Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Steve White 2012-02-14 00:00||
E-Mail||
Front Page|| [161 views ]
Top
#1 The Army's budget director, Major General Phillip McGhee, told reporters at the Pentagon today that his service will rely first on on-time and early retirements, reducing recruitment and other steps before resorting to involuntary measures.
You know that the first round should be all those who fail to meet the long established and known height and weight standards. The second round should include every one of their raters who checked off the box that said servicemember meet height and weight standards.
Posted by Procopius2k 2012-02-14 00:09||
2012-02-14 00:09||
Front PageTop
#2 A Reduction in Force(RIF) will not solve the nation's budget ills. Those few who serve are NOT the problem.
Yes, AR 600-9 (US Army Regulation Height and Weight Standards) will be good starting point if their must be a RIF. It's a bit embarrasing when crusty old contractors exhibit more military bearing than some of the rear echelon personnel in uniform. (combat arms units tend to police their ranks and enforce the standards)
Unfortunately, the size of the initial cuts will mean we'll lose a significant amount of very fine soldiers at all levels.
Posted by Besoeker 2012-02-14 03:25||
2012-02-14 03:25||
Front PageTop
#3 "valuable specialties such as cyber warfare and acquisitions" ACQUISITIONS!!! That is the valuable specialty that deserves "special" treatment? Where will all the warriors go?
Posted by Slindsey 2012-02-14 08:44||
2012-02-14 08:44||
Front PageTop
#4 That is the valuable specialty that deserves "special" treatment?
Let me answer your question with a question:
Will you be STFU when there are cost overruns and weapons not meeting performance standards?
Posted by Pappy 2012-02-14 11:05||
2012-02-14 11:05||
Front PageTop
#5 All the money this government squanders and they choose to reduce spending on the military? Excuse me, but I thought one of the primary purposes of the federal government was to provide for the common defense. All the other crap is a bunch of crap.
Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2012-02-14 11:54||
2012-02-14 11:54||
Front PageTop
#6 It isn't to the Democrats and Obumbles Ebbang - to them its all about spreading around the wealth (mainly to their cronies) and destroying the idea of 'America'.
Posted by CrazyFool 2012-02-14 13:03||
2012-02-14 13:03||
Front PageTop
#7 Squandered money generates jobs. Lots of nice, clean, green regulatory jobs (the productive jobs that are destroyed in the process are the fault of the evil, greedy businesses, not government.)
And for what it costs for every military job they make go away, they can hire at least twice as many TSA people.
Posted by Glenmore 2012-02-14 13:30||
2012-02-14 13:30||
Front PageTop
#8 TSA is the model federal agency for the FEMA Region future of tomorrow. Never forget it!
Check'em out, next time you're in Atlanta, Hartsfield, what'ya-call-it airport.
Posted by Besoeker 2012-02-14 14:12||
2012-02-14 14:12||
Front PageTop
#9 one of the primary purposes of the federal government was to provide for the common defense.
That was true once upon a time. At the moment to primary purpose of federal spending is to buy votes.
Notice this issue diverts attention from the ongoing massively wasteful non-military expenditures.
Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2012-02-14 16:53||
2012-02-14 16:53||
Front PageTop
#10 At the moment to primary purpose of federal spending is to buy votes.
Yes, of course. I knew that. whimper
Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2012-02-14 17:26||
2012-02-14 17:26||
Front PageTop
#11 It's not clear from the article whether this is about reducing spending year over year to simply not increasing spending year over year by the usual and customary 7% or so. News articles always blur that distinction.
Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2012-02-14 17:31||
2012-02-14 17:31||
Front PageTop
#12 Perhaps more succintly ....?
* CHINESE MILITARY FORUM > US MILITARY TO CUT TROOP NUMBERS | [Bloomberg News] PENTAGON MAY OUST TROOPS INVOLUNTARILY [not-a-RIF?] TO MEET REDUCTIONS IN BUDGET PLAN.
and
* FREEREPUBLIC > [POTUS Bammer Admin] US WEIGHING STEEP NUCLEAR ARMS CUTS, perhaps up to 80% of deployed NucWeapons.
USDOD devol into UK MoD - OOOOOO, you just know this is not gonna end well?
The Irish armed forces is too small, so that leaves France + SIGHTED-PROPELLER-SANK-SAME HAPPY FNS CV CHARLES DE GAULLE to same America = Amerika.
Espec given ...
* PRAVDA.RU > MUSLISM TO CONQUER HEART AND SOUL OF EUROPE.
* SAME > GERMANY WILL BE CONQUERED BY ISLAM.
Posted by JosephMendiola 2012-02-14 20:02||
2012-02-14 20:02||
Front PageTop
#13 OOPSIES, forgot LUCIANNE > RUSSIAN NUCLEAR SUBMARINES AS OMEN: WILL THE US CONTINUE TO DISARM?
ARTIC = denotes that the Cold War US Pool of highly educated, highly skilled, veteran Weapons-SYS Designers etal. is steadily dwindling to age + mostly normal attrition towards a point where US National Security could be placed at risk; IT TAKES CIRCA 20 YEARS FOR A NEW US NUKE SUB TO GO FROM IDEA/DESIGN PHASE TO LAUNCH QUAY.
IOW, US POOL = OLD GEEZERS = THEY'RE GOING DOWN, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER!? RUSSIA + CHINA, ETC. POOLS = F *** NEW GUYS = GOING UP!?
Posted by JosephMendiola 2012-02-14 22:34||
2012-02-14 22:34||
Front PageTop
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
