General Boykin on the current state of our military.

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • phylodog

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    59   0   0
    Mar 7, 2008
    18,745
    113
    Arcadia
    A ground attack on U.S. soil would certainly make for the most interesting war in quite a long time. I'm not sure if any of them have the balls but at the same time it's now or never, they're unlikely to see another POTUS (and Military) this weak and corrupt for a very long time.
     

    Leadeye

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 19, 2009
    36,686
    113
    .
    I just don't see big war in the modern day with the USA, one Ohio with a full load of W-88s, that's nearly 200 thermonuclear bombs, and it's lights out forever to any country in the world. Act would probably have an idea how many are out on patrol at any given time.
     

    phylodog

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    59   0   0
    Mar 7, 2008
    18,745
    113
    Arcadia
    I just don't see big war in the modern day with the USA, one Ohio with a full load of W-88s, that's nearly 200 thermonuclear bombs, and it's lights out forever to any country in the world. Act would probably have an idea how many are out on patrol at any given time.
    Are they patrolling or are they docked taking gender identity and inclusion & critical race theory training?
     

    actaeon277

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Nov 20, 2011
    92,843
    113
    Merrillville
    I just don't see big war in the modern day with the USA, one Ohio with a full load of W-88s, that's nearly 200 thermonuclear bombs, and it's lights out forever to any country in the world. Act would probably have an idea how many are out on patrol at any given time.
    there are 12 ohios.
    Some are in maintenance
    Some are in crew-turnover.

    So, probably 8 on patrol at any time.
     

    Tombs

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    12,021
    113
    Martinsville
    A ground attack on U.S. soil would certainly make for the most interesting war in quite a long time. I'm not sure if any of them have the balls but at the same time it's now or never, they're unlikely to see another POTUS (and Military) this weak and corrupt for a very long time.

    And what? Wipe out 80% of their economic exchange?

    Yeah, never going to happen. I could see them putting pressure on Hawaii to get more favorable trade deals, though.
     

    Libertarian01

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jan 12, 2009
    6,006
    113
    Fort Wayne
    The military always, always, ALWAYS whines about how unprepared and underfunded it is. How else can they justify constantly haranguing for more and more money, materials, etc? Tell me a time when the military, any military, said, "Nope. We're all good. We have everything we need.":rofl:

    No nation state will ever use a nuclear weapon. The risk of retaliation is too great a horror to take. Once used, the Rubicon is crossed and the other side may respond with equal or greater force. The idea of a "limited" nuclear exchange is fine in theory, but never could one plan for it.

    For example, say Ukraine blows up and Russia invades - and starts really kicking butt. The USA decides to launch a "limited" volley of one (1) or two (2) small nukes to cripple Russian forces. What stops Russia from responding with five (5) or ten (10) nuclear weapons? Nothing! Then what? We launch 15 - 20. They launch 30 - 50. Limited cannot be counted on.

    Or, Russia responds with an equal number of nukes, but targets major US military bases in the region. There is parity in numbers but NOT in damages. What would we then do? Nuke their bases and pray to Jesus they don't respond - because we cannot control how they will respond.

    When you're in a fight you only get to really control one fighter - you. If you pick a fight and start to lose you don't have the opportunity to "stop" the fight. The winner gets to chose that. So starting a fight is easy. Ending a fight? Really, really hard if the winner isn't tired of beating up the loser.

    Our military will never be ready. They'll never have enough. Just ask them.

    Regards,

    Doug
     

    DoggyDaddy

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    73   0   1
    Aug 18, 2011
    101,989
    77
    Southside Indy
    The military always, always, ALWAYS whines about how unprepared and underfunded it is. How else can they justify constantly haranguing for more and more money, materials, etc? Tell me a time when the military, any military, said, "Nope. We're all good. We have everything we need."
    Sounds remarkably like the public education system.
     

    actaeon277

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Nov 20, 2011
    92,843
    113
    Merrillville
    The military always, always, ALWAYS whines about how unprepared and underfunded it is. How else can they justify constantly haranguing for more and more money, materials, etc? Tell me a time when the military, any military, said, "Nope. We're all good. We have everything we need.":rofl:

    No nation state will ever use a nuclear weapon. The risk of retaliation is too great a horror to take. Once used, the Rubicon is crossed and the other side may respond with equal or greater force. The idea of a "limited" nuclear exchange is fine in theory, but never could one plan for it.

    For example, say Ukraine blows up and Russia invades - and starts really kicking butt. The USA decides to launch a "limited" volley of one (1) or two (2) small nukes to cripple Russian forces. What stops Russia from responding with five (5) or ten (10) nuclear weapons? Nothing! Then what? We launch 15 - 20. They launch 30 - 50. Limited cannot be counted on.

    Or, Russia responds with an equal number of nukes, but targets major US military bases in the region. There is parity in numbers but NOT in damages. What would we then do? Nuke their bases and pray to Jesus they don't respond - because we cannot control how they will respond.

    When you're in a fight you only get to really control one fighter - you. If you pick a fight and start to lose you don't have the opportunity to "stop" the fight. The winner gets to chose that. So starting a fight is easy. Ending a fight? Really, really hard if the winner isn't tired of beating up the loser.

    Our military will never be ready. They'll never have enough. Just ask them.

    Regards,

    Doug

    And would you maybe feel different, if you were going against people trying to kill you, 5 years after the big budget cuts?
    I understand, the government (specifically the military) is a black hole for funds.
    Which is why the civilian overseers are supposed to think about that.

    But, most wars we've started off with a woefully inadequate force. Which results in more American casualties. And costs more in the long run.
     

    KellyinAvon

    Blue-ID Mafia Consigliere
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Dec 22, 2012
    24,790
    150
    Avon
    Sounds remarkably like the public education system.
    Unfortunately there are more similarities than there used to be.

    The problem (I observed) with BIG MIL was (1) there was always more mission than resources, and (2) the people who could throw the BS flag never did because they got there on the backs of extraordinary people.

    To @Libertarian01 's point, the PEOPLE in the military always get the job done. (My view being the USAF) that is despite having the Air Staff at the Pentagon (AKA HQ USAF) who seemed really disconnected from reality. That's probably how people at base level viewed Major Commands (at least when I was at one they did.)
     

    BehindBlueI's

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    29   0   0
    Oct 3, 2012
    25,890
    113
    There's no incentive for a ground war on the continental US. What resources are worth the effort? Who can project enough air and naval power to even make it a remote possibility? Nobody. Our enemies do more damage by reducing our faith in our own institutions and dividing us internally then they do by putting a paratrooper in Florida. Today is not colonial war day and we're not worth a resource war. The goal for our enemies is to keep us from projecting power abroad, which is much harder than defending a homeland in terms of manpower, material, morale, etc. There are so many better ways of damaging us via reductions in credability, willingess to fight, economic vulnerabilities, etc that do not risk a nuclear exchange, losing a generation of men, or being exposed as a paper tiger.
     

    actaeon277

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Nov 20, 2011
    92,843
    113
    Merrillville
    Unfortunately there are more similarities than there used to be.

    The problem (I observed) with BIG MIL was (1) there was always more mission than resources, and (2) the people who could throw the BS flag never did because they got there on the backs of extraordinary people.

    To @Libertarian01 's point, the PEOPLE in the military always get the job done. (My view being the USAF) that is despite having the Air Staff at the Pentagon (AKA HQ USAF) who seemed really disconnected from reality. That's probably how people at base level viewed Major Commands (at least when I was at one they did.)

    After the wall came down, everyone decided to SAVE MONEY. Collect on the "peace dividend".
    So they cut the mil budget, after all, we had no more enemies.
    Except, instead of having one major player, we had a thousand fractured players.
    So every ship/sub had it's sea duty increased.
    Causing more maintenance, which cost more money.
    Also, personnel got tired of always being at sea, so they started leaving.
    Nukes had their reenlistment bonus cut, adding another reason to leave.
    Course, it didn't save any money. It cost (back then) $250,000 to train a nuke for a 6 year term.
    SRB (Standard Reenlistment Bonus) depended on several things. For me, they would have paid $14,000 for 2 more years.
    That's a big savings 65k for 6 years instead of 250k.
    Then manning levels effected deployments.

    And, we had to keep an eye on all the players creating problems.
    And, because the civies in congress said we weren't doing anything, the wanted us to check up on whales and dolphins and stuff.
     

    Libertarian01

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jan 12, 2009
    6,006
    113
    Fort Wayne
    Sounds remarkably like the public education system.

    No argument from me.

    The problems with our educational system are extremely complex. Teacher pay. Classroom discipline. The curriculum. Firing poor teachers. Classroom size. Teaching to tests. Pushing toward college instead of skilled trades OR the military.

    Oh yeah, and the Plague. Masks. Online / in class...

    And would you maybe feel different, if you were going against people trying to kill you, 5 years after the big budget cuts?
    I understand, the government (specifically the military) is a black hole for funds.
    Which is why the civilian overseers are supposed to think about that.

    But, most wars we've started off with a woefully inadequate force. Which results in more American casualties. And costs more in the long run.

    I agree overall that most of the "wars" we've gotten into we started under-prepared. WWI and WWII in particular.

    But the black hole thing for decades has been a huge problem. President Eisenhower warned of the risk of the military industrial complex. One of the most powerful generals in American history speaking of us needing to be on guard against our own industries and military drive.



    Also, we currently spend more than four (4) times what our top two (2) adversaries, China & Russia, spend.

    We spent $750 Billion in 2021. China = $237 Billion. Russia = a mere $48 Billion.

    Link: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/military-spending-by-country

    We should also think about what we truly NEED our military to do. I don't think we have any consensus there.
    Unfortunately there are more similarities than there used to be.

    The problem (I observed) with BIG MIL was (1) there was always more mission than resources, and (2) the people who could throw the BS flag never did because they got there on the backs of extraordinary people.

    To @Libertarian01 's point, the PEOPLE in the military always get the job done. (My view being the USAF) that is despite having the Air Staff at the Pentagon (AKA HQ USAF) who seemed really disconnected from reality. That's probably how people at base level viewed Major Commands (at least when I was at one they did.)

    Sir,

    My view is that EVERY system we have is broken. Every single one of them. Health care, education, military, VA, criminal justice, etc etc ad infinitum. To my thinking what happens is that good, bright, flexible people at and near the bottom work like hell in spite of the bureaucracy and system foisted upon them to make things happen.

    There isn't a government bureaucracy that isn't carried by the people at the bottom who will never get credit for all the great work they do for the people they serve. But, I do believe that we are coming to a tipping point where all their good work isn't going to be enough and the systems will start to fail (if they haven't already) beyond the good work of the base workers.

    Regards,

    Doug
     

    gregr

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 1, 2016
    4,300
    113
    West-Central
    And would you maybe feel different, if you were going against people trying to kill you, 5 years after the big budget cuts?
    I understand, the government (specifically the military) is a black hole for funds.
    Which is why the civilian overseers are supposed to think about that.

    But, most wars we've started off with a woefully inadequate force. Which results in more American casualties. And costs more in the long run.
    And let`s be crystal clear here, it`s certainly about adequate funding and all the hardware we need and want, but it`s also about having the will to win a war. The assortment of fruits and nuts in this current administration don`t have the stomach nor the backbone to do what may have to be done.
     

    gregr

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 1, 2016
    4,300
    113
    West-Central
    No argument from me.

    The problems with our educational system are extremely complex. Teacher pay. Classroom discipline. The curriculum. Firing poor teachers. Classroom size. Teaching to tests. Pushing toward college instead of skilled trades OR the military.

    Oh yeah, and the Plague. Masks. Online / in class...



    I agree overall that most of the "wars" we've gotten into we started under-prepared. WWI and WWII in particular.

    But the black hole thing for decades has been a huge problem. President Eisenhower warned of the risk of the military industrial complex. One of the most powerful generals in American history speaking of us needing to be on guard against our own industries and military drive.



    Also, we currently spend more than four (4) times what our top two (2) adversaries, China & Russia, spend.

    We spent $750 Billion in 2021. China = $237 Billion. Russia = a mere $48 Billion.

    Link: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/military-spending-by-country

    We should also think about what we truly NEED our military to do. I don't think we have any consensus there.


    Sir,

    My view is that EVERY system we have is broken. Every single one of them. Health care, education, military, VA, criminal justice, etc etc ad infinitum. To my thinking what happens is that good, bright, flexible people at and near the bottom work like hell in spite of the bureaucracy and system foisted upon them to make things happen.

    There isn't a government bureaucracy that isn't carried by the people at the bottom who will never get credit for all the great work they do for the people they serve. But, I do believe that we are coming to a tipping point where all their good work isn't going to be enough and the systems will start to fail (if they haven't already) beyond the good work of the base workers.

    Regards,

    Doug

    If it were possible, I would suggest that we spend 100 times what we do currently on national defense and our military. We have peace through power, and power takes a healthy checkbook.

    And I beg to differ as to how complex the "problems" with our educational system are. Lids who want to learn, learn. The others are just there to peddle drugs and stir up trouble. It`s a liberal pipe dream that throwing endless piles of money at a problem eventually fix it.
     
    Last edited:

    1903 Perfection

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 18, 2022
    43
    18
    St Petersburg Florida
    There's no incentive for a ground war on the continental US. What resources are worth the effort? Who can project enough air and naval power to even make it a remote possibility? Nobody. Our enemies do more damage by reducing our faith in our own institutions and dividing us internally then they do by putting a paratrooper in Florida. Today is not colonial war day and we're not worth a resource war. The goal for our enemies is to keep us from projecting power abroad, which is much harder than defending a homeland in terms of manpower, material, morale, etc. There are so many better ways of damaging us via reductions in credability, willingess to fight, economic vulnerabilities, etc that do not risk a nuclear exchange, losing a generation of men, or being exposed as a paper tiger.
    If paratroopers land in Florida... hopefully it will be in Polk County.
    Grady Judd would mount a good defensive force.
     

    actaeon277

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Nov 20, 2011
    92,843
    113
    Merrillville
    If it were possible, I would suggest that we spend 100 times what we do currently on national defense and our military. We have peace through power, and power takes a healthy checkbook.

    And I beg to differ as to how complex the "problems" with our educational system are. Lids who want to learn, learn. The others are just there to peddle drugs and stir up trouble. It`s a liberal pipe dream that throwing endless piles of money at a problem eventually fix it.
    I can't remember who.... but after the wall fell, when they wanted to cash in on the "peace dividend", someone said...

    The peace dividend is PEACE.
     

    Tombs

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    12,021
    113
    Martinsville
    If it were possible, I would suggest that we spend 100 times what we do currently on national defense and our military. We have peace through power, and power takes a healthy checkbook.

    And I beg to differ as to how complex the "problems" with our educational system are. Lids who want to learn, learn. The others are just there to peddle drugs and stir up trouble. It`s a liberal pipe dream that throwing endless piles of money at a problem eventually fix it.

    It doesn't matter how much money you spend if you let incompetent people run the show.

    We could be more effective than we are today on half the budget, if we had competent leaders. That's what matters, way way beyond anything else.

    If anything, budgets going to the moon is a fast way to invite incompetent people to run the show and bleed the country dry to line the pockets of a defense contractor.
     

    Libertarian01

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jan 12, 2009
    6,006
    113
    Fort Wayne
    It doesn't matter how much money you spend if you let incompetent people run the show.

    We could be more effective than we are today on half the budget, if we had competent leaders. That's what matters, way way beyond anything else.

    If anything, budgets going to the moon is a fast way to invite incompetent people to run the show and bleed the country dry to line the pockets of a defense contractor.

    Two issues here. The first is your use of an evil word - "budget." A budget implies someone is actually worrying about revenues and expenses. In 2020 the USA had a revenue of $3.42 Trillion. Out of that we paid expenses of $6.55 Trillion.

    Wait...? What??? Yes, we spent $3.13 Trillion more than we took in.

    So in the long run it is inevitable that our military will need to reduce massively in size as we can no longer support it. We cannot have the strongest military on earth without having the strongest economy on earth. And our economy is doomed with continued deficit spending. By the way, republicans are just as bad as democrats on this issue. They talk tough when not in power, but when given the power elected republicans are just as drunk and stupid as democrats. In my opinion, this is NOT a party thing. They each waste money, just on different crap.

    The second issue isn't just incompetent leaders, but incompetent citizens. EVERYONE loves living on the .gov money, without realizing we don't need thousands of military contracts all over our nation! Every plane, tank, ship, etc probably has all of its parts made in about 80% of the districts, so no elected official wants to vote against cutting jobs in their own back yard. This isn't just the military's fault, but that of the elected officials and the citizens who pick them.

    Final note: the largest place we could cut spending that isn't legally required by law? Yes, the military.

    Regards,

    Doug

    PS - I am with you! I would cut military spending by 50%, to start.
     
    Top Bottom