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.
The Army’s number of soldiers will fall by 27,000, while the Marine Corps’ end strength will be reduced by between 15,000 and 20,000, DoD officials said.
Quote:
Those ground force reductions will begin in 2015, with officials stressing that is the time U.S. and Afghanistan officials plan for Afghan security forces to control a good portion of territory in their own nation.Mullen acknowledged reducing troop numbers inserts risk into plans, but he said it is an “acceptable” amount.
I have a feeling it'll mostly be those who are undeployable profiles and perhaps those who are skating by doing the bare minimum. That is if this does for sure end up happening in 2015. Also for those constantly complaining that our military is too large, I don't want to hear more complaining a few years down the line that there are too many people once again trying to compete for jobs and not enough jobs to go around. Maybe we'll be better off with the economy by then but it can be difficult having this many people become suddenly unemployed (if they do it all too close together that is). Hopefully no one who wants to stay in the military and is a hard worker ends up getting kicked out too.
I have a feeling it'll mostly be those who are undeployable profiles and perhaps those who are skating by doing the bare minimum. That is if this does for sure end up happening in 2015. Also for those constantly complaining that our military is too large, I don't want to hear more complaining a few years down the line that there are too many people once again trying to compete for jobs and not enough jobs to go around. Maybe we'll be better off with the economy by then but it can be difficult having this many people become suddenly unemployed (if they do it all too close together that is). Hopefully no one who wants to stay in the military and is a hard worker ends up getting kicked out too.
You should learn math because 47,000 people coming back into a workforce of 150 Million is such as insignificant percentage it's silly.
We spend as much as the entire rest of the World combined on this absurd level of defense spending, for a country that has only 20% of World GDP.
This is like the decline of the Roman Empire on steroids thanks to right wing ideology that scares Americans into wasting hundreds of billions on such a fiasco.
Last edited by padcrasher; 01-06-2011 at 08:16 PM..
I don't disagree with your overall point; I think we could certainly make cuts in military spending. Politicians will defend it because military spending supports jobs across many different industries. I would also say that Russia, China etc. are probably not paying "market value" for their supplies and weapons while we get gouged for a toilet set if it's for the military.
My math is just fine. There are plenty of threads right now where people are complaining about a lack of jobs out there and I can't see that stopping any time soon. Let's face it while there is a large market, a lot of those jobs arent ones that people yearn to have. I don't know too many people complaining about a lack of waiter or cashier jobs. So if everyone getting laid off decides to try for the nicer, cushier jobs that means its harder for those already trying for those jobs. Or even using the police depts for example. They're having more people apply than before and it sucks when it goes to someone just looking for a paycheck in a tough economy with no Passion for the job itself over someone who has always wanted that job. Plus I'm biased and think it sucks when there have been people calling outrage for any company daring to lay off this many people at once but wouldn't blink an eye to seeing this many service members laid off at once.
I don't disagree with your overall point; I think we could certainly make cuts in military spending. Politicians will defend it because military spending supports jobs across many different industries. I would also say that Russia, China etc. are probably not paying "market value" for their supplies and weapons while we get gouged for a toilet set if it's for the military.
have you seen chinas new fighter jet it is a f-22 front and a sukohi-50 tail
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.
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.
