- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Let's talk about military spending
Posted on 3/17/17 at 12:21 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
Posted on 3/17/17 at 12:21 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
A Marine advocating the elimination of the Army and Air Force.
This is my shocked face.
I do like the idea of renaming the Marines to Sea Soldier
This is my shocked face.
I do like the idea of renaming the Marines to Sea Soldier
1
Posted on 3/17/17 at 12:29 pm to Centinel
quote:It's a great idea.
A Marine advocating the elimination of the Army and Air Force.
quote:That's just dumb
I do like the idea of renaming the Marines to Sea Soldier
Posted on 3/17/17 at 12:39 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
I think there's definitely room to reduce the size of both, but outright elimination? No.
1. Who handles the nukes?
2. Force Projection would go to shite. That's not something you can just ramp up. Not in this day and age.
3. The loss of knowledge at the tactical and strategic level. Again, not something you can just ramp up in this day and age. And not something the National Guard can effectively maintain. It's a full time job.
4. What about the cyber mission force?
That's just off the top of my head.
1. Who handles the nukes?
2. Force Projection would go to shite. That's not something you can just ramp up. Not in this day and age.
3. The loss of knowledge at the tactical and strategic level. Again, not something you can just ramp up in this day and age. And not something the National Guard can effectively maintain. It's a full time job.
4. What about the cyber mission force?
That's just off the top of my head.
Posted on 3/17/17 at 12:52 pm to Centinel
quote:The Navy
1. Who handles the nukes?
quote:Force projection is the Navy's thing man. They're the best in the world at it and it's pretty much their mission in life.
2. Force Projection would go to shite. That's not something you can just ramp up. Not in this day and age.
quote:Meh. We can obviously keep some guys on as full timers to maintain the knowledge base as a cadre. Under my plan the guard would be a lot better funded than they are now.
3. The loss of knowledge at the tactical and strategic level. Again, not something you can just ramp up in this day and age. And not something the National Guard can effectively maintain. It's a full time job.
quote:The Navy or perhaps even create a new branch all together to conduct this mission. It's not unprecedented. We created a whole new branch the last time a brand new facet of warfare was developed with the Air Force. Although arguable that never should've happened.
4. What about the cyber mission force?
Posted on 3/17/17 at 1:09 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
Don't we already have the largest military budget by far of any other country? Why do we need such a dramatic increase unless preparing for WW3?
Posted on 3/17/17 at 1:15 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Force projection is the Navy's thing man. They're the best in the world at it and it's pretty much their mission in life.
I was talking more in the realm of the Strategic Airlift capability. But I'm going to guess your response will be "Navy can do it."
I mean basically what you're advocating is that the Air Force just gets re-flagged as the Navy.
quote:
Meh. We can obviously keep some guys on as full timers to maintain the knowledge base as a cadre. Under my plan the guard would be a lot better funded than they are now.
The issue isn't funding, the issue is PERSTEMPO. Unless you mean massively expanding the AGR positions. Us M-Day folks have full time jobs, and any more of a increase in PERSTEMPO would put our jobs at risk.
quote:
The Navy or perhaps even create a new branch all together to conduct this mission. It's not unprecedented. We created a whole new branch the last time a brand new facet of warfare was developed with the Air Force. Although arguable that never should've happened.
Not the Navy. You guys suck at cyber
I will say an entire new branch is probably necessary. I've still got quite a few friends and colleagues on the active side in various cyber units, and one and all they say "Big Army/Navy/AirForce/etc" is killing their ability to keep technical skills up and be flexible. 
Posted on 3/17/17 at 1:17 pm to Centinel
The Navy is great at everything except ship commanders not getting fired
Posted on 3/17/17 at 1:20 pm to Centinel
quote:Air national guard dude.
was talking more in the realm of the Strategic Airlift capability. But I'm going to guess your response will be "Navy can do it."
quote:More of both really. Increase the number of required drill periods from two days per month to three or four. Increase the AT period from 2 weeks to 3 or 4. That's all negotiable.
The issue isn't funding, the issue is PERSTEMPO. Unless you mean massively expanding the AGR positions. Us M-Day folks have full time jobs, and any more of a increase in PERSTEMPO would put our jobs at risk.
quote:Im not married to any idea really. The IC can continue do it for all I care.
Not the Navy. You guys suck at cyber I will say an entire new branch is probably necessary. I've still got quite a few friends and colleagues on the active side in various cyber units, and one and all they say "Big Army/Navy/AirForce/etc" is killing their ability to keep technical skills up and be flexible.
Posted on 3/17/17 at 1:21 pm to Centinel
quote:The Navy can do all that.
I think there's definitely room to reduce the size of both, but outright elimination? No.
1. Who handles the nukes?
2. Force Projection would go to shite. That's not something you can just ramp up. Not in this day and age.
3. The loss of knowledge at the tactical and strategic level. Again, not something you can just ramp up in this day and age. And not something the National Guard can effectively maintain. It's a full time job.
4. What about the cyber mission force?
That's just off the top of my head.
Sit down.
Posted on 3/17/17 at 1:21 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
We need to spend less on social services, etc., for the military. This business of allowing, particularly junior enlisted, to move their families around the world with all expenses paid every few years is for the birds.
This post was edited on 3/17/17 at 1:27 pm
Posted on 3/17/17 at 1:23 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Air national guard dude.
Hmmm...good point.
quote:
More of both really. Increase the number of required drill periods from two days per month to three or four. Increase the AT period from 2 weeks to 3 or 4. That's all negotiable.
That will never fly. You'd lose most of the Guard with that one. You're talking taking half of my weekends a month away, and then asking my employer to absorb me being gone an additional week or two.
That's a big ole bucket of frick no. I'd be out of the Guard quick, fast, and in a hurry...and so would most of the force.
quote:
The IC can continue do it for all I care.
The IC does very little in the overall cyber mission, and almost exclusively offense. Just a FYI.
Posted on 3/17/17 at 1:24 pm to Tchefuncte Tiger
quote:
If they wanted you to have a family, they would have issued you one.
Stop it already.....I've been hearing this shite for almost 40 yrs and it's still fricking stupid
Posted on 3/17/17 at 1:25 pm to Tchefuncte Tiger
quote:
We need to spend less on social services, etc., for the military. If they wanted you to have a family, they would have issued you one. This business of allowing, particularly junior enlisted, to move their families around the world with all expenses paid every few years is for the birds.
You do realize we're an all-volunteer force right? Good luck recruiting when you have to tell kids that they can never get married while wearing the uniform.
Posted on 3/17/17 at 1:26 pm to Tchefuncte Tiger
quote:Oh I've posted many times that enlisted members below the rank of E-5 shouldn't be allowed to get married. In fact, I don't even know why we have 9 enlisted ranks. We could probably cut a few Also we need to get women out of the military. Getting rid of the women would save well over the 54 billion Trump wants to increase by.
We need to spend less on social services, etc., for the military. If they wanted you to have a family, they would have issued you one. This business of allowing, particularly junior enlisted, to move their families around the world with all expenses paid every few years is for the birds.
Posted on 3/17/17 at 1:27 pm to Wtodd
quote:
Stop it already.....I've been hearing this shite for almost 40 yrs and it's still fricking stupid
Edited to remove the phrase.
Posted on 3/17/17 at 1:27 pm to Centinel
quote:
The IC does very little in the overall cyber mission, and almost exclusively offense. Just a FYI.
...and before NavyTiger gets all up in my arse, I'm talking pure "hands on keyboard", not the analysis part.
Posted on 3/17/17 at 1:27 pm to Centinel
quote:
You do realize we're an all-volunteer force right? Good luck recruiting when you have to tell kids that they can never get married while wearing the uniform.
Where did I say they can't get married?
Posted on 3/17/17 at 1:29 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Getting rid of the women would save well over the 54 billion Trump wants to increase by.
I won't go that far, but the definition of fraternization should be broadened.
Posted on 3/17/17 at 1:29 pm to Tchefuncte Tiger
quote:
Edited to remove the phrase
Posted on 3/17/17 at 1:29 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
I for one support doing away with the active duty Army and Air Force and having a large powerful Navy while pulling out of NATO completely and telling Japan and Korea best of luck.
You lost me there.
Page 3 of 32
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News