while keeping the other 90% Guard and Reserves. You would only have the 10% to keep paying continually for full time, and the reserves and guard would be ready to call up when necessary. Thoughts on the subject? Read more: notmsnmoney.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=politics&action=display&thread=4771#ixzz1GgOWzgdMYea the Pentagon tried a similar concept after WW2 but that backfired on them when we had to send troops from Japan into Korea in June 1950. The Army, and Marines had to re activate their reserves, and they were thrown into Korea in August 1950 and came close to being pushed out of the Pusan Perimeter..
|
|
teppe2
Initiate Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:52:48 GMT -5
Posts: 73
|
Post by teppe2 on Mar 15, 2011 11:39:46 GMT -5
Another point to consider with going to a primarily Reserve force is the private sector. There are already enough employers who are reluctant to hire people in the Reserves because they never know when and for how long they deploy. The support system for families would need to be drastically improved (it has come a long way since my hubby was in the Reserves but there is still left a lot to be desired). Maintenance of equipment and readiness of troops would be an issue (actually already is). Then there is (just my opinion) a huge psychological factor. I have seen too many people signing up for the Reserves to make some extra money, never in their life did they REALLY think would they be thrown into combat many of them for multiple tours, PTSD is a major problem. Most active duty troops (and their families) fare better because the expectations are different. Just cut the bennies and quit mollycoddling people.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 15, 2011 12:10:31 GMT -5
Readiness would be the key. I don't think we cut or move personnel around. I think we cut the top, and cut expensive weapons systems that are impractical and that we don't need. Stop maintaining old, expensive, out-dated systems, too. But the way you save almost a billion a day is get us OUT of all these "wars" around the world.
And here's something to think about: (and btw- I am for military / defense cuts) We could cut 100% of the military spending, and 100% of foreign aid-- and we'd still have a trillion dollar DEFICIT.
We need $1.67 trillion in budget cuts NOW, and then once the budget is balanced, start talking about downsizing government in meaningful, permanent ways by capping spending around 15% of GDP.
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Mar 15, 2011 13:56:23 GMT -5
Here is my plan: Immediately cut military spending by 70%, with an ultimate goal of 90%. Advise all countries where we maintain bases that we will be pulling out as soon as we possibly can. If our presence is vital to them, they can assume the cost of us maintaining troops in their country. We will need payment on a monthly basis, in advance. We will bill on a cost plus 10% basis.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 10, 2024 1:16:41 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2011 14:13:08 GMT -5
Just to point out......Drastic cuts in military spending translates into drastic numbers of dead in time of war. Advanced equipment is expensive but compare our planes with those that we have fought. Compare our tanks with the tanks that we have fought. (Watch the military channel because they show the difference in detail). Could it be cut, of course. My guess would be a reasonable amount might be between 10 & 20 percent.
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Mar 15, 2011 14:14:33 GMT -5
OldTex, my plan will provide plenty of money. It just won't be our tax money.
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Mar 15, 2011 14:26:48 GMT -5
The US ended the draft in 1973, creating what is in essence a "professional military" rather than a "civilian military" to be called up during times of emergency. That's 2011 - 1973 = 38* years ago. In the winding down of the Viet Nam conflict, fewer military were required, but with the first and second Gulf Wars a larger standing army was required. This creates a financial problem in that virtually 100% of the military could conceivably expect retirement and other permanent benefits. Therefore we have with the military the same problem we have with government employees in general ~ that is; "entitlements" like health care and retirement benefits, etc. could eventually bankrupt the nation the same way they bankrupted the American Steel and Auto industries. Private enterprise is moving away from large fringe benefits such as fixed retirement benefits, etc. and toward individual responsibility such as 401K's to supplement Social Security and passing off health care to the government. So it appears that the "entitlements" which include all the promises the government is committing to provide everyone, but particularly government employees, will only grow ~ and those are the things which are driving the current deficit and increasing debt. Libertarians, with their small government stance, would limit those "entitlements" and possibly bring the financial situation under control. No one else, especially Democrats, seem interested in anything but increasing "entitlements" until they absorb the entire American economy. That is why some suspect that that is the plan. Foreign involvement drives military costs. Libertarians would limit or eliminate "foreign alliances" so that the military could operate on a fraction of what it now uses. In the meantime, government employees, including the military, are slowing bankrupting the nation. Like it or not, we'll eventually run out of "others peoples money" and have to cut expenses. Unfortunately, I suspect that government employees and others counting on the government for "entitlements" will be the last to give up their seats on the gravy train. Capitalism and free enterprise [to the degree that we have it] will be the first permanent victims. America has peaked and those with connections to the New America are fully on board with the change. The termites have destroyed the foundation and we're just waiting for the roof to collapse ~ except the rats who've already deserted ship for Singapore. * Thanks btdt.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Mar 15, 2011 14:29:34 GMT -5
This message has been deleted.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Mar 15, 2011 14:29:52 GMT -5
...safe is almost always right - but 1973 was 38 yrs ago... ...and when your household budget is so far out of whack, cutting the cable bill is small potatoes...
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Mar 15, 2011 15:57:11 GMT -5
Hmmm, the Swiss do somwthing like that. Though tere would be an uproar here. All male citizens are members of the reserves and do regular training. But can you imagine the uproar of having every home in the country armed??? (Swiss must keep their weapons at home) Would require some rethinking of foreign policy though...Other than a few guards at the Vatican, the Swiss dont station troops outside Switzerland. Swiss are strickly defenseive, have spent Billions hollowing out their mountains, delaying tactics, defensive, much easier to train troops for that then to operate in a offensive manner and don't forget, don't have to pay for Naval forces, Coast guard, Marines, so more bang forn the buck ;D
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Mar 15, 2011 16:31:35 GMT -5
Defense spending should be reduce at a small controlled rate, while simultaneously ramping up domestic production of resources, the United States has an extremely large amount of resources, some of these resources are just sitting in "the ground" while we buy them from foreign countries. Oil for instance , if we started to exploit our own domestic energy we might not be able to become energy independent but I think we could be close. Onshore oil drilling, offshore shallow and deep water, shale oil extractions, coal gasification would go a long way to ending our dependence on foreign oil.
The United States is pretty isolated and we don't really have any enemies that can strike directly at us in any meaningful way, but since we depend so much on foreign resources we have to maintain a military that can secure those foreign resources, until we end our reliance on these resources we will need to maintain a large standing military.
Also Republicans agree to some reduction in military it would likely help there argument for reductions in other areas.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 15, 2011 16:35:18 GMT -5
Defense spending should be reduce at a small controlled rate,
We saw a lot of uncontrolled defense spending cuts initiated by President Jimmy Carter at the recommendation from his Defense Secretary Harold Brown, and some of us are still trying to get over them which happened over 30+ years ago..
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Mar 15, 2011 16:43:29 GMT -5
The world has changed dramatically from Carters time and I don't think the United States needs to out spend half the world on its military anymore, let our 'allies' take up the slack, of course as long as we have decide to exploit our own resources.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 15, 2011 16:48:58 GMT -5
I trust Bob Gates to do what is right when it comes to Defense Spending cuts... I didn't trust Harold Brown and he proved me right....we lost a lot of good junior and mid level officers in the military because of his actions..
|
|
Mad Dawg Wiccan
Administrator
Rest in Peace
Only Bites Whiners
Joined: Jan 12, 2011 20:40:24 GMT -5
Posts: 9,693
|
Post by Mad Dawg Wiccan on Mar 15, 2011 19:27:07 GMT -5
I don't see this as workable. One of the primary recruiting tactics for the NG and Reserves has always been that you can serve part-time and have a "normal" life, but our forces are already spread so thin of Regulars that countless Guard and Reserve units have been activated for deployment. Reducing the number of Regulars will just make this worse.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 10, 2024 1:16:41 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2011 21:29:51 GMT -5
OldTex, my plan will provide plenty of money. It just won't be our tax money.
Bluerobin, most of our bases are where they are because WE want them there (not because the other country wants them there). Also a 70% reduction isn't possible unless you are using our troops as cannon fodder.
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Mar 15, 2011 21:42:19 GMT -5
The world has changed dramatically from Carters time and I don't think the United States needs to out spend half the world on its military anymore, let our 'allies' take up the slack, of course as long as we have decide to exploit our own resources. And your expertise would be military strategy?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 15, 2011 22:44:27 GMT -5
The world has changed dramatically from Carters time and I don't think the United States needs to out spend half the world on its military anymore, let our 'allies' take up the slack, of course as long as we have decide to exploit our own resources. Yeah, I think the world ought to work a little more like this: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/No pay, no spray. You either pay us, or make other plans. You know how they say "America is 3% of the world's population, and we consume 8,000% of the resources of the whole universe"? Well, those claims may or may not be true, but one thing is for certain: if military might is required, it's US, as in U.S. - even if your country just needs the logistical support, we are called on. Let's be capitalists. Let's get paid. Or.... Let's stay home.
|
|
pappyjohn99
Familiar Member
The driveway needs a little work.
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 1:01:13 GMT -5
Posts: 928
|
Post by pappyjohn99 on Mar 16, 2011 1:37:27 GMT -5
Let's get paid.
Or....
Let's stay home.
Let's implement that policy, beginning with Libya.
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Mar 16, 2011 7:35:14 GMT -5
OldTex, WE are idiots and do not need bases all over the world. Like I said, shut them down. If any country wants one of those bases, we will stay if they foot the bill plus 10%. Our interests are here, not in some godforsaken desert or foreign land on another continent. Time for other nations to step up.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 16, 2011 7:39:38 GMT -5
Not that easy to do ...we have long term committments with countries that would have to be renegotiated which will not happen in the near term..especially in Far East , Europe and the Middle East..
This may come as a shock to you but foreign countries want us to have military bases on their land..
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Mar 16, 2011 7:41:23 GMT -5
Simple to do. Sorry guys, we can't afford it anymore. Bye!
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 16, 2011 7:46:01 GMT -5
Our overseas committments are all part of the Defense Dept Review requested by Defense Dept Secretary Bob Gates...so we will have to see what is decided as far as closing any or our bases overseas in addition to Gitmo Bay...
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Mar 16, 2011 8:58:03 GMT -5
Now Gitmo is in our backyard. The overseas places are not. I keep writing my reps telling them cut military spending, not my entitlements!
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Mar 16, 2011 9:09:24 GMT -5
Now Gitmo is in our backyard. The overseas places are not. I keep writing my reps telling them cut military spending, not my entitlements! And there it is...cut spending, but not if it affects me.
|
|