Silent For Too Long said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

maverick2076 said:

---

It's not so much that tanks and other items in defense are built to keep jobs, but because if we stop building them, we lose the institutional knowledge and industrial base necessary to build them again when we do need them.

---

I get that, but I'd rather spend money on things that can be used in modern warfare. Tanks, for example, and thanks to Ukraine and their drones have shown, don't really have a place in the modern world.

---

Exactly. Tanks have been shown to be obsolete for some time now.

We've spent over a trillion dollars on the F35 program and have basically nothing to show for it. Even if the pieces of **** actually worked they would be completely over whelmed by an army of drones at a tiny fraction of the cost.

One of the greatest lessons of history is the caution against building armaments to fight previous wars.

---

Tanks still have a place in modern warfare. Just don't look at Russia as an example of how to do it.

You are probably correct that I'm over stating their obsolescence, but even going back to the Chechen war we saw significant limitations to tanks versatility.

maverick2076 said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

maverick2076 said:

---

It's not so much that tanks and other items in defense are built to keep jobs, but because if we stop building them, we lose the institutional knowledge and industrial base necessary to build them again when we do need them.

---

I get that, but I'd rather spend money on things that can be used in modern warfare. Tanks, for example, and thanks to Ukraine and their drones have shown, don't really have a place in the modern world.

---

There is a big difference between sending tanks into battle piecemeal, which is what Russia has done, and sending tanks into battle as part of a coordinated combined arms campaign with requisite EW support and counter-drone efforts, which is what we would (hopefully) do.

---

Now that I get. That would still mean a great decrease in the number of tanks needed.

Hopefully we'll know sooner than later what's being cut.

Scoopen Skwert said:

---

Oh no how are all those retired flag officers going to milk more money out of the taxpayer?

---

join the Board of Directors for defense contractors

Ag87H2O said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

Fightin_Aggie said:

---

JFABNRGR said:

---

CUT the FWA, which will be like 25-35%, and end up with NO REAL NET loss to Defense Effectiveness.

---

What is the fwa?

---

Fixed wing aircraft

---

Pretty sure he means fraud, waste, and abuse

---

Yes fraud waste abuse and definitely not fixed or rotary wing aircraft.

04.arch.ag said:

---

Cutting defense and rooting out the waste is a good move even if just for optics. DOGE can't just cut from Al the liberal progressive agencies and agendas. Starting with USAID and DoE then move to defense for some "equality" then tackle entitlements.

This is just like some of the headline articles of the "I voted for Trump and now I lost my gov job". No crap this should be about cutting waste not a left right issue.

---

THIS.

Many are over-reacting here. This isn't a bunch of blind pacifists. Its very doubtful they are working toward a weak military like the "new world order' vision of the 1990's error. Someone like Milley was undoubtedly running a not very tight ship and heavily politicized with nonsense. Let them make their initial cuts and see what's up.

Some of it might even be like cutting budget for zeppelins in navy after WW I which were there but it was realized would be fodder in the next air war. We don't know.

Aggie Apotheosis said:

---

The forthcoming trillion-dollar tax cuts for the uber wealthy must be financed somehow.

The funny thing is I don't recall Trump mentioning cutting our defense budge by 40% in five years during the election. I wonder if that might have changed the outcome.

---

The "uber wealthy" pay a lot of tax as it is. The tax cuts being talked about will benefit folks other than the "uber wealthy."

I bet you hate corporations, don't you?

riverrataggie said:

---

javajaws said:

---

If the Ukraine war has shown us anything its that large expensive objects cannot be replaced easily or done fast enough to win any prolonged war. Our defense and military procurement needs to keep that in mind.

---

This is true. But China has a considerable edge on us in manufacturing capacity when it comes to aircraft and ships. We can't do it alone and need our international allies to step up their game.

---

I just wonder if China's original or replacement parts for their military are of the same quality of items we buy here in the USA? If so, they must stay broken down constantly.

Krautag81 said:

---

riverrataggie said:

---

javajaws said:

---

If the Ukraine war has shown us anything its that large expensive objects cannot be replaced easily or done fast enough to win any prolonged war. Our defense and military procurement needs to keep that in mind.

---

This is true. But China has a considerable edge on us in manufacturing capacity when it comes to aircraft and ships. We can't do it alone and need our international allies to step up their game.

---

I just wonder if China's original or replacement parts for their military are of the same quality of items we buy here in the USA? If so, they must stay broken down constantly.

---

It doesn't matter. They shoot four rockets with hopes one hit. We shoot one with a 80% success rate. Ours cost 10x of theirs. They are playing the numbers game.

I get tech superiority is beneficial but they are building swarm tactics and have the infrastructure to produce it. All funded by us building up their manufacturing capability over the years.

maverick2076 said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

maverick2076 said:

---

It's not so much that tanks and other items in defense are built to keep jobs, but because if we stop building them, we lose the institutional knowledge and industrial base necessary to build them again when we do need them.

---

I get that, but I'd rather spend money on things that can be used in modern warfare. Tanks, for example, and thanks to Ukraine and their drones have shown, don't really have a place in the modern world.

---

There is a big difference between sending tanks into battle piecemeal, which is what Russia has done, and sending tanks into battle as part of a coordinated combined arms campaign with requisite EW support and counter-drone efforts, which is what we would (hopefully) do.

---

True.

Our battle doctrine is MUCH better than the Russians...

Does anyone really think a war with China is a realistic probability? Their entire economy would collapse without the American Consumer.

I very well may be naive here, but I just don't see it ever happening. Despite our mutual saber rattling, we need each other economically and we both have nukes.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Does anyone really think a war with China is a realistic probability? Their entire economy would collapse without the American Consumer.

I very well may be naive here, but I just don't see it ever happening. Despite our mutual saber rattling, we need each other economically and we both have nukes.

---

If trade was cut off from China completely, WE would be more screwed economically than they would. We don't produce enough stuff for ourselves. That is why we have to buy stuff from them. If we couldn't buy that anymore, then we would have to do without and they would have a surplus domestically.