Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Defense Secretary Hagel plans to shrink Army to Pre-WWII level. But wait, there's more. A-10, buh-bye. Hello F-35. U-2, buh-bye. Hello Global Hawks   (nytimes.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

8488 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Feb 2014 at 7:05 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



248 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-02-24 02:21:09 PM  

Detinwolf: vygramul: not to mention competing aircraft.

Our 187 F-22s will shot down everything else for the next 50 years

a/c spending at this point is primarily just welfare for LM


Does an F-22 come with a hook?
 
2014-02-24 02:23:10 PM  

codenamewizard: I see the charts of what the US spends compared to others in the world.  What I am curious about is if the US actually gets value for what it spends.  Do all other nations pay 400 dollars for a hammer and more than 600 for a toilet seat?  Is the pentagon still missing vast amounts of money?


When we shoot at a transmitter on an apartment building, we don't level the entire block. Also, we get shot down a whole lot less. So, yes, if you value life, then there's a huge difference.
 
2014-02-24 02:23:58 PM  

udhq: Meh, something needs to change.  We live in an era when large-scale conflicts between superpowers don't make sense for anybody, and they're more easily avoided than at any time in history.


Problem is that the current stalemate was created by those massive forces.
Superpowers duking it out had the side effect of creating stability (such as it is) in many parts of the world. Having power in reserve meant that we could quickly become involved in many things at once, which helps our foreign policy and the bottom line back home.

If you suddenly scale down those "unnecessary" forces then you'll probably find new warlords stepping up to fill the vacuum, starting new fires in the process. Disasters will happen and you won't have an extra dozen ships to throw at a relief effort.

There's alot of waste to be trimmed from the budget, but most often we end up in a cycle of trashing our existing force just so we can buy it all back in a few years. I doubt it will be much different this time.

/The threat of war is never going away.
/The day that it becomes more than a threat is a bad time to start rebuilding.
 
2014-02-24 02:31:40 PM  
What I don't understand is -- liberals want government to spend money, supposedly that creates jobs. They want government to run everything. They believe in government funded pensions. Military does all of that and actually provides a service to the country, unlike welfare. So why the hell would libs be anti-military? Makes no sense. Is it because the military has guns and guns are bad? Why are you all anti-military, but will rejoice as more and more people get food stamps, unemployment, section 8 housing, and methadone?
 
2014-02-24 02:35:47 PM  

Tannhauser: The Air Force has always hated the A-10.  It's unglamorous and isn't a sleek fighter jet.  But it is un-paralled in its role.  They've tried to kill it for thirty years.

Fark the F-35.  I say that as an ex-AF man who loves fighter jets.  Fark that boondoggle.  Keep researching fighter jets that's fine, but don't produce any when the F-16 and Super Hornet are still more than capable.


For good reason.  The A-10 cannot operate in an environment where we don't have 100% air superiority.  If the Cold War had ever turned hot the life span of these things would have been measured in seconds.  Furthermore, as much as people love the A-10 it actually plays only a small role in our CAS action today.  For the Air Force F-15's and F-16 are doing the majority of the heavy lifting.  If you are a grunt on the ground taking fire the last thing you want to hear ist hat air support is 30 minutes away because the A-10s can't get there any faster.

I am a former Air Force Crew Chief.  I like the A-10, but in an age of more limited budgets the airframe just doesn't make any sense.
 
2014-02-24 02:45:43 PM  

GameSprocket: I thought we quit making the A-10 at least a decade ago.


You don't create new jobs in your district by not building new planes.
 
2014-02-24 02:54:36 PM  

Born_Again_Bavarian: Tannhauser: The Air Force has always hated the A-10.  It's unglamorous and isn't a sleek fighter jet.  But it is un-paralled in its role.  They've tried to kill it for thirty years.

Fark the F-35.  I say that as an ex-AF man who loves fighter jets.  Fark that boondoggle.  Keep researching fighter jets that's fine, but don't produce any when the F-16 and Super Hornet are still more than capable.

For good reason.  The A-10 cannot operate in an environment where we don't have 100% air superiority.  If the Cold War had ever turned hot the life span of these things would have been measured in seconds.  Furthermore, as much as people love the A-10 it actually plays only a small role in our CAS action today.  For the Air Force F-15's and F-16 are doing the majority of the heavy lifting.  If you are a grunt on the ground taking fire the last thing you want to hear ist hat air support is 30 minutes away because the A-10s can't get there any faster.

I am a former Air Force Crew Chief.  I like the A-10, but in an age of more limited budgets the airframe just doesn't make any sense.


Like the B-52? Let's face it, unless libs really get their way, air superiority will never be an issue again, ever. How many times have we heard an aging technology is obsolete? We will never need guns on aircraft again... never need tanks again.... never need heavy bombers again.... we keep doing the same damn thing, new, expensive stuff, then we just go right back to what works.

During the Gulf war, for instance, there was no competition to the A-10 in terms of damage dealt to ground vehicles. The F-16 and F-15 simply cannot do what the A-10 does nearly as well. Low speed and low altitude maneuverability is unmatched in the A-10. Been plenty of instances where a pilot has to get way down, and use his eyes. Going to be hugely exposed to ground-fire. This has not changed since WW II. Dedicated ground attack planes like the Stuka and Sturmovik always do their job better than a fighter-bomber will.
 
2014-02-24 03:07:21 PM  

Thunderpipes: Born_Again_Bavarian: Tannhauser: The Air Force has always hated the A-10.  It's unglamorous and isn't a sleek fighter jet.  But it is un-paralled in its role.  They've tried to kill it for thirty years.

Fark the F-35.  I say that as an ex-AF man who loves fighter jets.  Fark that boondoggle.  Keep researching fighter jets that's fine, but don't produce any when the F-16 and Super Hornet are still more than capable.

For good reason.  The A-10 cannot operate in an environment where we don't have 100% air superiority.  If the Cold War had ever turned hot the life span of these things would have been measured in seconds.  Furthermore, as much as people love the A-10 it actually plays only a small role in our CAS action today.  For the Air Force F-15's and F-16 are doing the majority of the heavy lifting.  If you are a grunt on the ground taking fire the last thing you want to hear ist hat air support is 30 minutes away because the A-10s can't get there any faster.

I am a former Air Force Crew Chief.  I like the A-10, but in an age of more limited budgets the airframe just doesn't make any sense.

Like the B-52? Let's face it, unless libs really get their way, air superiority will never be an issue again, ever. How many times have we heard an aging technology is obsolete? We will never need guns on aircraft again... never need tanks again.... never need heavy bombers again.... we keep doing the same damn thing, new, expensive stuff, then we just go right back to what works.

During the Gulf war, for instance, there was no competition to the A-10 in terms of damage dealt to ground vehicles. The F-16 and F-15 simply cannot do what the A-10 does nearly as well. Low speed and low altitude maneuverability is unmatched in the A-10. Been plenty of instances where a pilot has to get way down, and use his eyes. Going to be hugely exposed to ground-fire. This has not changed since WW II. Dedicated ground attack planes like the Stuka and Sturmovik always do their job better than ...


If that were true then the A-10s would be doing most of the CAS work............but they're not.  If the budget was bigger then you can easily justify the modest expense of the A-10.  But going forward budgets are going to really matter and with that the A-10 makes very little sense.
 
2014-02-24 03:09:01 PM  

valivian: whistleridge: slayer199: Getting rid of the A-10 is a huge mistake.  There's nothing else like it for CAS.

I doubt it winds up getting cut. Air Force has always hated it because it can't dogfight, but it's just too cheap and too good at what it does. All Congresscritters who don't want to lose the jobs associated with it need to do is trot a few soldiers out, have them testify about how strong it is and how it is one of the few weapons we have that enemies truly fear, and viola! It stays.

It's dead.  There's A-10s on my base.  They just can't anything besides CAS and there are other airframes that can do more.


I will continue to disagree. They are incredibly cost-effective for what they do, they're almost impossible to shoot down, they have ridiculous loiter time, they have very low cost of maintenance, they're dirt cheap, and they have a cult following.

I understand what you're saying, but I think the 'come on...they're so cheap, just keep them on' argument will win out. I could be wrong, but I think they survive one more round of budget cuts.
 
2014-02-24 03:14:45 PM  
Considering that the A-10 was already on its way out no matter what, and the F-35 was on its way in no matter what, and the U-2 is very old and easily replaced now, this is surprisingly sensible coming from Hagel...  I also would have chosen to take out most of the budget cuts on the army.  the Navy and the Airforce does the vast majority of power projection for the US, and the Army is much easier to re-size in a short period of time than the Air force or Navy, which takes years to commission new ships and planes...
 
2014-02-24 03:16:08 PM  
We're going more lean which means that a one trick pony like the A-10 is actually a liability in the field. While there is no question the A-10 is a good tank buster in low intensity type conflict against unsophisticated enemies the truth is the F-35 can do many other things that the A-10 simply can't.

In this day and age where fiscal responsibility is key, we need a platform that can can deliver maximum efficiency and flexible enough to  adapt to various mission requirements.

The A-10 has proven it;s worth in the past but it is quite obvious unfortunately that even with upgrades, she just can't be networked (netcentric) with other aircrafts  for 21st century warfare. Her lack of stealth will be proven fatal against enemy with modern day air defense assets while the F-35 has a high rate of survivability in even the highest threat environment.
 
2014-02-24 03:18:23 PM  

dittybopper: Tsar_Bomba1: dittybopper: RedPhoenix122: I'm OK with this.

I'm certainly OK with replacing manned U-2's with unmanned (but remotely piloted) Global Hawks.


There was just an article in Wired about the updating of the current U-2s.  The Global Hawk can't fly as high (and I'm guessing not as fast) nor carry the amount of gear/imaging equipment that the U2 does.  This would be stupid and a big mistake.

The reason the U-2 needed to fly as high as it does was to make it survivable in an era when you needed a pilot, and having one come down in hostile territory was a bad thing.

That extra height dictated that the camera needed to be higher resolution, so it was bigger than prior reconnaissance cameras.

In other words, the reason the U-2 can carry more is that it needs to fly higher, because it's got a pilot in it.  If you can fly lower, you don't need as big of a camera:  That's just simple physics.

Now, it's true that you may well end up with some of them getting destroyed, but you're not putting any lives as risk, so you may well feel that the risk of losing a $222 million Global Hawk is worth it to get some vital information (that's streamed back live, btw) that you might not want to have risked sending a piloted U-2 getting, especially if there was a chance that the pilot could be captured.

A remotely piloted aircraft can't the people who pick up the pieces of wreckage what it was looking for, but a pilot can.


The GH cannot carry an OBC (high resolution camera) payload that the U2 can. Do you really think the U2 can't stream back live images? And both aircraft are only useful in an area where the US already has air superiority.
 
2014-02-24 03:18:56 PM  

jso2897: vygramul: Tannhauser: The Air Force has always hated the A-10.  It's unglamorous and isn't a sleek fighter jet.  But it is un-paralled in its role.  They've tried to kill it for thirty years.

Fark the F-35.  I say that as an ex-AF man who loves fighter jets.  Fark that boondoggle.  Keep researching fighter jets that's fine, but don't produce any when the F-16 and Super Hornet are still more than capable.

Depends on how many aviators you're willing to lose. Politicians understand low body-counts keep them safe. So even if the F-35 was only 10% better at keeping the aviator safe, they'd go for it.

The F-15,16, and 18s are all darn fine 4th gen aircraft. But they're 4th gen. And the SAMs have only gotten more dangerous, not to mention competing aircraft.

The best way to keep aviators safe is to not put them in aircraft to begin with. I realize the service, especially the AF, have a strong emotional attachment to the act of flying - but there is less and less reason for warplanes to haul meat around with them every year. We could save a lot of money and get the jump on the competition if we accepted that now, rather than later. But we won't - the very idea invokes apoplectic rage in some quarters.


Why do I get the feeling the first uploaded consciousnesses, in the science fiction sense, will be installed to pilot drones :(
 
2014-02-24 03:23:10 PM  

generallyso: The top 20 countries ranked by global military expenditure in 2007, in millions of constant 2005 US dollars:

[i.imgur.com image 590x417]

I think we'll be okay. Just a hunch.


To be fair, when that graph was made we where in the middle of 2 wars...  I would like to see this graph re-made with the projected post-cuts defense budget...  keeping in mind that china's defense spending is going up every single year...  the graph is likely to noticeably change.
 
2014-02-24 03:26:19 PM  
We can't get rid of the A-10s, how else will we fight the giant alien robots?

js.defencetalk.com
 
2014-02-24 03:47:45 PM  

SuperNinjaToad: We're going more lean which means that a one trick pony like the A-10 is actually a liability in the field. While there is no question the A-10 is a good tank buster in low intensity type conflict against unsophisticated enemies the truth is the F-35 can do many other things that the A-10 simply can't.

In this day and age where fiscal responsibility is key, we need a platform that can can deliver maximum efficiency and flexible enough to  adapt to various mission requirements.

The A-10 has proven it;s worth in the past but it is quite obvious unfortunately that even with upgrades, she just can't be networked (netcentric) with other aircrafts  for 21st century warfare. Her lack of stealth will be proven fatal against enemy with modern day air defense assets while the F-35 has a high rate of survivability in even the highest threat environment.


Once again, this is always the argument. First of all, it can be networked just as easily as anything else. not sure why you think the shape of an aircraft determines what electronics it can have. lack of stealth has been gone over time, and time again. A stealth aircraft during the day having to provide CAS will not be as safe as you think. An aircraft that can take a pounding and is extremely agile will survive. "we won't need the B-52, we have the B2 and B1!" How about that? B-52 has a shot at being the only aircraft to have a service life of 90-100 years. F-35 is not going to shrug off the hits an A-10 can. All that technology comes with a steep price in reliability and toughness.
 
2014-02-24 04:06:02 PM  
cdn.follw.it
 
2014-02-24 04:06:21 PM  

Born_Again_Bavarian: For good reason. The A-10 cannot operate in an environment where we don't have 100% air superiority. If the Cold War had ever turned hot the life span of these things would have been measured in seconds. Furthermore, as much as people love the A-10 it actually plays only a small role in our CAS action today.


In WW2, most of the really effective CAS support planes were repurposed shiatty fighters. So long as you also deploy actual fighters along with CAS, they can hold off the enemy's fighters while the CAS deals with ground problems.

This is how the Navy turned the crap-ass P-39 from a liability into an asset. The P-39 strafed infantry while the (better) Wildcats provided cover from the Zeros.
 
2014-02-24 04:08:11 PM  

Smokey the Bare: Do you really think the U2 can't stream back live images? And both aircraft are only useful in an area where the US already has air superiority.


This is the same U2 that used to overfly the Soviet Union during the height of the Cold War, right?
 
2014-02-24 04:09:38 PM  

This text is now purple: Born_Again_Bavarian: For good reason. The A-10 cannot operate in an environment where we don't have 100% air superiority. If the Cold War had ever turned hot the life span of these things would have been measured in seconds. Furthermore, as much as people love the A-10 it actually plays only a small role in our CAS action today.

In WW2, most of the really effective CAS support planes were repurposed shiatty fighters. So long as you also deploy actual fighters along with CAS, they can hold off the enemy's fighters while the CAS deals with ground problems.

This is how the Navy turned the crap-ass P-39 from a liability into an asset. The P-39 strafed infantry while the (better) Wildcats provided cover from the Zeros.


They used the P51 for CAS a lot, something Yeager said (in his book) was stupid.
 
2014-02-24 04:13:11 PM  

Smokey the Bare: The GH cannot carry an OBC (high resolution camera) payload that the U2 can. Do you really think the U2 can't stream back live images? And both aircraft are only useful in an area where the US already has air superiority.


Did you not read what I said?

A lower resolution camera from a lower height can have the same practical resolution as a higher resolution camera up higher.

Duh.

And the entire raison d'etre for the U-2, that it can fly above any effective anti-aircraft response, is no longer necessary:  They aren't survivable against a "modern" opponent with access to effective SAMs, and you don't really need that much height against targets that don't have them, because if they can't hit you at 70,000 feet, it's unlikely that they can at 35 or 40,000 feet.  And since you are only half the distance away from your target, the camera doesn't need as high a technical resolution to achieve the same *PRACTICAL* resolution.

And I say this as a person who thinks the U-2 is one of the most beautiful and graceful military aircraft ever.
 
2014-02-24 04:13:48 PM  

vygramul: SpectroBoy: Thunderpipes: Hobodeluxe: it's a good start. let's take that money and use it to fix our crumbling infrastructure and change our energy to renewable sources.

And then have Russia, or heck, Mexico/Canada waltz in and take it all over. Smart. Figure you will have gotten rid of all our guns by then too.

What's it like to live in constant unjustified fear? It doesn't sound fun.

Nobody else is even CLOSE to the USA. We could cut military spending in half and STILL be the world's hyperpower.

[mediamatters.org image 559x337]


Maybe you just need to stop listening to news sources that primarily exist to keep you afraid.

Note that spending != size.



Good point.

We also have the best training, best equipment, and most modern weapons. Unlike some of the other larger countries that have piles of old crap.
 
2014-02-24 04:15:25 PM  

This text is now purple: Smokey the Bare: Do you really think the U2 can't stream back live images? And both aircraft are only useful in an area where the US already has air superiority.

This is the same U2 that used to overfly the Soviet Union during the height of the Cold War, right?


They've been upgraydded since then.

But they don't overfly denied areas anymore (at least, USAF ones don't).  Too risky.
 
2014-02-24 04:16:56 PM  

Voiceofreason01: what does the U2 do that can't be done by satellite or the Global Hawk?


probably fly at a higher altitude than a global hawk.
 
2014-02-24 04:20:08 PM  

Thunderpipes: What I don't understand is -- liberals want government to spend money, supposedly that creates jobs. They want government to run everything.


Or at least that's what you imagine all "libs" think.
 
2014-02-24 04:25:55 PM  

SpectroBoy: Thunderpipes: What I don't understand is -- liberals want government to spend money, supposedly that creates jobs. They want government to run everything.

Or at least that's what you imagine all "libs" think.


You can't spell Thunderpipes without derp.
 
2014-02-24 04:32:58 PM  

SpectroBoy: Thunderpipes: What I don't understand is -- liberals want government to spend money, supposedly that creates jobs. They want government to run everything.

Or at least that's what you imagine all "libs" think.


It is. This forum is a perfect example. Every time the Messiah comes up with new government spending, you guys orgasm.... unless it gives money to the military, then it is bad. More Obamacare! More stimulus! More food stamps! More unemployment! Mandatory wages! Yay!!! Military pay? No!
 
2014-02-24 04:55:25 PM  

Thunderpipes: SpectroBoy: Thunderpipes: What I don't understand is -- liberals want government to spend money, supposedly that creates jobs. They want government to run everything.

Or at least that's what you imagine all "libs" think.

It is. This forum is a perfect example. Every time the Messiah comes up with new government spending, you guys orgasm.... unless it gives money to the military, then it is bad. More Obamacare! More stimulus! More food stamps! More unemployment! Mandatory wages! Yay!!! Military pay? No!


Corporate subsidies?

School vouchers?

Agricultural subsidies?

31.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-02-24 04:57:38 PM  
My biggest concern is that it would put 40,000 to 50,000 people on unemployment.  This is really just another one of our annual budget exercises.  The President presents a budget that he knows Congress won't pass but allows him to make a statement.  In this case it appeases the liberal wing of the party but, as you can tell from the reactions already, these military cuts will never happen anytime soon.
 
2014-02-24 05:10:22 PM  
They might close Fort Dix.
 
2014-02-24 05:21:10 PM  

Thunderpipes: SpectroBoy: Thunderpipes: What I don't understand is -- liberals want government to spend money, supposedly that creates jobs. They want government to run everything.

Or at least that's what you imagine all "libs" think.

It is. This forum is a perfect example. Every time the Messiah comes up with new government spending, you guys orgasm.... unless it gives money to the military, then it is bad. More Obamacare! More stimulus! More food stamps! More unemployment! Mandatory wages! Yay!!! Military pay? No!


You're apparently a caricature who only sees caricatures around him. You're the kind of person us reasonable and grounded people are constantly apologizing for. Congrats.
 
2014-02-24 05:25:27 PM  
Military spending beyond requirements is not "creating jobs" or "a public service," it's setting fire to $100 bills. Broken window fallacy and all that. Every dollar the military uses came from at least one dollar of tax revenue stripped from gardeners and bakers and teachers. The efficiency of military spending is somewhere between 0 and 1.

Now I'm not going to be dumb and say we didn't need to go world police on some asses at some point since WWII but I'm curious if our 5T dollar war only saved us 2.5T in oil prices or something. You always have to compare the consequences of one action v the other.

Stupid people work on the "editor" principle, evaluating every change as an attack on the status quo. Enlightened people reevaluate the situation with a blank slate without regard to the rigid concepts of the past. The truly genius walk the middle road with an open mind to rethink with a respect for the efforts of the past and humility in their new solution's value.

The A-10? I don't think we need it, but we need something like it. It's old and falling apart. Build something new that's cheaper and retains the A-10's good qualities and improves on it. I like the F-35, but hate how it's been made. Unmanned flight, especially ISR is the farking future, deal with it.
 
2014-02-24 05:47:52 PM  

valivian: whistleridge: slayer199: Getting rid of the A-10 is a huge mistake.  There's nothing else like it for CAS.

I doubt it winds up getting cut. Air Force has always hated it because it can't dogfight, but it's just too cheap and too good at what it does. All Congresscritters who don't want to lose the jobs associated with it need to do is trot a few soldiers out, have them testify about how strong it is and how it is one of the few weapons we have that enemies truly fear, and viola! It stays.

It's dead.  There's A-10s on my base.  They just can't anything besides CAS and there are other airframes that can do more.


https://medium.com/war-is-boring/124c8839989e
 
2014-02-24 06:26:54 PM  

Thunderpipes: It is. This forum is a perfect example. Every time the Messiah comes up with new government spending, you guys orgasm.... unless it gives money to the military, then it is bad. More Obamacare! More stimulus! More food stamps! More unemployment! Mandatory wages! Yay!!! Military pay? No!


When you look at US discretionary budget, military + veterans' benefits account for nearly 2/3rds of the US budget.

1.bp.blogspot.com

Now I fully believe we should do more to support our current and future veterans, but the reality of the situation is that we've entered a period of stable peace. We have no major nation enemies and currently spend more on defense than the next top 10 nation's combined. We are absolutely, unequivocally the world's sole military super power and have more nuclear defense capabilities than any other nation. For the past decade, the only worry we have to national security is illegal immigration and a handful Muslim terrorists (who are now mostly dead, via drone attacks).

We're more than capable of cutting our military budget in half and balance our national budget overnight. Remember when conservatives were for balancing the budget?
 
2014-02-24 06:35:31 PM  

MrSteve007: Thunderpipes: It is. This forum is a perfect example. Every time the Messiah comes up with new government spending, you guys orgasm.... unless it gives money to the military, then it is bad. More Obamacare! More stimulus! More food stamps! More unemployment! Mandatory wages! Yay!!! Military pay? No!

When you look at US discretionary budget, military + veterans' benefits account for nearly 2/3rds of the US budget.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 640x436]

Now I fully believe we should do more to support our current and future veterans, but the reality of the situation is that we've entered a period of stable peace. We have no major nation enemies and currently spend more on defense than the next top 10 nation's combined. We are absolutely, unequivocally the world's sole military super power and have more nuclear defense capabilities than any other nation. For the past decade, the only worry we have to national security is illegal immigration and a handful Muslim terrorists (who are now mostly dead, via drone attacks).

We're more than capable of cutting our military budget in half and balance our national budget overnight. Remember when conservatives were for balancing the budget?


I like how you only choose "discretionary" spending. Because protecting the country and the world is discretionary, but hot chocolate for liberal kids in PJs is mandatory.

Typical libtard.
 
2014-02-24 06:37:47 PM  
I'm sure the F-35 will eventually be a good dog fighter and high altitude precision bomber, but I think most pilots would be more comfortable at low alt. in rage of small arms and AA fire in an A-10 than a thin skinned F-35.

Plus there's the jack-of-all-trades/master of none factor in the F-35. The F-15 is designed for one thing, air superiority and has around a 200-0 record world wide (all operators) against everyone else's best.  Not saying the F-22 is a bad plane or that we don't need to keep up with technology, but there's a reason the Navy is going for the LCS. The big budget, big war stuff is too valuable to send into close combat.

The A-10 is the expendable equivalent of a USN frigate/LCS or Army LAAV, the F-22 and F-35 are equivalent to Aegis cruisers or M-1A1s.

Not saying we can't stand to cut the military budget some, but the last time we gutted the military some small unpleasantness happened in 1914 and 1939.
 
2014-02-24 06:51:19 PM  
We can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.
 
2014-02-24 06:59:45 PM  

Thunderpipes: I like how you only choose "discretionary" spending. Because protecting the country and the world is discretionary, but hot chocolate for liberal kids in PJs is mandatory.

Typical libtard.


You really need to brush up on your basic understanding of the US Government and your civics classes.

Like it or not, military spending is considered discretionary. Always has been, since the founding day of the Union. That means it comes up as part of budget negotiations on an annual basis. It doesn't require a change in law to adjust the money sent to that area - unlike parts of the budget that are considered mandatory and "non-discretionary."

And like it or not, military spending is also by far the largest single part of the US budget that comes up for annual budget negotiations.

The difference between you and I is that I'm not a sociopath. I can recognize the difference between cutting the military budget to support *only* 4 carrier groups vs. 6 during a period of prolonged global peace has a much smaller national impact than cutting promised retirement or medicare benefits for millions of Americans.
 
2014-02-24 07:05:47 PM  

MrSteve007: Thunderpipes: I like how you only choose "discretionary" spending. Because protecting the country and the world is discretionary, but hot chocolate for liberal kids in PJs is mandatory.

Typical libtard.

You really need to brush up on your basic understanding of the US Government and your civics classes.

Like it or not, military spending is considered discretionary. Always has been, since the founding day of the Union. That means it comes up as part of budget negotiations on an annual basis. It doesn't require a change in law to adjust the money sent to that area - unlike parts of the budget that are considered mandatory and "non-discretionary."

And like it or not, military spending is also by far the largest single part of the US budget that comes up for annual budget negotiations.

The difference between you and I is that I'm not a sociopath. I can recognize the difference between cutting the military budget to support *only* 4 carrier groups vs. 6 during a period of prolonged global peace has a much smaller national impact than cutting promised retirement or medicare benefits for millions of Americans.


Carrier usefulness is not linear. When asked how many carriers we would need to cover three MTWs rather then two, the number went to 34.
 
2014-02-24 09:17:02 PM  

vygramul: MrSteve007: Thunderpipes: I like how you only choose "discretionary" spending. Because protecting the country and the world is discretionary, but hot chocolate for liberal kids in PJs is mandatory.

Typical libtard.

You really need to brush up on your basic understanding of the US Government and your civics classes.

Like it or not, military spending is considered discretionary. Always has been, since the founding day of the Union. That means it comes up as part of budget negotiations on an annual basis. It doesn't require a change in law to adjust the money sent to that area - unlike parts of the budget that are considered mandatory and "non-discretionary."

And like it or not, military spending is also by far the largest single part of the US budget that comes up for annual budget negotiations.

The difference between you and I is that I'm not a sociopath. I can recognize the difference between cutting the military budget to support *only* 4 carrier groups vs. 6 during a period of prolonged global peace has a much smaller national impact than cutting promised retirement or medicare benefits for millions of Americans.

Carrier usefulness is not linear. When asked how many carriers we would need to cover three MTWs rather then two, the number went to 34.


The carrier fleet is one of the last places I would cut anything.   America has defense treaties with nations all over the world, and without the ability to back up those pieces of paper they might as well be worthless...    And that leads to war, and war is more expensive than preserving the peace through a credible threat of force.  Never forget that equation.
 
2014-02-24 10:34:38 PM  
I don't want the A-10 to go away!

:(
 
2014-02-24 11:37:47 PM  

MrSteve007: The difference between you and I is that I'm not a sociopath. I can recognize the difference between cutting the military budget to support *only* 4 carrier groups vs. 6 during a period of prolonged global peace has a much smaller national impact than cutting promised retirement or medicare benefits for millions of Americans.


Retirement benefits don't need to be cut.  They need to increase the medicare and soc sec tax people pay.  Increasing benefits without increasing the payment is a bad idea.

Social security should also be optional.  Payment to t-bills for pussies, or 12.5% into your IRA.  Stop stealing from black men and people unfortunate enough to get hit by a bus when they are 58.
 
2014-02-25 04:48:55 AM  

Gleeman: I'm sure the F-35 will eventually be a good dog fighter...


The F-35's canopy offers a limited view all around.  shiat for CAS, shiat for dogfighting.

BOONDOGGLE.
 
2014-02-25 07:11:52 AM  

blindio: You can't spell Thunderpipes without derp.


mysoftwarequality.files.wordpress.com
internet high five
 
2014-02-25 07:31:54 AM  

Thunderboy: Gleeman: I'm sure the F-35 will eventually be a good dog fighter...

The F-35's canopy offers a limited view all around.  shiat for CAS, shiat for dogfighting.

BOONDOGGLE.


That's what the helmet's for. You don't need the canopy.

The canopy is not what's wrong with the F-35.
 
2014-02-25 09:34:21 AM  
canopy..

hard to see out of that shiatter.   really?
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-02-25 12:11:16 PM  

MrSteve007: When you look at US discretionary budget, military + veterans' benefits account for nearly 2/3rds of the US discretionary budget.


All told, thought, it's less than a quarter of the total budget.


BTW, the only non-discretionary spending for the federal government should be the overhead of the federal government itself:  Salaries, the electricity bill at the various government buildings, etc.

Everything else is ultimately discretionary.  There is no constitutional requirement that the federal government pay, say, Social Security, or Medicare/Medicaid.  Those types of programs are only about 80 years old at the most, meaning that they weren't around for 2/3rds of the history of this country.

Congress could pass a law tomorrow gutting all those programs, and it would be perfectly legal for them to do so.  So that spending isn't "non-discretionary", not in a real sense.  It's only non-discretionary in the Orwellian Newspeak sense where it gains that label in order to make cutting or dropping it seem beyond the pale.
 
2014-02-25 02:20:53 PM  

dittybopper: MrSteve007: When you look at US discretionary budget, military + veterans' benefits account for nearly 2/3rds of the US discretionary budget.

All told, thought, it's less than a quarter of the total budget.


BTW, the only non-discretionary spending for the federal government should be the overhead of the federal government itself:  Salaries, the electricity bill at the various government buildings, etc.

Everything else is ultimately discretionary.  There is no constitutional requirement that the federal government pay, say, Social Security, or Medicare/Medicaid.  Those types of programs are only about 80 years old at the most, meaning that they weren't around for 2/3rds of the history of this country.

Congress could pass a law tomorrow gutting all those programs, and it would be perfectly legal for them to do so.  So that spending isn't "non-discretionary", not in a real sense.   It's only non-discretionary in the Orwellian Newspeak sense where it gains that label in order to make cutting or dropping it seem beyond the pale.


No. It's non discretionary because it is a specific tax for a specific purpose.  If you look at your pay stub (assuming you're employed via w-2), you'll see a line item for federal taxes, you'll see a line item for social security, and you'll see a line item for medicare.  This is because the money taxed for social security can be spent only on social security*, likewise for medicare, and the line item for federal taxes collected can be spent on whatever is deemed necessary in the budget.  That is why it's called discretionary, because it's allocation is at the discretion of congress.

*which is why money taken from the SS pool is borrowed rather than re-allocated, it cannot just be raided out of hand.
 
Displayed 48 of 248 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report