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!
  • Tombs

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    12,022
    113
    Martinsville
    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.

    Yeah it's funny how republicans preach fiscal responsibility, and then we get into military funding and they run like cockroaches from a light.
     

    actaeon277

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Nov 20, 2011
    92,864
    113
    Merrillville
    Well, everyone loves those government contracts, because they make a one cent part, and sell it for a thousand dollars.
    And the .gov doesn't care. There is no reason to care. There is no accountability.


    Adm. Rickover was hated by many. He stepped on toes. He made people do their jobs. He expected competence. That makes you "not well loved" in the government.

    Also.. he held the nuke contractors feet to the fire on budget. Oh did they hate that.
    And so.. he was cashiered.
     

    04FXSTS

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 31, 2010
    1,789
    129
    Eugene
    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.
    A few years back I had the privilege of seeing Vincent Speranza speak in person, he was at Bastone in the "Battle of the Bulge." To paraphrase he said "You do not win a battle because you are well supplied, you win it when that GI in the foxhole fixes his bayonet and says 'You shall not pass." You can look him up on toutube, well worth a listen.
    This speaks to the will to win a war, something I do not believe the present administration has. Jim.
     

    Libertarian01

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jan 12, 2009
    6,006
    113
    Fort Wayne
    A few years back I had the privilege of seeing Vincent Speranza speak in person, he was at Bastone in the "Battle of the Bulge." To paraphrase he said "You do not win a battle because you are well supplied, you win it when that GI in the foxhole fixes his bayonet and says 'You shall not pass." You can look him up on toutube, well worth a listen.
    This speaks to the will to win a war, something I do not believe the present administration has. Jim.

    I have the greatest respect for those who fought in any war, but what Mr. Speranza was speaking of was one of the last symmetrical wars we're probably going to fight. You're on your side, they're on their side - fight. The "you shall not pass" works here.

    The problem today is waging asymmetrical warfare is entirely different. Russia doesn't have to undermine our election, just make us think it has. How does a soldier in a trench stop that? Or, how does the NSA, CIA or other counter intelligence operative stop a propaganda campaign that makes us think an election was stolen - even if it wasn't?

    Or stopping a semi-organized group of random citizens from walking up and shooting police? No trench here to fight from. No line to hold.

    The IRA was able to win some independence for Ireland by waging years of asymmetrical warfare. In some instances it didn't take a highly trained soldier with hundreds of thousands of dollars of training. It took a young guy willing to stash the bomb in the cafe. All we need to do is look at our experience in Vietnam or Afghanistan to see how difficult "winning" asymmetrical warfare is.

    Open warfare with two (2) of the most powerful adversaries is problematic for both sides. Say we go to war, real symmetrical war, with China? That would rip our guts open without a single bullet being fired! Our supply of chips and parts would grind to a halt. It would take years to find or build alternate manufacturing sources. Our ability to deficit spend would crash as the trillions of dollars propping us up from China buying our bonds would be inevitable.

    At the same time we would wipe our debt to China out. Their economy would crash as well. We each have the tiger by the tail.

    By the way, this is one of the greatest actions I loved about Trump! His tariffs on Chinese goods started breaking the bond between our economies.

    With Russia it's different. Neither of our economies would suffer much. However, the western banks hold hundreds of billions of dollars of Russian citizens. However, Europe is very dependent upon Russian gas supplies. Our allies would be hard pressed to pressure the Russians without suffering severely themselves.

    War with Russia would cause us the same problem as it would for Russia - supply chains. They have bases near their zone of influence. They have real fighter jets with really well trained pilots that could take ours out. I'm not saying they'd win every fight, but they could hold unlike Iraq or Afghanistan or any other foe we've engaged in the last 50 years. They have an armed navy, not as tough as ours but it doesn't have to be. It only has to do enough damage to keep us from doing what we want with impunity.

    The benefit with Russia, or specifically Putin, is that he isn't looking for world influence. In this he is very less the threat than China. He is looking to recreate a sphere of power near and around Russia. He has shown no significant designs on Africa, Asia, or anywhere else, unlike China. In this way Russia is a far lesser threat to us than China is.

    Regards,

    Doug
     

    spencer rifle

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Apr 15, 2011
    6,544
    149
    Scrounging brass
    I agree overall that most of the "wars" we've gotten into we started under-prepared. WWI and WWII in particular.
    I disagree about WWII. For several years beforehand we were preparing. The army was fully equipped with the great M1. Those carriers (like the outstanding Essex class), cruisers (Baltimore and Cleveland classes), destroyers (Fletcher class), submarines (Gato class) and battleships (Iowa class) and cargo vessels (Liberty ships) didn't magically appear in '42 and '43. All were already building or in the water before late 1941. Sure, we still had the Navy Ordnance Department defending the miserable Mark 14 torpedo and problems with carrier planes and armor, but we weren't that bad off, considering we had a two-front war on our hands and had to project power long distances.

    Part of the recurring problem is that we kept making these things for quite a while after we needed them, spending resources that could have been used elsewhere, because we had no idea when and how the war would end. We would have needed all that stuff if Operation Downfall was required. As it turned out, some of those expensive ships were mothballed and scrapped after only a few years' service
     
    Last edited:

    printcraft

    INGO Clown
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    16   0   0
    Feb 14, 2008
    38,993
    113
    Uranus

    Like General Boykin said this is impacting moral and readiness.

    But it works so well that an entire ship was infected, when the entire crew had the shot... I don't understand their reluctance.
     

    actaeon277

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Nov 20, 2011
    92,864
    113
    Merrillville
    I disagree about WWII. For several years beforehand we were preparing. The army was fully equipped with the great M1. Those carriers (like the outstanding Essex class), cruisers (Baltimore and Cleveland classes), destroyers (Fletcher class), submarines (Gato class) and battleships (Iowa class) and cargo vessels (Liberty ships) didn't magically appear in '42 and '43. All were already building or in the water before late 1941. Sure, we still had the Navy Ordnance Department defending the miserable Mark 14 torpedo and problems with carrier planes and armor, but we weren't that bad off, considering we had a two-front war on our hands and had to project power long distances.

    Part of the recurring problem is that we kept making these things for quite a while after we needed them, spending resources that could have been used elsewhere, because we had no idea when and how the war would end. We would have needed all that stuff if Operation Downfall was required. As it turned out, some of those expensive ships were mothballed and scrapped after only a few years' service
    Ummm no.
    We were not well equipped.
    Have a weapon designed is a "Start".
    But soldiers in boot camp were using sticks, because rifles were not available.
    The Essex class had what, one or two built? The rest were the oddballs.
    Hardly any Gatos out there. Most were R and S class.
    Iowa class battleships were out there yet.
    Liberty Ships hadn't even been designed yet.

    Before Pearl Harbor attack, a plan was drawn up to search the area around Pearl to look for ships.
    The plan was discarded, because it needed more B-17s than were available in the entire country.
     

    spencer rifle

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Apr 15, 2011
    6,544
    149
    Scrounging brass
    Ummm no.
    We were not well equipped.
    Have a weapon designed is a "Start".
    But soldiers in boot camp were using sticks, because rifles were not available.
    The Essex class had what, one or two built? The rest were the oddballs.
    Hardly any Gatos out there. Most were R and S class.
    Iowa class battleships were out there yet.
    Liberty Ships hadn't even been designed yet.

    Before Pearl Harbor attack, a plan was drawn up to search the area around Pearl to look for ships.
    The plan was discarded, because it needed more B-17s than were available in the entire country.
    Umm, no.
    The first Essex was commissioned before the end of 1942.
    Would hardly call the Yorktown class oddballs.
    Gatos were already in service in 1941, with more quickly on the way.
    There were 4 Cleveland class already in commission by the end of 1942.
    By October of 1941 there were already 14 Liberty ship hulls in the water.
    All 4 South Dakota class were commissioned before September of 1942

    If we would have waited until the war started to design and lay down these ships, the war would likely have gone much longer and cost even more lives. It is amazing that we had as much on the ways as we did when we got forced into the war.
     

    actaeon277

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Nov 20, 2011
    92,864
    113
    Merrillville
    I'm not saying having the weapons designed was a bad idea.
    What I'm saying, is they were hardly available in numbers big enough to make a difference.
    And if you were in the military in the first 6 months, life was a LOT harder on you because of it.
    The marines started WWII with bolt actions. I'm pretty sure they wished for M1s
     

    gregr

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 1, 2016
    4,300
    113
    West-Central
    I have the greatest respect for those who fought in any war, but what Mr. Speranza was speaking of was one of the last symmetrical wars we're probably going to fight. You're on your side, they're on their side - fight. The "you shall not pass" works here.

    The problem today is waging asymmetrical warfare is entirely different. Russia doesn't have to undermine our election, just make us think it has. How does a soldier in a trench stop that? Or, how does the NSA, CIA or other counter intelligence operative stop a propaganda campaign that makes us think an election was stolen - even if it wasn't?

    Or stopping a semi-organized group of random citizens from walking up and shooting police? No trench here to fight from. No line to hold.

    The IRA was able to win some independence for Ireland by waging years of asymmetrical warfare. In some instances it didn't take a highly trained soldier with hundreds of thousands of dollars of training. It took a young guy willing to stash the bomb in the cafe. All we need to do is look at our experience in Vietnam or Afghanistan to see how difficult "winning" asymmetrical warfare is.

    Open warfare with two (2) of the most powerful adversaries is problematic for both sides. Say we go to war, real symmetrical war, with China? That would rip our guts open without a single bullet being fired! Our supply of chips and parts would grind to a halt. It would take years to find or build alternate manufacturing sources. Our ability to deficit spend would crash as the trillions of dollars propping us up from China buying our bonds would be inevitable.

    At the same time we would wipe our debt to China out. Their economy would crash as well. We each have the tiger by the tail.

    By the way, this is one of the greatest actions I loved about Trump! His tariffs on Chinese goods started breaking the bond between our economies.

    With Russia it's different. Neither of our economies would suffer much. However, the western banks hold hundreds of billions of dollars of Russian citizens. However, Europe is very dependent upon Russian gas supplies. Our allies would be hard pressed to pressure the Russians without suffering severely themselves.

    War with Russia would cause us the same problem as it would for Russia - supply chains. They have bases near their zone of influence. They have real fighter jets with really well trained pilots that could take ours out. I'm not saying they'd win every fight, but they could hold unlike Iraq or Afghanistan or any other foe we've engaged in the last 50 years. They have an armed navy, not as tough as ours but it doesn't have to be. It only has to do enough damage to keep us from doing what we want with impunity.

    The benefit with Russia, or specifically Putin, is that he isn't looking for world influence. In this he is very less the threat than China. He is looking to recreate a sphere of power near and around Russia. He has shown no significant designs on Africa, Asia, or anywhere else, unlike China. In this way Russia is a far lesser threat to us than China is.

    Regards,

    Doug
    Whether you look at "You shall not pass", literally or metaphorically, it all comes down to the same thing; Do you have the will to win the war. There are decisions that will have to be made in any war, and even moreso today what with all the politically correct nonsense and the evil and pathetic united nations pointing their filthy fingers at anything they decide is some sort of a "war crime". Nevertheless, the mindset, you shall not pass is relevant, it is real, and that mindset is vital in a war. This current administration isn`t competent to deliver the mail, much less win a war. The same crowd that gleefully butchers babies in the womb, would lecture us about morals and ethics on the battlefield. Their chatter is as empty and hollow as is their moral reserve.
     
    Top Bottom