[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16751973[/url]
[quote=BBC News][b]The US will cut almost 100,000 troops as part of its plans for a "smaller, leaner" military, Defence Secretary Leon Panetta has announced.[/b]
Unveiling a restructure of the armed forces, Mr Panetta said the US would retain the ability to defeat "any enemy on land", and boost special forces.
The Pentagon is facing cuts of $487bn (£310bn) over the next 10 years.
Over five years, 92,000 active duty Army and Marine Corps soldiers would be cut, with some bases closed, he said.
The military's budget would rise, albeit at a slower rate, to $567bn by 2017.
[b]'Technical edge'[/b]
Mr Panetta said the US would continue purchases of F-35 jets, but would slow its purchase of the stealth fighter planes.
Focus would shift from large-scale conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan to areas of key national interest, he said, including a strengthened commitment in Asia.
"Our approach was to use this as an opportunity to maintain the strongest military in the world, to not hollow out the force,'' Mr Panetta said in a statement.
Some members of Congress did not agree that such a budget would maintain a strong US military.
"Taking us back to a pre-9/11 military force structure places our country in grave danger," said Texas Senator John Cornyn, a member of a committee that will hold hearings on the budget plan.
Amid a shrinking budget - put at $525bn for the fiscal year 2013 - the US military as envisioned by the new plan would still be larger than it was before 9/11.
The defence budget could also lose another $500bn at the end of this year after Congress failed to agree on deficit reduction following a debt-ceiling deal in August.
Mr Panetta told reporters at a press briefing that the budget plan would give Congress the opportunity to act responsibly on reducing the deficit.
"This is a tough challenge, and nobody ought to underestimate just how difficult it will be." he said. "It's very easy to talk about deficit reduction, it's very tough to do something."
He stressed the need to retain a "decisive technical edge", citing increases in military technology including an expansion of the use of unmanned aerial vehicles.
In addition to the troop reductions, the Air Force will retire older cargo planes, while the Navy will keep their fleet of aircraft carriers but retire cruisers.
Submarine purchases will be delayed, including a two-year delay on building a new generation of ships designed to carry long-range nuclear missiles.
Mr Obama is expected to ask Congress in the near future to consider closure or combining additional US military bases, following a round of closures that began in 2005.[/quote]
fucking finally
That's a ton more than I thought it would be...
I was expecting them to stop so many research projects into new weaponry, not this
Its cool that defense budgets are being trimmed, but thats 100,000 people getting laid off right there.
It'll probably be older people who have been there for 20+ years so they'll get a pension for the rest of their life.
[QUOTE=TheCloak;34403963]It'll probably be older people who have been there for 20+ years so they'll get a pension for the rest of their life.[/QUOTE]
We can hope its them. If it is, it'll help those that have been in holding patterns for promotion for some time now.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;34403943]Its cool that defense budgets are being trimmed, but thats 100,000 people getting laid off right there.[/QUOTE]
Who'll eventually be re-hired by the private sector instead.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;34403943]Its cool that defense budgets are being trimmed, but thats 100,000 people getting laid off right there.[/QUOTE]Military service looks great on your resume, I doubt they'll be out of a job for long.
what about the defense contractors?
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;34404220]Military service looks great on your resume, I doubt they'll be out of a job for long.[/QUOTE]
That is some extremely wishful thinking
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;34403943]Its cool that defense budgets are being trimmed, but thats 100,000 people getting laid off right there.[/QUOTE]
"How do we get a bigger budget for more jobs?"
"Cut defense spending."
Later
"How will we get these soldiers jobs?"
Now just stop rolling in giant dumptrucks of taxpayer money into Boeing, Northrop, etc.
[IMG]http://fi.somethingawful.com/images/smilies/emot-siren.gif[/IMG][B]FOX NEWS: OBAMA TELLS WORLD AMERICA'S BUTTOCKS ARE PRIMED, US ARMY BENDS OVER[/B][IMG]http://fi.somethingawful.com/images/smilies/emot-siren.gif[/IMG]
-snap-
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;34403943]Its cool that defense budgets are being trimmed, but thats 100,000 people getting laid off right there.[/QUOTE]
Don't they normally do it through natural wastage?
Like, they reduce recruitment to below levels of people leaving the army.
[QUOTE=Techno-Man;34404177]Who'll eventually be re-hired by the private sector instead.[/QUOTE]
There aren't that many jobs in the private sector, though. One of the bigger problems facing soldiers when they come home is that they have no jobs available once they get here.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;34404220]Military service looks great on your resume, I doubt they'll be out of a job for long.[/QUOTE]
The jobless rate for veterans coming back from Iraq and Afghanstan is actually at a much higher rate than it is for regular civilians:
[img]http://www.businessweek.com/finance/occupy-wall-street/veteranschart.png[/img]
[url]http://www.businessweek.com/finance/occupy-wall-street/archives/2011/11/the_vets_job_crisis_is_worse_than_you_think.html[/url]
That still leaves ~1.4 million in the military. Not too shabby.
And I don't see how putting us back down to pre-9/11 numbers puts us in more danger. Not like we were being invaded before hand. And 100k more troops wouldn't have stopped 9/11. So...
Start reinvesting that money back into the people. That is what will get this country back to its former strength.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;34404803]There aren't that many jobs in the private sector, though. One of the bigger problems facing soldiers when they come home is that they have no jobs available once they get here.[/QUOTE]
everyone is looking for military consultants
people who are clear-able / are already cleared are worth a fortune to beltway companies
i would know ;)
I imagine there's more ways to save money from the military than essentially firing 100,000 people. I think the US defence budget is waaaaayyyyyyyy too much, particularly given the current financial situation, but I can't help but feel this is a bad move in the grand scheme of things.
[QUOTE=Scotchair;34405364]I imagine there's more ways to save money from the military than essentially firing 100,000 people. I think the US defence budget is waaaaayyyyyyyy too much, particularly given the current financial situation, but I can't help but feel this is a bad move in the grand scheme of things.[/QUOTE]
Who knows? Maybe we could train those 100,000 people for the F-35 program and call it a day? They're making about that many right? /sarcasm
This is just part of Obobos socialist agenda trying to take more hard working Americans out of jobs and to weaken our national defense!
/Fox Nation.
[QUOTE=Scotchair;34405364]I imagine there's more ways to save money from the military than essentially firing 100,000 people. I think the US defence budget is waaaaayyyyyyyy too much, particularly given the current financial situation, but I can't help but feel this is a bad move in the grand scheme of things.[/QUOTE]
Read 'as a part of defense cuts'. They aren't just firing 100,000 soldiers and calling it a day, you know.
100k jobs would increase our unemployment rate by a fraction. Even then, that is assuming those people didn't find other jobs or aren't given early retirement. Then focus on more elite, smaller forces. Quality over quantity.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;34404220]Military service looks great on your resume, I doubt they'll be out of a job for long.[/QUOTE]
Wishful thinking but that's 100,000 jobs in a sick economy.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;34404220]Military service looks great on your resume, I doubt they'll be out of a job for long.[/QUOTE]
Considering veterans have the highest unemployment and homeless rates I don't know how true this is.
That's not really a major cut. That's a 7% reduction in active troops. Significant, yes, but going from 1,468,000 to 1,367,000 isn't exactly a huge change.
Especially when you consider that we just got out of Iraq. We should be able to nearly halve the number of active troops.
[QUOTE=DamagePoint;34405018]The jobless rate for veterans coming back from Iraq and Afghanstan is actually at a much higher rate than it is for regular civilians:
[img]http://www.businessweek.com/finance/occupy-wall-street/veteranschart.png[/img]
[url]http://www.businessweek.com/finance/occupy-wall-street/archives/2011/11/the_vets_job_crisis_is_worse_than_you_think.html[/url][/QUOTE]
I've always wondered something about that... What percentage of jobless/homeless vets were infantry or some other combat oriented role? You'd think someone in a more technical field wouldn't have such an issue.
yes, that's 100,000 people out of a job. that's 100,000,000 million dollars saved which can be put in social programs. that's the right path to a social democracy which is exactly what america needs, quote me for truth
I wonder if this will reduce the number of occasions in future that the US decides to "bring democracy" to other nations
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.