"Cuts in Military Pay and Benefits on the Table"

#26
#26
time to bring the troops in Japan, Germany, ROKS...etc home
 
#29
#29
BigPapaVol said:
Care to elaborate?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

A good way to save a few $ would be to get the hell out of Germany, Korea, Japan, Italy, Brazil, Spain, Greece, Bahrain, Kosovo, Australia, Bulgaria, Singapore, Kygyzstan, Netherlands, Philippines, Portugal, Turkey, etc.
 
#30
#30
1. reduce the number of overseas bases, especially those with Cold War origins

2. reduce the number of carrier battle groups

3. figure out a way to combine the National Guard and Reserves

4. begin offering early retirement to E5 and above with at least 15 years of quality service.

5. speed up the planned obsolescence of planes, ships and submarines
 
#31
#31
nbakerld said:
A good way to save a few $ would be to get the hell out of Germany, Korea, Japan, Italy, Brazil, Spain, Greece, Bahrain, Kosovo, Australia, Bulgaria, Singapore, Kygyzstan, Netherlands, Philippines, Portugal, Turkey, etc.
Click to expand...

Why remove all global presence over a few $? Sounds shortsighted and strategically stupid. I'd rather can the stateside bases and all of their attendant costs.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#32
#32
BigPapaVol said:
Why remove all global presence over a few $? Sounds shortsighted and strategically stupid. I'd rather can the stateside bases and all of their attendant costs.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's a good strategy if you are interested in policing the world and not actual national defense.
 
#33
#33
nbakerld said:
Yeah, that's a good strategy if you are interested in policing the world and not actual national defense.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you're a national defense genius. Maybe it's the TSS bullshiz you so often throw out.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#34
#34
BigPapaVol said:
Sounds like you're a national defense genius. Maybe it's the TSS bullshiz you so often throw out.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Sorry, what's TSS?

Please explain to me how a base in Germany is in my best interest. If I recall correctly, you have a degree in Econ. I just don't see how this is feasible if you conduct cost benefit analysis. We are protecting ourselves against unlikely hypothetical risks, and spending a ****load doing it.
 
#35
#35
BigPapaVol said:
Why remove all global presence over a few $? Sounds shortsighted and strategically stupid. I'd rather can the stateside bases and all of their attendant costs.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

With 230,000 permanently assigned overseas there has to be room for huge cuts here. Do we really need 75,000 US military stationed in Germany? Don't think so. I see more benefit having them stationed stateside & spending that pay in TX, NC, FL, GA, TN....etc rather in Germany or Japan or Korea or England.
 
#36
#36
nbakerld said:
Sorry, what's TSS?

Please explain to me how a base in Germany is in my best interest. If I recall correctly, you have a degree in Econ. I just don't see how this is feasible if you conduct cost benefit analysis. We are protecting ourselves against unlikely hypothetical risks, and spending a ****load doing it.
Click to expand...

The risk is only unlikely if someone completely ignores the past three hundred years of Russian history.
 
#38
#38
nbakerld said:
Yeah, that's a good strategy if you are interested in policing the world and not actual national defense.
Click to expand...

It depends on your view of foreign policy. If one takes a Wilsonian approach, your statement holds some water. If one takes a Roosevelt approach (Teddy), which was borne of Raison d'Etat and Realpolitik, then your statement holds absolutely no water.

Without the USSR, foreign policy and most national defense, according to a Roosevelt school statesman, will depend upon a balance of power. Our presence in Europe is crucial in maintaining that balance of power.

Of course, I am neither Wilsonian nor Roosevelt schooled, I choose to take a Kantian approach. That said, I would argue that it be best to get rid of said bases; however, that would be in the best interest of Kantian Morality, not in the best interest of National Defense.
 
#39
#39
I'd argue in the world of nuclear powers, major wars are a thing of the past.
 
#40
#40
MG1968 said:
1. reduce the number of overseas bases, especially those with Cold War origins

2. reduce the number of carrier battle groups

3. figure out a way to combine the National Guard and Reserves

4. begin offering early retirement to E5 and above with at least 15 years of quality service.

5. speed up the planned obsolescence of planes, ships and submarines
Click to expand...

The way I understand it, decommissioning nuclear submarines is almost as expensive as building the new ones. They have to stagger the rate of decommissioning for budget concerns already. Just tossing that in there, for consideration.
 
#41
#41
Weezy said:
I'd argue in the world of nuclear powers, major wars are a thing of the past.
Click to expand...

That's been said many times throughout history, and it has never been true.

And "major" is in the eye of the beholder.
 
#42
#42
therealUT said:
It depends on your view of foreign policy. If one takes a Wilsonian approach, your statement holds some water. If one takes a Roosevelt approach (Teddy), which was borne of Raison d'Etat and Realpolitik, then your statement holds absolutely no water.

Without the USSR, foreign policy and most national defense, according to a Roosevelt school statesman, will depend upon a balance of power. Our presence in Europe is crucial in maintaining that balance of power.

Of course, I am neither Wilsonian nor Roosevelt schooled, I choose to take a Kantian approach. That said, I would argue that it be best to get rid of said bases; however, that would be in the best interest of Kantian Morality, not in the best interest of National Defense.
Click to expand...

I prefer Washingtonian foreign policy. I'll have to explore Kantian morality. Never heard of it.
 
#43
#43
Weezy said:
I'd argue in the world of nuclear powers, major wars are a thing of the past.
Click to expand...

Building peace, one nuclear warhead at a time.

Like IP said, this sentiment has often been expressed when a major revolution in military technology occurs; yet, it has never held. War, to include major wars, will always exist.
 
#44
#44
nbakerld said:
I prefer Washingtonian foreign policy. I'll have to explore Kantian morality. Never heard of it.
Click to expand...

Brief breakdown of Kantian Morality: the judgment of the righteousness of an act lies within the act itself, without regard to the consequences.

For more in depth study, I would suggest Kant's The Groundwork of Metaphysical Morality.
 
#45
#45
HS.png
 
#46
#46
therealUT said:
Brief breakdown of Kantian Morality: the judgment of the righteousness of an act lies within the act itself, without regard to the consequences.

For more in depth study, I would suggest Kant's The Groundwork of Metaphysical Morality.
Click to expand...

So if I understand this correctly, the ends don't justify the means? I can dig it.
 
#50
#50
WillisWG said:
With 230,000 permanently assigned overseas there has to be room for huge cuts here. Do we really need 75,000 US military stationed in Germany? Don't think so. I see more benefit having them stationed stateside & spending that pay in TX, NC, FL, GA, TN....etc rather in Germany or Japan or Korea or England.
Click to expand...

The savings would only be nominal, unless you're advocating drawing those troops down altogether. They are only minimally more expensive in Vicenza than they are at Bragg.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top