General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHow do we have a depleted military?
We currently spend more than the rest of the world. How is that depleted?
Flavius Aetius
(33 posts)After years of war we have so many tanks, IFV's, planes and just all types of damaged hardware that is not operational that it will take tens of billions of dollars over and above the defense budget to get them back on line and ready to fight again.
Edit: I meant hundreds of billions not tens.
dhol82
(9,351 posts)Is that what you are saying?
How much more?
Do we need to cut out all of the 'entitlement' programs to be able to afford this?
Can we possibly tax corporations to get enough money?
Just asking.
Flavius Aetius
(33 posts)I responded to your question from the point of 11 years in the army and a combat vet who fought in Iraq. What i told you was an honest answer and yes our military is very depleted and if you want a military that can defend us then we have to repair a shit ton of equipment.
hay rick
(7,521 posts)Our soldiers should have good equipment but they should not be defending us in Iraq. The United States has 5% of the world's population but accounts for close to 50% of the world's defense spending. Our allies account for a substantial portion of the rest of the world's military budget. We are insulated from the world by two wide oceans on our east and west. We have friendly neighbors to the north and the south. Our bloated military spending eats up 53% of all discretionary spending and crowds out basic public services and maintenance of infrastructure.
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)In the military, you go where you're sent. That's the obligation a person signs up for and their service shouldn't be impugned because you disagreed with the war. A lot of vets disagreed with it, but they served still.
Your question was answered honestly.
I was active duty during the mid 80's to early 90's and our equipment was shit then. If the hawks are intent on sending our military into war, whether anyone agrees with it or not, they should go with good equipment in order to do their job.
hay rick
(7,521 posts)In the very first sentence I said that our troops should have good equipment. I did not impugn anyone's service. Like many of the vets you cite, I am against the mission. I put quotes around defending because our war in Iraq has caused this country great harm. One other point: Flavius Aetius' post was a response to another poster's question, not mine.
Initech
(99,915 posts)MrScorpio
(73,626 posts)I'd point out on how and why Congress spends all of that money and we still end up with hardware that's not operational...
That's because, the purpose of the Department of Defense is about keeping defense contractors rich more than it is about the defense of the nation.
Buckeye_Democrat
(14,847 posts)There was a report a few months ago that military leaders told Congress they didn't want/need so many tanks. Congress apparently disagreed and approved a budget for more tanks.
I'll try to find the link if you want it, but I'll take the lazy route and not bother otherwise.
EDIT: Never mind. Someone else posted it below.
dflprincess
(28,057 posts)instead of the measly 40% they get now.
We're paying them to build equipment that the Pentagon doesn't even want (like the Abrams tank).
Flavius Aetius
(33 posts)That or the Leopard are the best tanks in the world and the most survivable. The problem is we have 1500? that have been shot to shit and are out of service. They are not getting money to repair and in some cases not even able to maintain. Yes the force is depleted and it has to be fixed and is going to cost thru the nose!! This is why we should mind our own fucking business but we still have to repair or replace the equipment.
dflprincess
(28,057 posts)Several articles come up
[div class = "excerpt"]
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/12/18/congress-again-buys-abrams-tanks-the-army-doesnt-want.html
"Congress Again Buys Abrams Tanks the Army Doesn't Want"
The new defense spending bill includes $120 million for tanks that the Army has repeatedly said it doesn't want.
For three years, the Army in numerous Congressional hearings has pushed a plan that essentially would have suspended tank building and upgrades in the U.S. for the first time since World War II. The Army suggested that production lines could be kept open through foreign sales.
A similar article in the "Washington Post"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-end-of-the-tank-the-army-says-it-doesnt-need-it-but-industry-wants-to-keep-building-it/2014/01/31/c11e5ee0-60f0-11e3-94ad-004fefa61ee6_story.html?utm_term=.e0a09a4b6204
And even Fox
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/28/army-says-no-to-more-tanks-but-congress-insists.html
[div class = "excerpt"]
Army says no to more tanks, but Congress insists
Built to dominate the enemy in combat, the Army's hulking Abrams tank is proving equally hard to beat in a budget battle.
Lawmakers from both parties have devoted nearly half a billion dollars in taxpayer money over the past two years to build improved versions of the 70-ton Abrams
But senior Army officials have said repeatedly, "No thanks."
It's the inverse of the federal budget world these days, in which automatic spending cuts are leaving sought-after pet programs struggling or unpaid altogether. Republicans and Democrats for years have fought so bitterly that lawmaking in Washington ground to a near-halt.
Yet in the case of the Abrams tank, there's a bipartisan push to spend an extra $436 million on a weapon the experts explicitly say is not needed.
"If we had our choice, we would use that money in a different way," Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army's chief of staff, told The Associated Press this past week.
[/dif]
MADem
(135,425 posts)You can't believe this shit happens...but it does:
If you have not seen this, you will enjoy it.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)dflprincess
(28,057 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Well, they shade a few things, but the overall trajectory of the story is pretty darn accurate.
Olympia Dukakis is superb, as is the (wingnut in RL) Kelsey Grammar. Viola Davis shines in an early role. This film is eighteen years old but it's fresh as a daisy. They should subtitle it "SSDD!"
Response to Flavius Aetius (Reply #5)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Grey Lemercier
(1,429 posts)Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,111 posts)It just plays to the dumbfucks in Drumpf's base
Vinca
(50,170 posts)I suppose this time the target will be Iran. Whenever a chicken hawk is put in a powerful position, war profiteers drown in money and innocent people die.
The_Casual_Observer
(27,742 posts)In the 1970's.
I would guess that the defense business consumes half of basic manufacturing in this country.
EX500rider
(10,532 posts)....and made mincemeat out of the Soviet T-72's it went up against in both Iraq wars.