Pentagon Plans to Shrink Army to Pre-World War II Level

[I B Hankering]

Pentagon Plans to Shrink Army to Pre-World War II Level

"The officials acknowledge that budget cuts will impose greater risk on the armed forces if they are again ordered to carry out two large-scale military actions at the same time: Success would take longer, they say, and there would be a larger number of casualties. Officials also say that a smaller military could invite adventurism by adversaries."


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/us...-ii-level.html

[Old-T]

I suspect you and I agree that this is a dumb way to address the budget deficit, however given how much cannot be addressed in the political gridlock we've been living in for over a decade, why are you surprised?

I am just shocked it has taken so long. It will never be reasonably addressed so long as we have the budget used as a political toy instead of working towards a serious governing compromise. And within the DoD budget--whatever size it is--both parties divert too much of it to lard. Why have we not had another round of BRAC when it is one of the few ways to save D0D $$$ with minimal loss of capability? Why were the last few BRACs 80% fights over pork and 20% about where we could actually cut without pain? Why do we keep buying military weaponry based upon whose congressional district it is built in instead of whether we need it? Why does congress redefine statistical terms such as "mean time between failure" as a ruse to shuttle funds to their pet companies (and yes, both parties are good at playing this game). You've never seen so much cooperation across the aisle as when an entire state delegation to congress--Dem and Rep--link arms to tell the SecDef, "Hell no you won't close a base in OUR state!".

[LexusLover]

I would rather send a pay check to a servicemember who is ready, willing, and able to work for it,
than a 4th generation welfare recipient, who can, but won't.

[i'va biggen]

If they shrink the military will they quit trying to impose our will on every other country in the world?

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I would rather send a pay check to a servicemember who is ready, willing, and able to work for it,
than a 4th generation welfare recipient, who can, but won't.

While I agree with you the way you worded it, that isn't the point. The point is that we haven't had a functioning government in about 20 years because of the Hatfield McCoy approach both parties have taken to politics. They are actively seeking gridlock as a weapon to hurl at the other side in a stupid attempt to "win" instead of govern.

But until the wackos of boht ends--the Pelosis AND the Cruzes--are thrown out on their asses the inevitable result is a continued shrinkage of the DoD budget.

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by Old-T

While I agree with you the way you worded it, that isn't the point. The point is that we haven't had a functioning government in about 20 years because of the Hatfield McCoy approach both parties have taken to politics. They are actively seeking gridlock as a weapon to hurl at the other side in a stupid attempt to "win" instead of govern.

But until the wackos of boht ends--the Pelosis AND the Cruzes--are thrown out on their asses the inevitable result is a continued shrinkage of the DoD budget.

This is what happens when the attitude of those in charge becomes "Party first, Country second"

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I would rather send a pay check to a servicemember who is ready, willing, and able to work for it,
than a 4th generation welfare recipient, who can, but won't.

+1 Exactly!

BTW, here's a couple of pictures typifying the U.S. Army's pre-WWII *readiness*: mock-plywood tanks mounted on truck chassis and bicycle tires.

[Jackie S]

About 2000 years ago, a group of Roman Citizens were probably sitting around the Forum saying, "in these modern times, being the most powerful Country on Earth, what could possibly happen to us".

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

About 2000 years ago, a group of Roman Citizens were probably sitting around the Forum saying, "in these modern times, being the most powerful Country on Earth, what could possibly happen to us".

Panem et Circenses ("bread and circuses") were all that mattered to the demagogues and the mobs they appeased. How little things have changed.

[Mr MojoRisin]

I wonder if those budget cuts on the Military will be utilized to establish Obama's civilian security force. Iam sure everyone remembers, "A Civilian Security Force" just as strong, just as powerful as our military, and just as well funded. It does take money to accomplish that.


Jim

[Guest032516]

Awesome. Best news I have heard in a long time.

The Army simply does not need as many troops as it has in the past. Even with 450,000 troops, that is more than enough to stop any threat that we might realistically encounter.

It might not be enough to fight the Russians on one front and the Chinese on another, but that isn't going to happen in any near future scenario.

And, if it became likely, that just means the Europeans will have to spend realistic amounts on their defense departments. Even if they have to give up their 35 hour work weeks and 6 weeks vacation per year in order to increase their GDP.

We don't need mass troops anymore. Precision guided munitions and drones have vastly extended our lethality and effectiveness.

We need a lighter faster military that takes on shorter deployments.

If these cuts mean we can no longer engage in decade-long nation-building projects, that is GREAT.

If a future conflict involves a Muslim nation/insurgency on one side and a non-Muslim nation/group of people opposing them, then we should arm and assist the non-Muslim side.

If two Muslim nations/radical groups are fighting each other, we should sell arms to both sides and let them decimate each other.

[i'va biggen]

We don't need all those troops we got drones.

[TheDaliLama]

We don't need troops to fight climate change.

Which after all is the real enemy of mankind.

[Jewish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Awesome. Best news I have heard in a long time.

The Army simply does not need as many troops as it has in the past. Even with 450,000 troops, that is more than enough to stop any threat that we might realistically encounter.

It might not be enough to fight the Russians on one front and the Chinese on another, but that isn't going to happen in any near future scenario.

And, if it became likely, that just means the Europeans will have to spend realistic amounts on their defense departments. Even if they have to give up their 35 hour work weeks and 6 weeks vacation per year in order to increase their GDP.

We don't need mass troops anymore. Precision guided munitions and drones have vastly extended our lethality and effectiveness.

We need a lighter faster military that takes on shorter deployments.

If these cuts mean we can no longer engage in decade-long nation-building projects, that is GREAT.

If a future conflict involves a Muslim nation/insurgency on one side and a non-Muslim nation/group of people opposing them, then we should arm and assist the non-Muslim side.

If two Muslim nations/radical groups are fighting each other, we should sell arms to both sides and let them decimate each other.

Excellent post. Just as you no longer need a secretarial pool when one woman can handle the job with her own computer, word program, and email and CRM, every other outfit in the country has greater productivity, so should his majesty's army.
Vehicles, planes, tanks, etc. also need less maintenance, fewer crews are needed to deliver missles, etc.

[BigLouie]

The armed forces problem is meddling by Congress. They force them to buy systems they don't want or need because it means jobs in their district or they own stock in the company most likely to benefit.