Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Extras | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Why our military can survive cuts

March 11, 2013

I wonder if any cuts will ever be proposed for the military that won’t be met with arguments of them placing our soldiers in danger and/or weakening our “Military Preparedness” or something along......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(43)

bob1957

Mar-11-13 7:00 AM

Clearly the military budget can basorb cuts. Clearly wihtout a doubt some of your comments would leave us without a proper defense for a nation that is free and wishes to remain so. There is no policital will in the world for peace as you walk up to and the missle defense shield is worth investing in buddy. Our families would be DEAD if we followed you.

7 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

baseball

Mar-11-13 7:45 AM

The political climate can change in a heart beat! We may for now have a technological advantage, but if we dont keep pushing on, that advantage will be gone. Modernization of equipment is a must, when your car is old and not running very good, do you replace it! This Country has survived because of a strong and technological superior Military. We are the worlds police force, in being such,we are able to keep our Country much safer. Although the presidents TSA apointed directors decisions on weapons allowed on planes, could cause another 9/11! Makes you wonder what the Presidents motives were in this decision?

7 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

Mar-11-13 8:14 AM

Yes..USA number one in spending for our defense. In fact no other country comes even close to how much we spend each year on our military.(4.7% of our GDP by the way)

Just look it up.

Yes, I agree I think the military defense spending could take some cuts. I just hope they do not make these cuts on the backs of the people who can least afford them. They need to cut more unneeded purchases NOT the pay or benefits to those who serve in our military.

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

joew

Mar-11-13 8:33 AM

No doubt the Defense Department can cut costs.We don't need a hatchet job however. Recently,last week I believe there was yet another successful test of the Aegis missile defense system conducted by the USS Lake Erie. It does work Paul and we need to continue that R&D. Witness N Korea & Iran as the reason. To say there is "little if any" cooperation between the services with regard to weapons development is not true. One that comes to mind is the M1 Abrams and since I was involved with that development I know of the cooperation between services. Nuclear weapons deteriorate over time and thus the need to build more as replacements. Personnel costs have doubled in the past 10 years and account for almost 25% of the budget. This country must maintain its edge Paul,there are bad guys out there looking for a way. Having said that yes there can be reductions made without harming national security but what you propose is unilateral surrender.

7 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Dcronlg

Mar-11-13 8:54 AM

It kills me that despite the fact our current illusive enemy used only boxcutters and kerosene to attack us -- and NOT a military juggernaut of soldiers, mechanized warfare and technological advances -- and that we spend more on defense that the other top 57 (fifty seven) countries combined, including Russia and China...the comments here still "we need to keep our edge..." {like boxcutters?], or "it keeps us free..." [pray tell from who? or what? btw...], or "nuclear weapons deteriorate" [Huh? weapons grade Pu-239's half life is 24,000 yrs..]...

We can cut far, far more and still be prepared.

5 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

stangv8

Mar-11-13 9:00 AM

You actually have some very good points here. One thing though, you might not realize, is that the government is going to spend that money; one way or another. They’ll either spend it though the DOD or some other government agency. During the 90’s, dozens of active military instillations were closed and the forces were drawn down dramatically. The money saved by these reductions was used in other areas, mainly social programs. Here’s one way to look at it. We can either spend 300 billion developing weapon systems we really don’t need and employ hundreds of thousands or we can spend that 300 billion on welfare programs. Either way, that 3600 billion is going to get spent.

The main problem with the DOD is when they’re forced to cut, their hatchets cut people programs, not the waste such as was pointed out in the article. The troops, their families, and those Veterans who’ve earned certain benefits will suffer; pet projects will continue on.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Dcronlg

Mar-11-13 9:26 AM

Actually, no Strang, in the 90s we didnt spend $300 billion on welfare programs -- we actually tightened ed and cut back on welfare programs in the 90s. We also had a similar govt shutdown over govt spending without increasing taxes, remember? The GOP lost, Clinton won. Taxes were raised. By the end of the 90s, we had a budget surplus, a solvent social security and a robust economy.

Then came Dubya and Tom DeLay...

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PhilJulian

Mar-11-13 9:28 AM

I see the military as essential in order to protect our national security. However, I am disturbed by the fact that we have become an aggressor nation and an occupying force in regions of the world that hate our government. A strong military has become our reaction to a poor foreign policy. How did we get to be the policemen of the world and what makes us think that our culture and way of governing would be best for all? What gives the U.S. the right to impose our ways on other people? Yes, we need a strong military for defense and the military budget provides jobs for many people but the money and power are being abused. V.P. Cheney said we would be greeted as liberators in Iraq. What a joke! The people in Iraq couldn't wait for us to leave. President Eisenhower had it right when he said "beware of the military/industrial complex". Just follow the "money trail" when you need answers for our actions.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Steiner

Mar-11-13 9:29 AM

well we spent more on the defense in the 60's. Dc , I have read where nuclear weapons deteriotate. This was from nuke makers themselves. Christopher always had a problem with number of rounds. It is just a liberal thing they are prone to. Of course, there is no waste in the entitlement side of the budget, which is far greater than the military. Take US power out of the world and imagine what would happen.I think Israel has a missile defense shield, not 100% but what is. even body armor has a limit. Libs just like the fact they could get blown up. Makes them feel good or something. The cuts could be used to help women and minorities !

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

joew

Mar-11-13 9:29 AM

Dcronig-there is more to nuclear weapons than a sphere of plutonium 239,glass,polymers,circuit boards,metals,even some good old TNT like material. I think if you take a look at what we pay our folks and the way we care for them and their families and then look at how the Russians and Chinese handle that you might see why we spend so much more. Nobody seems to take that into consideration. In case you didn't notice the North Koreans didn't just launch a flying box cutter or just set off a harmless firecracker.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

joew

Mar-11-13 9:48 AM

Judeye-good post,I agree with you. That's one for the books right?

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Steiner

Mar-11-13 9:50 AM

Paul, I read 350 billion over the life of the fleet, not each sub cost.If the sequester was supposed to cause untold doom, how is it we can cut the military ?

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

joew

Mar-11-13 9:55 AM

Dcronig-you can knock off the Clinton budget surplus baloney. Borrowing money from the social security trust fund to pay down the public debt is intragovernmental smoke and mirrors accounting. The national debt went up during the Clinton years just as it did with other Presidents.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Steiner

Mar-11-13 9:56 AM

who could not like a sub ? They go in by stealth, like a sniper or even a some shooters, do their work and leave. It would be fun to command one. hey judeye, are our enemies poised to surrender as the japanese were for years in WW2 ?

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

stangv8

Mar-11-13 11:17 AM

Dcronlg, I was using the figure 300 billion as an example, not as a factual number. Don’t forget, Clinton raided almost 3 trillion from Social Security to pay down the debt and replaced it with IOU’s

Phil, we were greeted at liberators in Iraq but then we overstayed our welcome and were looked at as conquers. We started becoming the world’s policeman back in the early 90’s. I remember listening to General Fogleman, former USAF Chief of Staff, say how he had people in almost every country in the world and it was overtaxing us. I for one agree that we need to quit being the policeman of the world.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

stangv8

Mar-11-13 11:27 AM

One thing, the Cold War isn’t dead. We may think it is but nobody ever told the Chinese or Russians. Russia is back to playing its cat & mouse with our fighter interceptors in the Alaskan and Pacific theaters. Just recently Russian Bombers overflew our airspace over Guam and this past summer a Russian submarine went undetected in the Gulf of Mexico. It was finally detected as it departed almost two months later. In 2007, a Chinese diesel power submarine surfaced, undetected, in the middle of the USS Kitty Hawk carrier battle group on maneuvers in the Pacific. The sub was within easy striking distance of the Kitty Hawk. National Defense is one of the few constitutionally mandates of the Federal Government. We need a DOD second to none but not the waste.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DKexpat

Mar-11-13 11:39 AM

The F-35: Lockheed is over budget, behind schedule and curiously immune from sequestration. The three models (AF, Navy, Marines) were supposed to share 70% like components – that’s down to only 30% as costs skyrocket.

Carriers: Over the past 10 or so years, as many as 10 US carriers have been “sunk” in fleet exercises with the Australians, Israelis and even the Swedes(!). In 2008, chief of naval operations demurely stated “We are not satisfied with [our progress] right now.”

Submarines: The Chinese will soon “join the club” and have nuclear subs with intercontinental nukes/missiles within two years. Their diesel-electrics are already increasing quiet, and one surfaced – undetected – in the middle of a US carrier battle group in 2006 inside the destroyer/cruiser screen 9 miles from the USS Kitty Hawk.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DKexpat

Mar-11-13 11:39 AM

The Balisle Report, commissioned by the Navy in 2010, notes the following: (1) 1/2 of deployed combat aircraft are mission-capable at any given time; (2) 1/5 of the fleet cannot pass inspections; (3) Ship maintenance has been underfunded for years; (4) Ships have junk or insufficient spare parts; (5) Returning ships are cannibalized for parts to keep others running.

The “new Navy?” The Navy’s own director of operational testing stated the Littoral Combat Ship is “deficient” and “not expected to be survivable in a hostile combat environment.”

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MikeDavis

Mar-11-13 12:13 PM

It's interesting that the usual liberal answer for a problem is to be throw more money at it. But in this case the answer is to take money away. That said, I do think the money could be accounted for a helluva lot better than it currently is, as well as an "across the board" cut of ten per cent. The issue with any and all cuts are they aren't used to lower the deficit, they are used to start more federal programs. The US needs to stop spending and start paying down the darned thing.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

Mar-12-13 7:39 AM

PhilJulian...AGREE!!!

I just wonder why we did not arrest and prosecute those who knowingly lied to us to get us to invade another country. Killing thousands of our troops, harming families, causing injuries that may never heal, displacing entire towns, destroying the cities, etc. Oh I know the reasons..but do not like them at all...

War is to be a LAST resort and never preemptive. By the way, what were the names of the hijackers from Iraq? Oh yes that is right...NONE.

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

Mar-12-13 7:44 AM

stangv8...not sure about them..but N Korea is the one who makes me nervous.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

Mar-12-13 7:55 AM

Cuts Cuts Cuts

but where are the revenue increases?

Oh..so to let the Bush tax breaks for those making more than $400,000 a year that is enough revenues? $2.50 in spending cuts for every $1 in revenue.

We need a balanced approach.

Cuts AND increase in revenues.

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

joew

Mar-12-13 9:01 AM

Judeye-great idea about arresting and prosecuting those that lied. Who lied by the way. If someone did lie can we have the bunch that lied to us about Benghazi brought up on charges as well?

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Steiner

Mar-12-13 9:02 AM

judeye, do you ever stop asking for taxes from other people ? i remember you said you could not afford a tax increase, but you believe others should. wow, how fair of you ? war in Iraq and destruction there ? who cares ? it is just the replay of the same west /east going on for a 1000 years. Plus, iraq does have a lot of oil. You do know about oil judeye , right ? Green energy is a dud. So Iraq is a continuation of Churchils work, plain and simple. read history judeye. Churchill made iraq. Supergiant oil fields. we should prosecute the democrats for being so stupid.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

joew

Mar-12-13 9:09 AM

Judeye-the President got revenue increases in a deal reached last month-remember? Now please show me one thing,just one thing the President has agreed to cut. He has not Judeye but he sure wants more of my money to fuel the out of control spending. How many more billions for the expanded head-start program that his own HHS study says is worthless once children reach third grade! The problem is spending,not revenue!

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 43 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web