What's new
What's new

OT - The size of USA military

John Welden

Diamond
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Location
Seattle
I hear the conservatives talk a lot in the debates about building our military back up. Obama has decimated it?

Maybe some graphics will help show how insane it is to think we don't have enough shit.

Aircraft of the ARMY. JUST THE ARMY.
zANSQ1L.png

Lm69MIR.jpg





And here is the Air force.
dmBGbay.png

AJHkDiL.png

qvoq9nl.png

RNL7GyJ.png


Marines
D3i3VAI.png


Navy AIR ARM
1XinXPA.png


COAST GUARD
C11SqIk.png




Thats just the aircraft we have and not even all of them! Our military is too small? Really?
 
I hear the conservatives talk a lot in the debates about building our military back up.

I've watched every debate so far this election season, Dem and Repub.

I only remember there being tangential mentions of this subject. Maybe three or four times?

Do you suggest firing all of the personnel required to fly, maintain, and service all of these planes?

Do you actually want ALL of those folks trying to get a job right now?

Wal-mart is laying folks off.
 
Just gotta sell a few more to other countries to make some $ back on that investment is all.

That's millions of highly skilled jobs over decades, not many other industries offer that.

Worth keeping in mind that many of those have been flying for 30-50yrs.
 
I've watched every debate so far this election season, Dem and Repub.

I only remember there being tangential mentions of this subject. Maybe three or four times?

Do you suggest firing all of the personnel required to fly, maintain, and service all of these planes?

Do you actually want ALL of those folks trying to get a job right now?

Wal-mart is laying folks off.

No, but acting like our military isn't big enough is insane.

Almost all of the republicans candidates spend time talking about restoring our military strength. Sorry you're not sharp enough to have noticed. They only make the point constantly.

they all basically say this
https://marcorubio.com/news/marco-rubio-defense-military-plan-policy/
https://jeb2016.com/defense/?lang=en
 
Hmmm

So what? As long as they're maintained, they're fine. How many billions do you want to spend for a fancy new long range bomber?

So John, how many aircraft, ships, personnel and weapons do we need to protect and defend 12,00 miles of coastline, 7,500 miles of border, and 320 million people, and what is the basis for your assessment?

So is your 50 year old car fine as long as it is maintained? How old is the lathe and mill you work with? How will 30-50 year old machine tools allow a company to compete with the Chinese? Why are weapons different?

CarlBoyd
 
We are sitting with military expenditures at ~3% of GDP
Most every other NATO member is not meeting the 2% commitment.

If others would step up would it change things?
 
How many billions do you want to spend for a fancy new long range bomber?

Don't need those. We have drones and missiles now.

I think what the repubs have been talking about is the fact that the defense dept is shrinking, while the rest of government has grown exponentially.

This regime has fired 197 senior military officers in the last five years.

Meanwhile, bureaucrats that allow veterans to wait for MONTHS to see a V.A. doctor can't be fired as per their union contracts. Secret service members who screw up can't be fired. But we can sac generals whenever we want..........cool.

It doesn't matter anyway. our standing in the world is so low, that we probably won't need any more military stuff soon.

Isis is here already.

All they need to do is walk into Texas.
 
Someone mentioned "insane". The United States has protected it's interests since WWII with the strongest military in the world, bar none. The United States Army has shrunken from that level to pre-1942 levels under John's boys in DC. The world is a dangerous place, dominated by the use of force. Vote for the force you think advisable. Regards, Clark
 
We are sitting with military expenditures at ~3% of GDP
Most every other NATO member is not meeting the 2% commitment.

If others would step up would it change things?

We do step up and after spending over 38 years in the military I can speak with some considerable knowledge and front line in ten conflicts to boot!

Since the "Berlin Wall" came down in 1989 nobody really "Sees" the need for such a big military ... the civilian population cannot understand the need to spend because the "Cold War" concept has died ... Or HAS IT!

For instance when the US was reducing ANG Units from 24 aircraft to 18 ... we were reducing from 12 to 8 aircraft per Squadron ... all relative to country size.

... and while many countries sent their forces on TDY there is not quite the same need now ... Why send B-52G/H's to far away places with the HUGE support that was needed when the B2 or Global Hawk can do a 38+ hour round trip and achieve more with no loss of life - that makes sense to a lot of people (especially families).

The threat is STILL there but technology has taken over ... Was it not the US only this week announcing the "Battlefield" Ambulance drone ... must have cost Millions plus ... but how many do you need verses 60+ Medivac Huey's + support crews based across the border to a threatening country ..

We will always need "feet on the ground" ... the issue is JUSTIFYING it when there is no HUGE threat ... haha!

Just my two cents worth and personal opinion :cheers:

Now going into my bunker to escape the "fall out" that is more a threat than it ever was!
 
Someone mentioned "insane". The United States has protected it's interests since WWII with the strongest military in the world, bar none.....

Yes, presently the US spends 10 times more on our military than the 2nd place country, China. Or perhaps China isn't 2nd, but 2nd to last. Just depends on how you think about it.
 
So what? As long as they're maintained, they're fine. How many billions do you want to spend for a fancy new long range bomber?

Air frames are apparently only good for so many hours, and the more you push them beyond that the more expensive they get to maintain and the higher the risks of crashes and such. I would have no problem with the idea of building new ones from the very similar original drawings with a few upgrades where needed and get another 30-50yrs out of those proven designs/materials at a reasonable cost.

Unfortunately things like the F-35 are indeed a poor solution and will show to be very horrible waste of money that will not replace a lot of the equipment some thought it would. Reasonable costs doesn't seem to have any place in government or much of anything anymore. Bridges that cost billions of dollars, air planes/boats that cost billions of dollars, and so on. I'd just like to get some of that work I guess :)
 
Don't need those. We have drones and missiles now.

.


This is either ridiculous ignorance, or willful stupidity. Drones and missiles are great for one-off long range strikes into hostile territory, but the cost per strike is high, the intel and support required before hand is high and has a lead time, and you can only take out a small amount of threats before your supply is depleted. And that doesn't even begin to touch the countermeasures aspect, missiles and drones are easily shot down by an advanced enemy. With a fleet of bombers protected by a fighter escort, we can completely annihilate a significant (metropolis sized) enemy ground target of considerable size and defense, with short notice, at great range, with a good probability of a high kill/loss ratio. That ability, and nothing else, ensures that anyone thinking to attack us will consider how much they will lose in the process. No one can attack us without being wiped out in the process: that's called ensuring peace through the overwhelming threat of force, and it works. If you scrap all of that and think "well, we can just send some drones after them" the first enemy that finds a counter to your drones will kill you and everyone you know and care about.
 
I recall a conversation back in the early 90's that I had with my uncle who was a full colonel in the army. My brother told him that the USA spends as much for one B1 bomber as it does for all K-12 education in our country. His response was that if the military wants 100 or 200 B1's they should get them. I think he let his bias show a little bit.

Funny how the right wingers think that this countries money problems (national debt) are caused by Obama phones (raygun phones) and the left thinks our money problems are from to much spending on tax cuts and military budgets. I suspect it is a little of both but if we are to err to one side I would side with humanitarian spending for our citizens as opposed more spending on wars. Especially the ones that are fought based on a pack of lies like our Iraq fiasco. (see wmd's)
 
No matter who's ever been in The White House, we Americans seem to piss off someone in world by our decision making. Decisions for righteous or even selfish reasons, but there's always going to be some country unhappy with us when we do what seems like conducting ordinary business. As a result, we must have a strong military. How strong, exactly, is hard to say. At least strong enough to defeat whoever is upset with us at the moment, and whoever might be upset with us in the near future. Who might that be? That's anyone's guess, so the prudent thing to do is err on the side of having the most powerful and overwhelming military on the planet.
 
The current state of Canada's military/navy/air force equipment is a very good example of what happens when governments keep kicking the procurement can down the road until its way too late. It's a complete joke, always 15-20yrs behind when actions/decisions had to be made.
 
So what about the NATO commitment?
Are you folks in Europe in favor of meeting this level of expenditures?

Certainly here in the UK the "Older folk" think it's short sited to reduce our defence systems but the younger culture don't generally see the need and think life is all cosy and warm (OMG I must be getting very cynical).

We too are an Island and currently have our own issues with European policies ... let alone problems growing from the "Middle East"

again ... just my two penny worth ... I'd hate to be hard speaking and upset a "Single" sole ... :D

... oh dear note to self! ... stop being cynical again!!
 
The politicians push more equipment because it equals more civilian jobs in their districts, whether we need it or not.
Our enemies don't care about us bombing a city because it adds to their propaganda and recruitment. It is a new kind of danger, that all of our physical assets aren't much good at fighting, if it was, ISIL would have been smoked a long time ago.

The only thing that would have stopped 911 would have been better intelligence , and the various agencies working together, not another fleet of fighter jets.
I believe in more spies,more budget for those agencies, and less stuff. Or as Mr. Natural says " Get the right tool for the job ."
 








 
Back
Top