Is America’s Military Big Enough?

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  bob-nelson  •  2 years ago  •  119 comments

Is America’s Military Big Enough?

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



President Trump has proposed a $54 billion increase in defense spending, which he said would be “one of the largest increases in national defense spending in American history.”

Untitled.png

Past administrations have increased military spending, but typically to fulfill a specific mission. Jimmy Carter expanded operations in the Persian Gulf. Ronald Reagan pursued an arms race with the Soviet Union, and George W. Bush waged wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Screenshot_14.png

Mr. Trump has not articulated a new mission that would require a military spending increase. This has left analysts wondering what goals he has in mind. Erin M. Simpson, a national security consultant, called Mr. Trump’s plans “a budget in search of a strategy.”

Screenshot_15.png

The United States has higher military spending than any other country partly because its foreign policy goals are more ambitious : defending its borders, upholding international order and promoting American interests abroad.

“Our current strategy is based around us being a superpower in Europe, the Middle East and Asia-Pacific,” said Todd Harrison, the director of defense budget analysis at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “We’ve sized our military to be able to fight more than one conflict at a time in those regions.”

Some of Mr. Trump’s statements have suggested a reduced footprint for the United States military.

He criticized America’s role as a global military stabilizer. Last month, in his first address to a joint session of Congress , he said the United States had “defended the borders of other nations while leaving our own borders wide open.”
He also called for defusing tensions with Russia, the United States’ chief military competitor.

But Mr. Trump has also taken positions that point to a more aggressive military posture.


He has advocated challenging China and Iran more directly.
He wrote on Twitter that America must “greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability.”

These statements have left analysts unsure about the role Mr. Trump wants the United States military to play in the world.

The following is a closer look at Mr. Trump’s proposed upgrades to four crucial aspects of the military — troops, air power, naval power and nuclear weapons — and what his new spending might achieve.

1 Troops

The United States has approximately 1.3 million active-duty troops, with another 865,000 in reserve, one of the largest fighting forces of any country.

Screenshot_16.png

The United States also has a global presence unlike any other nation, with about 200,000 active troops deployed in more than 170 countries.

Screenshot_17.png

Many are stationed in allied nations in Europe and northeastern Asia. Mr. Trump has criticized these alliances, saying the United States does too much to defend its allies. It seems unlikely, then, that Mr. Trump intends his spending increase to bolster those deployments.

“The general concept of readiness often happens without a conversation about what the forces are for,” said Benjamin H. Friedman, a research fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington. “They don’t know exactly what they want to do, except that they want a bigger military.”

Mr. Trump wants to increase the number of active-duty military personnel in the Army and Marine Corps by about 70,000 — a rise of about 11 percent over the current total of 660,000.

Screenshot_18.png

The United States increased troop levels in the early 2000s for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but has scaled down as it has withdrawn from those conflicts. Mr. Trump has been critical of those missions, suggesting that he does not plan to ramp up operations in either conflict.

Gordon Adams, a former senior White House national security budget officer, said, “Unless you decide you’re going to war — and going to war soon — nobody keeps a large military.”

2 Air Power

The United States has around 2,200 fighter jets, including about 1,400 operated by the Air Force. Mr. Trump wants to add at least 100 more fighter aircraft to the Air Force.

Screenshot_19.png

Analysts informally categorize fighter aircraft by “generations” as a way to compare capabilities. While there is some variation among analysts on how planes are classified, there is a broad consensus that American aircraft are more advanced than those of other nations.

While Mr. Trump has focused on the overall number of aircraft, this is an imperfect metric for either air power or cost.

The military already has plans to spend an estimated $400 billion on new F-35 fighter jets, a fifth-generation plane. But Mr. Trump has not provided any details on which programs he would expand.

Because different warplanes serve different roles at different costs, it is difficult to know what problem Mr. Trump is trying to address by adding 100 fighter aircraft.

3 Naval Power

The United States Navy has 275 surface ships and submarines. Mr. Trump wants to increase that number to 350, including two new aircraft carriers.

The new carriers would add to America’s already overwhelming advantage: More than half of the world’s 18 active aircraft carriers are in the United States Navy.

Screenshot_20.png

In early March, Mr. Trump said that the United States Navy was the smallest it had been since World War I.

Most analysts reject this comparison. Technological advances mean that individual ships are far more powerful and versatile than they were a century ago, allowing a single ship to fulfill capabilities that would have once required several ships.

Mr. Trump has not specified new missions that would require additional carriers, which could take years and billions of dollars to build.

Screenshot_21.png

Expanding the fleet size could come at significant cost. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that building a fleet of around 350 ships could cost about 60 percent more per year than average historical shipbuilding budgets, with a completion date of 2046.

But a larger fleet could help reduce pressure on the Navy, according to Brian Slattery, a policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. “They’ve had to push those deployments longer and longer because the Navy needs to be in all the same places in the world, and there are fewer ships to do it,” he said.

Others argue that the Navy’s resources are stretched because they have too many deployments and that a more modest strategy around the world would alleviate the strain. “To the extent that they are not in great shape, it’s because they have too many missions,” Mr. Friedman said.

4 Nuclear Weapons

After Mr. Trump tweeted his pledge to expand America’s nuclear capability, he told the talk-show host Mika Brzezinski of MSNBC: “Let it be an arms race. We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.”

He has not specified whether he hopes to build more warheads or develop new weapons systems for delivering them.

The United States and Russia possess the vast majority of the world’s nuclear warheads, although both have reduced their arsenals under a series of treaties.

Screenshot_22.png

Mr. Trump criticized the latest of those treaties, a 2010 agreement with Moscow called New Start, as “just another bad deal,” according to Reuters .

He has not clarified whether he will consider abrogating the treaty, which could open the way for the United States and Russia to expand their nuclear arsenals and capabilities.

Analysts say Mr. Trump’s call for a nuclear “arms race” could potentially cost billions. But as with other spending plans, he has not articulated a strategic goal.


While Mr. Trump has said that he wants to defeat the Islamic State, he has not explained how increasing the size of the military would accomplish that.

Mr. Trump’s focus on big-ticket items is mainly “useful in more conventional military campaigns,” said Michael C. Horowitz, a University of Pennsylvania professor who studies military leadership. “The kind of investments you would make if you were primarily focused on counterinsurgency campaigns are very different.”

Mr. Trump’s announcements appear to emphasize optics as much as strategy, Mr. Horowitz said. “To the extent that tangible pieces of military equipment symbolize strength, those are things that I think the administration is interested in investing in.”


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Bob Nelson
1  seeder  Bob Nelson    2 years ago

This seed is for the three or four NT members who actually care about facts...

The only "logic" I can see in requesting such a huge increase in military spending is in preparation for the war against Iran.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Bob Nelson @1    2 years ago
The only "logic" I can see in requesting such a huge increase in military spending is in preparation for the war against Iran.

I see one other reason Trump would push this idiotic increase in military spending, he knows it will tickle the ears of his base just before a mid-term election. He's such a worthless piece of trash he's willing to spend an extra $54 billion in an effort to get Republicans elected this fall because he knows it plays well with his base. The US military is bloated and overinflated already, we will still be the most powerful military in the world even if we cut military spending in half, but to the "Macho man" image that Trump and his base wish they were, the more money spent on outdated pointless weapons compensates for their tiny manhood's and frightened little weak souls. It also bolsters the part of his base who are hoping and praying for their fantasized "war on Islam" which they believe will be a pre-curser to their awaited Armageddon.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.1.1  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1    2 years ago
He's such a worthless piece of trash he's willing to spend an extra $54 billion in an effort to get Republicans elected this fall because he knows it plays well with his base.

Nah... That's not reasonable. It would mean that Trump takes his own supporters for fools.

oh, wait........

 
 
 
Skrekk
1.1.2  Skrekk  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1    2 years ago
I see one other reason Trump would push this idiotic increase in military spending, he knows it will tickle the ears of his base just before a mid-term election.

Yep - conservatives aren't happy unless we're wasting more money by expanding the world's biggest military budget.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
1.1.3  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.1.1    2 years ago

That fools are the ones that don't realize this is an old article and it's already been passed with the Democrats approval. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  Dean Moriarty @1.1.3    2 years ago

ClappingClappingClappingI bow to you

 
 
 
Kavika
2  Kavika     2 years ago
The only "logic" I can see in requesting such a huge increase in military spending is in preparation for the war against Iran.

Or it could be for his new ''Space Farce''...Although $54 billion wouldn't be near enough money for this new branch of the military. 

IMO, Trump see all this spending as big bright shiny things (toys)...Most of what he says is contradictory so it's next to impossible to know what he is talking about or what the mission is.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.1  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Kavika @2    2 years ago
Most of what he says is contradictory so it's next to impossible to know what he is talking about or what the mission is.

... which doesn't seem to bother the Unthinking Faithful TM in the slightest...

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.1    2 years ago

You DO realize your seeded article is well over a year old, right?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.1.2  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.1    2 years ago

Yes, I do.

If you think you have more current numbers, please post them.

 
 
 
Gordy327
3  Gordy327    2 years ago

Is America’s Military Big Enough? if anything, it's too big. America spends 5x more on defense than the next highest spending country. We could cut military spending by half and still exceed all other countries defense spending. That money could be better used to improve our infrastructure, pay off foreign loans, focus on science and research, ect.. There's no need for increased defense spending.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.1  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Gordy327 @3    2 years ago
America spends 5x more on defense than the next highest spending country.

Until recently, we had to add the budgets of all our NATO allies to our own, which made the situation even more absurd. But since Trumps has apparently decided to junk NATO, maybe he thinks NATO's budgets should be added to China's.

And what about Russia? How should we evaluate Trump's buddy Putin?

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1.1  Gordy327  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.1    2 years ago
Until recently, we had to add the budgets of all our NATO allies to our own,

Our military spending alone exceeds all of NATO combined. 

And what about Russia? How should we evaluate Trump's buddy Putin?

Nowhere near the level of spending we have.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2  Tessylo  replied to  Gordy327 @3    2 years ago

Yes it is too big, bloated.  

 
 
 
lennylynx
3.2.1  lennylynx  replied to  Tessylo @3.2    2 years ago

It's the Donald Trump of militaries! Happy

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
3.2.2  Dean Moriarty  replied to  lennylynx @3.2.1    2 years ago

And the Democrats as they voted overwhelmingly to pass it. This article is from February but the spending bill was just recently passed without much opposition. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2018/06/20/house-and-senate-democrats-vote-68-percent-and-85-percent-for-massive-military-spending/

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
3.2.3  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Dean Moriarty @3.2.2    2 years ago

Correction this article is from March of 2017. The bills passed were actually larger than what Trump requested here in this article. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.2.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  Dean Moriarty @3.2.2    2 years ago

No democrat is foolish enough to vote against a military spending bill in an election year

 
 
 
MUVA
3.2.5  MUVA  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.2.4    2 years ago

deleted

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.2.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  MUVA @3.2.5    2 years ago

I didn't send you any messages. You know Perrie can check that shit so if you're lying you're in trouble.

And just to be clear....I wouldn't touch you with a 10 foot pole

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.7  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @3.2.5    2 years ago

'please don't send me any more messages cursing at me.'

That was me MUVA.  Don't blame Trout Giggles for that.  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
3.2.8  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  MUVA @3.2.5    2 years ago
You mean they don't have the conviction of their beliefs.

You mean like the republicans who claim to be against deficit spending and then vote for budget-busting military and tax bills every goddam time?  

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.9  Texan1211  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @3.2.8    2 years ago

Yep--just like Democrats railing against deficit spending, and then running the highest deficits in history.

It is rather pointless to ONLY think one side does the same hypocritical things.

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.2.10  Gordy327  replied to  Tessylo @3.2    2 years ago
Yes it is too big, bloated. 

Indeed. The US spends 598.5 billion on military spending. Lets round that up to 600 billion. Even if we cut that spending by half, we would still spend more than any other country. That half (300 billion) could be divided and applied to other government funded services, like education, science, infrastructure, health, ect. Even if other services received 10 billion each, that would significantly improve our domestic services and benefits.

 
 
 
321steve
3.2.11  321steve  replied to  Gordy327 @3.2.10    2 years ago
Even if we cut that spending by half, we would still spend more than any other country.

I hate war. I hate that people die in war, I hate paying for others to die in war. And I dont like caring for the injured either)  However:  

Unfortunately at this time with this leader I think we'd better give him this. 

We may find we need more war capabilities that ever before IF our president's gambling and bulling the the world's future doesn't go as he wants, is working toward and expects.

IMO: At this time We are just one more unpredictable country lead by an unpredictable leader asserting our influence anywhere and anyway we can. So maybe we better have the biggest, best war machine handy. Just in case.

Plus look at all the negotiating power it brings.... O my !  

sad

 
 
 
MUVA
3.2.12  MUVA  replied to  MUVA @3.2.5    2 years ago

Another comment removed for no reason sorry trout I did mean to accuse you.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.2.13  Trout Giggles  replied to  MUVA @3.2.12    2 years ago

save it

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gordy327 @3    2 years ago

It is too big but that money could be used on military infrastructure.

Buildings on military bases are crumbling. Military housing is a disgrace on some bases. Mr Giggles is a dorm manager and they have to go without a security system because they have no money. He says they are foregoing a lot of needed things because they don't have the money.

Spend that money on the actual military members and their families

 
 
 
Skrekk
3.3.1  Skrekk  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.3    2 years ago
Spend that money on the actual military members and their families

Bingo.

 
 
 
321steve
3.3.2  321steve  replied to  Skrekk @3.3.1    2 years ago
Spend that money on the actual military members and their families
Bingo.

Can we include the disabled and handicapped who were military members from the past ?  

IMO: Veterans for my whole life have never been properly taken care of and I think that sucks as on one hand every day we ask more people to protect this country and on the other we ignore too many of the people who did serve and suffer from their service and are still suffering. 

If you are willing to ask people to serve, take care of them when they need it if they do.

I dont see that, we do not take care of many of our veterans, at least not real well. Instead of us, our government taking care of the veterans, many vets are forced to rely on volunteer organisations to do help them, IMO: That's not right.  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.3.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  321steve @3.3.2    2 years ago
Can we include the disabled and handicapped who were military members from the past ?  

Absolutely. I should have said that in my comment. I heard a rumor that veterans who were rated 100% disabled will go from $35K to $13K. I don't know the veracity of that statement

 
 
 
321steve
3.3.4  321steve  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.3.3    2 years ago
I heard a rumor that veterans who were rated 100% disabled will go from $35K to $13K.

I dont know either but $13k is about what I think most social security disability checks are so it's certainly a possibility and I've seen disabled vets living on less. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.3.5  Gordy327  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.3    2 years ago
It is too big but that money could be used on military infrastructure.

Indeed. Rather than expanding the military, the military can focus on maintenance and research & development projects.

Spend that money on the actual military members and their families

Absolutely. Make sure veterans get the services they need.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
3.3.6  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Gordy327 @3.3.5    2 years ago

Agree 100%. As someone who is retired/disabled military vet myself, I am always amazed when I see the annual military budgets and find that pay and benefits for the active duty forces, which are generally always lower than the civilian work force, are always near the bottom of the appropriations barrel. Retiree pay and benefits are always considerably lower. Past presidents did not care about doing anything to alleviate very much, and so far neither has Trump. If Trump wants a good military, he better plan on keeping his troops and their families better taken care of!

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.3.7  Gordy327  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.3.6    2 years ago
As someone who is retired/disabled military vet myself,

Thank you for your service. thumbs up

I am always amazed when I see the annual military budgets and find that pay and benefits for the active duty forces, which are generally always lower than the civilian work force, are always near the bottom of the appropriations barrel.

Which neither seems fair or right. 

Past presidents did not care about doing anything to alleviate very much, and so far neither has Trump. If Trump wants a good military, he better plan on keeping his troops and their families better taken care of!

Absolutely! Rather than expanding the military, more focus should be on talking care of current military personnel, veterans, and their families now. Let's take care of what we have, rather than focus on something we don't really need.

 
 
 
Kavika
4  Kavika     2 years ago

The military industrial complex is alive and well. Yet our infrastructure is falling apart and needs hundreds of billions of dollars in repairs and upgrades. 

But as long as we can blow up the world 100 times over, no problem the infrastructure can wait. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.1  It Is ME  replied to  Kavika @4    2 years ago
Yet our infrastructure is falling apart and needs hundreds of billions of dollars in repairs and upgrades. 

My State is doing great in that area. And we don't have a "State Tax" either. I guess we have good State, County and City leaders.

 
 
 
321steve
4.1.1  321steve  replied to  It Is ME @4.1    2 years ago
we don't have a "State Tax" either. I guess we have good State, County and City leaders.

Maybe so if everything is covered and your state is doing fine that's a good indication your leaders are doing a good job.

Most States that don’t have a state income tax though do need to make that revenue up in other ways such as higher auto license fees, state sales taxes.and especially in higher property taxes. 

I grew up in Illinois and I was considering snowbirding back and forth to there now that I'm retired. Illinois has no state income tax but when I started looking in the area I intended on buying a second home in their property taxes are 8 times the rate I pay here in Arizona. No Thanks.

Needless to say I'm now looking to snowbird somewhere besides Illinois. 

You may have good state leaders, and you may not pay state income taxes but rest assured your state government collects what it needs to function in other ways and you still pay for it.

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.1.2  It Is ME  replied to  321steve @4.1.1    2 years ago
Most States that don’t have a state income tax though do need to make that revenue up in other ways such as higher auto license fees, state sales taxes.and especially in higher property taxes.

Apparently....MOST STATES.....don't have good leaders. I can't bitch about taxes in my state one bit. They keep them low.

Oh....and my State has ALWAYS kept up with the infrastructure, instead of letting it get to a point where it's cost prohibitive to repair because they were spending too much on "STUPID OTHER" things.

"Leadership" and just having "Leaders" are two different things.

 
 
 
321steve
4.1.3  321steve  replied to  It Is ME @4.1.2    2 years ago
I can't bitch about taxes in my state one bit. They keep them low.

Wonderful, what state is it ? Hows the weather there in the summer ? Whats the property taxes like and are you accepting snowbirds ?  lol

 
 
 
321steve
4.1.4  321steve  replied to  It Is ME @4.1.2    2 years ago
"Leadership" and just having "Leaders" are two different things.

Yeah I know unfortunately it seems many of Illinois leaders don't learn that till they are indited. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.1.5  It Is ME  replied to  321steve @4.1.4    2 years ago

Ain't it that way "Most" times in politics ? laughing dude  

 
 
 
321steve
4.1.6  321steve  replied to  It Is ME @4.1.5    2 years ago
Ain't it that way "Most" times in politics ?

Yeah but illinois seems to have a really bad record of it. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.1.7  It Is ME  replied to  321steve @4.1.3    2 years ago

Weather is fantastic...although a bit humid at times in the summer.

And Yes...…. Tourists are welcome anytime . You all help keep our roads in order and our taxes low. Big hugslaughing dude

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.1.8  It Is ME  replied to  321steve @4.1.6    2 years ago
Yeah but illinois seems to have a really bad record of it. 

It's a Detroit thing. chuckle

 
 
 
321steve
4.1.9  321steve  replied to  It Is ME @4.1.7    2 years ago
Weather is fantastic...although a bit humid at times in the summer.

Humid I can take, 2 months plus of 110 degrees daytime and 100 degrees at night gets real old real fast. What state are you in ?  I'm looking for better and closer than Illinois but somewhere to spend like 4 or 5 months a year at to get out of this damn heat so, I wouldn't consider that simply a tourist. 

However, I'm also not going to spend more in property taxes than I do on the house to do it...lol   So that's something else I've learned to watch for. But good living and low taxes sounds good to me. As long as the summer weather isn't over 100 degrees !

Ever !

lol

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.1.10  It Is ME  replied to  321steve @4.1.9    2 years ago

Property taxes = approx. 2800 S.F. house = approx. 980 bucks a year. Big hugs

"But good living and low taxes sounds good to me. As long as the summer weather isn't over 100 degrees !"

Averages about 85 in the summer.....but it can be a wet summer in the afternoons too. 

our biggest bitch is the road construction going on all over the place. They get it done pretty fast, but" oh boy" does it snarl things up for us residences at times.

 
 
 
321steve
4.1.11  321steve  replied to  It Is ME @4.1.10    2 years ago
85 in the summer

Do you live at one of the poles ?

LOL That sounds great after 100 to 118 here. What state is it ? 

our biggest bitch is the road construction going on all over the place.

Well I'd want ya to wait till I was gone for the winter for that....

LOL Where isn't there road construction going on all the time. Here in Phoenix hell they shut down our interstate highway system to do construction on them sometimes even. For days !!

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.1.12  It Is ME  replied to  321steve @4.1.11    2 years ago
What state is it ? 

I'm a "Central Sunshine State" resident. Have been since 1973. Pools and A/C come in handy. They are required Staples here. thumbs up

 
 
 
321steve
4.1.13  321steve  replied to  It Is ME @4.1.12    2 years ago
"Central Sunshine State"

Florida ?

No thanks 

I finally got out of there after almost 20 years of avoiding hurricanes I'm not bringing all my treasures back to change losing it all now. Thanks anyway if its FL. 

Great location for vacationing though, I agree.

 

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.1.14  It Is ME  replied to  321steve @4.1.13    2 years ago
Florida ?

Now why not ?

I've had not one problem since living here....hurricanes and all. Make bunches of money too, with all the construction back on track.

 
 
 
321steve
4.1.15  321steve  replied to  It Is ME @4.1.14    2 years ago
I've had not one problem since living here....hurricanes and all. Make bunches of money too, with all the construction back on track.

Been there, done that and moved on. I worked at "Florida Pool and Spa" as a service manager in Melbourne Fl, for over 11 years about 10 years ago. We build em like crazy about 300 units per year average. Nice pools and they weren't cheep. 

I still have friends in Melbourne great town wonderful place to live and work. Not for me anymore though.

I had just bough my first house in melbourne two weeks before Hurricane Floyd beared down on us, 155 miles an hour with a 50 mile wide eye wall. That damn thing did not turn from hitting us with a direct hit till it was almost at our doorstep. Me and my new home were totally unprepared and Home Depot was out of everything to prepare for it within hours, I was screwed  !

thankfully we ended up just getting what was about a cat 2 afterall. But That allurted me to what I had gotten myself into.

I also toured Homestead after their encounter. Nothing taller than a car for as far as the eye could see.

Come back to Florida and set up shop there again, Well Ah No thanks. It took too much time and effort to get everything out the first time. 

I'll think I'll find some where else to spend June, July, August and Florida's infamous September. 

Thanks for the suggestion though. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.1.16  It Is ME  replied to  321steve @4.1.15    2 years ago

I know that company. Worked with them a few times on New Projects I was doing. Actually had them redo the entire pool at the Hotel I project managed renovations on back in the day too.

"Me and my new home were totally unprepared and Home Depot was out of everything to prepare for it within hours, I was screwed !"

Living here for 45 years get's ya lots of knowledge. One thing you learn fairly quickly ...… "ALWAYS BE PREPARED"...… and ....."NEVER PROCRASTINATE" ! Big hugs

 
 
 
1stwarrior
4.1.17  1stwarrior  replied to  321steve @4.1.15    2 years ago

Lived in Palm Bay while working at Patrick AFB for 13 years.  Luv'd it.  All of the hurricanes went either North or South of us.  Presently living in NM, but now that I retired, wife is "demanding" we move back to Palm Bay/Melbourne - so she can do the beaches and Dizzy Whirled.  It's a thought - there are a lot of golf courses there.laughing dude

 
 
 
321steve
4.1.18  321steve  replied to  1stwarrior @4.1.17    2 years ago
It's a thought

LOL That's about as far as I ever get, Thinking about returning,

I have a good friend that would love to see me move back to Melbourne But I dont see me ever doing that. It Really did take me years to get out of there with everything I ever worked for. I doubt I ever return for good. 

 
 
 
321steve
4.1.19  321steve  replied to  It Is ME @4.1.16    2 years ago
I know that company. Worked with them a few times on New Projects I was doing

Yep Good old Florida Pool and Spa. Great company ran by a great guy back then. Yeah we did business with lots of companies we built with home builders covering a pretty large area of Florida.

The pool building company still exists in name only now, it was sold to a company that only services pools not builds them some time ago when Scott the owner died suddenly.

What a shame, he was young, healthy, happy ,married with two very young kids still and he was one Hell of a great person. Scott took over for his father and had started at the very bottom so he knew the trade from top to bottom very well. He was also probably the best boss I ever had in 46  years. 

If you had dealings with the company when I was there and he was in charge I doubt you had any problems whatsoever because both Scott and the company were highly professional and worked hard at having a good reputation every day.

Thanks for the walk down memory lane. I do miss Fl, But I sure as Hell don't miss the hurricane seasons.  

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.1.20  It Is ME  replied to  321steve @4.1.19    2 years ago
If you had dealings with the company when I was there and he was in charge I doubt you had any problems whatsoever

Never did have a problem with them. thumbs up

 
 
 
321steve
4.1.21  321steve  replied to  It Is ME @4.1.20    2 years ago
Never did have a problem with them

Me either and I deal with them 5 days a week for over 11 years. I was only gone about 6 months when I heard Scott had died suddenly, I couldn't believe it. He really was one of the good ones. 

Thanks again, it's been awhile since I've thought about good old Fl pool. It was a good part in my life, I miss it. FL pool was my only job that the day I left them I actually shed a couple of tears. 

Have a good rest of the day 

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.22  Texan1211  replied to  321steve @4.1.1    2 years ago

California and New York are fine examples of states with high state taxes and high property taxes.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
4.1.23  1stwarrior  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.22    2 years ago

Don't forget Massytusits.

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.1.24  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.22    2 years ago

Ca. Also has the 6th largest economy on the planet. Without Ca. 10 red states would starve to death. Of the 10 poorest states in the country, 9 are red states. Fact.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.25  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.24    2 years ago

They wouldn't starve to death.

Why so damn melodramatic all the time?

SMMFH

 
 
 
1stwarrior
4.1.26  1stwarrior  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.25    2 years ago

Maybe he was talking about the 10 million Illegal Aliens who are Cali residents only.

Easy mistake when talking Cali.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.28  Texan1211  replied to  1stwarrior @4.1.26    2 years ago

Maybe.

The whole premise is sheer lunacy.

No state would starve without California.

 
 
 
321steve
5  321steve    2 years ago

I've always thought it was wonderful that America has the biggest, strongest, most advanced fighting force the world has ever known.  Who the Hell would be stupid enough to ever invade this land ? Between our military and almost a gun in every home here it would be a suicide mission for sure.

That said, We already had the most powerful military on the planet. IMO: president trump wants to increase our military power even more mainly as a deterrent to be used to help avoid military conflict as he pushes his agendas and his will on the other leaders of the world. 

Pushing others to do what they don't want to do (Bullying) requires at least the threat of retaliation if the other party doesn't succumb to your demands. 

Putting America first requires we out ourselves above the rest of the other nations on the planet, So, yeah you better be ready to back that move up.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
5.1  Dean Moriarty  replied to  321steve @5    2 years ago

Who pushed the Democrats to vote to spend more than Trump was requesting? 

 
 
 
321steve
5.1.1  321steve  replied to  Dean Moriarty @5.1    2 years ago
Who pushed the Democrats to vote to spend more than Trump was requesting? 

I have no idea, do you ?

Perhaps they are trying to curry favor with trump or perhaps they see what I see and want to make sure the president is backed up so we all dont suffer, but I do not know. 

Most politicians seem to understand we need the strongest military in the nation, and why. 

 
 
 
Spikegary
5.1.2  Spikegary  replied to  321steve @5.1.1    2 years ago

It's typical of the budget process that represetatives of various states try and add projects and other stuff ot the budget to benefit businesses based in their state.  The military has been saddled with soem very expensive 'junk' onver the decades because of this type of pork barrel spending.  The way ti works, the militarys build their budgets (what they feel they need and what they want) from the local level all the way up to the service level, to the joint level, the proposal is put together and then congress/senate pushes their agenda onto the budget. 

Is there a need for a space force?  The air force has been handlind this task as an 'addiitonal duty' to flying our nation's military airplanes.  Whether it needs to be a separate entity?  I'm in both camps....but as space becomes a bigger club of nations, possibly.

As to the article's assertions?  When we won the Cold War, the lesser known fact is that our military was gutted, as there was an air of we don't need so many.....and i believe it went too far, and now we are still recovering from those mistakes.  Addiitonally, what used to be done with a paper and pencil now needs to be done with electronic systems, which cost more to purchase, maintain and, eventually replace.

 
 
 
321steve
5.1.3  321steve  replied to  Spikegary @5.1.2    2 years ago
The way ti works, the military's build their budgets (what they feel they need and what they want) from the local level all the way up to the service level,

And I have little doubt each local level wants all they can get. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
5.1.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  Spikegary @5.1.2    2 years ago

It's actually cheaper in the long run to do it electronically because you don't have to feed, clothe, and house the computer. What used to be done with pencil and paper took 4 airmen where today it takes one computer

 
 
 
Spikegary
5.1.5  Spikegary  replied to  321steve @5.1.3    2 years ago

Not really, what we need to do our jobs and enough to answer the needs of newer technology and the associatied training that goes with it.

 
 
 
Spikegary
5.1.6  Spikegary  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.1.4    2 years ago

True, to an extent, but then that computer goes on a network and can only be use on the network, so the computer and the network must remain up and operational, that requires people and procurement also.  I've said this a few times in my career, the more we move to tech, the more we are at the mercy of a single fuse........

 
 
 
321steve
5.1.7  321steve  replied to  Spikegary @5.1.5    2 years ago
Not really, what we need to do our jobs and enough to answer the needs of newer technology and the associatied training that goes with it.

Somehow I have more faith in the personal to only ask for what they need more that the higher ups passing just those needs along up the latter.  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
5.1.8  Trout Giggles  replied to  321steve @5.1.7    2 years ago

Ah...but they never asked us working stiffs what we really needed.

I remember the end of every fiscal year being bugged about how to spend our excess budget money. I'd tell the NCOIC I need a new noise dosimeter or an air sampling pump or a velocimeter. Nope. We're talking small shit like paper, paper clips, stuff like that. Well, how about a new chair? Nope. Not in the same fund.

After awhile I told the NCOIC to leave me alone if I couldn't have a new noise meter.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
5.1.9  Trout Giggles  replied to  Spikegary @5.1.6    2 years ago
the more we move to tech, the more we are at the mercy of a single fuse........

oh hell yeah

 
 
 
Spikegary
5.1.10  Spikegary  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.1.8    2 years ago

Yeah, we sometimes see end of year fallout money and try to get things we need to keep the comm infrastructure up and running.  Luckily enough, we have a good group of people and if you request something (and ar able to justify it) it will go on the list.  As it goes up, sometimes we get whittled back or, dependent on the budget we receive back down after a spending bill is signed, we have to go through the process of racking and stacking to see what we can live without.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
5.1.11  Trout Giggles  replied to  Spikegary @5.1.10    2 years ago

fallout money

Thanks....could not remember what we called it.

 
 
 
321steve
5.1.12  321steve  replied to  Spikegary @5.1.10    2 years ago
end of year fallout money....lol

Yeah, That's what I need, Fallout money, Like it fell out of the sky and I found it !

Hell, with enough fallout money I'd could have a real blast.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6  XDm9mm    2 years ago

While this is about two years old, it is still relevant as the numbers really haven't changed much.

The Marines’ air fleet isn’t small, at least on paper. It consists of 276 F/A-18 Hornet fighters, more than two-thirds of the Marines’ combat-capable jets. But on April 20, Lt. Gen. Jon Davis, the Marines’ deputy commandant for aviation,  told  the Senate that just 87 of those Hornets were flightworthy—a mere 32 percent.

Yet the Marines say they need 58 percent of their F/A-18s to be ready for flight in order to have enough planes to fight America’s wars while also training new pilots and giving trained pilots enough flight hours to maintain their combat prowess.

The statistics, as bleak as they are, mask the true extent of the crisis. The Marines keep around 40 Hornets deployed to the Middle East and the Western Pacific for airstrikes on ISIS and for patrols near China and North Korea. Another 30 F/A-18s belong to basic-training squadrons.

That leaves just 17 Hornets for the potentially hundreds of pilots who aren’t currently bombing ISIS or keeping an eye on the Pacific, but who still need to fly a couple times a week just to keep up their skills. There simply aren’t enough flyable jets to go around.

“I am concerned with our current readiness rates, both in equipment and personnel,” Davis  wrote  in his most recent annual report on Marine aviation.

Source: https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-marines-are-running-out-of-fighter-jets    (**Most denigrate the 'daily beast' but it was simply the first choice of my search.)

Now, is there waste in the military budget?  Sure as hell.  Unfortunately, the preponderance of that waste is perpetrated by the politicians and not the military directly.  But, that's another topic for another day.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
7  dave-2693993    2 years ago

JMO, I think our spending is more politically determined than strategically determined.

For example, and just my perception, the F35.

It pushes me right to the edge of a tourettes attack. Let's see, IIRC it was proclaimed as a ground attack platform, in some folks imaginations an air superiority platform and oh, by the way, we can SELL it.

Ground attack? I have to ask, how is the F35 better than the A10 in round attack and loitering? The Apache and SuperCobras aren't too bad either.

Air superiority? Why, would we stop production of the worlds most advanced 5th gen air superiority fighter, for something more expensive and vastly less capable?

A lot of money could have been saved by simply developing newer electronics for the F22. Maybe some variants?

BUT OHHHH, gee, we can't sell the F22, so piss our future air superiority down the drain while everybody else catches up.

But hey, politically driven projects like the F35 have a lot of political inertia behind them.

Again, JMO, the fat is in  the politics.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
7.1  XDm9mm  replied to  dave-2693993 @7    2 years ago

Procurement has and always will be politically driven, as well as most military spending.

Hell, several years back, I remember reading about one air wing in particular that was maintained only because of the "jobs" it provided in one politicians district.  The fact that the planes COULD NOT FLY and were only started and maintained to taxi up and down a taxiway once a month to maintain the illusion was absurd.

And I love the Wart Hog.....   damn thing is literally a flying tank and while not sexy sure as hell got the job done.

 
 
 
Spikegary
7.1.1  Spikegary  replied to  XDm9mm @7.1    2 years ago

Agreed the politics kills the military when it coems to spending.  I thkn I know wjhat base you are talkign about....they moved them to another base becuase the air space was so congested where they were.

The A-10 is a great airplane, but it's slow....the airspeed indicator is a playboy calendar and the suimulater?  The put the pilot in a dipsy-dumpster and throw bricks at it.......

Still the best air-to-ground, holy shit we're going to die airplane out there.

 
 
 
MUVA
7.1.2  MUVA  replied to  XDm9mm @7.1    2 years ago

As you know there is a lot of broken shit out there.I'm biding on a contract to repair some where around 300 outboards most don't run at all the military finally have money  to fix them.The bulk of them are multi fuel 55 hp.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
7.1.3  XDm9mm  replied to  Spikegary @7.1.1    2 years ago

When it's primary job in life is 'tank killer', it doesn't have to be fast.   I've yet to see any tanks capable of take off speed, well unless they've had the distinct displeasure of being in the cross hairs of a wart hog pilot who just unleashed hell on it!!  LOL

One of my sons friends flew them.   I always told him I was super envious.    Although not a pilot myself, I still think I'd rather fly that tank in the air than a fast mover.   You pretty much get to see what happens up close and personal!

 
 
 
XDm9mm
7.1.4  XDm9mm  replied to  MUVA @7.1.2    2 years ago

I've seen too many pieces of equipment cannibalized to keep the less troublesome equipment barely functioning.

And the problem isn't the guys.  They WANT to maintain everything the way it should be.  It's the lack of spares and constant use/abuse it goes through. 

 
 
 
Spikegary
7.1.5  Spikegary  replied to  XDm9mm @7.1.3    2 years ago

A buddy in Turkey was a bb stacker for A-10s at his previous job (poor guy-shaved his hair off before he went to the desert-it never grew back) - he had a T-shirt....profile of an A-10, said 'You Can Run, But Why Die Tired?' on it

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
7.1.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  XDm9mm @7.1.3    2 years ago

I nearly pissed my pants one day while out at the Range doing some surveys. It was my first time out there so the ground and flight crew cooked up a special surprise. Just as I arrived in the tower one of the A-10s flew over the building and did a strafing run. They all knew what was going to happen but I screamed "holy shit!" and nearly dove for cover.

They laughed their asses off and I was red faced. Bastards

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
7.1.7  Trout Giggles  replied to  Spikegary @7.1.5    2 years ago
'You Can Run, But Why Die Tired?' on it

that's funny right there I don't care who you are

 
 
 
dave-2693993
7.1.8  dave-2693993  replied to  XDm9mm @7.1    2 years ago
Procurement has and always will be politically driven, as well as most military spending.

Yes and this thinking constantly threatens long term strategic thinking.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
7.1.9  dave-2693993  replied to  Spikegary @7.1.1    2 years ago
The A-10 is a great airplane, but it's slow....the airspeed indicator is a playboy calendar and the suimulater?  The put the pilot in a dipsy-dumpster and throw bricks at it.......

Yep, all that is true.

I just see poor fit when comparing an F35 to replace the ground attack roll.

Even the old Skyraider was known to down a mig.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
8  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו    2 years ago

I'm really enjoying the grotesque spectacle of rightwing commenters lamenting the politicization of bloated military spending while knowing that these very same people have attacked--and will again--Dems for "weakening this country" every time they've tried to rein in this most wasteful of all our spending.  And it's a real tribute to the gigantic hypocrisy of the disgustingly-named "Freedom Caucus" (i.e., former teabaggers who are trying to run away from that now detested sobriquet) as well as all these anti-deficit rightwing republicans in general who keep running on being sent to Congress to reduce spending and end up voting for every fucking republican pork product they can in their districts at least.   

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.1  Texan1211  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @8    2 years ago

So now you are chastising Republicans for doing the same things as Democrats.

No hypocriisy there, no sir!

SMMFH

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
8.2  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @8    2 years ago

The Dems are not trying to rein it in as they voted for the spending increase. 

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/07/26/139-house-democrats-join-gop-approve-717-billion-military-spending

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
8.2.1  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Dean Moriarty @8.2    2 years ago
The Dems are not trying to rein it in as they voted for the spending increase. 

As others pointed out, of course, this is a vote in an election year, so sure, nearly all politicians are going to cover their asses.  I'd also point out that of the only 54 votes against that bill, 49 of them were Dems. IOW, only 2% of republicans voted against, 12 times (as a percentage) more Dems did so.  

But I was really talking about what happens when Dems are in the WH and control Congress as during Clinton's administration there were massive base closings (despite objections of a number in his own party) and other military spending reductions  that were viciously assailed by republicans and the same attacks on Obama when he brought military spending down (with zero, zilch, nada deleterious effect on our security at home or abroad despite constant false attacks from republicans).  Here's a little reminder of the situation with Obama:

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/dec/14/politifact-sheet-our-guide-to-military-spending-/

 
 
 
Spikegary
9  Spikegary    2 years ago

So, you enjoy grotesque spectacles, huh? I'm sure you can find some nudes of Rosie online if you look hard enough

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
10  Release The Kraken    2 years ago

Our Military is big enough to defend American soil and borders and that needs to be it's sole purpose. We still posses weapons of mass destruction that are capable of destroying the planet. I see no need to spend money to raise a larger fighting force intended to defend other Nations.

 
 
 
321steve
10.1  321steve  replied to  Release The Kraken @10    2 years ago
I see no need to spend money to raise a larger fighting force intended to defend other Nations.

Somehow I dont see trump asking to increase the military for defending any one but maybe America so he can push his agenda and his will onto other countries easier. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
11  Texan1211    2 years ago

I am really enjoying seeing people get all frothy over something that was written some 17 months ago.

Must be "breaking news" to some here!

SMMFH and LMFAO

 
 
 
321steve
11.1  321steve  replied to  Texan1211 @11    2 years ago
I am really enjoying seeing people get all frothy over something that was written some 17 months ago.

Why, The Subject hasn't changed much. Military spending being disgusted is timeless.

 
 
 
Texan1211
11.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  321steve @11.1    2 years ago

Why?

Because some are acting like this is current news.

It isn't.

 
 
 
321steve
11.1.2  321steve  replied to  Texan1211 @11.1.1    2 years ago
some are acting like this is current news. It isn't.

True , but like I said most of the conversation seems to be relevant to today and military spending discussion never really go out of style. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
11.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  321steve @11.1.2    2 years ago

I am always amazed by how some want and demand lower military spending in one breath, and then criticize Trump when he demands the rest of the world pay "their fair share" for military spending, so we can pay less.

Seems rather counter-productive to me.

 
 
 
321steve
11.1.4  321steve  replied to  Texan1211 @11.1.3    2 years ago
some want and demand lower military spending in one breath, and then criticize Trump when he demands the rest of the world pay "their fair share" for military spending, so we can pay less.

Yes having the rest of our partners pay their share is very important, I dont know how many criticize the president for what he's doing (some times I do)  but for myself some times it's more How the president does things more than what he does that I dont agree with and criticize.

I've always believed trump has good intentions but I rarely agree with his means of ways of accomplishment. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
11.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  321steve @11.1.4    2 years ago

Kind of obvious in the discrepancy on military spending that "asking nicely" didn't work.

 
 
 
321steve
11.1.6  321steve  replied to  Texan1211 @11.1.5    2 years ago
Kind of obvious in the discrepancy on military spending that "asking nicely" didn't work.

I agree, I always look for the central option. Trump seems to go for the throat on his first strike, may times that tends to alienate people long term. 

 
 
 
Krishna
12  Krishna    2 years ago

Is America’s Military Big Enough?

Nope:

ISIS Has Just As Many Fighters In Iraq And Syria As It Did 4 Years Ago

The U.S.-led coalition to defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria may have routed the terror group from its urban strongholds in Mosul and Raqqa, but new reports from both the Department of Defense and United Nations reveal that tens of thousands of ISIS fighters are still lurking across the war-torn countries — an army of jihadists on par with the group’s peak strength in 2014. (Cont'd)

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
12.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Krishna @12    2 years ago

But I thought they were on the run and almost wiped out?

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
13  Thrawn 31    2 years ago

Without a doubt our conventional military is more than big enough. What we need to focus more and more on is cyber-warfare. Any future war with any major power will be won or lost before a single shot is fired. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
13.1  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Thrawn 31 @13    2 years ago

The same is true of "conventional" weaponry.

We're spending incredible sums on piloted fighters, when is seems highly likely that the next war will be fought by pilotless aircraft, be they AI or piloted-at-a-distance. Piloted aircraft have far greater design constraints, and are therefore much more expensive, than pilotless... which can sustain much greater in-flight maneuvering because... no pilot!

Likewise for heavy carriers in a world with long-range missiles (nuclear or conventional).

Who are we preparing to fight? Hezbollah or Iran or China? It's not the same military...

... but we go on blithely....

 
 
 
Kavika
13.1.1  Kavika   replied to  Bob Nelson @13.1    2 years ago

Comment removed at posters request. [ph]

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
13.1.2  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Kavika @13.1.1    2 years ago

I'd bet that China is working on UAVs... but I'm kinda leery of Infowars...

 
 
 
Kavika
13.1.3  Kavika   replied to  Bob Nelson @13.1.2    2 years ago
 
 
 
Bob Nelson
13.1.4  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Kavika @13.1.3    2 years ago

Thank you.

Since your link is a couple of years old, I Googled some of the UAVs cited in it, to see if there's anything newer.

The most interesting I found is this .

All told, my feeling is that there are a lot of programs launched... waiting to see which works best, with production a few years down the road, yet.

That's still a short enough calendar to be very worrisome. The F-35 program is supposedly for another thirty years at least, so any UAVs begun by China within the next ten years will be direct competition... And ten years seems to me to be an absolutely sure thing.

 
 
 
Kavika
13.1.5  Kavika   replied to  Bob Nelson @13.1.4    2 years ago

Good link and following the links at the bottom of that one is interesting as well...

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
13.1.6  Thrawn 31  replied to  Bob Nelson @13.1    2 years ago

The only thing is, if we are going to move more and more towards robotics, we better be working like we did to get to the moon when it comes to cyber security. That is the one advantage of humans, they are a lot harder to hack.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
13.1.7  Thrawn 31  replied to  Kavika @13.1.1    2 years ago

Please do not cite InforWars. I don't need to read about how pedophile lizard people operating out of a pizza shop are building better carriers than ours. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
13.1.8  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Thrawn 31 @13.1.6    2 years ago
That is the one advantage of humans, they are a lot harder to hack.

True... but they depend on a lot of computer power to fly a modern fighter.....

 
 
 
Silent_Hysteria
14  Silent_Hysteria    2 years ago

Cut it dramatically and pull our troops from around the world.  We need to stop being the world police. Unfortunately that will never happen because whoever is in office their side just justifies their military actions as necessary.  Bush ramped this shit up and obama expanded on it and unfrotunately Trumo may expand it even further....  until all politicians are called on it our military will continue to be used for political purposes and geo political positioning 

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


Thrawn 31


51 visitors