Shameful

[BIGUN 1,419]

26 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

I'm thinking you need to take this one back to the drawing board.

Here let me help you off that podium. The point was things we do not need. Duplicitous Items. We have a Navy. Does the  Army need one. 

Military Chump Change?  100 million here, couple of hundred there. I thought the goal was to help fund Universal Healthcare and you asked for details.  

[JoeWeber 2,833]

Just now, BIGUN said:

Here let me help you off that podium. The point was things we do not need. Duplicitous Items. We have a Navy. Does the  Army need one. 

Military Chump Change?  100 million here, couple of hundred there. I thought the goal was to help fund Universal Healthcare and you asked for details.  

Sure, we duplicate too many things in the military. But even if you lumped all service branches together you'd still need to divide the operations into different segments to manage it all. The problem is much simpler: we buy the wrong stuff for the wrong reasons and need to stop. In WWII we were great because we were forced to build weapons that we needed, kaizen style, not ones we needed to placate politicians. Even now with an US M1A1 Abrams tank parked in Red Square Sen Wicker (R) is calling for increasing the budget to 5% GDP. The only way to do it, and it won't be done while we're on this side of the daisies, is to make a massive funding cut, like 25%, and tell them to make it work and to work together or new asses will be in the chairs.

[BIGUN 1,419]

12 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

The only way to do it, and it won't be done while we're on this side of the daisies, is to make a massive funding cut, like 25%, and tell them to make it work and to work together or new asses will be in the chairs.

I think it could be done with a forty-percent cut. <Pulls out chair . . .> I'll take this one. 

[JoeWeber 2,833]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

I think it could be done with a forty-percent cut. <Pulls out chair . . .> I'll take this one. 

I'd guess that, too, but I am not privy to any numbers. Interesting is that our vaunted Abrams tank, yes it's no the A2, we surplussed to Ukraine have no more battlefield value than WWII Russian T-34's: mobile artillery. Our 50 year old F-16's with the right missiles will likely balance things in the air. Clearly we don't need anymore tanks that burn the wrong fuel, if any at all, and it's doubtful we need the 6th generation airpower we are paying through the nose for. Like it or not there are serious limits on what conventional arms can achieve in todays world and that in itself may shape the coming world order. 

[jakee 1,563]

3 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Sure, we duplicate too many things in the military. But even if you lumped all service branches together you'd still need to divide the operations into different segments to manage it all. The problem is much simpler: we buy the wrong stuff for the wrong reasons and need to stop. In WWII we were great because we were forced to build weapons that we needed, kaizen style, not ones we needed to placate politicians. Even now with an US M1A1 Abrams tank parked in Red Square Sen Wicker (R) is calling for increasing the budget to 5% GDP. The only way to do it, and it won't be done while we're on this side of the daisies, is to make a massive funding cut, like 25%, and tell them to make it work and to work together or new asses will be in the chairs.

I seem to remember you vehemently arguing against this point when I was making it last year ; )

But now you've come around I think this is a "you're both right' situation. I think 'way too many aircraft carriers with more being built' is a problem that falls under the heading of duplication. Without looking into it I wouldn't be surprised if a single US Navy carrier group could take on the full force of any other Navy in the world with the possible exception of China and come out on top... and you've got 11 carriers with what, 5 more being built? I have no idea how many billion or trillion dollars that represents. And this isn't just a US problem - the UK has been cutting defence budgets for years and years and years while spending Billion upon Billion on two new aircraft carriers that have absolutely crippled our ability to fight a 'normal' modern conflict. We can't even afford enough planes to put on them and have to borrow a US Marine squadron or two (this is 100% a real thing BTW) instead so the flight deck doesn't look too empty and the Russians won't laugh at us. 

In the mean time there aren't enough 55mm rounds to keep Ukraine's guns firing. I seem to remember during the Iraq and Afghan counter-insurgencies that old WW2 storage bunkers were being raided for .50 cal ammunition because the defence industry was so focussed on the hi-tech weapons to fight WW3 with they'd stopped thinking about the everyday basics. We sure learned that lesson!

[BIGUN 1,419]

24 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Like it or not there are serious limits on what conventional arms can achieve in todays world and that in itself may shape the coming world order. 

^This. We should be looking forward. Not at retooling and upgrading the defense manufacturer's 70 year old arms inventory. 

[kallend 2,106]

There are 21 sovereign nations with no or no significant armed forces, and with the exception of Granada none of them have been overthrown or invaded in living memory. 

[JoeWeber 2,833]

Just now, kallend said:

There are 21 sovereign nations with no or no significant armed forces, and with the exception of Granada none of them have been overthrown or invaded in living memory. 

Seriously, John? That's a ridiculous list of nobody's except Iceland and we should throw their cheap asses out of NATO. And didn't we beat Grenada fair and square in 1983? That's like our only real win since WWII, I think.

[Phil1111 1,149]

4 hours ago, BIGUN said:

I think it could be done with a forty-percent cut. <Pulls out chair . . .> I'll take this one. 

Thats why we keep you around here.

IMO what the Ukraine war has shown is what a paper tiger Russia is. Its laughable how poorly the S-400 and S-300 systems are. Useful for shooting down airliners at 38,000' but not much more.

The overlooked conflict that altered the nature of war in the 21st century showed what was to come in modern wars and that was four years ago. Today a armed drone costs Ukraine an average of $500.

[ryoder 1,590]

4 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Thats why we keep you around here.

IMO what the Ukraine war has shown is what a paper tiger Russia is. Its laughable how poorly the S-400 and S-300 systems are. Useful for shooting down airliners at 38,000' but not much more.

The overlooked conflict that altered the nature of war in the 21st century showed what was to come in modern wars and that was four years ago. Today a armed drone costs Ukraine an average of $500.

Damn! Who knew an AN-2 was still useful in modern warfare???

[BIGUN 1,419]

1 hour ago, Phil1111 said:

Thats why we keep you around here.

ahhhh. You like me. I'm all warm and fuzzy. 

1 hour ago, Phil1111 said:

Today a armed drone costs Ukraine an average of $500.

Exactly.  

[SkyDekker 1,465]

On 6/5/2024 at 12:51 PM, kallend said:

There are 21 sovereign nations with no or no significant armed forces, and with the exception of Granada none of them have been overthrown or invaded in living memory. 

I know but us Canadians just depend on our US cousins....shamefully.