Who's gonna win?

[GIThruster]

Reagan was the first President to finally say "Enough." We're not going to tolerate this stuff anymore. He requested Defense Buildups with which to confront the Soviet threat. . .

Exactly right. It's not fair to compare one decade with another without looking at the significant differences. Reagan faced a cold war. We do not. Although I am not in favor of us gutting our national defense, we can indeed cut it without gutting it. We can keep the shipyards open and just have them build more slowly, and focus supervision in order to avoid cost overruns. We are certainly capable of using a smaller navy than we intend. Amphibious assault ships like the USS America are not a good purchase. They cost half as much as a supercarrier and don't provide nearly half the capability. We could stop building them now, and re-task what we have without injuring our capability at all. Likewise, we could scrap the F-35 with no ill effects and skip straight to X-47B variants for far less money. There are dozens of ways the DoD could tighten their belt without sacrificing ability in any significant way. To do this however, means cutting back a couple hundred billion dollars for the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about. That's the hard part--cutting the pork in the complex.

There are so many politicians in people's pockets that this is extremely difficult to do. It will take real leadership and we've already seen OBama can't even manage the nonsense at NASA and SLS. If OBama is too weak to stop funding for a launch system we don't need, who could possibly think he could stop F-35 or the America class?

[Diogenes]

The 46 Million Foodstamp Man March - An Infographic

America has over 46 million people on Food Stamps. The food stamps program's real name is Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The Food Stamp program is "hidden" from view through Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) Cards that work just as credit cards. This article visualizes the size of the program and the vast amounts of people participating.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-2 ... nfographic

[Diogenes]

Reagan was the first President to finally say "Enough." We're not going to tolerate this stuff anymore. He requested Defense Buildups with which to confront the Soviet threat. . .

Exactly right. It's not fair to compare one decade with another without looking at the significant differences. Reagan faced a cold war. We do not. Although I am not in favor of us gutting our national defense, we can indeed cut it without gutting it. We can keep the shipyards open and just have them build more slowly, and focus supervision in order to avoid cost overruns. We are certainly capable of using a smaller navy than we intend. Amphibious assault ships like the USS America are not a good purchase. They cost half as much as a supercarrier and don't provide nearly half the capability. We could stop building them now, and re-task what we have without injuring our capability at all. Likewise, we could scrap the F-35 with no ill effects and skip straight to X-47B variants for far less money. There are dozens of ways the DoD could tighten their belt without sacrificing ability in any significant way. To do this however, means cutting back a couple hundred billion dollars for the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about. That's the hard part--cutting the pork in the complex.

There are so many politicians in people's pockets that this is extremely difficult to do. It will take real leadership and we've already seen OBama can't even manage the nonsense at NASA and SLS. If OBama is too weak to stop funding for a launch system we don't need, who could possibly think he could stop F-35 or the America class?

I agree with your analysis on these examples. The Military does have a tendency to gold plate stuff and build stuff without thinking it through in practice. The B1-B comes to mind.


Sometimes I think a lot of Military financial decisions are made not with the nation's best interest at heart, but more because of the power and connections of those Industries which build Military equipment, and their behind the scenes lobbying. All they want is contracts. It's sort of like a Republican version of the Democrat's social programs.


Eisenhower warned us about the Military/Industrial complex, and I think there is something to it.

[MSimon]

The problem is not the parties. The problem is the people.

Most every one has something they want government to spend money on.

The Republicans (generally) believe government can make us moral (with enough guns people will do what we tell them) and Democrats believe that government can provide for our health and welfare.

The mess will not get straightened out until faith in government declines.

"Passing laws will protect us" would be a very good belief to give up.

[ladajo]

I'm pointing out the fact that there is 0 empirical evidence of our self-proclaimed "greatness" and for some reason U.S. citizens hate hearing that fact. Just because we say it, does not make it true.

Scott, Uh, really? You need to travel more.

GIThruster wrote:

We are certainly capable of using a smaller navy than we intend. Amphibious assault ships like the USS America are not a good purchase. They cost half as much as a supercarrier and don't provide nearly half the capability.

GIT, You really don't get the full scope of mission sets do you? If you are going to choose between a Big Deck Amphib and a CVN, in today's world, you would get much more utility, use and mileage out of the Amphib.
As for smaller navy. Heh. First off, no one can actually agree on how many navy ships there are on any given day due to variance in counting mechanisms. The other issue is that due to overtasking, the ship navy has been in a death spiral for some time.
Average deployments are pushing 8 months, and time between is shrinking more and more towards immediate recycles with ever reducing FRP entitlements.
Some may argue that tasking is self induced, but they would be the ones that do not read nor even know what things such as GFMAP and DSG are.
The navy is at a critical decision point. It either rejects tasking to levels below achievable in order to take the current unit sourcing system and reset it, and then accept future taskings at sustainable levels. (In simple terms, reduce demand a lot to recover, and then do what you can). Or, it seeks to add capacity. Capacity can be added with cyclic efficiency (where the navy is already trimmed to below sustainable), or, by adding infrastructure. Which means ships, stuff & people as well as outyear expense in the incurred future costs for this.
Which do you think should be done?
1) Tell the nation that the navy can't be there to do the job that is asked?

2) Tell the nation that the navy needs more stuff to do the job it is asked to do?

3) Continue to burn the candle at both ends, tell the nation nothing, and eventually (soon) reach the point of total systemic collapse, thereby needing ridiculous/impossible resourcing to recover, and at the same time no longer be able to perform assigned tasks. (To clarify, this was what the Soviets did, and look where it got them...)

I offer a quote from Putin in option 3's regard:

I remember the conversation with the then chief of the General Staff very well. ... In order to give an effective answer to the terrorists we needed to gather a force numbering at least 65,000 men. But in all of
the Ground Forces, there were 55,000 in battle-ready units, and these
were scattered all over the country. An army of 1 million 400 thousand
men, but there was no one who could go to war.
- Vladimir Putin’s Annual Address to Parliament in 2006

You glibly characterize an extremely complex and wicked problem, with little to no depth or understanding of it.
Offer your insights to the crews that never really get home, and to the maintainers that are not given a chance to fully repair/refit a ship, and the resulting compounding accrued debt that carries forward as a result. See what you get. That and $5 will get you a coffee at Starbucks.

[GIThruster]

If you are going to choose between a Big Deck Amphib and a CVN, in today's world, you would get much more utility, use and mileage out of the Amphib.

How is that? They hold far less than half that of a CVN. Certainly, we do not need the number of flattops that is planned.

Which do you think should be done?
1) Tell the nation that the navy can't be there to do the job that is asked?

2) Tell the nation that the navy needs more stuff to do the job it is asked to do?

3) Continue to burn the candle at both ends, tell the nation nothing, and eventually (soon) reach the point of total systemic collapse, thereby needing ridiculous/impossible resourcing to recover, and at the same time no longer be able to perform assigned tasks.

You skipped the obvious choice. We can change the job the navy is asked to do. You talk about keeping the nation in the dark, but just how many people do you think understand the navy thinks it's the world police?

Yeah, I think it's cool we hunt pirates off Somalia, but I don't think the taxpayer would pay for it if he/she knew what they get in return. We simply do not need the size navy we have, and we need to shift our priorities to space. It might upset you to hear it, but our navy is sized for symmetrical war and there are no world powers that form that symmetry. We simply do not need the size navy we have and it should be downsized.

You don't get it. We cannot afford to spend the way we do. It simply does not matter if you're right or left, you have to get used to the idea that this debt is killing us as a nation. It simply DOES NOT MATTER how large the navy is when the country is flat broke and in debt 16 trillion dollars.

EVERYTHING needs to be cut, not just the stuff you don't like, but the stuff you do like too. EVERYTHING. When the dopes on the hill finally figure out that the dems have to cut the entitlements are the reps will do it, and the reps have to cut defense or the dems will do it, then everyone will finally sit down and start doing what they get paid for--cutting all expenses. If they refuse to do this, we're going to throw the bums out, same as we did in 2010.

[ladajo]

ladajo wrote:
If you are going to choose between a Big Deck Amphib and a CVN, in today's world, you would get much more utility, use and mileage out of the Amphib.

How is that? They hold far less than half that of a CVN. Certainly, we do not need the number of flattops that is planned.

GIT, they do two fundamentally different jobs. It is not about numbers of aircraft. To further my point, how many marines are on a CVN? How many landing craft? CVNs are not LHD/A's and vice-versa for a reason.

In case you misunderstand me, I am all for dialing back demand. Unfortunately, the point I think you miss by not understanding GFMAP, DSG and the associated process is that it is not the navy that dictates demand. The navy meets demand, or at least trys these days.
In regard to demand, we, IMO, are not wiling to accept risk. And in that it means we show up with more stuff. If we were willing to accept risk and cost more realistically, I would argue that demand could be dialed back some. For an example, look deeper into the argument over how fast mines could be cleared from Hormuz, should the morons choose to mine it, and the whys for the timeframe mattering.
As a taxpayer, I am angry that something was not done sooner and more firmly to end piracy in Somalia, because IMO if it had been done back in 2003 or earlier, then there would be a few more US citizens around paying taxes and voting. But again, that is the accepted demon of a military that answers to civilian leadership. Even the Europeans wnated to make strikes against shore targets back then to end it quickly. But not us. And they followed our lead (more or less). But to be fair, they did try to prompt us into decisive action by staging a couple of shore raids and such. Alas to no avail.
These days, piracy patrol is merely a convenient training exercise to keep units spiffed up for anti-Iranian ops should the need arise. And don;t hink that the Iranians aren't keeping as close a count as possible on US ships in the area. Presence serves a point.

[MSimon]

We can change the job the Navy is asked to do? Well the Romans did it in their time and international commerce took a thousand years to recover.

You have to wonder if anyone is still interested in history.

What you going to do when the Middle East goes in atomic war mode and you can't put boots on the ground? You know - collect the launch pads?

What you gonna do when China decides to nibble on its neighbors?

A pound of prevention is worth a ton of war. Funny how people have forgotten that.

America guarantees the current international system. We should stop because it is too expensive (ala the 1920s)? We got the 1940s in return. Anyone still read history? Yes it costs too much. It will have been thought cheap after the next world war.

The same conclusion we came to in 1945. But the people who learned that lesson in their gut are mostly dead. We are now experiencing a reversion to traditional American attitudes towards "over there". God help us because there may not be enough Marines to.

[ladajo]

To further your education, here is the navy's take on LHD/A's:

http://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/Pages ... tShip.aspx

[GIThruster]

You both seem to be laboring under the misconception that we have a legitimate choice here when we do not.

Before anything else comes under consideration, you have to embrace the FACT that we are not on a sustainable trajectory. We simply CANNOT continue to spend the way we do. This is not an option. Whoever breaks this news to the country will be left holding the bag of debt left from all the years previous, and the unenviable task of cutting everything so we can get back on a sustainable path.

Before anything else, you need to embrace the FACT that we have no choice--we have to change the way we spend. Second to this is one has to realize that when cutting, everyone will suffer. Everyone. No exceptions. Defense will be utterly changed and we cannot expect to be the global police when we can't pay our own bills. Likewise, we cannot keep tax rates as they are and expect to cut entitlements. Even though you or I might think this would be nice, it is simply not possible to do this. The ONLY way to get out of the current mess we're in is to displease everyone by compromising and negotiating. All sub-adults please leave the room. It's that or we end up like Greece.

Just wait until CA files for bankruptcy because they can''t pay off all the crazy pensions they've promised over the years and sticks their hand out for national pesos; and finds we're not going to pay for those pensions here in NJ. We pay for our own pensions and we're not paying CA's too.

This country is headed toward economic collapse on dozens of levels and people want to pretend there is any part of the budget that can't be cut? I promise you, you're entirely mistaken. It's ALL going to be cut.

[ladajo]

iwould wager that we can save a lot more by getting entitlement spending under control than we could by cutting defense. In fact so much so that I don't think we would actually need to cut defense.

I am all about spending control and reduction. I am also all about not incurring the costs of lack of prevention neccessitating cure.

Defense is a fraction of entitlement. Control entitlement and you control debt. Control debt and you control interest on it. Control the interest, you can then control a manageble budget.

Yes we are out of control, but it is not because of military spending.

The United States Strategic Center of Gravity is the Global Trade System. If we lose it, we lose everything. Sea Lines of Communication are central to the Global Trade System. You can move all the ones and zeros you want, but if they are not associated with real goods, then the pyramid collapses.

[MSimon]

Before anything else comes under consideration, you have to embrace the FACT that we are not on a sustainable trajectory.

That is what we though in the 1920s too. Somehow we managed to devote 50% of the National economy to the war.

Cheaper to do it by intention than accident.

BTW it is not the military that is breaking us. It is the cost of the free lunches. Those are unsustainable. And it is the corporate free lunch that hurts the most. Solyndra ring a bell? Wind subsidies. And those are only the most well known. The whole corporate landscape is rife with cronyism.

And our #1 problem re: individuals? Women live too long and consume too much medical care - they are bankrupting the system.

The other little problem is the manufacturing "dust bowl". We make just as many goods. It takes a LOT fewer people to do it. Those kinds of adjustments take 20+ years. We are in the middle.

[MSimon]

The United States Strategic Center of Gravity is the Global Trade System. If we lose it, we lose everything. Sea Lines of Communication are central to the Global Trade System. You can move all the ones and zeros you want, but if they are not associated with real goods, then the pyramid collapses.

Excellent! d'accord. But then I have been involved in international trade for a very long time.

Everything is made everywhere. The physical communications are the blood stream of the organization. The Navy the antibodies. Antibody levels need to rise in times of stress lest the organism be overwhelmed. Raising antibodies has a cost. Not raising them has a cost.

Reality is a bitch. With sharp teeth.

[GIThruster]

I would wager that we can save a lot more by getting entitlement spending under control than we could by cutting defense. In fact so much so that I don't think we would actually need to cut defense.

You still don't understand. What you're saying does not matter in the slightest. It does not matter if you're correct or not. The only way you could cut entitlements and leave defense as is, is if more than 50% of the country were not receiving the entitlements, and that's not possible.

Please try to grasp the situation. There is NO WAY for anyone to get what they want. Everyone is going to have to be content with what they don't want. Everyone. The only way to get the cooperation necessary to cut the budget is to cut it everywhere and raise taxes. If there were another way to get people to take the measures needed, I would support it. I certainly would like to see entitlements cut before defense, but that is not a workable solution for obvious reasons.

Think about the pyramid shaped economic structure of any country and you'll see why you can't cut entitlements and leave things like defense intact. Pretending you can is what paralyzes conservatives and leaves them useless. Pretending you can have what you want is useless. You cannot because the bulk of this country wants their entitlements and this is a democracy. Its simple math.

[MSimon]

I would wager that we can save a lot more by getting entitlement spending under control than we could by cutting defense. In fact so much so that I don't think we would actually need to cut defense.

You still don't understand. What you're saying does not matter in the slightest. It does not matter if you're correct or not. The only way you could cut entitlements and leave defense as is, is if more than 50% of the country were not receiving the entitlements, and that's not possible.

Please try to grasp the situation. There is NO WAY for anyone to get what they want. Everyone is going to have to be content with what they don't want. Everyone. The only way to get the cooperation necessary to cut the budget is to cut it everywhere and raise taxes. If there were another way to get people to take the measures needed, I would support it. I certainly would like to see entitlements cut before defense, but that is not a workable solution for obvious reasons.

Think about the pyramid shaped economic structure of any country and you'll see why you can't cut entitlements and leave things like defense intact. Pretending you can is what paralyzes conservatives and leaves them useless. Pretending you can have what you want is useless. You cannot because the bulk of this country wants their entitlements and this is a democracy. Its simple math.

Yes. Quite right - not everyone can get what they want.

It will take a major war to resolve the issue. You will get one.