Cut the defense spending, just not in my district

[MillCreek]

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-spy-drone-lives-20131206,0,3203229.story#axzz2mj69IkRA

It is always a good idea to cut government spending, just do so it in someone else's district, please.

[roo_ster]

Not sure how significant a loss the GH would be to capabilities or what USAF though they would have to cut otherwise.

Looking at the latest, greatest Army reorg, we are losing some serious capability.  Last time I looked, Army had managed to thread the needle and eliminated mostly HQ staff & equipment while preserving combat BNs. 

Not anymore.  To give you an idea as to the unreality involved: The major assumption is that the focus is the Pacific and we will NEVER have to fight mech/heavy units from or equipped by the PRC or NK.  Just...assumed.  Really, who needs active duty armored units and what have they done for us anyways?

I am reminded of a joke about an economist, canned goods, and a desert island.

<brrrring!> "Hello?  Hey, it is former POTUS Carter and he wants his Hollow Force back."

[Tallpine]

In the case of the Global Hawk, McKeon said he worked to keep the program alive because the drone is a valuable tool for spying on American citizens, and he wanted to protect the billions of dollars the government has already spent on the technology.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-spy-drone-lives-20131206,0,3203229.story#ixzz2mjSzPQ1K

A couple years ago I worked on the process to certify the GH for use in civilian domestic air space   

Only way I could justify my involvement (other than needing a paycheck) was that I might be able to keep it from augering into an elementary school.

[roo_ster]

Well, looks like losing the GH would be no big whoop, given this puppy:

http://killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/12/06/unmasked_area_51s_biggest_stealthiest_spy_drone_yet

The RQ-180 is likely flying from the secret Air Force test facility at Groom Lake, Nevada, widely known as Area 51. Its exact specifications, including such crucial details as the number of engines, is unknown, but Aviation Week suggests a wingspan of over 130 feet, based on hangar construction at Northrop's Palmdale, California facility. The number of aircraft built is also unknown; however, a flight test program, relatively quick entry into service and open budget documents suggest a small fleet are flying routinely.

The RQ-180 is based off the X-47B, a much smaller experimental aircraft that became the first drone to takeoff and land from an aircraft carrier. Where the smaller X-47B lacks range and stealth, RQ-180 evidently delivers. Though RQ-180 is far too large for an aircraft carrier, it may have the same air-to-air refueling capabilities as the X-47B, allowing it to stay in the air virtually indefinitely. It may also have attack capabilities: X-47B has bomb bays, which have thus far gone unused, and indeed Aviation Week suggests it is used for electronic attack and carries sophisticated sensors.

The aircraft's performance is said to be similar to Northrop's white-world entry, the RQ-4 Global Hawk, which can fly for days and cover thousands of miles. Hopefully the RQ-180 performs better; Global Hawk has received mixed marks on its evaluations, and the aircraft it was meant to replace, the venerable Lockheed U-2, will continue to fly for decades to come.

[drewtam]

Defense, Medicare/Medicaid, SS

Cut it all. It must be cut and it will be cut.

I support going back to the pre-WW2 policy of very small skeletal army that couldn't fight a foreign war and only ramping up after war is declared.

[roo_ster]

Defense, Medicare/Medicaid, SS

Cut it all. It must be cut and it will be cut.

I support going back to the pre-WW2 policy of very small skeletal army that couldn't fight a foreign war and only ramping up after war is declared.

Take a look at troop levels from 1938-1941.  The only reason we were able to act as we did in WWII an make it end by 1945 was by re-arming for years before.

In the fall of 1939, two years before our nation officially entered the war, the US Army was comprised of only 200,000 enlisted soldiers...

http://www.historyshots.com/usarmy/backstory.cfm
By DEC1941, we had 1,657,157 soldiers in the US Army.  In two years, they increased solely the US Army by a number of men equal to the totality of our armed forces today.  By 31 Mar 1945 we had 8,157,386 in the US Army.  Think about a two year delay in the European theater.  Can you think of anything that might have turned out differently?  I can.

Also, if you think we would be able to get 1.4 million men ready for war in two years you are mistaken. 

These days, wars are "come as you are."  There will be no time for a build-up.  So: man, equip, and train the armed forces you think you will need. (It has the advantage of being Constitutional.)  How much you need will depend on what sort of capability you desire and the threats.  That may well be 200k men.  Whatever that may be, do not labor under the illusion that we will be able to man up in a significant manner (and equip them appropriately) in time to make a difference. 

Of course, it all must be balanced against economic reality.  Also, we might get the horse to sing lucky and China & NK  will collapse.

[drewtam]

By DEC1941, we had 1,657,157 soldiers in the US Army.  In two years, they increased solely the US Army by a number of men equal to the totality of our armed forces today.  By 31 Mar 1945 we had 8,157,386 in the US Army.  Think about a two year delay in the European theater.

US did have nearly a 2 year delay in response to WW2, just as your numbers show. It took 2 years to get to full strength to fight.

US was attacked and declared war in Dec 41.

Pacific front...
Japan was on the offensive all through 42 and 43, and conquered Burma, Malaya, Dutch East Indies, Singapore, and Philippines, and bombed Australia's port city. The US fought entirely defensive actions such as Coral Sea, Midway, Guadalcanal, etc. They may have been decisive victories, but they were all defensive actions of a military still trying to ramp up for war, like every other war the US had fought previously.
The first offensive actions was clearing the Aleutian islands and forcing the Gilbert and Marshall Islands. These were delayed until mid to late 43.

Atlantic front...
All through 42 and 43 German navy was on the offensive against Atlantic shipping lanes. German forces were on the offensive in North Africa. Again, US and British forces were running defensive actions being pushed back to Egypt. The offensive actions against Rommel were mostly British Commonwealth led. The first US led attacks were in Italy in late 43.

In both fronts, strategic offensive actions were not taken until 20months after declaration of war, because that is when the supplies, troops, and tactical position could be sustained.


Therefore: I don't get your point...
We can't draw down forces because in WW2 it took us 2 years to respond?
We can't draw down defense spending because China and NK are going to invade?

[roo_ster]

My point is that there won't be 2-4 years to build up.  A conventional attack will occur quickly and the gains then backed up with a nuclear threat.  What we have available at that moment will be what we have to work with.

China waxes and wanes over time.  At the moment the Middle Kingdom is waxing and desires to expand to its "natural boundaries" (defined as the maximum extent it has ruled in the past).  That includes, at the very least, Taiwan, and most the archipelagos in the East & South China Seas.  As long as America is a formidable presence and can back up its wishes with force, China will bide its time.  If China thinks it can get away with it, China will get grabby. 

Funny thing is, if what we have is sufficient to the task, the PRC will likely not move. 

[drewtam]

Other than defending SK and Japan, no other SEA nation is our current close ally. So why do we care what China does with them?

Any war initiated conventionally will be fought conventionally. If the aggressor wants to escalate to nuke, then we return the favor 10x, just like any other nuke attack.

Finally, Taiwan is not significant and not worth going to war over. They weren't worth it to the US after WW2 when they were fighting Mao's forces on the mainland, therefore they aren't worth it to us now with the Soviet empire collapsed and China going mercantilist & oligarch national socialist. If Taiwan wants to buy weapons from us to defend themselves, so be it. We can certainly treat them kindly as a minor ally, but they are not significant for us to die over.

[roo_ster]

Other than defending SK and Japan, no other SEA nation is our current close ally. So why do we care what China does with them?

Ever heard of the Philippines?  The same Philippines that wants us to re-open a base or two?

The Philippines is building a new naval base in the South China Sea amid growing tensions with China, Philippine officials told local and international media outlets for the first time last week.

The new naval base will be located on Oyster Bay, “a postcard-perfect cove on Palawan Island,” according to Reuters. Oyster Bay is 550 km (340 miles) southwest of Manila, the Filipino capitol city, and just 160 km (100 miles) from the Spratly Islands, a fiercely contested area in the South China Sea.

Talking to Reuters about the Oyster Bay base for the first time last week, Commodore Joseph Rostum O. Peña, commander of the Philippines' western navy, said “It will be a mini-Subic,” a reference to the large air and naval bases the U.S. used to maintain in the Philippines before the parliament voted to expel Washington from the country in 1991. It was the United States’ largest military installation in Southeast Asia.

The Philippines is currently modernizing the Subic Bay Naval Base, which sits on the eastern side of the Philippines away from the South China Sea. The U.S. and the Philippines are currently negotiating a new bilateral agreement that will give U.S. naval forces greater access to Subic and other parts of the Philippines.

Any war initiated conventionally will be fought conventionally. If the aggressor wants to escalate to nuke, then we return the favor 10x, just like any other nuke attack.

No we don't.  They move, threaten SanFran, Tokyo, and Seoul with annihilation.  We sit around with our thumbs up our asses, because we don't have the conventional forces on hand or near enough to be useful.  Think Obama has the stones, smarts, and savvy to play vs the PRC in nuclear chess?  Hell, I have not kept up with the PRC's SRBM and MRBM counts on their coast or their LRBMs, either.  They were already enough to turn Okinawa & Taiwan into smoking ruins with conventional munitions.

Finally, Taiwan is not significant and not worth going to war over. They weren't worth it to the US after WW2 when they were fighting Mao's forces on the mainland, therefore they aren't worth it to us now with the Soviet empire collapsed and China going mercantilist & oligarch national socialist. If Taiwan wants to buy weapons from us to defend themselves, so be it. We can certainly treat them kindly as a minor ally, but they are not significant for us to die over.

If we let the PRC have Taiwan, they will dictate what happens in the E & S China Seas.  That will not bode well for our boys at Okinawa, Japan, S Korea, or the Philippines.  Toss in Vietnam, & Thailand as those soiling their drawers.

Lastly, I have not even mentioned the economic kick in the jimmy we would take.  China would also hurt for a while, but it is not about economics for them.

[roo_ster]

Oh, one thing:
I don't necessarily disagree with warmaking capacity(1) budget cuts, but we must be cognizant of the consequences and weigh the damage caused by cuts vs the damage caused by spending.  Thinking a step or two beyond "Make the cuts / Do not make the cuts" would be nice, but usually more thinking than our ruling class can manage.

(1) Call it what it is: the ability to wage war. 

[Tallpine]

I'm just not clear how any other country has the ability to significantly harm us with conventional warfare 

I agree that we need air and naval means to defend and be a deterrent.

The fact that the current admin doesn't have any balls doesn't really pertain to military defense needs.

[drewtam]

I thought the Philippines have been quietly and deliberately distancing themselves from the US. Maybe I misunderstood, if they are still a solid ally, then add them to the list that we care about. I think my point still stands.

If an enemy attacks an ally, we give our full weight to support our ally conventionally and neuter the nuclear threat. Although being a good ally requires standing with our friends, that doesn't mean its our primary responsibility to defend their homelands successfully. It is their primary responsibility. We give what support we can for as long as we can.

I don't see any supporting evidence for your primary axiom...

My point is that there won't be 2-4 years to build up.  A conventional attack will occur quickly and the gains then backed up with a nuclear threat.  What we have available at that moment will be what we have to work with.

In what post-'fat-man' war has this ever happened?

What happens if we call the bluff on any nation that tries this?
Hypothetically: Suppose "they" attack, the ally and US fight a retreating defensive action, while starting to build up a conventional counter-offensive. When the US and ally reach that nadir of defensive action, "they" threaten nukes at any counter offensive. We call their bluff and counter-offensive anyway. They nuke Stl/SF/LA/SD. Then what... every boomer sub in the pacific is signaled to wipe the opposing nations off the freaking map.

There is no chance that "they" would escalate to such an assured destruction. There is no way the US could back down from a conventional counter offensive and still remain a viable nation. That strategy would be playing checkers.

And why couldn't we theoretically do the same to the aggressor at some later date? That is, lock in any modest conventional war gains with threat of going nuke.


I just don't see any historical or logical evidence for the axiom you set forth as the reason we can't draw down significantly like the US after every single war before WW2/Cold War.

[Tallpine]

A society armed with nukes is a polite society 

[Scout26]

In what post fat-man war has this ever happened??

Seriously?!?!?  Google "Task Force Smith"  How about Pusan Perimeter, where we traded lives for time?

MacArthur lobbied for nuclear release both when the Norks attacked and then when the PLA "Volunteers" were streaming across the Yalu and about to wipe out 8th Army and X Corps.

Desert One  Is another fine example

Grenada   Inter service communication anyone?

DS/DS maybe?  Even having six Heavy Mech/Armor divisions it took seven months to deploy them.   You really want to give a Saddam Hussein 4+ years to loot and dig in?  How about taking the Saudi oilfields?  What would that do to a world economy that's circling the bowl?

Iraqi Freedom, the Occupation?  Even Shinseki (who was 100% wrong on the beret) was 100% correct on the "After".

[TommyGunn]

.....I just don't see any historical or logical evidence for the axiom you set forth as the reason we can't draw down significantly like the US after every single war before WW2/Cold War.

Si vis paccum, parabellum.

Having a good sized navy assures we'll be prepared for multiple missions, which may sound wasteful in "peacetime."
Has a nuclear force ever truly been a great deterant, save for the USSR, which had its own and therefor M.A.D. evolved?   Osama Bin Laden knew perfectly well we had nukes when he launched the 9/11/01 attack.  He didn't fear them because he knew we wouldn't use them.  History proved him right.
China does appear to be arming itself for hegemony in the Western Pacific.    Right now they aren't much of a threat but that may change in a few decades.  
We got lucky in WW2.  The Germans had designs for bombers that could have reached New York City had the war continued on.   Many of their weapons systems were better than ours; we prevailed mainly because we were able to out produce them.   One of their fancy over-built King Tigers takes out a Sherman tank, we replace it with not one, but two, and later three improved Sherman tanks.  
We developed better fighters and uprated fighters in our Army Air Corps pretty quickly in WW2.  That is not so easy to do when fighters are supersonic jet air superiority machines with stealth.   Look at the F-35 mess and the F-22; we're getting maybe --  what? ? ? -- half the inventory of F-22s we wanted???
The enemy is beginning to devlop and field jets that are every bit as good as what we have and outperform the F-15, F-16, F-18 designs we now have in service.  
Carriers are great ways to extend power but they need support craft as well.  
One of the reasons why the Japanese were willing to risk an attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 was because we'd drawn down a lot and they perceived us as weak and indolent; willing to perhaps fight a short quick war then to sue for peace, but unable to fight a sustained war which is what that war devolved into.  Thankfully they seriously misjudged our spirit.    
I'm not so sure we can re-arm so quickly given how expensive and high tech much war fighting equipment has become....plus our manufacturing capacity is not as spectacular.

While I don't think anyone is going to bomb Pearl Harbor again, and I don't pretend to have a crystal ball that will show me how WW3 will begin, I don't think it really unreasonable to guess that should we wait long enough, it'll happen.
It'll happen when some enemy perceives us as too weak to mount a successful counter offense ......  

[drewtam]

I love a good pile on.

[Tallpine]

Having a good sized navy assures we'll be prepared for multiple missions, which may sound wasteful in "peacetime."

No argument there.

Has a nuclear force ever truly been a great deterant, save for the USSR, which had its own and therefor M.A.D. evolved?   Osama Bin Laden knew perfectly well we had nukes when he launched the 9/11/01 attack.  He didn't fear them because he knew we wouldn't use them.  History proved him right.

Since we haven't been attacked outright by any foreign state - well, it may or may not have prevented anything.

We didn't use nukes after WTC 9-11-01 just like we didn't use nukes after OKC 4-19-95 

[drewtam]

Lets see...

@ Scout, you need to explain better than stream of consciousness. Either you don't understand Roosters argument, or I don't. But without further clarity, going point by point through your the stream of consciousness based on assumptions is a waste of time. Please pick 1-2 examples and explain your meaning.

@ TG

I think you are assuming too much... I don't think cutting back war making capacity or size of fighting force necessarily means cutting back tech research to stay on top. In one plausible scenario is to have a skeleton fighting force but continue to fund the tech and manufacturing capability that could be scaled and production ramped in times of war.

[Hawkmoon]

Defense, Medicare/Medicaid, SS

Cut it all. It must be cut and it will be cut.

I support going back to the pre-WW2 policy of very small skeletal army that couldn't fight a foreign war and only ramping up after war is declared.

Good idea, plus being in comport with the thoughts of those old guys who wrote that dratted Constitution, the guys who didn't think the federal government should have a standing army.

However, to be able to augment the manpower in case of need (and "ramping up," which implies a gradual increase, would not be sufficient when we need lots of soldiers right now), we would have to reinstitute the draft. I happen to be in favor of doing so, but I don't think starting up the draft again would get much traction in Washington.

[zahc]

I think you are assuming too much... I don't think cutting back war making capacity or size of fighting force necessarily means cutting back tech research to stay on top. In one plausible scenario is to have a skeleton fighting force but continue to fund the tech and manufacturing capability that could be scaled and production ramped in times of war.

Technology and intellectual property does not win wars. It's not like role playing games where you get extra points for being smart. Two planes at half the cost is better than no planes at an astronomical development cost...other than for lining the pockets of defense contractors. People are still pointing out the inferiority of Chinese hardware like it's meaningful; it wasn't even that long ago that we won using the "large numbers of inferior tools" strategy ourselves.

 Ramping manufacturing facilities is my current job. In high technology, it's not an easy task. We ramped production in WWII while our shores were safe from any fighting. I think that cranking out current-generation hardware ( F18s, not JSF) and parking it in a field sounds like a better use of money than somehow keeping manufacturing facilities "ready to ramp" (whatever that means).

[Scout26]

Task Force Smith- Korean war.  5 years after defeating the Nazi and Japanese an undertrained, understrength Army sends troops where the Norks go through them like crap through a goose.  Bringing us to the Pusan Perimeter, where as I clearly stated, we traded lives for time.

Desert One- Poorly trained troops have a huge accident killing many and  preventing a rescue attempt of the hostages.

Grenada - During the Reagan build-up we discover that the services can't talk to one another  or even themselves.  The story of the Rangers or 82nd ABN who called back to Ft. Bragg to get either naval gunfire or artillery support, I disremember I do remember them using a payphone and a calling card and relaying grid coordinates back to the SDNCO/wife who then called down to Commander in/off the coast of Grenada with the fire mission.

DS/DS - Run what you Brung.  The final act of the Reagen Buildup.  The troops performed magnificently.  The Generals, not so much.   And they did not improve in the interveining years.

Iraq- Yes, we won the war, but not the peace/occupation, then we made the same mistake we made in Vietnam.  (Hint: The people are the prize.)   3ID and the Marines had to slog their way to Baghdad, which had Patraeus handled the 101st better (FARPing ahead rather then trailing beehind 3ID) there could have been much less bloodshed  (Like Sherman in GA/SC/NC).  Again, the Army/troops we had, not the ones we took 4 years to train.

Finally your WWII take 2-4 years to train.  

Three words: Bataan Death March

Two Words:  Kasserine Pass

One Word: Guadalcanal.


(and we got damn lucky at Midway)




eta: this tablet hates me

[TommyGunn]

Lets see...  @ TG

I think you are assuming too much... I don't think cutting back war making capacity or size of fighting force necessarily means cutting back tech research to stay on top. In one plausible scenario is to have a skeleton fighting force but continue to fund the tech and manufacturing capability that could be scaled and production ramped in times of war.

But tech. research takes time to reach the field .... I repeat the example of the Nazi bomber and some other jet fighters  ( google "Triebfleugal" --"thrustwing") they had as designs on paper.  They didn't actually make any of them because thankfully, the war ended.   Hitler also caused problems with the development of some weapons systems such has the first operational jet fighter, the Me 262, but that's incidental.  In point of fact the Japanese also had some very interesting types of aircraft "on the drawing board" (including a copy of the aforesaid Me 262) including atleast one they actually had produced a test aircraft that was a pusher - prop design.

~*~

Task Force Smith- Korean war.  5 years after defeating the Nazi and Japanese an undertrained, understrength Army sends troops where the Norks go through them like crap through a goose.  Bringing us to the Pusan Perimeter, where as I clearly stated, we traded lives for time.

Desert One- Poorly trained troops have a huge accident killing many and  preventing a rescue attempt of the hostages.

Grenada - During the Reagan build-up we discover that the services can't talk to one another  or even themselves.  The story of the Rangers or 82nd ABN who called back to Ft. Bragg to get either naval gunfire or artillery support, I disremember I do remember them using a payphone and a calling card and relaying grid coordinates back to the SDNCO/wife who then called down to Commander in/off the coast of Ghat you bRun wrenada with the fire mission.

DS/DS - Run what you Brung.  The final act of the Reagen Buildup.  The troops performed magnificently.  The Generals, not so much.   And they did not improve in the interveining years.

Iraq- Yes, we won the war, but not the peace/occupation, then we made the same mistake we made in Vietnam.  (Hint: The people are the prize.)   3ID and the Marines had to slog their way to Baghdad, which had Patraeus handled the 101st better (FARPing ahead rather then trailing beehind 3ID) there could have been much less bloodshed  (Like Sherman in GA/SC/NC).  Again, the Army/troops we had, not the ones we took 4 years to train.

Finally your WWII take 2-4 years to train. 

Three words: Bataan Death March

Two Words:  Kasserine Pass

One Word: Guadalcanal.

Eeeeyup.  Thanks Scout26.  A good size force is absolutly NOT the only thing necessary!  Training, training, and training.
How that Grenada  SNAFU ("what we have here is a failure to communicate") happened was a crime.  Tomes have been written about how important communication is!

[Tallpine]

But tech. research takes time to reach the field .... I repeat the example of the Nazi bomber and some other jet fighters  ( google "Triebfleugal" --"thrustwing") they had as designs on paper.  They didn't actually make any of them because thankfully, the war ended.   Hitler also caused problems with the development of some weapons systems such has the first operational jet fighter, the Me 262, but that's incidental.  In point of fact the Japanese also had some very interesting types of aircraft "on the drawing board" (including a copy of the aforesaid Me 262) including atleast one they actually had produced a test aircraft that was a pusher - prop design.

Yeah, they had a wooden "stealth" jet fighter.

Not to mention the flying saucers 

[drewtam]

@Scout

My understanding of Rooster's point is that we have to maintain as strong a defense as possible otherwise we lose ground and lives to an aggressor too quickly. You support that by giving numerous examples of the US's unique cold war approach of maintaining a huge standing army failing to achieve precisely that goal. So that we still have to resort to the WW2 and pre-WW2 behavior of retreating defense (trading lives for time) until additional nation support is organized.

So it seems lives are condemned to death whether we sped the money or not. Money, which we do not have.