- 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: Shrink the military? Can right and left agree on this?
Posted on 1/25/14 at 7:09 am to kingbob
Posted on 1/25/14 at 7:09 am to kingbob
quote:
Eliminate (or substantially reduce) the Marine Corp.
I usually don't post anything in the Political Board.
But excuse me? Eliminate the Corps?
Also, you could at least spell Corps correctly if you're going to disrespect my Corps. We're already being substantially reduced in both numbers of personnel (look at what we'll be at by 2016), and funding (the Commandant actually released a letter this past fiscal year basically saying we were coming up on financial numbers that tremendously effect our combat readiness and tried to calm Marines down). Like usual, the Corps will continue to do more with less.
5
Posted on 1/25/14 at 7:14 am to THRILLHO
quote:
I don't think that either side's establishment wants to do this. Pubs like the money being taken from taxpayers and given to companies like Haliburton/Lockheed/Northrop. Dems like having government jobs (look at Virginia going blue). Both sides want to convince Joe and Jill America that impoverished brown people thousands of miles away are a massive danger to us.
Posted on 1/25/14 at 7:15 am to NOLA1128
muh muh muh corps!
Posted on 1/25/14 at 8:31 am to Patrick O Rly
Where an active component soldier cost one dollar a reserve component soldier cost the govt 25 cents. Look for the active component to take the brunt of the hits with reserve component funding to stay the same.
Put some sunshine on some of the "future weapons" programs, real savings could realized.
Without fail we always cut the military after a conflict and since WW1 it has bitten us in the arse. Technology is great, but we will always need an 18 or 19 year old doing work on the ground.
Put some sunshine on some of the "future weapons" programs, real savings could realized.
Without fail we always cut the military after a conflict and since WW1 it has bitten us in the arse. Technology is great, but we will always need an 18 or 19 year old doing work on the ground.
Posted on 1/25/14 at 9:18 am to asurob1
quote:
We played the same "games" every day with the soviets...trust me I was there.
It's what military's do.
The thing to hope is no one makes a mistake playing.
Mistakes get made. I trust you must have witnessed some of them that almost lead us to war with the Soviets.
Thinking that the Chinese and the Russians are going to play by the same rules tells all anyone needs to know about your military experience.
Posted on 1/25/14 at 12:32 pm to volnavy
In my old age I believe less and less in sending troops over seas. Saving South Korea is not a high enough priority to justify our troops staying there as hostages.
Posted on 1/25/14 at 12:45 pm to NOLA1128
quote:
Also, you could at least spell Corps correctly if you're going to disrespect my Corps
Oh please. The correct spelling doesn't make the need for the elimination of this product of yesteryear any less. Honestly, you don't need a standing army and a standing marine corp. Yes yes, you guys are great with taking beachheads blah blah blah. I get it, the Marines have been our shock troops for years and years and look great standing guard at embassys world-wide. But they are hardly necessary anymore. The army can learn to do any mission the Marines currently do. And we certainly no longer need the "Corps" to have it's own air wings.
This post was edited on 1/25/14 at 12:49 pm
Posted on 1/25/14 at 12:47 pm to volnavy
quote:
Thinking that the Chinese and the Russians are going to play by the same rules tells all anyone needs to know about your military experience.
By all means continue to use those boogie men to justify the existence of a bloated military.
Ike was correct.
Posted on 1/25/14 at 12:50 pm to zeebo
I can agree to that if other areas of federal spending are cut as well.......like maybe entitlements 
Posted on 1/25/14 at 1:00 pm to NOLA1128
quote:
Eliminate (or substantially reduce) the Marine Corp.
I usually don't post anything in the Political Board.
But excuse me? Eliminate the Corps?
I'm not a jarhead, but I think the idea of eliminating the Marines is ridiculous.
Here's an idea for cost savings in the USMC. Cut all the women who can't do 3 pull ups instead of sending them to remedial training to get them to pass muster. Stop spending money on social experiments.
Posted on 1/25/14 at 1:00 pm to infantry1026
I have no problem cutting the military if we had intelligent people who would cut in the right places first. Unfortunately they cut personnel, pay, and pensions before attacking bloated defense contracts. The force does need some cuts post war, but the amount the government wastes on crap like the Comanche Helicopter “7 Billion dollars” but it never sees production. There are hundreds of these projects that should be scraped first along with the over pain contractors.
Posted on 1/25/14 at 1:28 pm to Navtiger1
quote:
I have no problem cutting the military if we had intelligent people who would cut in the right places first. Unfortunately they cut personnel, pay, and pensions before attacking bloated defense contracts. The force does need some cuts post war, but the amount the government wastes on crap like the Comanche Helicopter “7 Billion dollars” but it never sees production. There are hundreds of these projects that should be scraped first along with the over pain contractors.
yup. That's the exact sort of thing I'm talking about. Some force reduction sure...but really the who defense "industry" is bloated. You want to cut social programs knock yourself out. But you can make some solid budget reductions in defense in shite we don't need.
Like the Marine Corps :P
Posted on 1/25/14 at 2:07 pm to asurob1
quote:
Like the Marine Corps :P
You say that, but the Army simply doesn't have the capabilities to do what we do. Yes, technically, you could train soldiers to do what a basic Marine is meant to... But, ultimately, it's going to cost money to do that, is it not?
The Marine Corps' budget is under 4% of the overall budget for the DOD. In all likelihood, you're going to have to spend more money to train and give the Army our capabilities than you will to just fund the Corps.
Fallujah is an example of why the Marine Corps needs to be around.
Just the name, legacy, and mystique of the United States Marine Corps is enough to keep it around... Especially considering the little that actually would be saved by cutting us out of the picture.
I agree, America doesn't need a Marine Corps, we could assimilate into the Army (and in all likelihood lose the efficiency in our role that we have). But that simply isn't a solution, or even a start to a solution. America wants Her Marine Corps, and we aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
R&D can easily get cut and save more money than cutting the USMC out.
This post was edited on 1/25/14 at 2:09 pm
Posted on 1/25/14 at 2:55 pm to NOLA1128
I have a lot of respect for how the Marines handle bidness, but I think that the role that Marines have been playing for the last few decades or more could easily be filled by our Army. I would say precisely the same concerning the role Navy SEALS are playing. Recently, the Marines have been creeping into missions and duties typically reserved for specific Army units. Apparently for no other reason than to grab hold of more of the defense budget. While i totally respect all my former and current Marine friends, it has been at best an ineffective duplication of capabilities (verboten by title 10). At worst it has been a tremendous failure in trying to convert the Marine mindset into one more capable of handling situations for which the Marines have no institutional knowlege from which to draw. Nothing personal, just my 2 cents.
ETA: The military could be effective at 50-60% of its current size. But before that degree of downsizing is possible we must eliminate the ridiculous amount of mission creep that is the current norm and make an honest reassessment of where our capabilities are.
ETA: The military could be effective at 50-60% of its current size. But before that degree of downsizing is possible we must eliminate the ridiculous amount of mission creep that is the current norm and make an honest reassessment of where our capabilities are.
This post was edited on 1/25/14 at 3:06 pm
Posted on 1/25/14 at 3:14 pm to NOLA1128
quote:
R&D can easily get cut and save more money than cutting the USMC out.
I respect the hell out of you guys, don't think for a moment I don't.
But the Marine Corp for all it's badassery is a symbolic unit of national pride. Is it an effective fighting unit. Damn right. But rolling it's capabilities into the army would more then make sense. Yes, upfront you would likely be spending more dollars to give Army units marine capabilities and training, but in terms of long range financial planning it more then makes sense.
Every service is going to come to the table and try and protect it's stuff. In the marine's case it's stuff is it's air units and ground forces.
Both capabilities can be rolled into Naval air and Army ground forces.
Posted on 1/25/14 at 3:16 pm to MrCarton
quote:
ETA: The military could be effective at 50-60% of its current size. But before that degree of downsizing is possible we must eliminate the ridiculous amount of mission creep that is the current norm and make an honest reassessment of where our capabilities are.
This right here.
You cannot downsize our military and expect it to continue doing the same missions it currently is tasked with.
That would destroy morale.
You have to downsize both.
Do we really need bases in Germany? etc etc.
Posted on 1/25/14 at 3:36 pm to asurob1
quote:
Yes, upfront you would likely be spending more dollars to give Army units marine capabilities and training, but in terms of long range financial planning it more then makes sense.
In most cases Marine and Army capabilities are similar if not identical. They differ more in approach and mentality more than anything. The question I ask myself is: is this difference worth the duplicate capability? In most cases I say it is not.
Fallujah was a pretty bad place, but do people really think Army units couldn't/didnt operate within those areas? Of course they did. The same could be said of similar situations in Afghanistan. The Marines essentially had the same responsibility as the rest of the ground forces. The fact that we had too much ground and not enough troops for the strategy was the prime reason they had such heavy involvement to begin with. Once again, this is no slight on the Marines. Those guys lay the wood.
Posted on 1/25/14 at 3:44 pm to asurob1
quote:
Do we really need bases in Germany? etc etc.
The wing commander at Luke AFB, AZ has more airplanes than all of USAFE. The USAF is offering $250k retention bonuses now to pilots fleeing for the airlines because they're getting 10 hours flying time per month. Go Navy and all that stuff, but in Iraq they were basically cheerleaders in air superiority. Huzzahs for the grunts and jarheads, but if you ain't got air superiority then you're screwed.
Just like you wouldn't expect a couch potatoe to be able to run a marathon tomorrow, don't expect to put the military in a vacuum sealed container you can pop open when ever Obama wants to draw a red line somewhere.
Posted on 1/25/14 at 3:48 pm to son of arlo
(no message)
This post was edited on 1/27/14 at 12:53 am
Posted on 1/25/14 at 3:48 pm to son of arlo
quote:Fighter school house combined with foreign school house, other than the Instructor Pilots there is really no capability at a base with a shite ton of F-16 D models which aren't used in combat.
The wing commander at Luke AFB, AZ has more airplanes than all of USAFE
quote:Well played.
Just like you wouldn't expect a couch potatoe to be able to run a marathon tomorrow, don't expect to put the military in a vacuum sealed container you can pop open when ever Obama wants to draw a red line somewhere.
Page 6 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News