07-22-2017, 06:52 PM
(07-19-2017, 04:52 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Honestly, I would rather up those 21 carriers to 30-40 and just pull out of Germany, England, Italy, Spain, etc.
If the excuse for us having to pay massive sums of money to defend other countries is so we can be anywhere and everywhere in the world, I would rather just up our carrier game and shut down those bases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments
58,500 troops in those four countries, plus their dependents, plus private contractors. All need housing and food, and if you need to send new people there, they have to fly across the Atlantic, etc.
We could also massively scale back our presence in Japan if not leave outright, with another 40k troops, plus dependents and private contractors.
Consolidate and downscale our bases around the world, probably also down-scaling the size of our military, while still maintaining our ability to bring force anywhere.
- - - - - - -- - - -
EDIT: Some stuff I forgot to add....
This is from 2012... http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/28/one-soldier-one-year-850000-and-rising/
It says $850k-1.4m/year in Afghanistan per soldier.
This is from 2013... https://www.yahoo.com/news/it-costs--2-1-million-per-year-for-each-soldier-deployed-in-afghanistan--report-133150602.html
It raised to $2.1m/year in Afghanistan per soldier, costing more as the total number dropped.
Did the math, so that would make 1 carrier group's cost even at the increased number including overhauls and such cost less than 1,129 troops in Afghanistan in 2013. I would rather have the carrier, 5 or so ships, and 1 submarine, capable of going anywhere in the world than those 1,129 troops in Afghanistan.
Then get rid of some stupid crap, like the F-35 program.
Agreed .
Honestly I am ready to pull out of Germany anyway. Tired of defending them while they turn the EU inside out to boost their economy.
