U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 01-31-2012, 10:04 AM
 
9,830 posts, read 19,589,616 times
Reputation: 7605

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by iknowftbll View Post
Large military bases are often some of the best preserved landscape you will find. This is because they are all federal preserves. I was stationed at Camp Pendleton, CA a couple years ago and the environmental regulations there are strict. Our radios use lithium powered batteries, and if a unit loses a piece of ordnance (such as a crate of hand grenades) out in the field, and investigation ensues when people return from the field. If they lose one of those lithium batteries, the unit does not return from the field until it is found. I'm sure that it is very similar at Fort Carson. There are big swaths of land on these bases that literally goes untouched by humans for years at a stretch.
Exactly. I think most people don't realize a lot of these military bases are practically wildlife refuges, so much so that they have to do controlled burns at some bases to keep the undergrowth in check. A lot of these bases are very empty and devoid of human development in the training areas.

 
Old 01-31-2012, 10:09 AM
 
9,830 posts, read 19,589,616 times
Reputation: 7605
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie View Post
I am not so certain. Look we all know I have a anti Springs bias but lets set that aside for the moment. The way the world is changing with the advancement of technology and the way we fight wars I just don't think there will be a need for as many military bases as we have now. I believe Colorado Springs has 5 military bases (I am including the academy even though technically its not a base) and I could see them cutting them down by at least 2. Which ones will it be? I am not sure and I could make a guess but it would be just that a guess but no matter what bases gets closed with how their economy is so based on the military it will have a impact much worse then anyone can predict. That is why I have been a advocate of the Springs diversifying their economy but they have not done that and unless they do they could have a rough time of it much like Pueblo did in the 80's but worse as most people there are not from the Springs and would not stay and weather out the storm.

EDIT: I just want to add that normally I am the poster who looks at things with a optimistic point of view but no matter how I look at this topic I can't see any other outcome.
They have already done the Base and Realignment Commission thing over the past 25 years, getting rid of a lot of small military bases and consolidating into several larger bases, sometimes now services end up sharing bases together. And ultimately you don't want to consolidate too much into just a couple of bases because it then is too much of a burden on the community.

I think right now it is fine the way it is. Fort Carson will probably lose a brigade over the next 5-6 years or other units, so if they gain some in return, it will probably come out even.
 
Old 01-31-2012, 03:37 PM
 
Location: Pueblo - Colorado's Second City
12,183 posts, read 21,040,297 times
Reputation: 4268
Today I got the latest issue of the Kiplinger Letter. Its first topic was the budget cuts specifically the impact they will have on the military and military cities. It says cities that rely on the military will receive a "direct hit" as the defense budget could be cut by at least 500 billion dollars maybe more over the next 10 years. So even if they don't directly close a base I don't see them expanding Pinion Canyon and I see major cutbacks to many of the defense contractors in the Springs to cause some economic issues.
 
Old 01-31-2012, 04:02 PM
 
924 posts, read 991,219 times
Reputation: 1077
^What, in your balanced, nuanced opinion constitutes "major" cutbacks? It's not as if the defense contractors in COS are manufacturers of major defense systems (such as the C-37J, F-35, etc) that may fall under the knife. Rather, the defense contractors are mostly in communication, space, and ISR systems which are areas that have, so far, been spared the budget knife and are even expected to receive increased funding.

Fort Carson will likely lose a brigade, as will most Army posts, as reducing the divisional structure from 4 BCT's to 3 BCT's seems like a very logical way of achieving the 10 BCT reduction. Though it seems like the Army wants the knife to fall more heavily on the Heavy BCT's rather than the Light or Stryker BCT's.
 
Old 01-31-2012, 04:17 PM
 
Location: Pueblo - Colorado's Second City
12,183 posts, read 21,040,297 times
Reputation: 4268
Quote:
Originally Posted by wong21fr View Post
^What, in your balanced, nuanced opinion constitutes "major" cutbacks? It's not as if the defense contractors in COS are manufacturers of major defense systems (such as the C-37J, F-35, etc) that may fall under the knife. Rather, the defense contractors are mostly in communication, space, and ISR systems which are areas that have, so far, been spared the budget knife and are even expected to receive increased funding.
I will be honest I don't know but in the era of budget cuts especially in the military and military related companies I don't think southern Colorado has to worry about militarization but the exact opposite. The Colorado Springs economy is directly and in directly related to the military and if they cut the budget by 500 billion to 1 trillion dollars over the next 10 to 20 years I don't see how it can be spared.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wong21fr View Post
Fort Carson will likely lose a brigade, as will most Army posts, as reducing the divisional structure from 4 BCT's to 3 BCT's seems like a very logical way of achieving the 10 BCT reduction. Though it seems like the Army wants the knife to fall more heavily on the Heavy BCT's rather than the Light or Stryker BCT's.
I never said Fort Carson would be closed and I would suspect its safe but if the other two smaller air force bases were closed and merged with a larger base so save money it would cause economic problems. Even if I am wrong and no base is closed there will be enough budget cuts that the Springs economy will not be what it was in the past 50 years.
 
Old 01-31-2012, 04:37 PM
 
924 posts, read 991,219 times
Reputation: 1077
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie View Post
I will be honest I don't know but in the era of budget cuts especially in the military and military related companies I don't think southern Colorado has to worry about militarization but the exact opposite. The Colorado Springs economy is directly and in directly related to the military and if they cut the budget by 500 billion to 1 trillion dollars over the next 10 to 20 years I don't see how it can be spared.
It can't be, but the cuts to the defense budget aren't quite as dire as they are portrayed in the public realm.

Quote:
I never said Fort Carson would be closed and I would suspect its safe but if the other two smaller air force bases were closed and merged with a larger base so save money it would cause economic problems. Even if I am wrong and no base is closed there will be enough budget cuts that the Springs economy will not be what it was in the past 50 years.
Do you even know what goes on at Peterson and Schriever? Those two facilities basically are the United States entire space-based operation from spacecraft control to the little thing called GPS. If anything is safe, it's those two posts as the US is not going to cede the high ground of space in any way.
 
Old 01-31-2012, 04:48 PM
 
Location: Pueblo - Colorado's Second City
12,183 posts, read 21,040,297 times
Reputation: 4268
Quote:
Originally Posted by wong21fr View Post
It can't be, but the cuts to the defense budget aren't quite as dire as they are portrayed in the public realm.
Not according to the Kiplinger Letter and they are a good no nonsense look at politics and the economy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wong21fr View Post
Do you even know what goes on at Peterson and Schriever? Those two facilities basically are the United States entire space-based operation from spacecraft control to the little thing called GPS. If anything is safe, it's those two posts as the US is not going to cede the high ground of space in any way.
They can't be merged to save money? Like I posted even if I am wrong and no bases are closed I just don't see how the Springs economy (and the economy of southern Colorado as it would affect Pueblo as well) can be spared with how much the military budget must be cut.
 
Old 01-31-2012, 05:11 PM
 
924 posts, read 991,219 times
Reputation: 1077
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie View Post
Not according to the Kiplinger Letter and they are a good no nonsense look at politics and the economy.
Just how much of a reduction in local GDP did Kiplinger project would occur on average to communities with a significant military presence? The $500 billion dollar cut reduces projected military growth, but it ends up keeping pace with inflation and the some. It really maintains the status quo instead of years of rapid growth like the last decade.

Quote:
They can't be merged to save money? Like I posted even if I am wrong and no bases are closed I just don't see how the Springs economy (and the economy of southern Colorado as it would affect Pueblo as well) can be spared with how much the military budget must be cut.
I'm not quite sure how the bases could be merged to gain efficiencies, unless it's to consolidate cantonments at one base, though I think that Schreiver uses Peterson for a lot of the services, i.e. commissary and BX, that a normally located on an AFB.

The cities can't be spared, but COS isn't going to end up the way Pueblo did in the 70's and 80's as you have constantly alluded to, and hoped for.
 
Old 01-31-2012, 05:48 PM
 
Location: Pueblo - Colorado's Second City
12,183 posts, read 21,040,297 times
Reputation: 4268
Quote:
Originally Posted by wong21fr View Post
Just how much of a reduction in local GDP did Kiplinger project would occur on average to communities with a significant military presence? The $500 billion dollar cut reduces projected military growth, but it ends up keeping pace with inflation and the some. It really maintains the status quo instead of years of rapid growth like the last decade.
It does not give the local GDP.


Quote:
Originally Posted by wong21fr View Post
I'm not quite sure how the bases could be merged to gain efficiencies, unless it's to consolidate cantonments at one base, though I think that Schreiver uses Peterson for a lot of the services, i.e. commissary and BX, that a normally located on an AFB.
They have done it before.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wong21fr View Post
The cities can't be spared, but COS isn't going to end up the way Pueblo did in the 70's and 80's as you have constantly alluded to, and hoped for.
Maybe I will be wrong but I don't see why Colorado Springs does not do all it can to diversify their economy in case I am more right then I am wrong. It can be done but instead all I hear are reasons why it can't and how the military is there to stay.
 
Old 02-01-2012, 06:02 PM
 
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
2,221 posts, read 4,746,009 times
Reputation: 1696
A large part of the proposed cuts--the lion's share in dollar terms--will be to military acquisition programs. Colorado Springs is not home to any significant defense material production.

The AF Academy is probably safe for as long as the US has an independent Air Force. Schriever has some very expensive special facilities and an enormous specialized antenna farm that needs to be relatively near a major base but well away from an urban area due to RF interference issues. Peterson is home to multiple major military commands, including a critical command and control center for the nation's nuclear forces, so moving it would be prohibitively expensive. Carson is probably the most susceptible of the local bases, depending on how the Army distributes the loss of some 80,000 troops and even more support people, but closure of an entire major Army base in the US is unlikely as the result of a proposed 15% personnel reduction.

So...there will probably be some impact, probably (as others have already opined) from loss of one or even two brigades from Carson.

That's a real analysis from someone that doesn't need to have his opinions given to him by a half-rate Wall Street ragsheet.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:04 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top