Featured Pentagon plans to shrink US Army to pre-WWII level

Last I checked, the Chinese say they have 1.4 million troops....

The reason we had so many problems at the beginning of Afghanistan--and still have, and are the same reasons the Russians had so many problems in Afghanistan--is because of terrain. We could send a drone for an aerial strike ... and they could hide in the mountains, in the caves, etc., etc., that absolutely require boots-on-ground to deal with.

 

In a time of national crisis, such as WWII or 9/11, I totally agree.

Then there was that whole Viet Nam thing....

 

You really think there is an occasion where the US is going to need to go toe to toe with China on some massive battlefield?

Never implied we don't need any ground troops. Only that 450,000 ground troops is plenty in today's world.

How are we supposed to pay for 750,000 ground troops to wait around for a war?

 

These cuts are necessary and will be helpful.

With the changing nature of warfare and the expansive developments of technology, we can provide a better military force that is both cheaper and just as adequate with less troops.

Frankly, if we hasn't wasted billion and billions of dollars on two unnecessary conflicts in one region over the past 12 years we could have done this long ago. No other military that exists in any country can stand up to our military even at these reduced rates. We have more resources and more capabilities, even when scaled back like they will be, to annihilate any aggressor who attacks en masse.

The real challenge is the the guy with a dirty bomb driving around a major city. That is the real threat.

Overall, the cost savings and better facilitation of a modern military will improve our forces.

 

Ah, excellent question, Jon. The simple, truthful answer? "It can't."

We face tremendous challenges in a shadow war against Islamic terrorists.

We face the renewed threat of a neo-Soviet hegemony coveted by Vladimir Putin.

We face the adventurism and stepped-up military capability of a Chinese giant with unknown and/or misunderstood cravings for new-found power and respect.

We face the evil nuclear intent of a North Korea run by a mad man, and an Iran run by a religious fanatic dedicated to his false prophet's clear call for world domination.

We face multiple tin pot dictators around the world whose saber-rattling often becomes invasion or ethnic cleansing, funded by illegal arms brokers and drug lords.

Our response? Cut the military. Makes perfect sense.

... If you're a closet Marxist dictator dedicated to the destruction of the country you have taken an oath to uphold and defend.

 

...and Netanyahu would smile; such masterful fear mongering, yea Bibi would be proud of you.

 

Yeah, well, they're no longer "the chosen" you know. Just ask him ... he knows!

 

Yes, Obama is an extremist, etc. BUT this is about a bankrupt country that needs to get its financial house in order. There is no strength in a load of debt.

 

...which goes to show just how incredibly ignorant, narrow minded, and obnoxious you really are; you smear me for stating the obvious that even his own people knows:

Netanyahu’s boringly predictable fear-mongering

 

We'll be looking at another reprise of 1980 somewhere down the line.

After the military was gutted by Carter either on purpose or through purposeful neglect, Reagan had to spend billions to put it back in shape.

It'll happen again.

 

I was talking with a friend here who is very active in state politics. He talks often to very influential people. He made the prediction that no matter which party controls Congress or the White House the next election the military budget will be cut substantially. He said the current level cannot be sustained, that no matter who is in office they are going to have to make some deep cuts in the military budget. It does not have to do with political philosophy. Rather it has to do with economic reality.

This is just round one. Round two, three, four will be in the next few years ... and remember it does not matter who is in office, they will be forced to make cuts.

 

Folks, I'm afraid that this is going to be a moot point; just MHO, of course.
I see this nation on the cusp of judgement by God, and if that is true, then we are doomed regardless of our military situation.
That being said, I do think that it is sheer stupidity to "cut the budget" (?) by decimating the military, only to have twice (?) the savings spent on GREEN energy, or more/bigger checks for the indolent, or what ever seems to float the liberal garbage scow at the moment!!!!!

 

Because our technology out ranks all the other countries. As one of my friends, who is a retired colonel pointed out to me, its like they're fighting with repeater rifles and we've got Gatling guns. Its not close.

If we look closer at the cuts being considered we see that there are also expansions in place. For instance, drone technology is expanding. That in and of itself allows for multiple units being controlled by a theater control device to stage out engagement so that one airman can control multiple units over the course of several sorties.

Also, go count up how many aircraft carriers the Chinese have vs the US. Then look at the nature and age of their sub fleet vs our subs.

When your closest opponent is fighting with swords and you've got a gun, even if there is more of them, you still win.

For anyone to say North Korea is a threat to anyone other than South Korea is a statement of ignorance. They can't even get a nuke to fly upwards on a consistent basis and rhetoric doesn't power their rockets.

Russia isn't aggressively working on their military for an international conflict because they've got economic issues and terrorism to deal with.

So who's left? The reality is that a reduced force is a wise management of our budget dollars in light of crushing domestic issues that should have been handled years ago. There is zero reason to field such a force this size right now.

BTW, I am all for instituting a mandatory 2 year draft for all graduating high schoolers. It'll help on a lot of levels and be cheaper than fielding all these existing units in perpituity.

 

Of course not. You think China is going to mobilize their entire 1.5 million troops into one location?

No, it'll be a battle with many fronts. Remember the lesson of how we fought the Japanese in WWII: One island at a time.

And if you don't consider China a threat, you're not paying attention to what's going on around Korea, Japan, and Polynesian Islands.

Your opinion is duly noted. Doesn't mean we agree.

While at the same time paying for Homeland Security, TSA, other expanded government agencies, etc., etc. that continue to wait for something to happen?

Sure; let's cut the military that's prohibited from conducting civilian-related affairs on our own soil, while we keep the increasingly militarized police agencies that's expected to conduct affairs on our own soil. <tin foil hat tag>