http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/24/defense-department-to-cut-army-to-pre-ww-ii-size/?hpt=hp_t1
Quote
The Department of Defense plans to scale down the nation's Army to its pre-World War II size and do away with an entire class of Air Force attack jets in an attempt to cut military spending, which mushroomed after the attacks of September 11, 2001, according to reports.
The plan, backed by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, as first reported by The New York Times, positions the military to handle any enemy but will leave the armed forces with much fewer resources to take on lengthy missions abroad. The dwindled budget also reflects the current political climate, with a President who has pledged to pull back from extended and expensive wars abroad in an era of federal funding cutbacks.
The budget is to be presented Monday.
Hagel proposes cutting the Army to 440,000 to 450,000 troops, according to the Times. Army troop levels already were supposed to go down to 490,000, from their height of 570,000 after the 9/11 attacks.
The budget, does, however, protect funding for cyberwarfare and special operations, a reflection of the evolving way in which the U.S. has approached fighting overseas, using tactics that don't necessarily rely so heavily on land fighters. The proposal also preserves money for controversial and costly F-35 fighter planes.
It fits the old proverb "Don't go fishing when your house is on fire." We should all focus defense budgets on what is really defense.
Quote from: Centurion40 on February 24, 2014, 12:09:20 PM
US Army to be cut to pre-WWII levels??!!
That will be one hell of a cut!
Quote from: Greybriar on February 24, 2014, 12:28:46 PM
Quote from: Centurion40 on February 24, 2014, 12:09:20 PM
US Army to be cut to pre-WWII levels??!!
That will be one hell of a cut!
I was just gonna say, wouldn't that put our troop strength at less than 50,000? I don't remember the exact numbers anymore, but I know our pre-WW2 army was pretty damn small.
.
Quote from: Martok on February 24, 2014, 12:36:47 PM
I was just gonna say, wouldn't that put our troop strength at less than 50,000? I don't remember the exact numbers anymore, but I know our pre-WW2 army was pretty damn small.
According to this (http://rcocean.blogspot.com/2008/04/us-army-and-air-force-strength-1938.html):
US Army and Air Force Strength 1938-1941Total US Army Air Force (Air Corps) PersonnelJuly 1, 1938 - 21,000
July 1, 1939 - 22,000
July 1, 1940 - 51,000
July 1, 1941 - 151, 000
Dec 7, 1941 - 300,000
Total US Army (excludes Air Corps) PersonnelJuly 1, 1938 - 161,000 + National Guard (Not inducted) : 200,000
July 1, 1939 - 161,000 + National Guard (Not inducted) : 200,000
July 1, 1940 - 240,000 + National Guard (Not inducted) : 200,000
July 1, 1941 - 1,310, 000
Dec 7, 1941 - 1,344,000
If anyone knows of a better source, I would appreciate it if they would provide a link to it.
Anybody know offhand what the "entire class of air force attack jets" they are doing away with? Warthog follow-on?
Not just the follow-on but the actual A-10 itself. All of them. Bye-bye. No more loitering with intent. :(
So you're saying prolly not a lot of A-10 flight sims in the pipeline?
I listened to an interview on the radio last week where a snooty Ivy League type (his name was Llewellyn) discussed the future of warfare with some Pentagon/DARPA guy. His belief was that with the proliferation of cheap, easy to produce high precision, semi autonomous weapons systems, the US system of waging war was no longer viable. He said that the US likes to deploy massive resources as close to the combat zone as possible in order to establish air supremacy and support systems for the guys on the pointy end. He felt that drones, smart weapons, etc would mean that things like air bases, carrier groups, supply depots, and artillery parks would be very vulnerable. He said that large standing armies would be a thing if the past. Perhaps these cuts are a validation of his assertions?
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on February 24, 2014, 09:29:12 PM
I listened to an interview on the radio last week where a snooty Ivy League type (his name was Llewellyn) discussed the future of warfare with some Pentagon/DARPA guy. His belief was that with the proliferation of cheap, easy to produce high precision, semi autonomous weapons systems, the US system of waging war was no longer viable. He said that the US likes to deploy massive resources as close to the combat zone as possible in order to establish air supremacy and support systems for the guys on the pointy end. He felt that drones, smart weapons, etc would mean that things like air bases, carrier groups, supply depots, and artillery parks would be very vulnerable. He said that large standing armies would be a thing if the past. Perhaps these cuts are a validation of his assertions?
Probably. Stated more directly, you could say that old fashioned war was based on the advantage of the unknown position of attack. Against a modern information rich state, the advantage goes back to the defender. Anyone with extended supply lines will have them cut, destroying the majority of the attacking force. Would you attack knowing the enemy has fog of war turned off?
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on February 25, 2014, 02:45:55 AM
Probably. Stated more directly, you could say that old fashioned war was based on the advantage of the unknown position of attack. Against a modern information rich state, the advantage goes back to the defender. Anyone with extended supply lines will have them cut, destroying the majority of the attacking force. Would you attack knowing the enemy has fog of war turned off?
So, what happens when the first thing the other guy does is to take out your information gathering ability.
Quote from: OJsDad on February 25, 2014, 07:19:41 AM
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on February 25, 2014, 02:45:55 AM
Probably. Stated more directly, you could say that old fashioned war was based on the advantage of the unknown position of attack. Against a modern information rich state, the advantage goes back to the defender. Anyone with extended supply lines will have them cut, destroying the majority of the attacking force. Would you attack knowing the enemy has fog of war turned off?
So, what happens when the first thing the other guy does is to take out your information gathering ability.
Like the Chinese demo of destroying their own satellite. A clear statement that anyone attacking gets all their satellites, all comms killed. You have to assume all G8 states have focused on the same capability. You stay on your own land, you keep information flowing. You go "adventuring" you become isolated.
It's a stabilizing situation IMO. It pushes State to State interactions to trade and diplomacy. A more mature world.
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on February 25, 2014, 11:21:53 AM
Quote from: OJsDad on February 25, 2014, 07:19:41 AM
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on February 25, 2014, 02:45:55 AM
Probably. Stated more directly, you could say that old fashioned war was based on the advantage of the unknown position of attack. Against a modern information rich state, the advantage goes back to the defender. Anyone with extended supply lines will have them cut, destroying the majority of the attacking force. Would you attack knowing the enemy has fog of war turned off?
So, what happens when the first thing the other guy does is to take out your information gathering ability.
Like the Chinese demo of destroying their own satellite. A clear statement that anyone attacking gets all their satellites, all comms killed. You have to assume all G8 states have focused on the same capability. You stay on your own land, you keep information flowing. You go "adventuring" you become isolated.
It's a stabilizing situation IMO. It pushes State to State interactions to trade and diplomacy. A more mature world.
Yah, because the Chinese and Indians haven't been ripping off other counties technologies. You know, like people act in a mature world.
So, what happens when China decides it want's to annex Korea. Their comms are secure with land lines but anyone trying to assist Korea may be in a world of hurt.
Send God a letter telling him how cruel his universe is.
What would you rather, all advantages to the attacker so every tin pot dictator tries to annex the world? The US has always been protected by the oceans on each side. Would you rather that benefit did not exist?
must-read context
http://m.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/02/opponents-of-pentagon-budget-cuts-just-played-the-entire-media/284058/
Quote from: bayonetbrant on February 25, 2014, 09:16:03 PM
must-read context
http://m.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/02/opponents-of-pentagon-budget-cuts-just-played-the-entire-media/284058/
Excellent article Brant. It highlights an article that has a bit less bit less sensationalism:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-26326969 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-26326969)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbcimg.co.uk%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F73202000%2Fgif%2F_73202655_us_army_cuts_464gr.gif&hash=7bbe966088b92a989a327cf80dcd6f88393ec017)
and the thing that few people seem to understand is the largest part of our defence budget goes to payroll and benefits (regardless of how badly thats managed).
The Atlantic article is playing with dates. The 1940 numbers are accurate but the U.S. did not enter WWII until December of 1941. During 1941 and before December of 1941, the U.S. Army went to 1.3 million men.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on February 25, 2014, 09:37:01 PM
and the thing that few people seem to understand is the largest part of our defence budget goes to payroll and benefits (regardless of how badly thats managed).
About $161B for personnel and another $2.5B for family housing.
Does that include pensions, VA costs and monues paid to families?
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbcimg.co.uk%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F72789000%2Fgif%2F_72789460_military_spending_624v3.gif&hash=3981fdcd2f89b4c8ca43fb1860f76b88320aac6b)
Quote from: OJsDad on February 25, 2014, 12:47:53 PM
So, what happens when China decides it want's to annex Korea. Their comms are secure with land lines but anyone trying to assist Korea may be in a world of hurt.
Begs the question- does it really matter if the Chinese rule Korea like they rule Hong Kong? Is it worth the cost of the US garrison in Korea, the 7th Fleet, 7th Air Force, etc.? I don't have the answer. I like having the US as the stabilizing force behind my way of life. But ultimately, it is not my call- nor do I have any say in it.
Quote from: Centurion40 on February 26, 2014, 01:15:28 PM
Quote from: OJsDad on February 25, 2014, 12:47:53 PM
So, what happens when China decides it want's to annex Korea. Their comms are secure with land lines but anyone trying to assist Korea may be in a world of hurt.
Begs the question- does it really matter if the Chinese rule Korea like they rule Hong Kong? Is it worth the cost of the US garrison in Korea, the 7th Fleet, 7th Air Force, etc.? I don't have the answer. I like having the US as the stabilizing force behind my way of life. But ultimately, it is not my call- nor do I have any say in it.
Great questions. I don't have the answer either. Do we stand with other Democracies or do we bring the troops home and hope that everything works out all right. Korea was just the first to come to mind. What happens if they take Korea. Are they then more poised to take Japan. I'm in favor of the US becoming less reliant on Middle East oil and not needing to maintain US forces there. But I'm not sure I'm willing to allow Iran to start absorbing other Gulf States.
I've been wondering if the US could pull 8th Army out and setup POMCUS sites. Don't know if that would work or not.
In 2013, trade between the US and SK was $103B. Between US and Japan for 2013 was $203B.
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance (http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance)
I say let's put the U.S. Army to work making our border safe before getting rid of any troops:
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi58.tinypic.com%2F2ewle0i.jpg&hash=7efbe8fbb99584193a2fa84baa46125321406228)
Where's General Pershing when you need him? ;)
I'd like to think that Chinese do not have any designs on adding Korea or Japan to the People's Republic! I would think that Taiwan (which is full of actual Chinese people) would be real prize. If they go for Taiwan, then it would be time to gird our loins. If they went for Korea or Japan, then it would be time to cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war.
I would agree that democracies should defend other democracies, all things being equal.
Quote from: Greybriar on February 26, 2014, 03:45:27 PMWhere's General Pershing when you need him? ;)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm1.static.flickr.com%2F22%2F92412975_dbc959635f_o.jpg&hash=ea72ec05bb7b0e073bb94cff2a0fa0130b44fc23)
Quote from: Greybriar on February 26, 2014, 03:45:27 PM
I say let's put the U.S. Army to work making our border safe before getting rid of any troops:(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi58.tinypic.com%2F2ewle0i.jpg&hash=7efbe8fbb99584193a2fa84baa46125321406228)
Where's General Pershing when you need him? ;)
I agree. It is fairly gross negligence on the part of civilian overseers to let crime run rampant over the border while armies wander around other continents. Yes, people will say Rome never let it's armies run domestically, they were afraid of their armies. Rome never made any pretext of those armies being for defense. They were clearly armies of conquest. I do not understand the logic in this age of not using the armies for homeland defense. So there is a whole other department for that?
For a lot of other democracies our armies are used for "states of emergency" such as natural disasters or anything else that comes up. We assume we control our armies. In the US there seems to be a strange fear of government power at the same time as you use that government power overseas. Is it under control or not?
You have most of the world's defensive power. You don't use it domestically.
You hate the idea of socialism and welfare. But it is good for the military, cant cut the holy military sector.
I think Saudi has to counter Iran. It's their area, they have the money.
Japan has to take the lead in countering China with other small Asian countries.
The EU has to learn to defend Europe.
The US simply does not have the funds to try to control what is happening all over the world. Every empire that has tried has fallen. Protect your land and people first. Make transition careers that give army people skills for the real economy. The military is not investment that generates more wealth, it is a cost center.
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on February 26, 2014, 04:43:01 PM
I agree. It is fairly gross negligence on the part of civilian overseers to let crime run rampant over the border while armies wander around other continents. Yes, people will say Rome never let it's armies run domestically, they were afraid of their armies. Rome never made any pretext of those armies being for defense. They were clearly armies of conquest. I do not understand the logic in this age of not using the armies for homeland defense. So there is a whole other department for that?
I'm no expert on Rome, but I thought her armies spent more time fighting themselves to lay claim to the throne.
Quote
For a lot of other democracies our armies are used for "states of emergency" such as natural disasters or anything else that comes up. We assume we control our armies. In the US there seems to be a strange fear of government power at the same time as you use that government power overseas. Is it under control or not?
Not sure what your talking about. The US military spends a lot of time and energy assisting with natural and man made disasters in the US.
Quote
You have most of the world's defensive power. You don't use it domestically.
You hate the idea of socialism and welfare. But it is good for the military, cant cut the holy military sector.
There have been plenty of discussions here pointing out where the DOD can cut costs without cutting man power.
Quote
I think Saudi has to counter Iran. It's their area, they have the money.
Japan has to take the lead in countering China with other small Asian countries.
The EU has to learn to defend Europe.
I don't think you'll get any arguments here that others need to step up and do more for their own protection.
Quote
The US simply does not have the funds to try to control what is happening all over the world. Every empire that has tried has fallen. Protect your land and people first. Make transition careers that give army people skills for the real economy. The military is not investment that generates more wealth, it is a cost center.
I'll disagree with your last sentence. If you allow your trading partners to be slowly taken out by those who hate you, then it will do great harm to our economy. A strong military that is capable of defending ourselves but helping to defend our friends is an investment. If you think we have the ability to grow the military as quickly as we did during WWII, then I think you're sadly mistaken.
Our current military spending isn't going to bankrupt us. It's the unfunded mandates that are, which are at $128T and climbing. Military spending is dropping, both in dollars and as a percent of GDP.
I may be wrong, but I don't think these cuts are either wise or needed.
Maybe I misunderstand your laws. It seems to be in the news from time to time that the federal executive branch cannot order troops onto US soil for domestic control. Only a Governor can use the National Guard. Is that wrong?
This may be what you're thinking of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
Posse Comitatus originally referred to the power of a law enforcement officer to 'deputize' someone to help him (or her) uphold the law.
Yes, that looks like it.
Quote from: OJsDad on February 26, 2014, 06:16:10 PM
Quote
The military is not investment that generates more wealth, it is a cost center.
I'll disagree with your last sentence. If you allow your trading partners to be slowly taken out by those who hate you, then it will do great harm to our economy. A strong military that is capable of defending ourselves but helping to defend our friends is an investment. If you think we have the ability to grow the military as quickly as we did during WWII, then I think you're sadly mistaken.
Our current military spending isn't going to bankrupt us. It's the unfunded mandates that are, which are at $128T and climbing. Military spending is dropping, both in dollars and as a percent of GDP.
I may be wrong, but I don't think these cuts are either wise or needed.
All countries have access to modern engineering tech. Maybe they lack raw materials to ramp production quickly. The US lacks nothing it needs for a massive WWII type move to war production.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on February 26, 2014, 04:01:20 PM
Quote from: Greybriar on February 26, 2014, 03:45:27 PMWhere's General Pershing when you need him? ;)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm1.static.flickr.com%2F22%2F92412975_dbc959635f_o.jpg&hash=ea72ec05bb7b0e073bb94cff2a0fa0130b44fc23)
I bet the general is turning over in his grave.
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on February 26, 2014, 10:15:25 PM
All countries have access to modern engineering tech. Maybe they lack raw materials to ramp production quickly. The US lacks nothing it needs for a massive WWII type move to war production.
No. building an F-16 is waaaay more time intensive then building a P-51 and a M-1 aint no Sherman. the simplicity just isnt there anymore.
You would be mass producing missiles.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on February 27, 2014, 12:22:46 AM
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on February 26, 2014, 10:15:25 PM
All countries have access to modern engineering tech. Maybe they lack raw materials to ramp production quickly. The US lacks nothing it needs for a massive WWII type move to war production.
No. building an F-16 is waaaay more time intensive then building a P-51 and a M-1 aint no Sherman. the simplicity just isnt there anymore.
Those are systems for small engagements not country survival. I think you would be building missiles. Then boats and trucks to get them in range. That is all that would be left after the ICBM exchanges.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on February 27, 2014, 12:22:46 AM
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on February 26, 2014, 10:15:25 PM
All countries have access to modern engineering tech. Maybe they lack raw materials to ramp production quickly. The US lacks nothing it needs for a massive WWII type move to war production.
No. building an F-16 is waaaay more time intensive then building a P-51 and a M-1 aint no Sherman. the simplicity just isnt there anymore.
The US Still has the largest and most advanced aerospace industry in the world between Space X, Boeing, and all the contractors building the F-35 (for better or worse) it has more capacity than anyone else. Large export orders means assembly lines are still open that should have been closed years ago on projects like the F-18 and F-16 those assembly lines have been dramatically down scaled from their full production runs but could be brought back into line if needed. Furthermore tools and equipment for the F-35 line was maintained to bring the capabilities back into line. I'm not saying we're making 50k aircraft in 5 years but no one is doing that, US industry still has the ability to reshape much in the way it did during World War 2, just not perhaps as dramatically.
Furthermore despite all the crys of outsourcing US industrial output continues to increase year over year, its just becoming more and more automated thus eliminating many jobs while maintain capacity. US Steal production for example is still on par with 1980s Steal Production and the US is still the 2nd largest manufacturing nation in the world with the largest (by far) military industrial complex. Things are slower yes but part of that speed is intentional, lines are kept open at low production rates that could increase substantially but they are kept open at low production levels to maintain cost savings and infrastructure that otherwise would be lost if lines were totally shut down.
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on February 27, 2014, 02:45:44 AM
You would be mass producing missiles. Quote from: GDS_Starfury on February 27, 2014, 12:22:46 AM
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on February 26, 2014, 10:15:25 PM
All countries have access to modern engineering tech. Maybe they lack raw materials to ramp production quickly. The US lacks nothing it needs for a massive WWII type move to war production.
No. building an F-16 is waaaay more time intensive then building a P-51 and a M-1 aint no Sherman. the simplicity just isnt there anymore.
Those are systems for small engagements not country survival. I think you would be building missiles. Then boats and trucks to get them in range. That is all that would be left after the ICBM exchanges.
What would really be left after ICBM exchanges? Seriously though, what would be left? I keep thinking of "The Day After" & "When the Wind Blows" (shudder).
the reason Ive never liked nuclear arms control talks is that at some point you cross a threshold where they become viable weapons again. with 40,000 and up no one uses them. below 5,000 and shit starts changing.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on March 01, 2014, 12:19:23 AM
the reason Ive never liked nuclear arms control talks is that at some point you cross a threshold where they become viable weapons again. with 40,000 and up no one uses them. below 5,000 and shit starts changing.
I appreciate the logic. It's not the same anymore though. It used to be 40,000 within a few miles of what matters. Now it is 5000 bullseyes guaranteed to eliminate whatever was supposed to be hit.
The new logic is dont get into an exchange, both sides (whatever rabble is left) will become the bitches of other countries X,Y,Z who were smart enough to stay out of it.
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on March 01, 2014, 12:30:54 AM
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on March 01, 2014, 12:19:23 AM
the reason Ive never liked nuclear arms control talks is that at some point you cross a threshold where they become viable weapons again. with 40,000 and up no one uses them. below 5,000 and shit starts changing.
I appreciate the logic. It's not the same anymore though. It used to be 40,000 within a few miles of what matters. Now it is 5000 bullseyes guaranteed to eliminate whatever was supposed to be hit.
The new logic is dont get into an exchange, both sides (whatever rabble is left) will become the bitches of other countries X,Y,Z who were smart enough to stay out of it.
What I still don't get about that is, once the nukes start flying, whatever is left won't be worth owning in a few years anyways. So it doesn't matter who is in or out, the whole place will be radioactive sooner than later.
Quote from: Greybriar on February 24, 2014, 12:28:46 PM
Quote from: Centurion40 on February 24, 2014, 12:09:20 PM
US Army to be cut to pre-WWII levels??!!
That will be one hell of a cut!
Pre-WW2 could include the Civil War! Maybe it's double speak for INCREASING the size of the army. ::) With the situation in the Ukraine turning nasty, it places a better spin on the double speak... ;) :o
I wonder how this news will play into the downsizing plans;
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/obama-arrives-europe-urges-congress-back-european-reassurance-initiative-n121006 (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/obama-arrives-europe-urges-congress-back-european-reassurance-initiative-n121006)
QuotePresident Barack Obama is urging Congress to support a $1 billion initiative to boost U.S. military activity in Europe, the White House said Tuesday, as the president kicked off a four-day trip to the continent.