Trump cutting military budget?

[DirtyProp]

Oh, dear!
Can anyone confirm? For now it has been reported by an Italian site:

Trump ?abbatte? l?F-35 con un tweet ? Analisi Difesa (http://www.analisidifesa.it/2016/12/trump-abbatte-lf-35-con-un-tweet/)

[MSOCS]

Sit on your hands and ask him after his first 100 days

[TBM-Legend]

If you read a bit more you'll see that Donald T is looking at waste in projects and is expanding areas like the US Marines. His real concern is not getting the bang for the buck! All Govts should look at this>>

[MSOCS]

TBM, that's how I read it. His team have very carefully written these words. It doesn't say the axe is coming down either - that's an assumption at this stage. As you intimidate, he's taking a firm aim at saving defense waste across all Programs.

[ORAC]

In line with Congressional Budget Office recommended options.....

Cancel Plans to Purchase Additional F-35 Joint Strike Fighters and Instead Purchase F-16s and F/A-18s (https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/2016/52200)

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program is the military’s largest aircraft development program. The F-35 is a stealthy aircraft—one that is difficult for adversaries to detect by radar and other air defense sensors. The objective of the program is to produce three versions of that aircraft: the conventional takeoff F-35A for the Air Force, the short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B for the Marine Corps, and the carrier-based F-35C for the Navy. Through 2016, 285 F-35s had been purchased for the U.S. military: 178 F-35As, 71 F-35Bs, and 36 F‑35Cs. Current plans call for purchasing 2,158 more F‑35s through 2038. The Department of Defense (DoD) has estimated that the remaining cost of those purchases, including the cost to complete development, will amount to $265 billion (in nominal dollars). The Marine Corps and the Air Force declared their versions of the F-35 operational in 2015 and 2016, respectively. The Navy expects to declare its version operational by 2019.

Under this option, DoD would halt further production of the F-35 and instead purchase the most advanced versions of older, nonstealthy fighter aircraft that are still in production: the F-16 Fighting Falcon for the Air Force and the F/A-18 Super Hornet for the Navy and Marine Corps. The services would operate the F-35s that have already been purchased. By the Congressional Budget Office’s estimates, the option would reduce the need for discretionary budget authority by $29 billion from 2018 through 2026 if the F-16s and F/A-18s were purchased on the same schedule as that currently in place for the F-35s. Outlays would decrease by $23 billion over that period. Additional savings would accrue from 2027 through 2038 if F-16s and F/A-18s were purchased instead of the F-35s that are scheduled to be purchased in those later years. However, the Navy and Air Force are both planning to develop entirely new aircraft with fighter-like capabilities to be fielded in the 2030s and might choose to replace some planned F-35s with those aircraft instead.........

[Lonewolf_50]

ORAC:
OK, I am done slamming my head on the desk.


Doing that drives the price per unit up further. Fine. Let's never ever learn a lesson from 45 years of acquisition history? (Not knocking the F-16 and Super Hornets, they are good planes). Putting all our eggs in one basket is a ten year old decision. Congress is invested in this, and Congress raises the money.

As expensive and off time line as this program has become, this will increase the waste and cost, not reduce it, over the life of the program.

[ORAC]

As for waste, he does indeed need to "clean out the swamp", and the Pentagon is a very good place to start.

As for all those generals he is appointing, who is better than a poacher turned gamekeeper?

Pentagon buries evidence of $125 billion in bureaucratic waste (https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/pentagon-buries-evidence-of-125-billion-in-bureaucratic-waste/2016/12/05/e0668c76-9af6-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html?utm_term=.4060c80f883e)

[Lonewolf_50]

ORAC, a whole lot of that waste has to do with the structure of the system. Having been personally involved in a BRAC team in the early 00's, the functional choices to close bases based on requirements and cost ran afoul of LOCAL POLITICAL issues being driven by selected members of the House. Once again, an inefficient result. I could go on, but the pile of zero value added requirements thrown at the services is staggering. It leaks into everything. Who writes the rules on all that? :mad:ing Congress.

[ORAC]

LW_50,

The "death spiral" is a long standing DoD/Congressional tradition. Most of the bottom feeders have made their money, the plants have been built, backhanders distributed. Time to move on to the next program to bleed dry.

F-22, A-12, B-1, C-27 are only the last in a long line.....

[Davef68]

Bearing in mind the number of marines in Trump's inner circle, can you assume the B version is safest?

[ORAC]

DF68, are they aviators? If you read the SNAFU! Bl*g the groundpounders are purple in the face at the flyboys using up the budget buying up what they consider a useless plastic jet at the expense of updated armoured vehicles.

[West Coast]

Your gonna need to show me proof of the divide ORAC. The generally light composition of expeditionary units means Marine Air is absolutely vital to mission accomplishment. The integration between division and wing is complete, there isn't Army v AirForce divide here.

I'm sure there's some grumbling but generally there's no daylight between them.

[riff_raff]

Mr. Trump won't even be President until January 20th.

As for how much funding the US military will receive each fiscal year, that is defined by federal budget legislation created by Congress. For the most part, all the President can do is approve or veto the budget legislation submitted by Congress.

[darkroomsource]

As for how much funding the US military will receive each fiscal year, that is defined by federal budget legislation created by Congress. For the most part, all the President can do is approve or veto the budget legislation submitted by Congress.

Unless, of course, he takes a page out of Obama's playbook.

[T28B]

DF68, are they aviators? If you read the SNAFU! Bl*g the groundpounders are purple in the face at the flyboys using up the budget buying up what they consider a useless plastic jet at the expense of updated armoured vehicles.
1. Suggest you research the MAGTF. What you read on blogs may or may not reflect how the Marines actually operate.


2. The FY2017 budget is already in progress, and the FY2018 budget is already prepped and through both houses of Congress. As I understand it, mid to late February to be presented for signature into law.
Choice 1: Veto, and then get overridden by both houses to show this "outsider" who is boss.
Choice 2: Sign it. (I predict that his Sec Def nominee will recommend this).

Why does anyone think he'll assume the office and let himself get bitch slapped by Congress within a month? Vetoing that bill will be an own goal.

[racedo]

DF68, are they aviators? If you read the SNAFU! Bl*g the groundpounders are purple in the face at the flyboys using up the budget buying up what they consider a useless plastic jet at the expense of updated armoured vehicles.

A former serving USMC guy I knew (was going to say Ex but they never Ex) once gave his dismissal of USAF on the basis of
"We on the ground taking land, they arrive at Mach 1 and disappear at Mach 1, we still on the ground taking crap and need people in aircraft that is kicking the crap of the people in front of us".

His view of USMC Aviation was "They still fly boys but they get home with dirt on the windscreen so will stand a beer for them. They know what we need"

[MSOCS]

Racedo,

Sorry, however I don't believe anything in that statement. Perhaps it's the appalling grammar and syntax which leads me to conclude you're a non-Western, anti-F-35 "hack"; or possibly the fact that I work with Marines and that is vehemently NOT their view.

Either way, I think you're wrong and your assertion is a lame troll.

[racedo]

Sorry, however I don't believe anything in that statement. Perhaps it's the appalling grammar and syntax which leads me to conclude you're a non-Western, anti-F-35 "hack"; or possibly the fact that I work with Marines and that is vehemently NOT their view.

Either way, I think you're wrong and your assertion is a lame troll.

1.) One persons opinion is their personal opinion, doesn't make it right or wrong, it is a personal opinion.
2.) Collective view / opinion of USMC, is as expressed by their commnding officer, (nobody else) at any given point in time, everything else see number 1............ that includes both of us as well.
3.) Not remotely commenting on F-35, as indicated the person expressing their opinion was no longer serving (he finished his service 8 plus years ago) and his views of other US Services were choice.

[Al R]

Trump extracts pledge from Boeing on Air Force One costs | Reuters (http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-trump-defense-idUKKBN14A29D)

[Pegasus107]

And then this...........Donald Trump: US must greatly expand nuclear weapons - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38410027)

[langleybaston]

The famous checks and balances are clearly going to have their work cut out until he grows tired of his new toy.

[Hangarshuffle]

"The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes"
quoted from his twitter account via this evenings online Daily Telegraph.

I am amazed. But how can the Americans do this?
And will the world ever come to its senses?
He has to be continually pissed.

[Cows getting bigger]

When will America realise he is a complete fruitcake?

[Lonewolf_50]

greatly expand nuclear capabilities Pegasus, it would be helpful if you actually said the words used. It would be helpful if the journos did likewise.

Nuclear weapons and nuclear capability are related but not identical terms. Then again, I suggest you check context: in that article you posted, the announcement came shortly after Mr Putin said something about Russia's military posture.
Mr Trump spoke hours after President Vladimir Putin said Russia needs to bolster its military nuclear potential. Telling half the story is a short trip to telling a lie.
(On the other hand, one wonders what he thought he was saying, as spokesman came by later to do the old "what the Pres Elect meant was ....")

All in all, a lot of hot air.
The famous checks and balances are clearly going to have their work cut out until he grows tired of his new toy.
Langly, that is a good thing. The American system was designed to benefit from the tension created by the checks and balances system. It's good that they'll get into a bun fight to sort it out. That's a feature, not a bug.
When will America realise he is a complete fruitcake? Why do you make the erroneous assumption that America doesn't? I note by your spelling that you aren't from America. That explains your clueless question.

Here's the deal: in this past election, there were no good choices by the time the ballots were being cast. So, one bad choice or another one. Ya know that old adage "the lesser of two evils is still evil" well "the lesser of two bad choices is still not a good choice."

But that's the prom date, now go out there and dance. Have fun.

[SpazSinbad]

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewNewAllBum/MaverickTrumpT****FORUM.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewNewAllBum/MaverickTrumpT****FORUM.jpg.html)

[Lonewolf_50]

Heh, there's a T-shirt that ought to sell well. :D:D

[Rick777]

The thing to remember about Trump is that he means what he says until he says something else. His only core belief is in the greater glory of Donald Trump. Everything else is negotiable.

[Cows getting bigger]

Lone wolf, you are correct I'm not American and I'm proud of that. :)

I agree that Americans weren't presented with an outstanding choice but they actually voted for Clinton, by about 3M votes. It's only the stupidity of your electoral system (ours isn't perfect either, by a long shot) that got him to the White House. Now, is it too much to expect that most sane president-elects would recognise this fact and present a balanced set of policies? Right now, Trump appears to react to the last thing that he has heard and the Tweets and instant response - my teenage daughter behaves like that. Is this really the way America now wants to do business? ;)

[ORAC]

I am bemused at so much instinctive bile - when all he is doing in reiterating Obama's planned upgrade to US nuclear forces........

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/USNuclearModernization

Obama?s Trillion Dollar Nuclear Weapons Gamble - Defense One (http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2015/02/obamas-trillion-dollar-nuclear-weapons-gamble/104217/)

[peter we]

Obama said he wanted to get rid of Nukes, how did that go?

[A_Van]

My HO from another side of the canyon :-)

Though the role of the President in the US is high (as compared with so-called parliamentary republics), but he can't manage the budget any way he likes. Congress is ruling there (isn't it?). In the previous several years there were progressive slow cuttings in the US military budget, now the trend may change the direction, but it would still be a slow growth (even if the President would like to double it). This was the case for many previous decades and nobody cares here in my country.

As for particular Mr. Trump, AFAIK and what I heard from the media (which I always take with reservations) is that the budget components would be re-balanced. E.g., instead of spending blns for expeditionary forces and expansion of bases abroad, these blns might go for a high-tech new stuff. Is it good or bad for my country - difficult to say (perhaps equally bad). But if I were a taxpayer, this would sound reasonable.

[porch monkey]

CGB, your calling the American electoral system stupid merely indicates you do not understand it's origins and intent. A little study before such pronouncements usually helps. You are correct however about your own system, it is far from perfect itself, like most.

[racedo]

I agree that Americans weren't presented with an outstanding choice but they actually voted for Clinton, by about 3M votes. It's only the stupidity of your electoral system (ours isn't perfect either, by a long shot) that got him to the White House.

You really don't understand US political system. Voters vote to send people to Electoral College to vote for a Presidential candidate. Doesn't really matter whether a candidate wins by 1 vote in each of the 30 states that voted for Trump but voted in Millions more for Clinton. At least in US you know you are voting for a President.

In UK you are voting for an MP only. This MP may vote for a PM candidate but they may abstain and vote for nobody. There is no requirement to vote for anything or even attend Parliment.

In US 46% of the people who voted did so for Trump, in UK 37% vote for Tory MPs.

[Cows getting bigger]

In US 46% of the people who voted did so for Trump.....

.... and 48% voted for Clinton. :ugh:

Democracy, don't you just love it.

[darkroomsource]

it amazes me how people don't want to know about the electoral system, or why it's there.

The US is not a democracy, it's a republic. It's a group of states that share a central federal government.

If the vote was a pure democracy, then very large cities such as New York and Los Angeles would decide the presidency for all the rest of the nation.
If you take the 5 biggest areas of the US, and count up the difference between Hillary and Donald votes, you get more than the total difference between the two.
So the whole country, except for those 5 areas, voted for... Trump.

In the past, whenever a small area controlled a very large area, there were revolutions (think Empires overthrown).

The purpose of the electoral system, and the number of senators per state, and the number of representatives, is to ensure that a small state, like Main, or New Hampshire, is not "ruled" by a large state like New York. The electoral system ensures that every state has representation.

And that was the whole reason for the US revolution - to get representation.

[glad rag]

A simple explanation thank you.

It is exactly the same position with the SNP in Scotland.

[GlobalNav]

Like it or not, it has served the US well over 200 years. May not be perfect, but it wasn't the electoral system that put Trump into the presidency. It was a combination of our broken political parties, both GOP and Democrats, a screwed up media that popularizes only what will sell advertising, and a very angry, dissatisfied electorate, tired of money interests, alone, driving the train without real concern for the common man.

The media spent more time on Trump than anyone else I think, which strangled meaningful possibilities of his GOP opponents. I don't know how any American can be proud of the fact that someone, unashamedly narcissistic, and Twitter-minded (it's not just the way he communicates, its the way he thinks) will be our President. But we will have to live with it.

Hard to imagine that he won't screw up everything he touches, unless the competence of his cabinet and VP can keep it from happening. Congress sure as h*** will be as lame as ever.

[Lonewolf_50]

Lone wolf, you are correct I'm not American and I'm proud of that. :)

I agree that Americans weren't presented with an outstanding choice but they actually voted for Clinton, by about 3M votes. It's only the stupidity of your electoral system (ours isn't perfect either, by a long shot) that got him to the White House. Now, is it too much to expect that most sane president-elects would recognise this fact and present a balanced set of policies? Right now, Trump appears to react to the last thing that he has heard and the Tweets and instant response - my teenage daughter behaves like that. Is this really the way America now wants to do business? ;)
You are again unfamiliar with the system, so you denigrate it. Pay attention. Neither won a majority, it was as with Bill Clinton, victory by a plurality and the electoral votes. I find that a nice irony on Hillary: she got into the White House by being associated with Bill through a victory via plurality and that association allowed her to enter the political system via the Senatorial gift wrap in 2000. So the plurality that was to her benefit now works against her.

Also, it is well to understand that about 1/3 of the population who are eligible to vote didn't vote. So with 2/3 eligible voting, even a 50/50 split decided by a thin margin is still a majority of Americans NOT voting for the eventual winner. (And about 6 million didn't vote for either ...) The Electoral College helps to mitigate that kind of problem. We get a decision. (Among other things). Once again, words have meanings. The Majority of Americans did NOT vote for Hillary Clinton. (Nor for the Donald!)

Our system works well enough for us, and has done since about 1789 ... back when a lot of you were still bowing to kings and queens.

Trump? He'll either grow into the job, as his predecessor did, or he won't. That it really bothers a lot of foreigners is mostly amusing, given the amount of international whinging that gets tossed our way. That it bothers a lot of Americans who aren't on the extreme right, or the extreme left, is less amusing. Me, I am not amused, and am still looking at the confirmation battle in the Senate over cabinet appointments. Once his team is set, I'll see how whether or not optimism, pessimism, or just more drinking will be in order.

As above to Langly, the checks and balances will be put to work. I'd suggest you buy some pop corn and enjoy the show.

So, what does all of the above have to do with military aviation? The theme seems to be "stop overpaying for overpriced aircraft." That resonates with a lot of citizens, and would probably resonate with a lot of foreign folks who are strapped into the F-35 program, which was born during Bill Clinton's administration. How is that relevant? In a time of very austere DoD budgeting, the "one size fits all" solution for the follow on jet to the F-18, F-16, F-15 was believed to be "cheaper."

We see how that has worked out, eh?

[West Coast]

In the past, whenever a small area controlled a very large area, there were revolutions (think Empires overthrown).

I went through civics classes eons ago, part of which is making my peace with the electoral system. As I put the pieces together, I also came to the conclusion fot the same reasons that the US would fracture if small population centers ruled the nation. The electoral system is an insurance policy against it.

[A_Van]

I agree that finding an absolutely fair electoral system is a difficult task. Also agree that for a federation some measures should be undertaken to avoid dominance of big members over small ones.
However, in this case The Equality is sacrificed.
I was curious how many "heads" are served by a single college voter in different states and looked into the records (I rounded the numbers).
4 most populated states: CA - 720K (i.e. 1 elector represents c.a. 720 000 people), TX - 770K, FL - 680K, NY - 680K.
Some small states: WY - 200K, MT - 300K, NM - 400K.

Thus, on a personal level a question may arise why the vote of an elk hunter in Jackson Hole (Wyoming) has 3.5 times more weight than a vote of an airospace engineer in Pasadena (Ca)? I respect both... Or, why a farmer in Texas "costs" only half of his neighbor in New Mexico?

No sarcasm, just my thinking outloud....

[PersonFromPorlock]

Trump's future actions are unguessable at this point, not necessarily because he is erratic, but because the mainstream media has been, and continues to be, unhinged in its hostility to him (check the Washington Post's opinion pages for examples).

This means that practically nothing is known about the actual man, and opinions about him are being based on vicious caricatures. We will just have to wait to see what he does.

[riff_raff]

it amazes me how people don't want to know about the electoral system, or why it's there. The US is not a democracy, it's a republic. It's a group of states that share a central federal government

More correctly, the US is a constitutional representative republic. We elect members of Congress to represent us in the legislative process. We elect the President to provide oversight on the activities of Congress. And our nation is ultimately governed by the principles defined in the US Constitution.

Funny how the people claiming the electoral college system that elected President Trump is not legitimate, but had no complaints when that same electoral college system elected President Obama twice and President Clinton twice.

[CONSO]

As to the F-35 DOALL- its just the TFX( F-111) all over again. It might be useful as high cover at long range for the A-10- F-16- f-18 types- but to risk it on a ground mission without absolute air superiority and ground to air missiles supressed is just not realistic -IMHO

[Lonewolf_50]

As to the F-35 DOALL- its just the TFX( F-111) all over again. It might be useful as high cover at long range for the A-10- F-16- f-18 types- but to risk it on a ground mission without absolute air superiority and ground to air missiles supressed is just not realistic -IMHO
CONSO, my last experience with close air support was over a decade ago, but here's how it played out when people were shooting:
1. a lot of the grim and gritty support was by attack helicopters in the danger close range.
2. Some (for my taste, not enough) was by that lovely beast the A-10
3. No small amount was various F series aircraft that didn't come in low to release weapons. Between LGB's and GPS guided munitions, you can provide what the ground commander needs without diving into the dirt. Technology advances.
4. There are some mortars and other ground launched munitions that now mimic guided airborne weapons.

All said and done, the call for fire has a lot of ways to peel the onion (even a decade ago) and moreso since. For example, the old standard 2.75" rockets now have a mod that allows them to be guided rather than ballistic munitions (http://www.baesystems.com/en-us/product/apkws-laser-guided-rocket). (Attack helicopter folks really appreciate that, not sure how many suck and blow sorts will want that load out).

[Bare Plane]

but Obama and Clinton won the popular vote. I think that is a difference you could also mention.

[Turbine D]

This means that practically nothing is known about the actual man, and opinions about him are being based on vicious caricatures. We will just have to wait to see what he does.
Actually, quite a bit is known about him, especially if one lived in the New York area for 15 years as I did. It was during this time span he became a celebrity of sorts in NYC. As to vicious caricatures, the one thing that can be honestly said is, the Donald is all about the Donald, period.
As far as Donald and the F-35 and/or AF One replacements, stay tuned, a half dozen or more Donald positions will be offered, modified, explained by his staff, reoffered, etc. Facts are, the F-35 is a Congressional program, not a Presidential program and will continue as such. There will be lots of blabbering and gnashing of teeth about costs but the program will go onward in spite of the Donald...

[Lonewolf_50]

but Obama and Clinton won the popular vote. I think that is a difference you could also mention.
So did Grover Cleveland when Benjamin Harrison ran against him. Guess who ended up in the White House? See also Rutherford B Hayes and John Quincy Adams. That's our system. Been with us a long time and we're still here. It's thus a difference accounted for by the tried and true system we've been using for over two hundred years. You've got your system, we've got ours. End of.

Part of our system's working prevents a Helmut Kohl (16 years as PM) from happening here, or a Margaret Thatcher (12 years), since the 22d amendment was passed. (Now, if you liked Kohl or Thatcher, you might think term limits bad, and if you didn't like Kohl or Thatcher, you might think term limits were good).

That amendment happened thanks to some of the side effects of an extended time in that office by one individual and the political reaction to it. I might add, that amendment was passed by using the tools present in the same constitution that the EC is in. This means, to Stay On Topic, that Donald has either 4 or 8 years to change whatever he thinks he needs to change, and make a deal with Congress to do so. It'll be interesting to watch.

What does any of that have do with the subject at hand, mein freund, in terms of defense spending? It makes long term thinking harder to do, except that the purse strings have always been in Congress. So whatever whim a given President has tends to get mitigated/tempered by Congress, be it to grow or to shrink, or to pursue a particular pet project or series of them.

If your whinge is about American politics in general, I'd suggest you head over to Jet Blast. There's plenty of noise there for you to join in on. It's many v many.

If you want to talk about the impact on the Defense Budget, and specifically military aircraft and related systems, then by all means engage on those topics.

[riff_raff]

Understanding why a US President (including Donald Trump) does not have sole authority to dictate the annual DoD budget is just as important as understanding that our President and Vice President are elected by the electoral college system and not by national popular vote results.

The US federal budget providing funding for various agencies each fiscal year is determined by legislation originating in the US House of Representatives, which then is passed to the US Senate, and then is submitted to the President who can either veto it or sign it into law.

[Heathrow Harry]

By attacking LM/Boeing Trump draws the attention of his (many) supporters to some things that a lot of Congress would rather not talk about, They will up the pressure on Congress to "do something" and they will - if only because in 2 years many of them will not want to run against people claiming they are in the pockets of Big Aerospace........

[Turbine D]

By attacking LM/Boeing Trump draws the attention of his (many) supporters to some things that a lot of Congress would rather not talk about, They will up the pressure on Congress to "do something" and they will
No they won't, not exactly... Trump draws attention away from issues he would rather not talk about such as his international business dealings and a full accounting of his business interests among other things.

What Congress will do is reminding and emphasizing to their constituents the benefits programs (including Defense spending, the F-35 Program, etc.) have on their wellbeing and employment or unemployment if things don't go correctly. US Defense spending is a big deal, almost $700B annually.

Trump has yet to demonstrate he understands Federal Government relationships existing between Executive, Legislative and Judicial arms of our government, it's not the same as running Trump, Inc.

Just so you understand, the President and his financial wizards suggest fiscal year programs and a budget which is presented to Congress. Congress (House of Representatives) initiates their review on the proposed budget and programs, coming up with their plan. Oh, don't forget the lobby interests (K Street) going on hot and heavy at this time. Individualistic state program needs and new spending formerly known as "ear-marks" are added into the mix. Once passed, the House budget version is sent to the Senate that massages it and often modifies the House version, passing their own plan. Then, both Legislative bodies get together to iron out the differences and come up with an approved Congressional plan submitted to the President for approval or (gasp), veto. If the President elects to veto the budget, the government shuts down, government employees don't get paid, including the military and there are a lot of pissed constituents nationwide and the blame is mainly directed at the President... Will be interesting to see how Trump handles all the flak he will be receiving from his "many supporters" he once had during the election campaign. The worm turns as time goes on...:ok:

[chopper2004]

Trump lays out hike in military spending - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39108194)

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

That increase is about the size of the entire U.K. defense budget is it not?

Given that it is to fund things for which the R&D and commissioning is already paid for then that is a lot of shiny new kit and folks in uniforms. I'm liking it.

WWW

[Lonewolf_50]

He says "win or don't fight at all." (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/27/us/politics/trump-budget-military.html)


Sure, Mr President, the world is that simple. (Crap, I just strained my forehead by rolling my eyes).

[riff_raff]

President Trump's proposed $54B increase in the FY'18 defense dept. budget seems huge on its own. However, consider that the improper payments made by the Medicare/Medicaid programs alone amount to over $60B each year. Simply cutting waste/fraud in all federal entitlement programs would free up several times that amount each fiscal year.

[Heathrow Harry]

Since the start of time people have claimed that "cutting waste/fraud" is an answer to many Govt. problems - but it never seems to happen whatever the ideology of the govt. -- which suggest it's actually the price you pay for any big programme ......................

[Fonsini]

I'm afraid the media can no longer be trusted to report on Trump's actions in a responsible or accurate way, the focus is entirely on his mis-steps - something they certainly need to report, but it needs to be balanced.

One example is his move to block personnel who are key decision makers in the acquisition chain from signing multi-billion dollar contracts with manufacturers who they later work for on retiring from the military. It has always been a clear violation of independence requirements but he is the first President to declare his intention to stop it. But you will have to do some digging to find a story about it.

I don't agree with everything he is doing in the military space, the acquisition of the proposed F/A-18XT being one example - but he is forcing the military to re-evaluate a lot of things they take for granted, and that is never a bad thing in my opinion.

[GlobalNav]

I'm afraid the media can no longer be trusted to report on Trump's actions in a responsible or accurate way, the focus is entirely on his mis-steps - something they certainly need to report, but it needs to be balanced.


The government and politicians have always and should always be in an adversarial relationship in a healthy democracy, because that's what draws the truth out.

What our president has to fear more than anything else is the bright light of the truth. He wants us to live in a world of half truths and make us identify with his narcissistic views, where we would accept his exaggerated self-praise and let him rob us materially and morally of all we hold dear.

May the truth survive and may the American people settle for nothing less.

[Lonewolf_50]

What our president has to fear more than anything else is the bright light of the truth.
May the truth survive and may the American people settle for nothing less. GlobalNav, the media gave Obama a pass for the first year of his presidency. In time, that changed, though they kept kissing his wife's backside the whole time she was first lady.


As to "the truth" ... most people can't handle the truth.

[Brian W May]

I'm afraid the media can no longer be trusted to report on Trump's actions in a responsible or accurate way, the focus is entirely on his mis-steps - something they certainly need to report, but it needs to be balanced.

Ha ha, I think you should have stopped after the ninth word . . .

I used to believe the BBC but since they earned the title the Biased Broadcasting Service I stopped trusting them too.

Shame really when you stop trusting what you hear or what you read - just exacerbated with the 'fake' news phenomenon.

[GlobalNav]

Ha ha, I think you should have stopped after the ninth word . . .

I used to believe the BBC but since they earned the title the Biased Broadcasting Service I stopped trusting them too.

Shame really when you stop trusting what you hear or what you read - just exacerbated with the 'fake' news phenomenon.

I don't believe everything I read or hear - from the media or the government. Also, I believe, neither the media nor the government are monoliths. They are a collection of voices that a critical mind should weigh carefully in hopes of understanding what is true.

I am grateful that neither CNN, Fox News or The NY Times are the only media voices. And I am grateful for the multiple voices coming from congress and even the administration as they all help us appreciate how much confidence we can have in any one statement.

As Lonewolf50 suggests, perhaps we can't stand the truth. In today's world, few people have attention span to critically ponder the information we receive. Hence, the election we saw last November. Shame on us.

[KenV]

Isn't it interesting that the countless oh-so-certain predictions of what Trump was GOING to do before he was even in office turn out to be totally different than what he's actually doing while in office? Does that not speak volumes about the nature of the pundits who made the predictions?

[GlobalNav]

Isn't it interesting that the countless oh-so-certain predictions of what Trump was GOING to do before he was even in office turn out to be totally different than what he's actually doing while in office? Does that not speak volumes about the nature of the pundits who made the predictions?

You cannot, uncritically, assess anything DJT has said about his intentions before or after taking office. We are all "pundits" trying and failing to figure that out.

I can only hope that some of the reasonable and competent members of his administration like SecDef, SecState, SecDHS, etc can modulate and stabilize policy. No guarantee of that, though.

[NutLoose]

I cannot understand the desire to proliferate nuclear weapons, each side already possess enough on their own to wipe the slate clean on planet Earth.. why increase that? The only reasoning I can see to restarting a nuclear arms race is in the hope of bankrupting Russia.

[KenV]

I cannot understand the desire to proliferate nuclear weapons,So who has expressed a desire to proliferate nuclear weapons, other than of course Obama and the Iranians?

[KenV]

You cannot, uncritically, assess anything DJT has said about his intentions before or after taking office. We are all "pundits" trying and failing to figure that out. I'll buy that. So all the doom and gloomers in this thread are actually clueless. I'll buy that, too.

[NutLoose]

Trump's call for US nuclear supremacy raises questions - CNNPolitics.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/25/politics/trump-nuclear-arsenal/)

http://uk.businessinsider.com/trump-nuclear-weapons-expansion-risk-2017-1?r=US&IR=T

[KenV]

Oh my. "Nuclear supremacy" is way way way different than "nuclear proliferation." Equating the two is either remarkably ignorant, or grossly deceptive. Which applies here?

[racedo]

The only reasoning I can see to restarting a nuclear arms race is in the hope of bankrupting Russia.

Problem you have is Russia 2017 is not Russia 1980.

As sanctions have proven it has harmed Europeans rather than Russians and now Russians have staretd to diversify and produce what they used to buy.

Oil prices gives them a $100 billion a yeat trade surplus. Debt to GDP is 17%
US trade deficit is $502 billion and debt to GDP is 104%

TRADING ECONOMICS | 300.000 INDICATORS FROM 196 COUNTRIES (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/)

All it needs to happen is a number of countrys trade Oil other than is US $$$$ and watch it become expensive to borrow for the US.

Sadly US reminds me of the last days of the Roman Empire when the Romans became too rich to fight and subcontacted it to everybody else.

[NutLoose]

Oh my. "Nuclear supremacy" is way way way different than "nuclear proliferation." Equating the two is either remarkably ignorant, or grossly deceptive. Which applies here? You must be have been reading a different article than I was, increasing your stockpile to attain Nuclear supremacy relies on the other guy not doing like wise to maintain the current status quo, but by increasing your stockpile you are by the said action proliferating nuclear weapons. Especially when the nutter in charge believes in this

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/04/06/should-more-countries-have-nuclear-weapons-donald-trump-thinks-so/?utm_term=.12ef25be29c3

proliferation
prəlɪfəˈreɪʃn/
noun
noun: proliferation
rapid increase in the number or amount of something.
"a continuing threat of nuclear proliferation"

[Lonewolf_50]

Nutloose, the term 'nuclear proliferation' since about the 1960's has referred to the spread of nuclear weapons to more nations having them. Your attempt at a semantic game fails. The Non Proliferation Treaty was explicitly drawn up to prevent that spread (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons) ... with less than desired results. A variety of related arms control measures -- SALT, START, SALT II, etc ... -- have all tried to address nuclear stockpiles and in some cases, reductions of same. (with mixed success).


If Mr Trump want to increase the number of warheads, I am not sure why. If what he wants is to improve/update/upgrade the warheads currently in inventory, that makes sense. They have a shelf life.

[NutLoose]

I know that, but he wants more than capability Russia, if you see that link he is also on record wanting more countries to have them and that is.

According to Donald Trump, the United States should not try so hard to stop nuclear proliferation. On Sunday night, during a Republican town hall hosted by CNN’s Anderson Cooper, Trump declared (http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2016/03/29/full-rush-transcript-donald-trump-cnn-milwaukee-republican-presidential-town-hall/) that proliferation is “going to happen anyway.” And just a week earlier, Trump told the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/us/politics/donald-trump-transcript.html?_r=0), “If Japan had that nuclear threat, I’m not sure that would be a bad thing for us.” Nor would it be so bad, he’s said, if South Korea and Saudi Arabia had nuclear weapons, too.
We can break down Trump’s assertions into two ideas: Proliferation is inevitable, and it is good for the United States — at least when its allies are the ones going nuclear.
also


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/09/trump-putin-call-nuclear-deal-new-start-treaty

Does not bode well.

[KenV]

Ummmm, those statements were all made during the campaign. Campaign rhetoric is often very very different from actual policy once the new president gets all the data. JFK for example ran on a platform of a big "missile gap" between the US and Soviet Union, which helped get him elected.. Once he got in office he learned there was no such gap and his actual policies were much different than his campaign rhetoric. Note that since winning the election Trump has talked a lot about nuclear supremacy and not at all about nuclear proliferation.

And Trump's proposed defense budget (the subject of this thread) has NOTHING to do with nuclear proliferation. Indeed it has very very little to do even with nuclear supremacy. In fact, the increase is actually quite modest, only about $19B above what Obama proposed. And to my knowledge, Obama is the only president who actively worked to proliferate nukes, explicitly allowing and financially assisting Iran to develop nukes.

As for increasing the number of warheads, Trump has said nothing of the sort since winning the election. Both Russia and the US have warhead caps and neither side has proposed increasing those caps.