Will we be safe??

gog8tors

gog8tors

Driving Instructor
The only thing that kept this from happening in the military during Reagan's administration was he convinced Congress to increase the size of the military. If it had to maintain the strength without the increase in manpower, we would have seen mid-ranking military personnel let go. Something similar happened during the Clinton administration. Personnel in paygrades E-7 and above with 15 years in were offered an early retirement on a voluntary basis. Fortunately, enough took it. If enough hadn't, many would have been forced to take it.
 
Foxmeister said:
The only thing that kept this from happening in the military during Reagan's administration was he convinced Congress to increase the size of the military. If it had to maintain the strength without the increase in manpower, we would have seen mid-ranking military personnel let go. Something similar happened during the Clinton administration. Personnel in paygrades E-7 and above with 15 years in were offered an early retirement on a voluntary basis. Fortunately, enough took it. If enough hadn't, many would have been forced to take it.
Click to expand...
I can understand maybe letting the ones who have been in a while go. At least they had some experience to draw on when going into civilian life. At the same time the loss of war experienced personal is a drawback too. Also knowing that many of these service members went in for the GI bill are going to be screwed too. The powers that be are talking about cutting this benefit too. I think they are looking at reducing the college benefit for dependents as well.
 
Unfortunately, the Federal Government MUST cut back if we are to survive economically, and no program or department can be off the table. We cannot survive economically without defense cuts. It sucks when anyone is laid off, but the DOD has a manpower surplus, and we the taxpayer cannot keep these people on payroll just because it sucks to be laid off.

As for safety, I believe that the loss of less than 1% of our navy personnel won't make us any less safe.
 
I think they need to look at wasted and unnecessary spending before they start firing sailors. There is a lot of waste in defense, but it is not wasted on our military guys and girls. The Dems want to increase entitlements and decrease spending. This is no different than any other time. They do not want a strong military period.
 
naturegirl said:
I think they need to look at wasted and unnecessary spending before they start firing sailors. There is a lot of waste in defense, but it is not wasted on our military guys and girls. The Dems want to increase entitlements and decrease spending. This is no different than any other time. They do not want a strong military period.
Click to expand...
If there is an acknowledged glut of personnel in one classification as appears to be the case here, why look elsewhere first? You just found waste. You have people that you don't need, and they can't be reassigned to cover another actual need, so get rid of them. It's not pleasant, but that's how it works. Cutting government necessarily means cutting jobs. That doesn't mean that you don't look elsewhere, but any time you find an unneeded expense, whether it is a $10 Billion weapons system, a $10,000 vest, or 3000 sailors, you have to get rid of the waste.
 
It looks as if 10 of the 45 active duty Brigade Combat Teams in the Army may be eliminated as well. That's roughly 27,000 soldiers. We have to be careful to not cut our military personnel strength too much, or it will take several years to bring it back up enough for a large scale war if one were to occur; especially without a draft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top