AFTiger 282 Posted July 23, 2015 Author Share Posted July 23, 2015 Well if we did nothing else you may be right. The missions assigned to the military greatly exceed equipment and training. The post Vietnam Air Force under Carter was in deplorable shape. We could barely make the training requirement and the good troops were bailing out faster than we could train the replacements. You do not ever go back to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,362 Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 The CBRN forces are the best option we've got for dealing with a biological outbreak. Not to say they can handle it alone, but if we have to send serious help anywhere in the world they are at the top of the list. So tell me homer what would the CBRN forces do in dealing with a biological outbreak? Probably the same sort to things they did in the Ebola outbreak. Who better to enforce a quarantine (for example)? (BTW, the "B" in CBRN stands for biological.) LOL....You are funny...I know what it stands for and what they do...I have worked with them for a few years....I am done with this thread as you and AUUSN are the primo guys who know it all but are really just spouting as usual and must have extensive experience in all things...The rest of us who have done this stuff and have been trained pale in your experience of all things....and instead of following the original topic always like to create a sideshow in these threads. We all are overshadowed by your smugness of typical ex..(BTW, the "B" in CBRN stands for biological.) ... Well, maybe I misunderstood your original point. It seemed to me that you were saying the military is not capable of responding to a biological outbreak such as Ebola and shouldn't be employed in response to one. Perhaps in your more perfect world, the CDC (for example) would possess the same logistics and manpower as the military, but that is not the case in the world we have. It seems to me that ignoring an asset like the CBRN simply because a biological outbreak was natural or accidental instead of a deliberate attack is short sighted. And you opened yourself to the "B quip" by asking: "So tell me homer what would the CBRN forces do in dealing with a biological outbreak?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mims44 1,867 Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Considering the amount of money that has been, and will continue to be spent on defense, that is simply ridiculous. No it isn't....personnel are your biggest money sinks...we have many more civilian employees than we have ever had. The numbers of SES grade folks have almost doubled in the past 15 years. That is a ton of money out of the budget. We cut troops but not as much at the top as we need too. We have a tremendous amount crap put into the defense budget by congress that we are mandated to spend it on their pet projects. We have some other problems within the budget that I just won't go into...our brass wants to cut people to gain more room in the budget to buy/upgrade weapons systems... Defense is a costly thing and just like any other department in Gov there is a ton of waste in the budget and money spent on systems that are just put on the shelf. I have personally seen SES's manuever money around and spend more for a system that could have been done for a lot less than what they spent...but building pyramids is what gets you up in that system... That was really my point. We basically spend more than the rest of the world combined on defense, and we do not appear to be getting what we are paying for (as is indeed true for other Government departments). For what we spend, there should be absolutely nothing for anyone to worry about militarily. The DoD FY 2015 budget request that I read was for $495.6 billion, and the summary indicated about the same amount for the previous two years. For $495.6 billion, there should be no equipment in deplorable shape, or necessary training not being done. After all, equipment and training are the two most basic needs of the military. Our budget is higher than other countries, but not more than the rest of the world combined, not close. Also our budget compared to our GDP is lower than some countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia. Oh also USA + China = more than the rest of the world combined. I thought that was interesting and China puts less of a percentage of their GDP into their military than we do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU_Tiger_88 417 Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 The CBRN forces are the best option we've got for dealing with a biological outbreak. Not to say they can handle it alone, but if we have to send serious help anywhere in the world they are at the top of the list. So tell me homer what would the CBRN forces do in dealing with a biological outbreak? Probably the same sort to things they did in the Ebola outbreak. Who better to enforce a quarantine (for example)? (BTW, the "B" in CBRN stands for biological.) LOL....You are funny...I know what it stands for and what they do...I have worked with them for a few years....I am done with this thread as you and AUUSN are the primo guys who know it all but are really just spouting as usual and must have extensive experience in all things...The rest of us who have done this stuff and have been trained pale in your experience of all things....and instead of following the original topic always like to create a sideshow in these threads. We all are overshadowed by your smugness of typical ex..(BTW, the "B" in CBRN stands for biological.) ... Well, maybe I misunderstood your original point. It seemed to me that you were saying the military is not capable of responding to a biological outbreak such as Ebola and shouldn't be employed in response to one. Perhaps in your more perfect world, the CDC (for example) would possess the same logistics and manpower as the military, but that is not the case in the world we have. It seems to me that ignoring an asset like the CBRN simply because a biological outbreak was natural or accidental instead of a deliberate attack is short sighted. And you opened yourself "B quip" by asking: "So tell me homer what would the CBRN forces do in dealing with a biological outbreak?" I didn't open myself up for that because I was asking you what they would do? And you didn't answer the question....because that isn't their mission...so no training...they did send a med lab over there but that is it....My point is some guys on here spew things that they don't know about but when some point out the fact that this ISN'T a military mission, cute graphics of what we bought and the whole debate of other things get brought up vice debating whether this should be a mission.....much like using the military for other things....my feeling is that the money that came out of the DoD budget to do this kind of mission should come from somewhere else in the government budget and not just an added expense to our debt. Also, the expense they might state that this cost is not the actual cost as there are many other hidden costs that they do not calculate into these type of missions. I personally, did not believe my son was the best choice to go on this mission just because he is a combat medic...he wasn't trained to fight this disease no matter what people think....the military has great logistics capability and manpower but the question is Should we send our people to do these type of missions or should we rely on other agencies to do the grunt work with the military providing logistic support? Here is what our main CBRNE forces do The only U.S. military formation of its kind, 20th CBRNE combats chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive threats in support of operations throughout the globe and conducts defense support to civil authority missions in the United States. Notice the word threat as in from another country and not an outbreak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexava 6,973 Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Considering the amount of money that has been, and will continue to be spent on defense, that is simply ridiculous. No it isn't....personnel are your biggest money sinks...we have many more civilian employees than we have ever had. The numbers of SES grade folks have almost doubled in the past 15 years. That is a ton of money out of the budget. We cut troops but not as much at the top as we need too. We have a tremendous amount crap put into the defense budget by congress that we are mandated to spend it on their pet projects. We have some other problems within the budget that I just won't go into...our brass wants to cut people to gain more room in the budget to buy/upgrade weapons systems... Defense is a costly thing and just like any other department in Gov there is a ton of waste in the budget and money spent on systems that are just put on the shelf. I have personally seen SES's manuever money around and spend more for a system that could have been done for a lot less than what they spent...but building pyramids is what gets you up in that system... That was really my point. We basically spend more than the rest of the world combined on defense, and we do not appear to be getting what we are paying for (as is indeed true for other Government departments). For what we spend, there should be absolutely nothing for anyone to worry about militarily. The DoD FY 2015 budget request that I read was for $495.6 billion, and the summary indicated about the same amount for the previous two years. For $495.6 billion, there should be no equipment in deplorable shape, or necessary training not being done. After all, equipment and training are the two most basic needs of the military. Our budget is higher than other countries, but not more than the rest of the world combined, not close. Also our budget compared to our GDP is lower than some countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia. Oh also USA + China = more than the rest of the world combined. I thought that was interesting and China puts less of a percentage of their GDP into their military than we do. we spend more on defense than the next 13 countries combined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexava 6,973 Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Considering the amount of money that has been, and will continue to be spent on defense, that is simply ridiculous. No it isn't....personnel are your biggest money sinks...we have many more civilian employees than we have ever had. The numbers of SES grade folks have almost doubled in the past 15 years. That is a ton of money out of the budget. We cut troops but not as much at the top as we need too. We have a tremendous amount crap put into the defense budget by congress that we are mandated to spend it on their pet projects. We have some other problems within the budget that I just won't go into...our brass wants to cut people to gain more room in the budget to buy/upgrade weapons systems... Defense is a costly thing and just like any other department in Gov there is a ton of waste in the budget and money spent on systems that are just put on the shelf. I have personally seen SES's manuever money around and spend more for a system that could have been done for a lot less than what they spent...but building pyramids is what gets you up in that system... That was really my point. We basically spend more than the rest of the world combined on defense, and we do not appear to be getting what we are paying for (as is indeed true for other Government departments). For what we spend, there should be absolutely nothing for anyone to worry about militarily. The DoD FY 2015 budget request that I read was for $495.6 billion, and the summary indicated about the same amount for the previous two years. For $495.6 billion, there should be no equipment in deplorable shape, or necessary training not being done. After all, equipment and training are the two most basic needs of the military. Our budget is higher than other countries, but not more than the rest of the world combined, not close. Also our budget compared to our GDP is lower than some countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia. Oh also USA + China = more than the rest of the world combined. I thought that was interesting and China puts less of a percentage of their GDP into their military than we do. we spend more on defense than the next 13 countries combined. maybe #s changed lately at least 7 though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strychnine 1,802 Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Considering the amount of money that has been, and will continue to be spent on defense, that is simply ridiculous. No it isn't....personnel are your biggest money sinks...we have many more civilian employees than we have ever had. The numbers of SES grade folks have almost doubled in the past 15 years. That is a ton of money out of the budget. We cut troops but not as much at the top as we need too. We have a tremendous amount crap put into the defense budget by congress that we are mandated to spend it on their pet projects. We have some other problems within the budget that I just won't go into...our brass wants to cut people to gain more room in the budget to buy/upgrade weapons systems... Defense is a costly thing and just like any other department in Gov there is a ton of waste in the budget and money spent on systems that are just put on the shelf. I have personally seen SES's manuever money around and spend more for a system that could have been done for a lot less than what they spent...but building pyramids is what gets you up in that system... That was really my point. We basically spend more than the rest of the world combined on defense, and we do not appear to be getting what we are paying for (as is indeed true for other Government departments). For what we spend, there should be absolutely nothing for anyone to worry about militarily. The DoD FY 2015 budget request that I read was for $495.6 billion, and the summary indicated about the same amount for the previous two years. For $495.6 billion, there should be no equipment in deplorable shape, or necessary training not being done. After all, equipment and training are the two most basic needs of the military. Our budget is higher than other countries, but not more than the rest of the world combined, not close. Also our budget compared to our GDP is lower than some countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia. Oh also USA + China = more than the rest of the world combined. I thought that was interesting and China puts less of a percentage of their GDP into their military than we do. That's why I said "basically"; you are down to countries that spend less than $30 billion before you even get out of the top 15. We double what China and Russia spend combined. It looks especially silly as a graph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,362 Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 The CBRN forces are the best option we've got for dealing with a biological outbreak. Not to say they can handle it alone, but if we have to send serious help anywhere in the world they are at the top of the list. So tell me homer what would the CBRN forces do in dealing with a biological outbreak? Probably the same sort to things they did in the Ebola outbreak. Who better to enforce a quarantine (for example)? (BTW, the "B" in CBRN stands for biological.) LOL....You are funny...I know what it stands for and what they do...I have worked with them for a few years....I am done with this thread as you and AUUSN are the primo guys who know it all but are really just spouting as usual and must have extensive experience in all things...The rest of us who have done this stuff and have been trained pale in your experience of all things....and instead of following the original topic always like to create a sideshow in these threads. We all are overshadowed by your smugness of typical ex..(BTW, the "B" in CBRN stands for biological.) ... Well, maybe I misunderstood your original point. It seemed to me that you were saying the military is not capable of responding to a biological outbreak such as Ebola and shouldn't be employed in response to one. Perhaps in your more perfect world, the CDC (for example) would possess the same logistics and manpower as the military, but that is not the case in the world we have. It seems to me that ignoring an asset like the CBRN simply because a biological outbreak was natural or accidental instead of a deliberate attack is short sighted. And you opened yourself "B quip" by asking: "So tell me homer what would the CBRN forces do in dealing with a biological outbreak?" I didn't open myself up for that because I was asking you what they would do? And you didn't answer the question....because that isn't their mission...so no training...they did send a med lab over there but that is it....My point is some guys on here spew things that they don't know about but when some point out the fact that this ISN'T a military mission, cute graphics of what we bought and the whole debate of other things get brought up vice debating whether this should be a mission.....much like using the military for other things....my feeling is that the money that came out of the DoD budget to do this kind of mission should come from somewhere else in the government budget and not just an added expense to our debt. Also, the expense they might state that this cost is not the actual cost as there are many other hidden costs that they do not calculate into these type of missions. I personally, did not believe my son was the best choice to go on this mission just because he is a combat medic...he wasn't trained to fight this disease no matter what people think....the military has great logistics capability and manpower but the question is Should we send our people to do these type of missions or should we rely on other agencies to do the grunt work with the military providing logistic support? Here is what our main CBRNE forces do The only U.S. military formation of its kind, 20th CBRNE combats chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive threats in support of operations throughout the globe and conducts defense support to civil authority missions in the United States. Notice the word threat as in from another country and not an outbreak. Well, using your own emphasis, who else possesses the capability and capacity of the military? And a threat is a threat, whether it was originated by an enemy or by nature. The ebola outbreak was a definite threat to the US had it not been contained in Africa. And had that outbreak been deliberately initiated, what would the military do that they cannot do in the case of a natural outbreak? Do you seriously expect the POTUS to resist using the military to counter such a threat to the US because it originated naturally instead of deliberately? That's just irrational. As far as the military not being specifically trained or optimized for a given threat, the ultimate point is they are the most capable option we have for combating it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFTiger 282 Posted July 23, 2015 Author Share Posted July 23, 2015 The United States was the stabilizing force in the world because of the overwhelming force we could project. Fighting an equally structured military could get one killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,598 Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 Until we get to training for war, we will be undefended. It is nice that we could send troops to handle the ebola crisis but we are cutting 40,000 troops by the end of next year so Obama can fund food stamps. With the amount of money that we have DoD spend on these type of missions they loose that money for training and equipment upgrades. Our equipment is in deplorable condition and training isn't getting done, so fighting a different type of war will cost more lives. But we have people who don't understand that and think that these new kids coming in are trained for everything. Many people don't understand that a ton of Navy Reservist were serving in Afghanistan and Iraq but were quietly cut in force by over 60k since ~2006 so the Clinton years of do more with less are back...glad I am retiring next year. 28 years will be enough... Considering the amount of money that has been, and will continue to be spent on defense, that is simply ridiculous. No it isn't....personnel are your biggest money sinks...we have many more civilian employees than we have ever had. The numbers of SES grade folks have almost doubled in the past 15 years. That is a ton of money out of the budget. We cut troops but not as much at the top as we need too. We have a tremendous amount crap put into the defense budget by congress that we are mandated to spend it on their pet projects. We have some other problems within the budget that I just won't go into...our brass wants to cut people to gain more room in the budget to buy/upgrade weapons systems... Defense is a costly thing and just like any other department in Gov there is a ton of waste in the budget and money spent on systems that are just put on the shelf. I have personally seen SES's manuever money around and spend more for a system that could have been done for a lot less than what they spent...but building pyramids is what gets you up in that system... Careful......facts be damned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.