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

[QUOTE=NuclearAnnhilation;48169702]The world doesn't sleep, nor does the military. There's always things happening, always needing troops.[/QUOTE] Iunno about that, there's a lot of countries which don't really need big active armies doing things. Considering that the USA has a military presence (such as bases or troops) in a vast number of countries around the world, It wouldn't hurt for them to scale back a bit.

"we want less military spending" comes face to face with "I dont want our soldiers unemployed" once laid off, get back into the workforce doing something. Get an education like most.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;48175486]"we want less military spending" comes face to face with "I dont want our soldiers unemployed" once laid off, get back into the workforce doing something. Get an education like most.[/QUOTE] Funny you say that considering whatever you think you know about emergency medicine doesn't hold a candle to the kind of training and experience that you can get from the Military.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;48175521]Funny you say that considering whatever you think you know about emergency medicine doesn't hold a candle to the kind of training and experience that you can get from the Military.[/QUOTE] What are you rambling on about? Never have I said anything that discounts military training. If you are referring to a previous thread where we were talking about how treating things on the battlefield isnt the same as treating things in the civilian world then I still stand by it. [editline]10th July 2015[/editline] so yea, if a laid off soldier wants to mope around about being laid off instead of using it to go to school and get an education or make a solid attempt at entering the workforce with what they got, then fuck em. They're no better than others who sit around on their ass.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;48169741]Well the Army can operate with less than 490,000 active duty because the Army has decided to cut 40,000 of them.[/QUOTE] The Army has cut 40,000 soldiers because the Army can operate with 40,000 less soldiers because the Army has cut 40,000 soldiers because the Army can operate with 40,000 less soldiers because the Army has cut 40,000 soldiers because the Army can operate with 40,000 less soldiers because the Army has cut 40,000 soldiers ad infinitum

[QUOTE=Antdawg;48169689]Nothing wrong with that, he can do that in reserves can't he? [editline]11th July 2015[/editline] If you don't cut back on employment, what do you cut?[/QUOTE] recruitment. Stop hiring as many people, dont fire them. But as said earlier, its CHEAPER to get rid of people than to just re-train some joes in a few months because if you fire your old-timers early, you wont have to pay their pension.

[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] But Antdawg, you are missing the point. The US doesn't train its military forces to anticipate a possible invasion. By itself, an invasion of the US is nigh impossible. Due to extension, the ability of the civilian populace to fight back, terrain and foremost, the federal forces assigned to its defence. They are trained because the US needs to project its power overseas. In order to defend and assert domain over certain assets such as the middle east, asia, africa, they need to have the amount of personnel and equipment ready to answer in case a situation pops up here or there. If the US draws back from middle east, China or Russia will fill in the gap. EDIT: I mean, FFS, have you read how many carriers the US has? In fact, China has been filling the gap US left or has never filled in Central Africa. And Russia is looking to meddle in Europe again.... The decision must have come because the policy makers realized that a full fledged conventional war will not come anytime soon and today's operations (Ukraine, Iraq, Syria) are handled better by non conventional war (Psychological, special operations/training, cyber warfare) methods. "Protect your country". Dude, tell your brother your country will be more protected with people put into the CIA, NSA, DIA, Homeland and Treasure Department. Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori yesterday. Today's is sweeter and more glorious to live for the country.....

I think the one thing that some are getting confused with is that this just ARMY units, not the military as a whole. So the US will still have quite a lot of active servicemen & servicewomen still on duty, if you include the USMC & National Guard units. The US prides itself on it's power projection capabilities in that it forms the whole basis of national defence policy today, and plays a part in both it's diplomatic missions but also has the effect of being like a big over-shadowing guardian in which people in many countries cherish for somehow providing a tourism boost when they come around, but also boost societal ties between each nation, depending on if they are pro- or anti-us. Hopefully for those who are being discharged, they are given opportunities to get help from the federal government in things such as tertiary education or even vocational education, as those people will need jobs when they have to re-adjust to being a civilian again (somewhat, even though they'd most likely be still registered as a reservist / national guard solider.)

[QUOTE=Antdawg;48169571]Being a soldier shouldn't be a career.[/QUOTE] If it wasn't for the Navy, my father would have most likely never have been able to get out of Poverty. Having a career in the Navy paved the way for a much brighter future for him.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;48169571]Being a soldier shouldn't be a career.[/QUOTE] You realize militaries are considered professions for like, 2000-3000 years?

[QUOTE=Antdawg;48169649]Part-time reserves instead of active duty?[/QUOTE] Great idea, then we can have a weak military and have less jobs in one fell swoop. [QUOTE=Code3Response;48175486]Once laid off, get back into the workforce doing something. Get an education like most.[/QUOTE] Many people are in the military because they cannot get an education or find a good job.

How does this affect recruiting?

[QUOTE=Code3Response;48175548]What are you rambling on about? Never have I said anything that discounts military training. If you are referring to a previous thread where we were talking about how treating things on the battlefield isnt the same as treating things in the civilian world then I still stand by it. [editline]10th July 2015[/editline] so yea, if a laid off soldier wants to mope around about being laid off instead of using it to go to school and get an education or make a solid attempt at entering the workforce with what they got, then fuck em. They're no better than others who sit around on their ass.[/QUOTE] Okay, so let me get this straight: you want to wipe out the jobs of the soldiers, and not actually come face to the face with their budget. Don't worry about the abundance of expensive equipment that keep getting shoveled their way (and the article I cited), it's better to affect lives by throwing them into unemployment. And then what do unemployed people do? They look for jobs. The demand for jobs skyrocket, people are left without jobs, and people who would normally have higher-paying jobs get paid less because of the fierce competition. The economy slows to a halt and people are unstable and unhappy. So what happens with that abundance of equipment that I mentioned earlier? Well, no one's sitting around to take care of the tanks, strykers, and other expensive shit, so it's either going to get sold off, or it's literally going to rot. If we don't have the soldiers to take care of the equipment, we're not going to be able to keep the equipment. So, in one fell swoop, you've managed to weaken the military at a high magnitude AND weaken the economy. Why not de-escalate situations before moving to extreme methods? Just because you're tired of people bitching about the military doesn't mean you nuke it - you rationally approach the situation before fucking over people's lives. And to think [I]you[/I] were complaining about your hypothetical fantasy land soldiers being lazy. Talk about ungrateful. [b]EDIT:[/b] Oh, and not to mention that we can't afford getting an education. I'm taking out massive loans to go to college. If you think that the people who take on being a soldier are lazier in comparison to being a student with loans, you have serious issues.

Soldier here, chiming in. We are supposed to be the 'protectors' of the US, but our country is peril from something that we cannot fight: [I]great[/I] debt. These cuts, while unfortunate for those who wanted to stay in, are necessary. The ex-Soldiers will be able to put their talents and strong discipline to good use serving their country from within, where it needs help the most. Besides, our founding fathers were against a large standing Army and foreign entanglements. Force begets force after all. Peace for all, violence is not the answer :)

[QUOTE=HappyCompy;48176685]Soldier here, chiming in. We are supposed to be the 'protectors' of the US, but our country is peril from something that we cannot fight: [I]great[/I] debt. These cuts, while unfortunate for those who wanted to stay in, are necessary. The ex-Soldiers will be able to put their talents and strong discipline to good use serving their country from within, where it needs help the most. Besides, our founding fathers were against a large standing Army and foreign entanglements. Force begets force after all. Peace for all, violence is not the answer :)[/QUOTE] I'd side with you if there wasn't extra cuts that could be done [I]before[/I] cutting soldiers.

[QUOTE=bdd458;48175767]If it wasn't for the Navy, my father would have most likely never have been able to get out of Poverty. Having a career in the Navy paved the way for a much brighter future for him.[/QUOTE] Why doesn't the government spend more on anti-poverty programs rather than the navy then?

[QUOTE=wauterboi;48176261]Okay, so let me get this straight: you want to wipe out the jobs of the soldiers, and not actually come face to the face with their budget. Don't worry about the abundance of expensive equipment that keep getting shoveled their way (and the article I cited), it's better to affect lives by throwing them into unemployment. And then what do unemployed people do? They look for jobs. The demand for jobs skyrocket, people are left without jobs, and people who would normally have higher-paying jobs get paid less because of the fierce competition. The economy slows to a halt and people are unstable and unhappy. So what happens with that abundance of equipment that I mentioned earlier? Well, no one's sitting around to take care of the tanks, strykers, and other expensive shit, so it's either going to get sold off, or it's literally going to rot. If we don't have the soldiers to take care of the equipment, we're not going to be able to keep the equipment. So, in one fell swoop, you've managed to weaken the military at a high magnitude AND weaken the economy. Why not de-escalate situations before moving to extreme methods? Just because you're tired of people bitching about the military doesn't mean you nuke it - you rationally approach the situation before fucking over people's lives. And to think [I]you[/I] were complaining about your hypothetical fantasy land soldiers being lazy. Talk about ungrateful. [b]EDIT:[/b] O[B]h, and not to mention that we can't afford getting an education. I'm taking out massive loans to go to college. If you think that the people who take on being a soldier are lazier in comparison to being a student with loans, you have serious issues.[/B][/QUOTE] So you don't think the US should be spending money on student grants rather than the army? By the way, you're not protecting the US miles away in a foreign country. That's just protecting someone else and extending your power. [editline]t[/editline] US spendings on military in 2015: 637 billion dollars. [QUOTE]The 2009 U.S. military budget accounts for approximately 40% of global arms spending. The 2012 budget is 6–7 times larger than the $106 billion military budget of China The United States and its close allies are responsible for two-thirds to three-quarters of the world's military spending (of which, in turn, the U.S. is responsible for the majority).[33][34][35] The US also maintains the largest number of military bases on foreign soil across the world.[/QUOTE] [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States"]Source[/URL] (Wikipedia) Holy shit, 637 billion dollars. If they'd spend some of that on education, it would help tons.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48177141]Why doesn't the government spend more on anti-poverty programs rather than the navy then?[/QUOTE] Because those aren't suddenly going to get someone who did shit in high school a good career. The only job he was qualified for was sweeping parking lots; yet thanks to Uncle Sam he was able to actually get an education - and uses both his experience and education from the Navy to make about as much as a US Congressman does in a year (~175k a year). [editline]11th July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Flumbooze;48177374]Holy shit, 637 billion dollars. If they'd spend some of that on education, it would help tons.[/QUOTE] A good chunk of it is paying upkeep fees to NATO for which our European bretheren keep paying less and less for. Our military spending would be drastically lowered if our Allies paid thier fair share into NATO. [url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/03/26/the-u-s-wants-its-allies-to-spend-more-on-defense-heres-how-much-theyre-shelling-out/[/url]

[QUOTE=bdd458;48177394]Because those aren't suddenly going to get someone who did shit in high school a good career. The only job he was qualified for was sweeping parking lots; yet thanks to Uncle Sam he was able to actually get an education - and uses both his experience and education from the Navy to make about as much as a US Congressman does in a year (~175k a year). [editline]11th July 2015[/editline] A good chunk of it is paying upkeep fees to NATO for which our European bretheren keep paying less and less for. Our military spending would be drastically lowered if our Allies paid thier fair share into NATO. [url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/03/26/the-u-s-wants-its-allies-to-spend-more-on-defense-heres-how-much-theyre-shelling-out/[/url][/QUOTE] 692 million dollars doesn't seem like that much.

Those lazy Soldiers man. I mean it's not like we have people on active duty AND going to college at the same time; go to school like normal people you bums!

[QUOTE=bdd458;48177394]Because those aren't suddenly going to get someone who did shit in high school a good career. The only job he was qualified for was sweeping parking lots; yet thanks to Uncle Sam he was able to actually get an education - and uses both his experience and education from the Navy to make about as much as a US Congressman does in a year (~175k a year).[/QUOTE] So what's stopping the government from spending money on education programs instead of the navy? Most of the arguments that the Armed Forces contribute these net benefits to employment or skills are based on the assumption that civilian services or institutions are somehow incapable or nonexistent. Military recruiters historically target people with poor prospects, and the idea that offloading a social problem onto the military as some kind of solution strikes me as ludicrous. I didn't do too well at school, but thankfully the government here has cheap/free higher education for school leavers like me, apprenticeships programs, etc. If I and a lot of other people don't need to join the army to get a better life, then maybe it might be prudent for the US government to invest into that sort of thing instead.

[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] tbh we need to simplify our systems of provision for SS/healthcare. other countries achieve coverage for more people for lower costs. something along the lines of single-payer health insurance or a basic income, or both.

[QUOTE=joes33431;48179433]other countries achieve coverage for more people for lower costs.[/QUOTE] US Population = 319 million people Who covers more people for less?

[QUOTE=Ridge;48180013]US Population = 319 million people Who covers more people for less?[/QUOTE] when i say 'more' i mean 'more as a proportion of the population'. it's simple statistics. most if not every other industrialized nation in the world is able to cover the majority of their people with healthcare that costs less per capita and less as a percentage of GDP. our free-market for-profit system of healthcare provision drives up costs due to a variety of reasons: the need to satiate shareholders, a lack of standardization in medical devices, etc.. when you combine this with various past and present inefficiencies in medicare and medicaid, that turns into a black hole for our budget.

[QUOTE=wauterboi;48176261] And to think [I]you[/I] were complaining about your hypothetical fantasy land soldiers being lazy. Talk about ungrateful. [b]EDIT:[/b] Oh, and not to mention that we can't afford getting an education. I'm taking out massive loans to go to college. If you think that the people who take on being a soldier are lazier in comparison to being a student with loans, you have serious issues.[/QUOTE] If a laid-off solider goes moping around complaining about this without trying to get a new job (or career) then I'm going to call it as I see it: lazy. No one can afford education, but I pay my taxes so military members can have an education stipend for when they're out of the service. Use it- Perhaps they already have an associates through the accredited classes offered in the service. If someone wants to go to school, they will find a way to pay for it-- Especially with service member status. While I agree that the equipment is stupid and needs to stop, the actual soldiers are a bigger budget burden in the long run. It would actually be great if the pentagon and all the branches of the military could get with 2015 and update all their internal computers, databases, and software so they can actually inventory all the shit they have, pay soldiers the appropriate wage, and not falsely claim other dead.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;48180546]If a laid-off solider goes moping around complaining about this without trying to get a new job (or career) then I'm going to call it as I see it: lazy.[/QUOTE] You sound like those people that complain about those [I]totally lazy welfare recipients[/I]. Sure, if someone's going to mope and groan and not even try to get a new job, they are lazy. But how do you make that distinction, and how is it relevant? How do you quantify it? It's useless banter. [editline]11th July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Code3Response;48180546]While I agree that the equipment is stupid and needs to stop, the actual soldiers are a bigger budget burden in the long run. It would actually be great if the pentagon and all the branches of the military could get with 2015 and update all their internal computers, databases, and software so they can actually inventory all the shit they have, pay soldiers the appropriate wage, and not falsely claim other dead.[/QUOTE] This is a good goal. People keep avoiding it and it's bullshit. I just question how to reach that goal.

I do wonder if there will be an increase in contractors at those bases. Considering in Iraq they got rid of lots of maintainace, food, supplies, escort, defence personal and replaced them with the pmc (using the reduced army figures and not mentioning the private military figures to tell everybody how they had cut down) I wonder if it will be the same here. Fire 40k military for some political reason, hire 20k private units to fill old positions and don't tell the public.

[QUOTE=Megadave;48167904]I hope the tax dollars get put to good use.[/QUOTE] This is the US government we're talking about. [editline]11th July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;48177141]Why doesn't the government spend more on anti-poverty programs rather than the navy then?[/QUOTE] Anti-Poverty programs don't end up working, the opposite tends to happen as it creates dependencies and incentives people to stay on handouts as they end up getting less in money/benefits if they try and work their way out a lot of the time. While serving in the Military can form a value system and the idea of discipline within a person, a check in the mail can't. When it comes to education programs and what not in places that are rife with poverty, they end up being failures as it takes both parties to want to do it. Places like the DC school systems are the best funded in the country and the world, and yet the poor inner city students perform synonymously as poor inner city students in underfunded and overcrowded schools. The difference is that in the Military people are effectively locked in and have to commit, while there's not a push to do so in education environments in many poor areas.

[QUOTE=Nikota;48180780]Anti-Poverty programs don't end up working, the opposite tends to happen as it creates dependencies and incentives people to stay on handouts as they end up getting less in money/benefits if they try and work their way out a lot of the time. While serving in the Military can form a value system and the idea of discipline within a person, a check in the mail can't.[/QUOTE] And there is no form of non-military services or institutions which can fulfill that role?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48180844]And there is no form of non-military services or institutions which can fulfill that role?[/QUOTE] It's not that there aren't, it's just that the military is much more effective at this because they form the basic tenets at being in the military, as well as being legally enforceable if you violate them.