Hard Power and Soft Power

[Spekkio]

There is zero worlds where the 8% cuts don’t come from our compensation and from services that benefit our quality of life.

It’s been laid out, they are coming for base services, commissaries, schools, BAH and military healthcare among other cuts.

So if the DoD cut 2 Army divisions and 5% of DoD civilians, that's a cut of ~$6B for the divisions, about $2B is personnel costs and the other $4B is O&M. Laying off 5% of DoD civilians save another $7B. That's $9B of personnel costs out of a ~$180B, or 5%.

Assuming we want to cut each category evenly, there's still 3 percentage points, or $5B, to find in personnel costs to cut.

I think they're going to revisit dependent and retiree healthcare costs per the attached report from 2015 that led to the BRS retirement system. I don't think anything as drastic as completely nixing Tricare Select will come to pass, but there likely will be increased cost sharing for dependents and retirees when the dust settles.

Yes, that study was under a Democrat administration, throwing that in there to note that slashing mil benefits is a bipartisan initiative on the hill and only took a pause specifically under the Biden administration.

People are speculating about returning to a use / lose BAH system because the Heritage Foundation was advocating for it prior to publishing Project 2025, but I think when the analysis is done we will find that such a policy won't move the budget needle, similar to what was concluded in 2015.

Disclaimer: I'm rounding, so please don't come at me with decimal point errors.

 

[Spekkio]

To argue that the European members of NATO are carrying their share of their own defense simply is not correct. Certainly they (European nations) have amped up their spending since 2014 (by about 18%) but that’s not much when the starting point was -1%. But, these are additions to their OWN defense spending. Each NATO nation needs to spend more than the current $430 billion on their OWN defense rather than rely on the remaining $700 + billion the U.S. spends on its OWN defense - especially if we are honestly contemplating a war with China and Russia (because Russia would take advantage of a Chinese war…by attacking Europe).

I agree with your first sentence, but a point of contention:

We don't spend $800B on defense. We spend $800B to have a global, expeditionary military force capable of rapidly projecting power. Were we to focus solely on homeland defense, we could probably quarter our budget thanks to exceptionally favorable geography.

To that end, I agree that Flash is misrepresenting things with the NATO budget. Part of our force structuring requirements involves a 2-front war with Russia and China... one which we would be hard-pressed to win right now thanks to severe military under-spending by our NATO allies in terms of GDP.

 

[Griz882]

I agree with your first sentence, but a point of contention:

We don't spend $800B on defense. We spend $800B to have a global, expeditionary military force capable of rapidly projecting power. Were we to focus solely on homeland defense, we could probably quarter our budget thanks to exceptionally favorable geography.

To that end, I agree that Flash is misrepresenting things with the NATO budget. Part of our force structuring requirements involves a 2-front war with Russia and China... one which we would be hard-pressed to win right now thanks to severe military under-spending by our NATO allies in terms of GDP.

I use the term “defense” broadly, as in Department of…but I get what you mean. I am not an isolationist but I don’t think it is too much of an ask for other allies to pick up some of the slack in their war-making capabilities.

 

[Spekkio]

I use the term “defense” broadly, as in Department of…but I get what you mean. I am not an isolationist but I don’t think it is too much of an ask for other allies to pick up some of the slack in their war-making capabilities.

Yep. I guess what I'm trying to get at is... let's say Trump wasn't trying to play 'let's appease Putin,' and strictly wanted to cut the DoD budget to $500B because we weren't going to pick up 80% of the burden for defending Eastern Europe.

Would the churn from NATO allies be any less?

 

[robav8r]

The chow hall (sorry, DFAC) on the army side is entirely unacceptable. Some general walked into the food court at an Exchange and saw a bunch of guys at McDonalds or whatever and said, “This is where soldiers want to eat….not the DFAC.” while thinking….Nice, I can redirect those funds!

Camp Humphreys in ROK has the nicest PX/Commissary I have ever seen, complete with a Texas Roadhouse. The Army made a very deliberate decision to provide the best possible QOL to those soldiers and their dependents. Other places around the globe? Not so much . .

 

[JTS11]

Part of our force structuring requirements involves a 2-front war with Russia and China... one which we would be hard-pressed to win right now thanks to severe military under-spending by our NATO allies in terms of GDP.

Russia has been bogged down for a while in UKR, with lines essentially unmoving. They can't dislodge UKR from their Kursk oblast. Their Navy sucks (see Black Sea fleet). Not sure we'd be that hard-pressed. Poland and the Baltics could probably sack Moscow in short order (if not for their pesky nukes).

 

[Spekkio]

Russia has attacked, and continues to attack, Ukraine with disposal forces.

 

[JTS11]

Russia has attacked, and continues to attack, Ukraine with disposal forces.

No doubt. The Kremlin views their population as disposable...probably more from non-Moscow regions, or unsuspecting foreigners that signed a contract to work at an oil plant, or whatever.

It's not really a demonstration of strength though.

But I guess there's now a humanitarian in the WH who will rectify this shit. Let's stop this killing and maximize the pressure to get Russia to stop brutalizing the Ukranian people, right? Right?

 

[Randy Daytona]

My flip comment about an exchange tour with Russia aside, POTUS has been coming down *far* harder on Zelensky, Europe, and Ukraine than he is on Putin and Russia. It looks like an impending reversal of support, where Russia becomes the ally and Europe and Ukraine get in line behind.

It looks like POTUS' goal is to join with Russia and carve up the world. Predatory. We get Greenland, Panama, Canada and Russia gets the USSR back.

Just a complete reversal after 75 years or so history.

Are the American people going to go along with this?

We probably need a "Grand Strategy" thread, because this is bigger than USAID or even Ukraine. It's just a complete change in our reality.

Complete change in our reality? Good question - a map of European history over time is below (note that the population of any single country goes over 50 million only until the 1820's). From a Russian perspective, do Putin's actions have a historical precedent? Stalin under the Soviet Union? Peter the Great during the Romanovs? Even going back to before the Time of Troubles, Ivan the Terrible under the Ruriks? Griz?

 

[Griz882]

Russia has attacked, and continues to attack, Ukraine with disposal forces.

This isn’t exactly true. Russia engaged their two best Guard Army groups and both were chewed up pretty badly - at the same time, they weren’t kept in the line all that long. The real issue is the exceptional loss of Russian (and western) equipment. Russia’s armor stock is frightfully low (if you’re a Russian). Both nations are able to remain in this deadlock only because of manpower (advantage clearly to Russia) and (more importantly to Ukraine) munitions production.

 

[Spekkio]

No doubt. The Kremlin views their population as disposable...probably more from non-Moscow regions, or unsuspecting foreigners that signed a contract to work at an oil plant, or whatever.

It's not really a demonstration of strength though.

But I guess there's now a humanitarian in the WH who will rectify this shit. Let's stop this killing and maximize the pressure to get Russia to stop brutalizing the Ukranian people, right? Right?

Disposal =/= intentionally wasteful. Disposal means that it has no impact to Russia's national security if they lose. It's the same context as your disposable income - you get to use it however you like.

 

[Spekkio]

This isn’t exactly true. Russia engaged their two best Guard Army groups and both were chewed up pretty badly - at the same time, they weren’t kept in the line all that long. The real issue is the exceptional loss of Russian (and western) equipment. Russia’s armor stock is frightfully low (if you’re a Russian). Both nations are able to remain in this deadlock only because of manpower (advantage clearly to Russia) and (more importantly to Ukraine) munitions production.

Russia has committed something like 1 / 100th of its fighting aged males to the conflict.

As for munitions and armor - we have a lot to do with that. But supplying munitions for a country to stall an offensive is not the same as repelling an invasion in Eastern Europe after invoking NATO Article V while simultaneously fighting the PLAN in the Pacific. What frequently gets lost on people is that we partnered with Ukraine to prepare them for this defensive operation and build up a world-class military for 8 years before Russia's 2022 assault began. Then we embarked on a slow bleed strategy that the current administration wants no part of, and even if they did we forgot to consider that our defense-industrial base cannot support Ukraine's protracted war effort without assuming too much risk to defending Taiwan.

Are we doing the same thing with Poland and Lithuania? Does John Q. Public even care about Lithuania, or does the very name of the country create a mental connection with Russian culture and heritage? How about when mainstream media puts war footage of American soldiers dying in Eastern Europe on TV 24/7? Can Russia adequately regenerate in 2-3 years? Will we be able to put aside our incredible fear of nuclear escalation that has permeated our national strategy since 1950?

I have no doubt a US JTF can curb stomp a Russian division. War is more complex than that... the Germans learned that lesson the hard way in 1941.

 

[JTS11]

Russia has committed something like 1 / 100th of its fighting aged males to the conflict.

As for munitions and armor - we have a lot to do with that. But supplying munitions for a country to stall an offensive is not the same as repelling an invasion in Eastern Europe after invoking NATO Article V while simultaneously fighting the PLAN in the Pacific. What frequently gets lost on people is that we partnered with Ukraine to prepare them for this defensive operation and build up a world-class military for 8 years before Russia's 2022 assault began. Then we embarked on a slow bleed strategy that the current administration wants no part of, and even if they did we forgot to consider that our defense-industrial base cannot support Ukraine's protracted war effort without assuming too much risk to defending Taiwan.

Are we doing the same thing with Poland and Lithuania? Does John Q. Public even care about Lithuania, or does the very name of the country create a mental connection with Russian culture and heritage? How about when mainstream media puts war footage of American soldiers dying in Eastern Europe on TV 24/7? Can Russia adequately regenerate in 2-3 years? Will we be able to put aside our incredible fear of nuclear escalation that has permeated our national strategy since 1950?

I have no doubt a US JTF can curb stomp a Russian division. War is more complex than that... the Germans learned that lesson the hard way in 1941.

Interesting take. I guess they're just burning up guys with age waivers there and Norks, to keep the crack outfits in reserve to prevent the NATO invasion. Prigozhin and his bitched up Wagner Group almost made a cannonball run to Moscow, then he was somehow advised to stop...then his dumbass got on an airplane.

 

[Spekkio]

We just lost a 20-year conflict to people who bang goats for funsies and have no weapons of war beyond Ak-47s and home made IEDs.

Probably shouldn't talk too much shit about Russia's problems with a 1st world military.

 

[croakerfish]

We just lost a 20-year conflict to people who bang goats for funsies and have no weapons of war beyond Ak-47s and home made IEDs.

Probably shouldn't talk too much shit about Russia's problems with a 1st world military.

Are you honestly saying that Afghanistan failed because we couldn’t handle the Taliban on military terms?