oh good, by dint of presidential fiat my country's military is being gutted today

[raketenjagdpanzer]

(mods wrap an anchor chain around this and toss it off the pier at midnight, would you)

[Webstral]

Yellow light on politics.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Yellow light on politics.

You're absolutely right and I apologize.

[Webstral]

For anyone who feels unsettled by the military drawdown in the US, I understand completely. Its possible to discuss the issue from a technical standpoint without bringing politics into it. Its even possible to mention some of the political pressures on the decision-makers, just as we would in a conversation about any historical event.

[Targan]

Darn, started reading this thread too late to know what the original post said. Can we have an apolitical summary, please The thread title has picqued my interest.

[B.T.]

I see it very much from Targans point of view. What was this to be all about And if Webstrals advice is kept in mind, that should not be a problem, right

Its possible to discuss the issue from a technical standpoint without bringing politics into it. Its even possible to mention some of the political pressures on the decision-makers, just as we would in a conversation about any historical event.

[ArmySGT.]

The current Administration announced their plans for reducing the Department of Defense budget now and in the coming years.

Force reduction.

Cutting programs.

The Two theater doctrine is being done away with.

It is being discussed on all the American news networks tonight.

What the Nations UNfriendly to the US just heard was that the DoD is going to be able to fight one War and in one Theater.

Should it all go south in the Middle East and the US goes back, someplace like say North Korea could have a long lead time to prosecute a war strategy.

So our various smaller Allies are wondering... Will the US still help us

[Schone23666]

The current Administration announced their plans for reducing the Department of Defense budget now and in the coming years.

Force reduction.

Cutting programs.

The Two theater doctrine is being done away with.

It is being discussed on all the American news networks tonight.

What the Nations UNfriendly to the US just heard was that the DoD is going to be able to fight one War and in one Theater.

Should it all go south in the Middle East and the US goes back, someplace like say North Korea could have a long lead time to prosecute a war strategy.

So our various smaller Allies are wondering... Will the US still help us

Unfortunately, this is coming as no surprise, given the current situation.

As for various smaller Allies wondering if the U.S. still will help them if shit hits the fan...I fear in some cases that one famous quote from that game we all know and love may apply:

"Good luck...your on your own..."

[Matt W]

I don't think you should panic

U.S. military budget

2000: $375 billion
2002: $425 billion
2004: $527 billion
2006: $561 billion
2008: $618 billion
2010: $687 billion
2012: $705 billion
2013: $662 billiion

As far as I can work out, the ambition is to cut defence spending back to something like 2004 levels (and hoping to achieve this by 2022)

It is true that the US Army and US Marines are being decreased in size - but that usually happens at the end of land wars

This document outlines the strategy. Basically,

1. There will be no US troops getting blown up in Afghanistan (an unimportant place which is economically worthless to the US).
2. There will be fewer troops in Europe (which - although important - isn't particularly worried about any military threats)
3. There will be more US military personnel doing useful things in Asia/Pacific (which is hugely important to the US economy and includes North Korea and China)

http://www.defense.gov/news/Defense_Strategic_Guidance.pdf

[raketenjagdpanzer]

It's not even necessarily the loss of funds, it's what's going to be done with the reorganized money. My wife works for the Army so this directly impacts me...

[pmulcahy11b]

OK, I'll put one thing in: The level of military spending by our country is unsustainable. We have to draw down. My worry is when the former servicemembers and their families go looking for jobs, and a lot won't find any. We need to draw down spending, but the people who want to stay should be allowed to. The ones who find no opportunities in the civilian world should be allowed to come back if they wish. But Iraq and Afghanistan have been drawn out far too long, with precious little accomplished (and a nice power vacuum in Iraq). We've been protecting Europe too long, South Korea too long, and we've been the world's policeman too long. Time for the rest of the world to start taking care of themselves for a while,

[Schone23666]

OK, I'll put one thing in: The level of military spending by our country is unsustainable. We have to draw down. My worry is when the former servicemembers and their families go looking for jobs, and a lot won't find any. We need to draw down spending, but the people who want to stay should be allowed to. The ones who find no opportunities in the civilian world should be allowed to come back if they wish. But Iraq and Afghanistan have been drawn out far too long, with precious little accomplished (and a nice power vacuum in Iraq). We've been protecting Europe too long, South Korea too long, and we've been the world's policeman too long. Time for the rest of the world to start taking care of themselves for a while,

I can see where you're coming from Paul, and I agree wholeheartedly about the veterans.

But, (and I'm going to resist getting into politics here, slippery slope) I think the world, much like the U.S. itself, has a rather mixed record at best when it comes to "looking after itself".

I know, drawing down is inevitable, can only sustain such operations for so long and everyone knows it, just bothers me when I hear more and more isolationist talk these days, as if the "magic cure" to all the world's ills is to go the other extreme and the United STates to go and proverbially stick it's head in the sand.

Okay, definitely getting too much into the political slope, gonna step off the podium and go hibernate again...

[Badbru]

OK, I'll put one thing in: The level of military spending by our country is unsustainable. We have to draw down. ,

I recall being shocked, no that's too strong, impressed seems too positive, perturbed perhaps, when I saw a stat one day which said that US military spending not only exceeded the sum total of all other nations on this earth, but it exceeded it many times over. Food for thought if accurate.

Further, given the free society claimed in the US, one should feel free to question the moral implications of such a large portion of that nations economy and infrastructure based upon the production of war material. This is undoubtably a hold over from the second world war. I offer no judgement myself as it would be hipocritical given my interest in all things military but feel it is something that all humanity should consider.

[headquarters]

good post

most informative and to the point. It would seem the US will be able to win any military engagement they will get into the next 50 years as they have done the past 50 years. As a long standing ally we have trusted the US to ensure our soverignity since WWII. ( We neighbour Russia and the Nazis invaded us in 1940). After considering the implications of the budget cuts I am not alarmed. The US will still be by far the most powerful military on the planet - several times over compared to the runner ups.

As for what Badbru is writing about the comparrison of military budgets world wide - The US is spending app-. 2 000 000 dollars every minute of the day -365 days a year.

I don't think you should panic

U.S. military budget

2000: $375 billion
2002: $425 billion
2004: $527 billion
2006: $561 billion
2008: $618 billion
2010: $687 billion
2012: $705 billion
2013: $662 billiion

As far as I can work out, the ambition is to cut defence spending back to something like 2004 levels (and hoping to achieve this by 2022)

It is true that the US Army and US Marines are being decreased in size - but that usually happens at the end of land wars

This document outlines the strategy. Basically,

1. There will be no US troops getting blown up in Afghanistan (an unimportant place which is economically worthless to the US).
2. There will be fewer troops in Europe (which - although important - isn't particularly worried about any military threats)
3. There will be more US military personnel doing useful things in Asia/Pacific (which is hugely important to the US economy and includes North Korea and China)

http://www.defense.gov/news/Defense_...c_Guidance.pdf

[Mahatatain]

I don't think you should panic

U.S. military budget

2000: $375 billion
2002: $425 billion
2004: $527 billion
2006: $561 billion
2008: $618 billion
2010: $687 billion
2012: $705 billion
2013: $662 billiion

As far as I can work out, the ambition is to cut defence spending back to something like 2004 levels (and hoping to achieve this by 2022)

I think that Matt W has made a very good point here - the reduction in US Military spending is very significant but it is less than the increases that occured a number of years ago and the level it is falling to is still something like 50% higher than when the War on Terror started.

This document outlines the strategy. Basically,

1. There will be no US troops getting blown up in Afghanistan (an unimportant place which is economically worthless to the US).
2. There will be fewer troops in Europe (which - although important - isn't particularly worried about any military threats)
3. There will be more US military personnel doing useful things in Asia/Pacific (which is hugely important to the US economy and includes North Korea and China)

http://www.defense.gov/news/Defense_...c_Guidance.pdf

Just with regard to point 2 above I actually don't understand why there are still significant numbers of US military personnel in Europe. I can see there would be some to pilot, service and protect aircraft that are based in Europe but what is the need to keep US ground forces in Europe Is Russia and/or other parts of Eastern Europe still seen as a potential threat

Likewise the British Army still have a significant number of troops in Germany and with our commitments in Afganistan I can't understand the reason. The government announced in 2010 that these troops would withdraw from Germany by 2020 but I don't understand why there is the delay.

Is there an economic impact here of having US and British troops (and possibly others - I don't really know) stationed in mainland Europe, i.e. those troops spend a lot of money in the local communites they are based in and so the hosting countries would rather they withdraw gradually Or is that a rediclious suggestion