- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Let's talk about military spending
Posted on 3/18/17 at 12:36 pm to Wolfhound45
Posted on 3/18/17 at 12:36 pm to Wolfhound45
quote:
You went full Whiskey Papa there
He sure did. I was expecting to see him reply to his own post with an unrelated copy/paste job.
1
Posted on 3/18/17 at 12:47 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
...reply to his own post with an unrelated copy/paste job.
Posted on 3/18/17 at 12:53 pm to Ace Midnight
Seriously, the most dire scenario (which is what Darth painted) does not take into account that we will have very good intelligence about what their intentions are, that we will see their assembly areas and (more importantly) we will see their logistics areas being established. That during Phase 1 we will signal them (by diplomatic means) to cease and desist, that we will start to position forces during Phase 2, and if they overstep their boundaries we absolutely will nuke forces still in Russia (as a minimum). Unless Germany wants to be under a Russian heel, they may do it themselves. And no one wants to go down that trail.
The more realistic scenario is smaller scale incident. A sudden attack on a neighboring country that we decide is simply not worth the blood and treasure to respond to.
The more realistic scenario is smaller scale incident. A sudden attack on a neighboring country that we decide is simply not worth the blood and treasure to respond to.
Posted on 3/18/17 at 1:03 pm to Wolfhound45
quote:And that's the entire point of this exercise. To get to a point where the American people have to consciously decide that what we're going to war for is worth deploying its citizen soldiers to fight and die for.
The more realistic scenario is smaller scale incident. A sudden attack on a neighboring country that we decide is simply not worth the blood and treasure to respond to.
Posted on 3/18/17 at 1:11 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
This is all well and good, but, when are we going to vote on bringing back the "Sea Soldiers" name?
AND What time is Chow?
AND What time is Chow?
This post was edited on 3/18/17 at 1:12 pm
Posted on 3/18/17 at 1:19 pm to Wolfhound45
quote:
In the scenario he just described? Are you kidding me? There is absolutely the possibility of a tactical nuke being used.
I don't see that happening.
Have you got any doctrinal sources that suggests that the US will authorize the use of nuclear weapons in other friendly countries or something from NATO maybe?
Posted on 3/18/17 at 2:50 pm to WhiskeyPapa
Do you honestly think we are going to publish military doctrine that outlines what our threshold is for use of nuclear weapons? Seriously? That will be an NCA decision anyway.
If that is not at least a tacit threat, why hasn't Russia already overrun Western Europe?
Come on Marine.
If that is not at least a tacit threat, why hasn't Russia already overrun Western Europe?
Come on Marine.
Posted on 3/18/17 at 3:14 pm to Wolfhound45
quote:
come on Marine
There are plenty of unclassified sources that discuss our general policies regarding the use of nuclear weapons.
Posted on 3/18/17 at 3:17 pm to WhiskeyPapa
Then research them.
Posted on 3/18/17 at 3:19 pm to WhiskeyPapa
Dude, you need to stop. That, or admit you're not really a Marine.
Posted on 3/18/17 at 3:24 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:He needs to stop doing this either way.
That, or admit you're not really a Marine.
Oh, and stand by for his boot camp photo.
Posted on 3/18/17 at 3:26 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:What if he identifies as a Marine, shithead? Are you suggesting he actually had to serve in the Corps to call himself a Marine?
admit you're not really a Marine.
fricking bigot.
Posted on 3/18/17 at 3:28 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
In
Posted on 3/18/17 at 3:28 pm to MrCarton
About goddamn time
Posted on 3/18/17 at 3:33 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Our military spending is directly tied to our worldwide commitments.
You can't complain about military spending and then bash Trump for wanting other NATO nations to pony up.
You can't support wars in Iraq, Libya, and Syria and then want to spend less on the military.
You can't complain that the military is bloated and inefficient and doesn't need the money and then in the same breath complain that other bloated and inefficient government agencies like State do need the money.
You can't claim that cutting funding to the NIH will hurt the economy and cause people to lose their jobs and then want to cut military spending because the military creates infinitely more jobs and contributes exponentially more to the economy than every other government bureaucracy combined.
Our military spending is simply the cost of doing business as the world's only superpower. If you want to spend less on the military then we need to start talking about what kind of influence we want in the world. We need to back away from being the sword defenders of Europe and the Western Pacific.
I for one support doing away with the active duty Army and Air Force and having a large powerful Navy while pulling out of NATO completely and telling Japan and Korea best of luck.
Agree in full. We have to address the demands that the government places on the military before we can actually talk about cutting a significant chunk of the 600,000,000,000 that we spend every single year on the military. That's all there is to it.
Are we supposed to be nation building and defending all of europe, Saudi, Israel, and part of SE asia? If people really think that, then the only cuts they will ever manage will be inconsequential.
If people believe that the purpose of the military is to defend US soil from foreign attack and/or invasion, and that we have no business policing and managing the affairs of the rest of the world...then we could cut our military to the bone and let people keep their money (or reduce debt financed spending).
Of course, I fall into the latter, and think we could cut out active army and AF to the bone (relatively speaking) by using a small cadre of active duty soldiers to manage the training of the reserve components.
This post was edited on 3/18/17 at 3:34 pm
Posted on 3/18/17 at 3:39 pm to MrCarton
quote:About time baw. I am almost maxed out on this thread...
MrCarton
ETA: Not even remotely mine.
This post was edited on 3/18/17 at 3:43 pm
Posted on 3/18/17 at 3:41 pm to MrCarton
quote:
Of course, I fall into the latter, and think we could cut out active army and AF to the bone (relatively speaking) by using a small cadre of active duty soldiers to manage the training of the reserve components.
Posted on 3/18/17 at 3:41 pm to Champagne
quote:
No, we can't, and I'll tell you why. You see, the name "Marines" is a French word, well, at least the origin of the word is French, and, it's an insult because we, as Americans, hate the French language.
Well we need to make a ton of changes to our military to rid it of the French influence.
Posted on 3/18/17 at 3:46 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
o would you go into combat where your brigade commander is an 18 yr old about 3 months past his high school prom?
Darth let's try to stay in reality here man.
Yeah for real. In the real world, an E6 could do that job...
Posted on 3/18/17 at 3:46 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Those jobs don't require nearly the same amount of training and experience to be effective.
It's so easy an 18 year old can do it.
:lol: :lol:
Page 20 of 32
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News