US Army Details Plans to Cut 40,000 Soldiers Across Bases Worldwide - Polidicks

[url]http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/07/09/us-army-details-plans-to-cut-40000-soldiers-across-bases.html[/url] I cut shit out so it's not a straight up copy of the article, so check out the full thing! [quote][img]http://images.military.com/media/news/service/army_brigade.jpg[/img] The U.S. Army on Thursday detailed plans to shed tens of thousands of soldiers at bases around the world over the next few years. The service plans to cut its active-duty force by another 40,000 soldiers from about 490,000 soldiers today to approximately 450,000 soldiers by fiscal 2018 in a massive restructuring largely driven by automatic spending caps known as sequestration. At least six bases are slated to lose more than 1,000 soldiers apiece over the next two year. Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Alaska will lose 2,631 soldiers, or 59 percent, of its active-duty population -- the largest percentage drop of any base in the U.S. or overseas. The other installations include: -Fort Benning, which will lose 3,402 soldiers, or 29 percent; -Fort Hood in Texas, 3,350 soldiers, or 9 percent; -Schofield Barracks in Hawaii, 1,214 soldiers or 8 percent; -Joint Base Lewis McChord in Washington, 1,251 soldiers, or 5 percent; and -Fort Bliss in Texas, 1,219 soldiers or 5 percent, according to the Army. The brigadier general said the Army will seek to achieve a portion of the manpower reductions through attrition of retiring troops and civilians, though he acknowledged that layoffs are inevitable. He couldn’t say what percentage of the overall cuts will come from layoffs -- or what ranks or military occupational specialties will be more affected than others.[/quote] I hope I posted this article well 'cause I don't do this often!

I hope the tax dollars get put to good use.

right now they're going to cut 40,000 but its possible they will be cutting more [url]http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=60784[/url] [editline]10th July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Megadave;48167904]I hope the tax dollars get put to good use.[/QUOTE] tax dollars will never be put to good use by the current form of government

I don't like that it's happening automatically because of sequestration, but at least it's happening. We have far too much emphasis on our military power when we could have some emphasis on government programs and paying off the debt.

[url]http://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/army-troop-cuts-spur-calls-for-end-to-sequestration/[/url] meant to merge this [editline]10th July 2015[/editline] a lot of our military spending goes into what is essentially a black hole for money and fetuses [editline]10th July 2015[/editline] were cutting the size of combat units (and we are not in peace time) when theres thousands of better and practical things to cut back on [editline]10th July 2015[/editline] also strykers are better at being metal coffins than m113s and maybe the bradley it would be better if your brother never deployed at all they don't deploy combat units (if thats what hes in) to good areas unless its like some africa humanitarian aid mission like the guys they sent to west africa [editline]10th July 2015[/editline] some good depleted uranium balls on those men mad respect

[QUOTE=Leon;48167922]also strykers are better at being metal coffins than m113s and maybe the bradley it would be better if your brother never deployed at all they don't deploy combat units (if thats what hes in) to good areas unless its like some africa humanitarian aid mission like the guys they sent to west africa [editline]10th July 2015[/editline] some good depleted uranium balls on those men mad respect[/QUOTE] He's not in a combat unit, but he's got chemical/haz-mat stuff and stryker training. I'll talk to him about more specifics when I talk to him next. I will say this shit is pretty stressful for me and my mom, but I don't want things to be sugar-coated so thanks for being honest.

strykers are notoriously shitty and a bad deal for the soldiers but they work

[QUOTE=Leon;48167922][url]http://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/army-troop-cuts-spur-calls-for-end-to-sequestration/[/url] meant to merge this [editline]10th July 2015[/editline] a lot of our military spending goes into what is essentially a black hole for money and fetuses [editline]10th July 2015[/editline] were cutting the size of combat units (and we are not in peace time) when theres thousands of better and practical things to cut back on [editline]10th July 2015[/editline] also strykers are better at being metal coffins than m113s and maybe the bradley it would be better if your brother never deployed at all they don't deploy combat units (if thats what hes in) to good areas unless its like some africa humanitarian aid mission like the guys they sent to west africa [editline]10th July 2015[/editline] some good depleted uranium balls on those men mad respect[/QUOTE] What? M113's are inferior to strykers, they have less armor, speed, efficiency, and firepower. The only advantage it has is its tracks when going through truly shitty terrain.

I just like talking shit about questionable military equipment procurement [editline]10th July 2015[/editline] talking BIG shit

[QUOTE=Leon;48168048]I just like talking shit about questionable military equipment procurement [editline]10th July 2015[/editline] talking BIG shit[/QUOTE] I don't want to bring up the fact that I went to Valve, but we were talking to the electrical engineer about the work my brother does in the reserves, and he said that he worked with a lot of people that makes all the parts and stuff for the strykers, claiming that those things don't break. He didn't mean to provide some extra sanity, but it comforted my mom so much that it made [I]me[/I] happy. What do you have to say about that? Personally, at this point, I've pretty much accepted that my brother is going to die and it's fine because it's the destiny he chose for himself. I'm just being a little selfish in that I don't want any of this for him and I wish he were here shooting me in the face virtually, as opposed to walking straight into that shit in real life.

dude your brother is fine as long as some unforeseen event causing us combat forces to deploy to conflict doesn't happen [editline]10th July 2015[/editline] besides he can wear multicam now the enemy won't see them coming

[QUOTE=wauterboi;48168098]I don't want to bring up the fact that I went to Valve, but we were talking to the electrical engineer about the work my brother does in the reserves, and he said that he worked with a lot of people that makes all the parts and stuff for the strykers, claiming that those things don't break. He didn't mean to provide some extra sanity, but it comforted my mom so much that it made [I]me[/I] happy. What do you have to say about that? Personally, at this point, I've pretty much accepted that my brother is going to die and it's fine because it's the destiny he chose for himself. I'm just being a little selfish in that I don't want any of this for him and I wish he were here shooting me in the face virtually, as opposed to walking straight into that shit in real life.[/QUOTE] Where's your brother? You're probably more likely to die in a car crash than he is of being killed right now. Don't sweat it dude.

[QUOTE=wauterboi;48167918]I don't like that it's happening automatically because of sequestration, but at least it's happening. We have far too much emphasis on our military power when we could have some emphasis on government programs and paying off the debt.[/QUOTE] But the U.S. has a huge emphasis on social programs. Military spending is only 17% but government Social Security and Healthcare are at 24% each, so almost half of the entire federal budget. That's not including other programs like food stamps. Also how are you supposed to go about 'paying off the debt' when you're in a deficit?

[QUOTE=Antdawg;48168972]But the U.S. has a huge emphasis on social programs. Military spending is only 17% but government Social Security and Healthcare are at 24% each, so almost half of the entire federal budget. That's not including other programs like food stamps. Also how are you supposed to go about 'paying off the debt' when you're in a deficit?[/QUOTE] Can you cite your source on that? I'm asking because you might be right on that, and I can't find a source that's reputable through Google atm. (or at least I'm not going to trust these domains that are popping up)

I'm not okay with servicemembers losing their jobs.

[QUOTE=wauterboi;48169353]Can you cite your source on that? I'm asking because you might be right on that, and I can't find a source that's reputable through Google atm. (or at least I'm not going to trust these domains that are popping up)[/QUOTE] Those figures were from 2014, apparently for 2015 from [url]https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/[/url] (I question the impartiality of the site however it does reference the White House's office of management and budget, and data is unbiased) the figures are: - Social Security, unemployment and labour - 33% - Medicare and health - 27% - Military - 16% So in other words, social programs cost the U.S. government almost four times as much as the military does. [editline]11th July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=InvaderNouga;48169386]I'm not okay with servicemembers losing their jobs.[/QUOTE] This is the problem. Not with you specifically but with lots of people here. Everyone screams 'cut the military budget!' but then as soon as proposals are made to do just that, everyone then screams 'no don't do that!'. Like it was exactly that when they wanted to retire the A-10. You can't cut the military budget without having people lose their jobs, and I'm pretty sure the U.S. doesn't need 490,000 soldiers when pretty much the only war it's involved in is dropping bombs from planes on ISIS.

I'm a little weirded out by that site because at the bottom of every graph, I see: [t]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/965202/ShareX/2015/07/2015-07-10_19-37-04.png[/t] Why are they part of the source? [quote]Everyone screams 'cut the military budget!' but then as soon as proposals are made to do just that,[/quote] I don't like military being pawns in the greater scheme, especially when [url=http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/01/28/pentagon-tells-congress-to-stop-buying-equipment-it-doesnt-need.html]the military is telling Congress to stop buying stupid shit[/url]. Those cuts should be made. Our government has an incredible infatuation with the literal equipment itself whereas it gives no care for the people using them.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;48169433]Those figures were from 2014, apparently for 2015 from [url]https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/[/url] (I question the impartiality of the site however it does reference the White House's office of management and budget, and data is unbiased) the figures are: - Social Security, unemployment and labour - 33% - Medicare and health - 27% - Military - 16% So in other words, social programs cost the U.S. government almost four times as much as the military does.[/QUOTE] In terms of overall budget, yes. However, I will point out that when people talk about the military being most of the budget, they (disingenuously) fail to mention that the "budget" they are referring to is only discretionary spending, which accounts for only 1/3 of the U.S.'s spending (54% of 1.1 trillion). In mandatory spending however, social programs account for like 87% of the 2.45 trillion in mandatory spending. That's how you end up with people thinking we spend more on military than we do on social safety nets.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;48169433]Those figures were from 2014, apparently for 2015 from [url]https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/[/url] (I question the impartiality of the site however it does reference the White House's office of management and budget, and data is unbiased) the figures are: - Social Security, unemployment and labour - 33% - Medicare and health - 27% - Military - 16% So in other words, social programs cost the U.S. government almost four times as much as the military does. [editline]11th July 2015[/editline] This is the problem. Not with you specifically but with lots of people here. Everyone screams 'cut the military budget!' but then as soon as proposals are made to do just that, everyone then screams 'no don't do that!'. Like it was exactly that when they wanted to retire the A-10. You can't cut the military budget without having people lose their jobs, and I'm pretty sure the U.S. doesn't need 490,000 soldiers when pretty much the only war it's involved in is dropping bombs from planes on ISIS.[/QUOTE] I think we should cut Military spending but it's a huge dick move to keep hiring new people and then cutting thousands through force reduction saying 'we're too bloated'. This hurts the career sailors, marines and whomever else. It's cheaper for the govt to keep hiring new boots because majority of them are one termers so they don't have to worry about paying them over the course of 20 years. Force reduction bullshit hurts people like me who have been in for quite some time and are trying to stay in for maybe 20 years, it makes it harder for me to get a quota to be approved to stay in. It fucks the people who want to stay in.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;48169558]I think we should cut Military spending but it's a huge dick move to keep hiring new people and then cutting thousands through force reduction saying 'we're too bloated'. This hurts the career sailors, marines and whomever else. It's cheaper for the govt to keep hiring new boots because majority of them are one termers so they don't have to worry about paying them over the course of 20 years. Force reduction bullshit hurts people like me who have been in for quite some time and are trying to stay in for maybe 20 years, it makes it harder for me to get a quota to be approved to stay in. It fucks the people who want to stay in.[/QUOTE] Being a soldier shouldn't be a career.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;48169571]Being a soldier shouldn't be a career.[/QUOTE] Hahaha so tell me , where are all of the staff nco's and generals supposed to come from?

[QUOTE=Antdawg;48169571]Being a soldier shouldn't be a career.[/QUOTE] "Being a protector of your country shouldn't be a career." So what should it be then?

[QUOTE=Atlascore;48169607]Why not?[/QUOTE] Because then you get to right now where the U.S. has 490,000 active soldiers but fighting what war? Complete waste. I can understand the need to at least have a portion of the populace trained in the almost-impossible chance of an invasion, but that requirement can be met with part-timers and reservists of which there are almost 600,000 of in the U.S. And yet again this is exactly what I'm talking about. People say the military budget should be cut but then they imply the U.S. should have career soldiers sucking away taxpayer money and not even fighting any war. The U.S. government has recognised this hence dropping active duty from 490,000 to 450,000 [editline]11th July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=wauterboi;48169614]"Being a protector of your country shouldn't be a career." So what should it be then?[/QUOTE] Part-time reserves instead of active duty?

[QUOTE=Antdawg;48169649]Because then you get to right now where the U.S. has 490,000 active soldiers but fighting what war? Complete waste. I can understand the need to at least have a portion of the populace trained in the almost-impossible chance of an invasion, but that requirement can be met with part-timers and reservists of which there are almost 600,000 of in the U.S. And yet again this is exactly what I'm talking about. People say the military budget should be cut but then they imply the U.S. should have career soldiers sucking away taxpayer money and not even fighting any war.[/QUOTE] My brother said things, and I'll just say that it's a good thing my brother doesn't have a Facepunch account. There's people that are looking to defend and are in preparation in case something breaks loose. My brother wants to live his life protecting the country. There's not all that much more there is to it, dude.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;48169649]Because then you get to right now where the U.S. has 490,000 active soldiers but fighting what war? Complete waste. I can understand the need to at least have a portion of the populace trained in the almost-impossible chance of an invasion, but that requirement can be met with part-timers and reservists of which there are almost 600,000 of in the U.S. And yet again this is exactly what I'm talking about. People say the military budget should be cut but then they imply the U.S. should have career soldiers sucking away taxpayer money and not even fighting any war. [editline]11th July 2015[/editline] Reserves instead of active duty?[/QUOTE] You know there doesn't have to be a world War going on to maitain an active duty force. I'm assuming you're not a strategist or have ever served to make those claims though. [editline]11th July 2015[/editline] Like do you think everyone can just go home and say 'lol well since there's no war guess we don't have to maintain these carriers, submarines, missile silos, man hospitals, or maintain a protective presence"

[QUOTE=wauterboi;48169670]My brother said things, and I'll just say that it's a good thing my brother doesn't have a Facepunch account. There's people that are looking to defend and are in preparation in case something breaks loose. My brother wants to live his life protecting the country. There's not all that much more there is to it, dude.[/QUOTE] Nothing wrong with that, he can do that in reserves can't he? [editline]11th July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=InvaderNouga;48169673]You know there doesn't have to be a world War going on to maitain an active duty force. I'm assuming you're not a strategist or have ever served to make those claims though. [editline]11th July 2015[/editline] Like do you think everyone can just go home and say 'lol well since there's no war guess we don't have to maintain these carriers, submarines, missile silos, man hospitals, or maintain a protective presence"[/QUOTE] You don't need 490,000 people to do that, the government knows this that's why they're dropping 40,000 of them. That's not my opinion, that's what the government and strategists are doing Yet people here seem to have a problem with that, hypocritically the same people who say they should cut the military budget? If you don't cut back on employment, what do you cut?

[QUOTE=Antdawg;48169649]Because then you get to right now where the U.S. has 490,000 active soldiers but fighting what war? Complete waste. I can understand the need to at least have a portion of the populace trained in the almost-impossible chance of an invasion, but that requirement can be met with part-timers and reservists of which there are almost 600,000 of in the U.S. And yet again this is exactly what I'm talking about. People say the military budget should be cut but then they imply the U.S. should have career soldiers sucking away taxpayer money and not even fighting any war. The U.S. government has recognised this hence dropping active duty from 490,000 to 450,000 [editline]11th July 2015[/editline] Part-time reserves instead of active duty?[/QUOTE] The world doesn't sleep, nor does the military. There's always things happening, always needing troops.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;48169689]Nothing wrong with that, he can do that in reserves can't he? [editline]11th July 2015[/editline] You don't need 490,000 people to do that, the government knows this that's why they're dropping 40,000 of them. That's not my opinion, that's what the government and strategists are doing Yet people here seem to have a problem with that, hypocritically the same people who say they should cut the military budget? If you don't cut back on employment, what do you cut?[/QUOTE] Dude if you think the United States Military can operate with less than 490,000 people and considering that's only thr ARMY which I'm guessing you didn't realize you're off your rocker. You have absolutely no clue how many bodies it takes to maintain a peacetime Military. I'll tell you that it's a lot more than you think.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;48169649]Because then you get to right now where the U.S. has 490,000 active soldiers but fighting what war? Complete waste. I can understand the need to at least have a portion of the populace trained in the almost-impossible chance of an invasion, but that requirement can be met with part-timers and reservists of which there are almost 600,000 of in the U.S. And yet again this is exactly what I'm talking about. People say the military budget should be cut but then they imply the U.S. should have career soldiers sucking away taxpayer money and not even fighting any war. The U.S. government has recognised this hence dropping active duty from 490,000 to 450,000 [editline]11th July 2015[/editline] Part-time reserves instead of active duty?[/QUOTE] Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the point of professional soldiers is because they're yknow, professional. They're already trained, experienced, and ready to be deployed as opposed to reservists or even drafted soldiers.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;48169729]Dude if you think the United States Military can operate with less than 490,000 people and considering that's only thr ARMY which I'm guessing you didn't realize you're off your rocker. You have absolutely no clue how many bodies it takes to maintain a peacetime Military. I'll tell you that it's a lot more than you think.[/QUOTE] Well the Army can operate with less than 490,000 active duty because the Army has decided to cut 40,000 of them.