The Biden Presidency - Page 80

dudalb · Today, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by ahhell

I'd more than that, that someone somewhere already has.

I think is was Wilson that started that tradition. Presidents are required to report on the state of the Union, it started as mostly a written report.

And we are obligated by treaty to defend all but about four of those 13, mostly from two of those 13.

Personally, I don't disagree, we spend too much on the military, but what happens if we stop? I think the results of that will be terrible unless some other at least equally responsible actors step up. Europe or the Asian democracies need to before we can realistically pull back with out some fairly dire consequences.

What i want to know is where exactly do we make the cuts?
Sorry, but I still feel a lot of this is driven by a dislike of the military based on ideological grounds.
I also think a lot of htem know nothing about modern military and defense strategy.

Paul2 · Today, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by dudalb

What i want to know is where exactly do we make the cuts?
Sorry, but I still feel a lot of this is driven by a dislike of the military based on ideological grounds.
I also think a lot of htem know nothing about modern military and defense strategy.

Here's one proposal. It's not huge cuts.

dudalb · Today, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by Paul2

Here's one proposal. It's not huge cuts.

Excellent article.
I am very skeptical about the need to upgrade our Nuclear Arsenal. It.s not like you need a nuke to be superaccurate......
The F 35 i have not made up my mind on. It has had a lot of problems, but our current strike fighter fleet is simply wearing out and is going to have to be replaced. Don't know if back to square one is the most economical move.
And some troubled programs do have good endings. The Osprey had more of it's share of problems, but they seemed to have been finally fixed, and it's working like it was supposed to..and the services all love it. And, once again it was a case that the heavy helicopter fleet was simply wearing out and needed to be replaced.

Belz... · Today, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by dudalb

Sorry, but I still feel a lot of this is driven by a dislike of the military based on ideological grounds.

Your feelings on the matter are irrelevant, as you well know.

Captain_Swoop · Today, 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

If you want to argue the military is overfunded, OK, but question is how strong a Military sould the US have? IMHO, given the state of the world, we need a pretty damn strong one. if we can have that for less money, I am all for that.

Does it have to be one strong enough to take on all the rest of the worlds armies at once?

dirtywick · Today, 07:56 PM

I guess, but with the way wars are actually being fought, when's the last time the US got into an air battle, or a naval battle, or a tank battle? There's an awful lot of equipment that doesn't really do anything, and if that stuff exists solely as a deterrent, they already have better ones. I think it could be stronger, cheaper, and more practical.

Aridas · Today, 08:49 PM

Originally Posted by dirtywick

I guess, but with the way wars are actually being fought, when's the last time the US got into an air battle, or a naval battle, or a tank battle? There's an awful lot of equipment that doesn't really do anything, and if that stuff exists solely as a deterrent, they already have better ones. I think it could be stronger, cheaper, and more practical.

The cyber defense front, in particular, is much more urgent to focus on than building more tanks, at last check. Ships and Air have at least some notable general value. Tanks... if Russia invades Ukraine and we actually provide some direct help, then maybe there would be some use for them in modern times?

Today, 11:28 AM	#3161
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 50,527	Originally Posted by ahhell I'd more than that, that someone somewhere already has. I think is was Wilson that started that tradition. Presidents are required to report on the state of the Union, it started as mostly a written report. And we are obligated by treaty to defend all but about four of those 13, mostly from two of those 13. Personally, I don't disagree, we spend too much on the military, but what happens if we stop? I think the results of that will be terrible unless some other at least equally responsible actors step up. Europe or the Asian democracies need to before we can realistically pull back with out some fairly dire consequences. What i want to know is where exactly do we make the cuts? Sorry, but I still feel a lot of this is driven by a dislike of the military based on ideological grounds. I also think a lot of htem know nothing about modern military and defense strategy.
	__________________ Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein.

Today, 11:32 AM	#3162
Paul2 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,667	Originally Posted by dudalb What i want to know is where exactly do we make the cuts? Sorry, but I still feel a lot of this is driven by a dislike of the military based on ideological grounds. I also think a lot of htem know nothing about modern military and defense strategy. Here's one proposal. It's not huge cuts.
Paul2 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,667	__________________ It's nice to be nice to the nice. Aristotle, so far as I know, was the first man to proclaim explicitly that man is a rational animal. His reason for this view was one which does not now seem very impressive: it was, that some people can do sums. - Bertrand Russell

Today, 11:51 AM	#3163
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 50,527	Originally Posted by Paul2 Here's one proposal. It's not huge cuts. Excellent article. I am very skeptical about the need to upgrade our Nuclear Arsenal. It.s not like you need a nuke to be superaccurate...... The F 35 i have not made up my mind on. It has had a lot of problems, but our current strike fighter fleet is simply wearing out and is going to have to be replaced. Don't know if back to square one is the most economical move. And some troubled programs do have good endings. The Osprey had more of it's share of problems, but they seemed to have been finally fixed, and it's working like it was supposed to..and the services all love it. And, once again it was a case that the heavy helicopter fleet was simply wearing out and needed to be replaced.
	__________________ Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein.

Today, 11:55 AM	#3164
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 92,046	Originally Posted by dudalb Sorry, but I still feel a lot of this is driven by a dislike of the military based on ideological grounds. Your feelings on the matter are irrelevant, as you well know.
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

Today, 07:56 PM	#3166
dirtywick Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 3,315	I guess, but with the way wars are actually being fought, when's the last time the US got into an air battle, or a naval battle, or a tank battle? There's an awful lot of equipment that doesn't really do anything, and if that stuff exists solely as a deterrent, they already have better ones. I think it could be stronger, cheaper, and more practical.
dirtywick Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 3,315

Today, 04:59 PM	#3165
Captain_Swoop Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 32,680	Originally Posted by dudalb If you want to argue the military is overfunded, OK, but question is how strong a Military sould the US have? IMHO, given the state of the world, we need a pretty damn strong one. if we can have that for less money, I am all for that. Does it have to be one strong enough to take on all the rest of the worlds armies at once?

Today, 08:49 PM	#3167
Aridas Crazy Little Green Dragon Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: East Coast, US Posts: 7,574	Originally Posted by dirtywick I guess, but with the way wars are actually being fought, when's the last time the US got into an air battle, or a naval battle, or a tank battle? There's an awful lot of equipment that doesn't really do anything, and if that stuff exists solely as a deterrent, they already have better ones. I think it could be stronger, cheaper, and more practical. The cyber defense front, in particular, is much more urgent to focus on than building more tanks, at last check. Ships and Air have at least some notable general value. Tanks... if Russia invades Ukraine and we actually provide some direct help, then maybe there would be some use for them in modern times?
	__________________ So sayeth the crazy little dragon. Last edited by Aridas; Today at 08:55 PM.