Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 12/04/2017 4:08:12 AM PST by MarvinStinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: MarvinStinson

Good work, Obama.


2 posted on 12/04/2017 4:14:44 AM PST by MarvinStinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MarvinStinson

I’d like to think our enemies are in even worse shape.


3 posted on 12/04/2017 4:15:09 AM PST by New Jersey Realist ( (Be Nice To Your Kids. They Will Pick Out Your Nursing Home))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MarvinStinson

Every president after Reagan, except Trump, has cut out military.


6 posted on 12/04/2017 4:27:10 AM PST by BuffaloJack (Men stand up for freedom; slaves kneel before their masters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MarvinStinson

US Navy: lack of transport ships; lack of fighting ships; lack of training;
US Army: underfunded; old, worn out, obsolescent tracked vehicles; lower physical standards;
US Air Force: fighters without missiles; fighters that do not work; too few that do work; approaching war, major disaster looms.


9 posted on 12/04/2017 5:38:12 AM PST by PIF (They came for me and mine ... now it is your turn ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MarvinStinson

I’m no military expert. When was the last time we landed on a beach or in a port at brigade strength? What is the future likelihood that we would need an amphibious landing at brigade force? I thought we depended more on the small, fast delivery speed of the Air Force, rather than the slow, massive speed of the Navy.


12 posted on 12/04/2017 6:00:18 AM PST by Savage Rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MarvinStinson
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Republicans and Democrats were falling all over themselves tor spend the “peace dividend.” In fact the world became in many ways a more dangerous place. Lower risk of nuclear war but more requirements for conventional forces.

Those pushing for military drawdowns failed to learn the lessons of history. In the early 1900’s the Ottoman Empire was in the process of collapsing, the result was WWI, and arguably WWII. Whether or not you believe a strong Russia should be the policeman in eastern Europe, the Mideast, and East Asia, history and geography dictate otherwise. A strong U.S. military becomes essential to keep the inevitable Russian involvement in these areas within reason.

13 posted on 12/04/2017 6:03:25 AM PST by nuke_road_warrior (Making the world safe for nuclear power for over 20 years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MarvinStinson

Money is a tool. Money alone doesn’t determine the outcome. Management decisions related to the efficient spending of the money determine the result.

The US spends twice the combined budgets of Russia and China. Do our military bureaucrats and politicians spend that money efficiently and effectively. If not, throwing more money at the problem will not result in a better outcome.

It is long past time to get serious about cutting the bloat throughout the military industrial complex. A Navy that has as many admirals as it has ships is unaffordable. A Navy that continues to spend $12.8 billion for aircraft carriers vulnerable in a single strike to all types of modern weapons systems, obviously will not spend on the less glamorous amphibious ships needed to land Marines on the beaches.

It is the responsibility of leadership to make choices. Unfortunately throughout the federal bureaucracy (all departments), the unaccountable bureaucrats and politicians have made poor choices for decades, wasting trillions of dollars and continuing to shovel more dollars at failed projects and programs.

In the private sector bloated organizations die at the hands of their competitors. Nations with bloated government bureaucracies ultimately implode economically or are conquered by lean, mean, and hungry enemies.


14 posted on 12/04/2017 6:04:49 AM PST by Soul of the South (The past is gone and cannot be changed. Tomorrow can be a better day if we work on it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MarvinStinson

Yeah but it has enough money to keep more admirals living in style than ships. Don’t buy this underfunding crap.


15 posted on 12/04/2017 6:35:15 AM PST by Seruzawa (TANSTAAFL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MarvinStinson

Especially if they keep wrecking the ships they do have.


16 posted on 12/04/2017 7:01:29 AM PST by bgill (CDC site, "We don't know how people are infected with Ebola.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MarvinStinson

With today’s anti-ship missile technology large troop ships are at high risk. Better a large number of smaller troop transport craft so a single hit does not kill an entire unit.


17 posted on 12/04/2017 9:30:55 AM PST by JimRed ( TERM LIMITS, NOW! Build the Wall Faster! TRUTH is the new HATE SPEECH.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson