New rescue needed?

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Joe the issue goes deeper than just a closed border would solve. I think that if we would invade them without a plan, or objective, we would be there for years - mainly because we are unequipped for fighting like that.

Nevertheless your point is well taken and we should heed the warning of our those who established this country.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Not that any of this matters. IF King Putz the 1st gets the cuts he is after, at a time when the rest of the world powers are BUILDING UP their military, we will be in a REAL shootin match fairly soon.
Too frickin' hilarious - the above is absolute hysteria ...... (gee, why am I not surprised :rolleyes:)

Obama's so-called "cuts" are merely cuts in projected increases (growth) in defense spending - while they decrease projected military spending by nearly half a trillion dollars, they still call for increasing the base defense budget in all but one of the next five years.

Essentially, defense spending would remain flat.

This is an old Democratic trick to scream about cuts (in social programs) ..... which aren't really cuts at all .....

"Panetta acknowledged that so-called spending cuts are only reductions in projected growth, not actual cuts in current spending."

Defense budget plan would "cut spending" by half a trillion

military_spending_big.png

BTW - IRI & Freedom House = Spook Central .... Lord only knows what sort of shenanigans & mischief they are involved in over there ....
 
Last edited:

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Cutting 100,000 troop is NOT a cut back on growth. Sorry, just had a REALLY long talk with my son. It is VERY scary. Far worse than Carter and Clinton, COMBINED. Of course, you would not believe him. Does not match the charts. My nephew says the same thing. Not that reality matters.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Cutting 100,000 troop is NOT a cut back on growth.
That's true - but as you well know (or should) technology has a way of lessening the need for an actual human being in certain instances.

Clearly, as the following chart shows, reducing troop strength to roughly what we had just 4 years ago would be just absolutely devastating ..... :rolleyes:

rlent-albums-misc-photos-picture1103-active-duty-military-personnel-1940-2011-infoplease-com.jpg

Sorry, just had a REALLY long talk with my son.
What rank does he hold ?

What's his service record and experience ?

It is VERY scary. Far worse than Carter and Clinton, COMBINED.
Some folks live in perpetual fear .... the only thing I can figure out is that it must be an acquired taste .... :rolleyes:

Of course, you would not believe him.
That would depend on a lot of things - including his ability to argue his position and make his case - with something that at least somewhat resembled actual facts rather than just rhetoric and fear-mongering.

Does not match the charts.
..... what doesn't match the charts ? ....

My nephew says the same thing.
What rank does he hold ?

What's his service record and experience ?

Not that reality matters.
Reality matters very much - which is precisely why I'm disinclined to glom onto those peddling fear and hysteria ... particularly given that the latter particularly (and sometimes the former) being something that is usually based on a distorted reality ....
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
BTW, you are aware that 100,000 draw-down will occur over a 5 year period right ?

IOW, it won't be fully implemented until 2017.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
BTW, you are aware that 100,000 draw-down will occur over a 5 year period right ?

IOW, it won't be fully implemented until 2017.

I am WELL aware of when the cut backs are taking place. With any luck I will find out just what units will be affected. That will tell more of the story than just the numbers.

FEAR? Nope, just have seen this before, lived with and dealt with the results of the stupidity. KNOW that this "yo yo" military spending always costs MORE in the long run than keeping a sound, strong, military. I saw and had to work with the problems that idiot Carter caused, the lying cull that he is. I saw where that scuz Clinton made his cuts and the success of the 9/11 attacks were the result of HIS military experience.

Now this bum. NO one in charge with ANY clue.

Germany lost WWII to those with LOWER tech and higher troop counts. That will never change, in conventional warfare. In the end, it is the troops on the ground that win.

Russia is increasing the size of it's military, so is China. Russia in modernizing it's nukes, so is China. We are getting weaker every day. That is NOT good, unless one wants a war, which Obama does. How else will he create the jobs he wants too?

Pretty charts are nothing more than pretty charts. They mean nothing when the shooting starts, and it always does.
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Of the proposed 100K troops to be cut, how many of them are combat troops? Support and administrative personnel could be cut and replaced with civilian contractors - this has been pretty common in years past. Don't know how accurate this figure is, but I once heard that for every troop involved in combat there are seven non-combat troops. It just seems that for a military that's been complaining about extended tours of duty due to lack of combat personnel, it doesn't make sense to cut combat troops.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Of the proposed 100K troops to be cut, how many of them are combat troops? Support and administrative personnel could be cut and replaced with civilian contractors - this has been pretty common in years past. Don't know how accurate this figure is, but I once heard that for every troop involved in combat there are seven non-combat troops. It just seems that for a military that's been complaining about extended tours of duty due to lack of combat personnel, it doesn't make sense to cut combat troops.

The last number I was told on support/combat troop ratio was 14 support to one combat. They don't figure support as you or I do. Doctors, nurses, medics are all "support"

I have not heard what units are being cut. I DO know that the basic training units at Ft. Knox are being eliminated. Only the scout school there will survive the cuts as they stand today.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Of the proposed 100K troops to be cut, how many of them are combat troops? Support and administrative personnel could be cut and replaced with civilian contractors - this has been pretty common in years past.
I don't know that "privatizing" is necessarily always a path to savings ....

Don't know how accurate this figure is, but I once heard that for every troop involved in combat there are seven non-combat troops.
I haven't seen it talked about in exactly those terms. The following tells a little bit about how they are looking to reshape things:

With pressure mounting to balance the US books, President Barack Obama's administration sought a nine percent cut in the 2013 budget compared with last year's request by retiring older ships and planes and pulling back two brigades from Europe.

Panetta proposed a $613 billion budget for the year starting in October -- a $525 billion base spending plan and $88.4 billion for combat operations, primarily in Afghanistan.

He said the base budget would rise to $567 billion by the 2017 fiscal year, by which time the United States plans to withdraw most of the 90,000 troops now in Afghanistan.

.... proposed reducing the number of active US Army soldiers from 570,000 in 2010 to 490,000 by 2017 -- a 13 percent cut -- and reducing the Marines' strength from 202,000 to 182,000 over the same period.

The Pentagon plans to pull out two of four brigades from Europe -- for a total of more than 7,000 troops. The United States now has three brigades in Germany and one in Italy, although it has not decided which to withdraw.

AFP: US plans to cut troops, invest in future

WSJ: Army's Top General Backs Troop Rollback

It just seems that for a military that's been complaining about extended tours of duty due to lack of combat personnel, it doesn't make sense to cut combat troops.
It might not - if you are planning to maintain large-scale, ongoing combat operations in Afghanistan .... but we aren't (thank God)

The bottom line on all of this is that we are essentially broke - and we are facing a threat far more dangerous than any armed force: the loss of demand for our debt ..... and the end of the dollar as the world's reserve currency ......

Zell: Dollar's Global Fall Will Be 'Disastrous’ for US Living Standard

When the dollar's reserve currency status is lost - which can happen very quickly - very bad things are likely going to happen .... start thinking fuel at $6 to $8 gallon .... and a 25% decline in the overall standard of living here in the US .....

When that happens - and it most assuredly will (it actually already has started: Sovereigns Declare War on US Dollar) - perhaps some will wake up and see that there might have been some merit in the idea of peace, honest friendship, and fair trade with others .....

But of course, at that point it will be far too late .... after having spent the better part of the last 100 years dominating and imposing our will on others the die has been cast, and we will get to find out exactly what it is like to be on the flip side of that equation ....
 
Last edited:

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
If we eliminated our military (which Obama would LOVE to do) we would still go broke. There is not enough money on the face of the earth to pay for all the freebies Obama wants to hand out to insure his rule. He would spend EVERY penny. He is already talking about spending 50% of the money saved from the pull outs on "infrastructure investment"

Everything with Obama and congress is nothing more than a bad novel and a lot of smoke and mirrors. I am surprised that the "snake oil salespersons" union is not up in arms over the competition for all the sleeze.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
If we eliminated our military (which Obama would LOVE to do) we would still go broke.

OK I guess .. But does he? He can do that right now, pull all the troops out, reduce the size of the military to eliminate the military. I think, maybe reading how dems/repubs/fascists/socialist needs the military and uses it - pretty much not what you think.

There is not enough money on the face of the earth to pay for all the freebies Obama wants to hand out to insure his rule.

Ah ... yeah ... right .... who gave us medicare part d?

He would spend EVERY penny. He is already talking about spending 50% of the money saved from the pull outs on "infrastructure investment"

Well this is why we need a balance in congress, nothing more than that is needed but it means we need to get rid of those career people and maybe supporting Ron Paul or someone like him may help that.

Everything with Obama and congress is nothing more than a bad novel and a lot of smoke and mirrors. I am surprised that the "snake oil salespersons" union is not up in arms over the competition for all the sleeze.

Well it is like carpet salesmen who sell trucks.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
"Ah ... yeah ... right .... who gave us medicare part d?"

That fool is no longer in office. We now have King Putz the 1st there. He gets blamed for everything his does or does not do as long as he is in office. Then, when the next idiot is elected, it will be his/hers/it's turn to get reamed. I will be all over them like white on snow.

After all, they all suck!

 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
I am WELL aware of when the cut backs are taking place.
Good.

With any luck I will find out just what units will be affected. That will tell more of the story than just the numbers.
Give us a "report" when ya get the "low-down" .... ;)

I'm quite sure no matter what it is, you be squealing about it ....

(BTW, just in case it's missed anyone's notice, hysterical squealing about all of this .... before one actually knows all the details .... does seem to be putting the cart a bit before the horse .... :rolleyes:)

Yeah .... FEAR .... it's hard to hide ... it just kinda seeps through ....

Nope, just have seen this before, lived with and dealt with the results of the stupidity. KNOW that this "yo yo" military spending always costs MORE in the long run than keeping a sound, strong, military.
We're functionally broke ...... bankrupt .....

I saw and had to work with the problems that idiot Carter caused, the lying cull that he is. I saw where that scuz Clinton made his cuts and the success of the 9/11 attacks were the result of HIS military experience.
The 9/11 attacks were the result of a lot of things (including a quite few that I suspect you would really prefer not to discuss) - you can't lay it entirely at Clinton's feet (although he certainly bears a share of the responsibility) - at least not if you want to maintain any degree of intellectual honesty.

Now this bum. NO one in charge with ANY clue.
Gen. Ray Odierno (current Army Chief of Staff, former Commanding General, United States Forces – Iraq, former Commanding General, Multi-National Force – Iraq) apparently doesn't have too much of a problem with the idea .....

If he did, he could always resign ....

Germany lost WWII to those with LOWER tech and higher troop counts.
While there is a degree of truth in the above statement, it's highly overly simplistic.

There's a lot more that figured into the equation of eventual defeat than just troops on the ground - stuff like the overall population of the opposing combatants, access to natural resources, and relative industrial capacity/production:

350px-WorldWarII-GDP-Relations-Allies-Axis-simple.svg.png

That will never change, in conventional warfare. In the end, it is the troops on the ground that win.
Like I said above: highly overly simplistic .....

Russia is increasing the size of it's military, so is China.
That is probably less of a problem than the fact that they are forming mutually beneficial economic alliances with folks we seem to be intent on ****ing off and making enemies out of ....

Given that between the two of them they only spend one quarter of what we spend annually on military/defense, I don't think that we are in danger of having either of them exceed what we are doing any time in the immediate future.

Russia in modernizing it's nukes, so is China.
And so are we.

They are scared of us - and who can blame them, given our history ?

Who is the only country in the entire history of humanity to have used nuclear weapons in a first strike ?

Nah .... skip even that one, and try this one instead:

Who is the only country in the history of humanity to have ever used nuclear weapons at all against a civilian population ?

We are getting weaker every day.
True - but probably not in the way you believe (primarily economically, not militarily)

We possess roughly 1,950 active nuclear warheads (with another 6,500 inactive in the arsenal) .... and the capability to deliver them .... how many do you figure we need ?

China’s Nuclear Modernization Efforts Cast A Long Shadow

That is NOT good, unless one wants a war, which Obama does. How else will he create the jobs he wants too?
If he really wanted war, then why did he (more or less) leave Iraq ?

Wouldn't it have made more sense to stay ..... mebbe just head on over to Iran, while we were in the neighborhood ?

Pretty charts are nothing more than pretty charts.
Charts represent data, irrespective of any beauty or ugliness. Data is used to evaluate situations.

People who have little to no relevant data on which to base their arguments, tend to try and minimize such things, thru the use of disparaging characterizations which amount to irrelevancies and diversions from the specifics of the situation.

They mean nothing when the shooting starts, and it always does.
A good reason to ensure that people who are prone to being trigger-happy are appropriately restrained so that they are unable to visit havoc and destruction on others ....

I will assume that your reluctance to answer my previous questions and share your son's and nephew's rank, military service history and experience is because you have decided that in terms of relevance to a geo-political context, it isn't particularly effective in bolstering your assertions.
 
Last edited:

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
The LAST project I was working on when I resigned, was counter-terrorism. NO attacks on my watch. NOT ONE! Clinton killed that program, to "save money". It was VERY expensive. NOT nearly as expensive as those attacks were.

How do YOU know our launch systems work? We no longer test them. How do YOU know our nukes will fire? We no longer test them. We are not building new ones, the Russians are, so is China, North Korea and likely Iran.

Yes, we dropped the only nukes ever used. We are also the ONLY country paying to disarm, not onlly our systems, but Russian systems too.

Also, do not forget, that the United States has been working very hard and very steady on disarmerrment. It was a huge part of my job and I am proud to have been a part of it. The ideal of a nuke free world is a great thing, as long as it is truly nuke free. Unilateral removal of our nukes would be a disaster.

How do YOU know how much the Russians are using on military spending? They don't publish that information. Neither does China. Neither do most of the worlds countries. Any source who "claims" to use "open source" information to "prove" what China and Russia are spending are making up the numbers. Can't trust that source.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
What years ?


When did Clinton get elected? :confused: (man I am tired :p) I quit the year after he was elected. The program I worked on was cut in March of his first term. Not one target I worked on did a "bad thing" We had them covered like sauce on a hot wing!
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Here you go. A very funny, highly inaccurate write up on my last duty station. It is, how ever, "open source". It sorta "misses" a LOT of reality, as all "open source stuff does.

We did NOT research chocolate pudding, we bred killer flies! :p

I did not like Odom, but he was GOOD.

You could read the "Puzzle Palace" as well. More "open source" junk written by a dude who got mad when he did not get promoted. Interestingly, some of the stuff in that book was just declassified. Makes that dude look stupid. But then, it is OPEN SOURCE. What else could you expect?

NASA: A Space Age facility

"One of the fabulous facilities of this Space Age is being established in beautiful Pisgah National Forest." So began an Associated Press report that appeared in North Carolina newspapers on July 1, 1963. It was big news for sleepy Transylvania County.


Two years earlier, President John F. Kennedy had announced that the United States would put men on the moon, piquing the national interest in space exploration. And now, Western North Carolina would play a direct role in the endeavor, because the National Aeronautics and Space Administration had selected Rosman for a major new satellite tracking station.


It was a scenic, if remote, locale. The mountains around Rosman are rife with rivers, streams, exposed rock formations and thick groves of trees and rhododendrons. NASA, though, chose the spot not for its natural beauty but for its geography and isolation. With no large towns, transmitters, neighborhoods or airline routes close by, it was sheltered from radio and light interference. In short, it was quiet and dark, two crucial criteria for scientists eager to peer at and listen to space with electronic eyes and ears. (And then-NASA Director James E. Webb, a North Carolina native, probably didn't mind that the facility would be established in his home state.)


The Rosman Satellite Tracking Station conducted its first mission in November 1963, following the orbit of Explorer 18, an unmanned craft sent up to check radiation levels in space. Shortly thereafter, the station collected data from the first generation of weather and atmospheric satellites, which helped pave the way for manned space flight. Later, the Rosman facility assisted the historic Gemini and Apollo missions.


Although the station played a key role in the space program, NASA kept it surprisingly accessible. Dozens of locals worked there as guards, groundskeepers and technicians, and public visits were welcomed, as a NASA pamphlet produced in the 1970s noted. "None of the station's operations are concerned with national defense; and, therefore, no classified activities take place," the pamphlet said. "The station is open every day for casual visitors."


And so it was for 17 years. Over time, however, Rosman gradually became less useful to NASA. In the late 1970s, a new fleet of so-called "super satellites" took over the tasks formerly conducted at the station. Unlike the ground-based station, the satellites moved around, so they could handle the job better and cheaper.


In December 1979, the bad news came from Washington: NASA would pull out of Rosman in 1981. But the government had invested millions there, and it seemed both a shame and a sizable waste to let the facility lie fallow or be destroyed. The closing also threatened the local economy, since large employers were in short supply in and around Rosman.


U.S. Rep. Lamar Gudger sounded the alarm over his district's impending loss of jobs and lobbied for the government to find a new use for the station. Gudger suggested such functions as astronomy and forestry studies, but he found no takers, either public or private.


Rosman station was in desperate need of a new tenant. But who, besides NASA, could use a remote, high-tech communications base?
NSA: Big Brother in the backwoods

Just as it had outlived one government mission, the facility unexpectedly found another. Only this time, officials wouldn't be boasting about it or maintaining an open-door policy. Rosman station was about to go top secret.


The Defense Department acquired the property in 1981. But the Pentagon brass had nothing to say about their plans for the facility, and in fact, the military ownership was just a cover. The real new occupant was the super-secret National Security Agency.


One of the best-funded but least-known intelligence agencies, the NSA conducts the government's most advanced espionage, making and breaking codes and intercepting (mostly foreign) communications. The agency tracks, records and analyzes everything from phone calls to e-mails to faxes to satellite transmissions. In recent years, it has become controversial both at home and abroad due to concerns about privacy in personal communications.


Back then, the agency's target was the country's main Cold War adversary. In the early 1980s, the NSA established listening posts to monitor the Soviet Union's most advanced satellites. According to subsequent news reports, Rosman's was the second installation in what would become a global network of similar eavesdropping bases. The first was built in Alaska; the third in Australia.


Rosman's new resident proved to be as private as NASA had been public. The NSA cloaks its work in such extreme secrecy that it's often called "No Such Agency." Only in the past few years has substantial information about its covert operations become public, thanks largely to the work of investigative reporter James Bamford, who wrote the definitive history of the NSA, Body of Secrets (Doubleday, 2001).


Before Bamford's book, only the contours of the NSA's clandestine work were publicly known. And in Rosman and environs, the new purpose of the facility (innocuously renamed Rosman Research Station) was kept decidedly hush-hush. Some 200 locals were hired to work security and maintenance, and the NSA moved in dozens of its own specialists, according to the sporadic news reports that gently probed the site's purpose during the 1980s.


By all indications, the local employees stayed true to their secrecy oaths. When questioned by reporters, many responded with a grin and a polite "no comment." In 1985, one employee, who requested anonymity, did say this to a Charlotte Observer reporter: "It's a research station. We make chocolate pudding, and I research it."


That same year, the Asheville Citizen-Times found a military spokesperson who identified the facility as simply "a [Department of Defense] communications research station."


But the government's alarmed response to a little digging by local journalists hinted that something more sensitive was afoot. After a staff photographer had stopped near the station's gate and snapped a few pictures, FBI agents paid a visit to the Citizen-Times office, according to a June 20, 1985 article in the paper that rightly concluded the station was now "shrouded in secrecy."


One media outlet that prowled around Rosman did manage to uncover the essential facts, despite encountering resistance. NBC Nightly News sent reporter Robert Windrem to investigate in the mid-1980s, an experience he recounted in a 2001 post to the Cypherpunks online bulletin board.
"I spent several days in Rosman and nearby Asheville researching Rosman and shooting it from the ground and the air," Windrem wrote. "We included it in a two-part series we did in 1986 called 'The Eavesdropping War' -- NBC having refused to kill the story, as requested by then-NSA Director William Odom. Odom threatened legal action if we ran the piece. They [were] particularly concerned about Rosman."


Windrem had crossed paths with one of the most ornery and secrecy-minded officials to serve the Reagan administration.

"Odom, stern, abrasive, and humorless, was widely disliked at NSA and was considered by many the most ineffective director in the agency's history," Bamford reported in Body of Secrets. "He also developed a reputation as a Captain Queeg of secrecy, claiming that intelligence leaks to the news media had resulted in 'paralysis' and 'major misadjustments' in U.S. foreign and military policies and could lead to war." No surprise, then, that Odom took a dim view of a national news show poking around his North Carolina acreage.


Despite the official stonewalling and attempted suppression of the news, the NBC series spelled out the essentials of the NSA's activities. "We determined that Rosman had several missions," Windrem recalled in 2001. "One was intercepting communications from Soviet geosynchronous satellites, the Gorizont and Raduga." These were used to relay messages to and from both Russian troops in Cuba and Soviet missile sites in Europe. "The other mission was intercepting signals from the agent satellite network the Soviet Union maintained to communicate with its agents worldwide." (The operation to intercept Soviet signals was code-named Project LADYLOVE, according to historian Jeffrey Richelson's 1989 book, The U.S. Intelligence Community.)


If not for such reports from nongovernmental sources, the public would still know very little about Western North Carolina's significant place in the history of international espionage. Even today, the NSA, which moved out of the Rosman facility nine years ago, won't comment on what it did there. The NSA's public-affairs office did not respond to numerous Xpress inquiries about the agency's activities at the site.


Land of the Sky Spies | Mountain Xpress | Asheville, NC
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
When did Clinton get elected? :confused: (man I am tired :p) I quit the year after he was elected. The program I worked on was cut in March of his first term. Not one target I worked on did a "bad thing" We had them covered like sauce on a hot wing!
You didn't answer my question: What years ?

Note that the above is plural - not singular .....

IOW, I'm looking for the time period that you worked on this ... not a single date .....
 
Top