Freedom Munitions (Official) Facebook press release

[dmccarty]

Something Ike warned us about.

What did Ike warn us about?

There are several warnings in the speech, but what is interesting is that the Military Industrial Complex is what is always mentioned, yet several other of Ike' warnings are never mentioned. The whole speech is here, Welcome to OurDocuments.gov

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peace time, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United State corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence-economic, political, even spiritual-is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Ike is balancing the needs of a strong military with threat of a concentration of power vis the MIC. Which I have always thought a bit odd myself but I guess my view is of a Federal government that is spending most of our money on social programs and not the MIC. I don't think this imbalance existed during Ike's time.

In the same section of the speech as the MIC, is the following and it is interesting that we NEVER hear about this part of the speech.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been over shadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system-ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

Both sets of quotes are in Section IV of the speech but we only hear the first part of the section about the MIC.

Section V is rather interesting considering the present time.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we-you and I, and our government-must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

I sure wish the so called reporters and talking heads that mention the MIC would talk about the SIC(Scientific Industrial Complex) and Section V.

I won't be holding my breath.

Later,
Dan

 

[dmccarty]

And exactly where is it stated that two CVN's in the Persian Gulf is an essential deployment?

General Mattis so stated, as have previous Commanders of the Central Command. A single CVN that can only provide air coverage of 12-14 hours is hardly sufficient in the hot spot of the Persian Gulf.

The Marine have been doing for a good century what the Green Berets only started to do in the 60's. The Marines have been fighting in little wars involving irregulars since the early part of the 20th century. Irag and Afghanistan is nothing new. Given that the most likely points of conflict are NOT going to need heavy armored and mechanized units, the USMC is rather useful especially when one looks at the amphibious ships aka the ten helicopter carriers and other ships that can move the Marines around the world. The US Army just can't go anywhere in the world. The Marines can go anywhere that has ocean frontage.

Your example of up armored vehicles and body armor is rather silly. Humvees and other transport vehicles were not designed nor intended to operate in the environment they were used. Body armor existed but just not enough. You don't go to war with what you want, you go to war with what you have.

There are items in the military budget that need to be cut, the LCS is a prime example but the spending that is killing this country is social not the military.

Later,
Dan

 

[Rainbody]

Our military spending exceeds the total sum spending of the second thru fifteenth militaries in the world. If we are out spending the rest of the world combined, and our military is still under funded, then our Admirals and Generals have fleeced us blind. Something Ike warned us about. List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's not accurate. You have to adjust spending based cost of living, benefits, equipment provided to name a few. Not to mention the key part that makes us different TRAINING. The cost to field a rifleman in china is different that here. The hours to stay current in a modern fighter jet are different then in Russia. It's just not a good apples to apples comparison.
Once you have some exposure to the foreign military members the light comes on, on how different our service members really are.

 

[johnrex62]

Another factor to military spending is what are you defending with that military. Most countries are defending a very small border and keep it's military resources at home. Very few countries are defending other countries borders as we do, fewer are patrolling the world's oceans instead of only the waters adjoining their territorial claims.

We spend a lot more than most because we are obligated, rightly or wrongly, to defend much more than they do. It can be argued whether or not these obligations are in our best interest or if there is anyone else who can provide this defense, or perhaps even if it is needed or not. Regardless of the outcome of those arguments, we are currently on the hook for it and have to pay the bills as a result. If we could return to an isolationist policy and let the rest of the world work out their own problems without having to fear the consequential effect upon us, our defence cost would be cut exponentially. But we have to ask ourselves, do we really want to wait until our enemys field soldiers on our soil to put up a resistance? Especially since much of the war nowadays can be waged without foot soldiers. If I knew I didnt have to worry about a local invasion or retaliation into my territory, i would be content to throw planes and missles at my enemy all day and night.

 

[Larry Caldwell]

There's a vast range of options between our current military adventurism and isolationism, and nobody pretends that our current military bases in Europe serve any purpose except boosting the local economies in other countries. The US military could easily take a 20% haircut with no reduction in readiness.