Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: French G. on April 09, 2013, 04:58:04 PM
-
Will it ever stop? Now we can't try terrorists for want of money. Send them to the military tribunal, we're paying the military tilecrawlers whether they need it or not.
But the defense cuts are really grating my nerves. How can there not be huge politics involved? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22082928 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22082928) ZOMG, we're going to cut $591 million from now until FY end in October. We'll lose 45,000 flight hours of training!!! Srsly? Ok, I know the cuts are going at operating budgets and not sunk costs but if flexibility was given to leaders, here are some options.
-Roughly 550,000 DOD civ and uniformed military in the AF, about $1100 per person. Cut all non-essential DOD travel until October. No schools unless it's local, detachments can live in tents or barracks instead of the Hilton until Oct. (I just spent about 2K of the gov's travel money, believe me, I'm not essential) Accelerate attrition, if someone is ETS this FY, give them an option to take a 90 day early out. Cut all reserve drills to the minimum required.
-Hey, why not buy 18 F-22s this year instead of 19? Contract? What contract, see GM, rules don't apply anymore.
-Slow the UAV purchases, huge part of the budget from here on out.
But anyway, just dreaming, back to being pissed off. This was 3% cut, made slightly more drastic in that it is coming out of 6 months of the fiscal year. The USAF has approximately 5500 aircraft in inventory. If they were all flying, the stated 45,000 training hour cut is 8 hrs per airframe. There are way more pilots than airframes, so 2-3 hours lost over 6 months for the pile-its? That's assuming 100% aircraft availability which never happens. Call it 50% to be a worst case scenario reflecting all the aircraft in rework, just plain broke etc and double the numbers. Still, no great hit.
Now, the $591 million budget reduction for the whole USAF. There are many platforms flying, so pick a conservative number and say a composite flight hour costs $10,000 to accomplish. With the 45K flight hour reduction there is 450 million right there. What exactly is the non-pointy end of the USAF contributing? How exactly does a 3% budget cut end up this drastic?
I'm just irritated, USN aviation is doing the same thing, cancelled deployments, reduced training, etc. No opinion on whether the deployments are nationally necessary, but when a 3% budget cut causes you to show the world 30-50% less of you it sure sends up a giant pussy flag to the rest of the world, especially those who stir the pot. I'd like to see a real 3% cut, not this fear mongering BS. Wait for it, in the next month Iran will start some major crap and we'll hear some mealy mouthed whining about how we can't afford enough carriers on spot to set condition stone age on the little nut.
-
speaking of budgets, how did we end up policing the entire planet?
-
speaking of budgets, how did we end up policing the entire planet?
This.
This one riles me up to no end.
It all originally started with the British Empire and the Royal Navy securing trade routes from the 17th to the 19th century.
As the British Empire declined, the American Empire took over, arguably starting after the Civil War (or starting during it with the blockade of the Atlantic and Gulf Dixie ports by Yankee ships) with Perry's journey to Japan with the Black Fleet.
Ever since then, we've been securing ourselves as the pre-eminent pirate catchers and liberators of trade routes.
But it's gone too far at this point. Well over 50% of the nations of the world, regardless of their political leanings, realize that unfettered free and peaceful trade results in higher tax yields at home. Of those nations, there's at least a dozen that have the means to contribute SIGNIFICANTLY to the safety of global trade. We should be able to pull our Navy and various projected assets back to the North Pacific and North Atlantic theaters, with brief jaunts out to the South Pacific, South Atlantic or Indian Oceans.
-
Or perhaps we could restrict our policing to US flagged vessels?
I guess someone somewhere figured out that using our Navy to ensure free trade paid off in some economic benefit while at the same time gave us an excuse to maintain warships and military power around the world.
-
But it's gone too far at this point. Well over 50% of the nations of the world, regardless of their political leanings, realize that unfettered free and peaceful trade results in higher tax yields at home. Of those nations, there's at least a dozen that have the means to contribute SIGNIFICANTLY to the safety of global trade. We should be able to pull our Navy and various projected assets back to the North Pacific and North Atlantic theaters, with brief jaunts out to the South Pacific, South Atlantic or Indian Oceans.
Tragedy of the commons. (i.e. why your plan won't work)
-
A US Navy that can ensure free commerce on the seven seas* is one of the few fed.gov activities that I agree with.
If other nations also benefit - well, that just happens.
* Unfortunately, we are going way beyond that now =(
-
Or perhaps we could restrict our policing to US flagged vessels?
I guess someone somewhere figured out that using our Navy to ensure free trade paid off in some economic benefit while at the same time gave us an excuse to maintain warships and military power around the world.
http://www.imao.us/docs/NukeTheMoon.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_A119
A much better plan.
-
Well my point was not that we should become a libertarian utopia and pull back to our borders to wait in the Siegfried and or Maginot line. Fine if you like that sort of thing, but I'm that hawkish guy who figures that the cost to sally back out and un-screw the world once a real imperial force takes over will be much greater. We could probably reduce our permanent ground presence abroad by a bunch. Like say Korea. More my point was a 3% cut ought to look like a 3% cut, not a 50% one.
As for the other countries thing, I've seen a lot of flavors of ships at sea chasing pirates and such. The Nato bloc will do what they can, but look at the countries capable of doing much and you get to India, China, and Germany. Formerly Britain. I hope that the Libya suck was a wake-up for capabilities to increase.
-
Well my point was not that we should become a libertarian utopia and pull back to our borders to wait in the Siegfried and or Maginot line. Fine if you like that sort of thing, but I'm that hawkish guy who figures that the cost to sally back out and un-screw the world once a real imperial force takes over will be much greater. We could probably reduce our permanent ground presence abroad by a bunch. Like say Korea. More my point was a 3% cut ought to look like a 3% cut, not a 50% one.
As for the other countries thing, I've seen a lot of flavors of ships at sea chasing pirates and such. The Nato bloc will do what they can, but look at the countries capable of doing much and you get to India, China, and Germany. Formerly Britain. I hope that the Libya suck was a wake-up for capabilities to increase.
Speak softly and carry a big stick ;)
Also,
Be slow to draw the sword, and even slower to re-sheath it. (old Gaelic saying)
-
I have read that the sequestarian cuts came 50% out of the military, but the cuts were pro-rated so in essence, only half of the cuts were made. The President told the various agencies to make the cuts visible. If there is no preceptable change, then those dirty fiscal conservatives and citizens might get the bright idea that they can cut some more.
The US has primarily taken over the role of policing the trade routes on seas. That pretty much happened after WWI but mostly WWII. I support a large Navy and hence these policing activities keeps things oiled. Whether or not you like it, the US must think in terms of launching sea based attacks when necessary. You can't depend on some "ally" allowing the US to base operations from their soil without a severe price. (Think India and Pakistan) The powers think in terms of small conflicts now. Iran and North Korea might not be considered such a small conflict and that is where we have been headed for the last 8 years. I would hope that we can base operations from Iraq.
I can't help but think that N. Korea should pay a price for their recent antics. How do you treat bullies? A bigger bully comes along to put you in your place. That little N. Korean runt needs to get stuffed in a drum where he belongs. His antics threaten the entire stability of the Western Pacific and when you toss nucs into the mix along with a growing technical capability, it gets serious.
It all goes back to pre-emptive strkes and the justifcation. Ultimately it falls back to the American people and what they can stomach. We have left them rattle their sabres for a long time. But yes, I am tired of hearing about the sequestration cuts.