all out war

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/ ... omas-owens

"While Goldwater-Nichols no doubt contributed to the inter-service harmony that seems to have prevailed since the 1980s, the more likely explanation for the tradition of cooperation is that high defense budgets assured each of the services that their favored programs would be funded. That era is coming to an end. Indeed, even if Congress manages to avoid sequestration, the programs of one service are now likely to be funded at the expense of another service — the president’s budget proposes $487 billion in defense cuts over the next ten years, which sequestration will only deepen by another $500 billion.

Although on one level this is inevitable, the historical record demonstrates that declining defense budgets can lead to a degree of inter-service competition that threatens the very security of the United States.

We have only to look at the vicious inter-service battles that took place after World War II to see one effect of sharply reduced defense budgets. The catalyst for these fights was the emergence of an independent Air Force, which threatened the fragile consensus that had governed Army-Navy cooperation during the war against Germany and Japan.

Those battles involved both competition between development programs, and services’ claims to responsibility for certain roles, missions, and functions. One example of the former is the Truman-era fight for funding between the Air Force’s B-36 strategic bomber and the Navy’s “super-carrier,” the USS United States, each of which was seen as essential to the very existence of its respective service. "..........................

So we should spend hundreds of billions of dollars more so they don't fight each other?

Due to the end of the ground wars in Asia, the Navy is hoping to make a major budget play by pumping up the threat of the Chinese Navy seizing islands and oil leases from smaller Asian neighbors.

But is America really that anxious to essentially start another war over oil?
And against a much more dangerous opponent?

Raees wrote: So we should spend hundreds of billions of dollars more so they don't fight each other?

That's what you got out of it? Go back to sleep.

If we spent more on education and health and less on defense, the nation would be better off.

Raees\n

If we spent more on education and health and less on defense, the nation would be better off.[/quote

That is a normal liberal response. I also believe there is things within the defense spending that we could do away with, but wont happen cause those in Congress don't want to since it will effect thier districts, and it is on both sides not just one. Where I have the issue is this. 1. DOD submits cuts to those idiots in Congress and they then decide those cuts are not proper, yet they have no clue about what is right or wrong in DOD. and 2. Tired of the troops having to carry the load, again, because those up there in washington cannot pull thier heads out of their rears and do what they are paid to do. If you look at the numbers, this past year our defense spending was a little over 4% of GDP, remember also that China increased their defense spending also.

There are areas that a lot of money could be saved with the DOD. The same though goes for all the various depts. I also would like to see the budget of congress cut also. Millions of dollars of savings there also.

When you actually start thinking about it, the best department to target for cuts would be the Army. We can, and should, return to having organized and well disciplined militias in the States that belong to the union that are equipped to fight on a modern battlefield - and we may need them before too much longer. Modern warfare requires a strong Air Force and Navy more so than it does a large standing army. I'm good with getting the citizens of the States more involved in preparing to defend their own liberty from any threat posed to it instead of relying on a federal standing army to provide it - how about the rest of you?

PrintSmith wrote: When you actually start thinking about it, the best department to target for cuts would be the Army. We can, and should, return to having organized and well disciplined militias in the States that belong to the union that are equipped to fight on a modern battlefield - and we may need them before too much longer. Modern warfare requires a strong Air Force and Navy more so than it does a large standing army. I'm good with getting the citizens of the States more involved in preparing to defend their own liberty from any threat posed to it instead of relying on a federal standing army to provide it - how about the rest of you?

I understand your view, but I will vote on the Federal Active Duty Army. Reason is they are in a constant training mode. Its almost a daily routine. All the services now train for 21st century warfare. Contrary to some on here, there are a lot of countries out there that would love to see us destroyed. The fact that we have the military we got is one reason that makes them think twice first. The National Guard, Active Reservist, do though, play a huge role now in day to day functions, training, and operations.

navycpo7 wrote:

Raees wrote: If we spent more on education and health and less on defense, the nation would be better off.

That is a normal liberal response.

Do you believe it or not?

One example of Congress versus the Pentagon. The Army has told Congress they have enough Abrahms tanks and want to shut down production for a few years. They are built in Lima, Ohio. Well John Boehner and other Ohio politicians don't want this to happen, so the Army is getting more tanks they don't want. Will they just park them in a field to rust?