Department of Defense – USA Gov Policy

The news is quite startling: There are no longer any American tanks stationed in Europe. The story has been largely ignored by the major media. The information was provided in an article in the military newspaper, Stars and Stripes.

According to the Department of Defense, at its peak, Germany, the main center of NATO activity during the first Cold War, was home to 20 U.S. armored divisions, with about 6,000 tanks. Despite the glaring revival of threats from Moscow, the United States no longer has any tanks, the pivotal weapon in land combat, stationed on the entire continent. The entire combined tank forces of all NATO nations on the European continent (including the United Kingdom and Turkey) does not come close to equaling Russian numbers.

Mr. Obama’s extreme views on the lack of need for tanks became an issue in the 2012 campaign, when vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan criticized the President’s attempt to shut down the only American plant that produces them.

For those who believe that airpower can be used to deter the massive advantage Russia has in tanks, there is further bad news: Washington is seriously considering retiring the Air Force’s tank-killing fighter, the A-10 “Warthog.” According to Defense Secretary Hagel’s February statement, “The A-10’s age is also making it much more difficult and costly to maintain. Significant savings are only possible through eliminating the entire fleet, because of the fixed cost of maintaining the support apparatus associated with that aircraft. Keeping a smaller number of A-10s would only delay the inevitable while forcing worse trade-offs elsewhere.”
Though there are many products and techniques in the market that will provide you complete satisfaction during generic viagra your intimate moments. Causes of ED * High blood pressure* High cholesterol* Diabetes* generic sample viagra Obesity* ArteriosclerosisMany a time these symptoms are temporary, it vanishes within few hours of consumption. discount viagra cialis If you hit that critical time in your life where your health is as delicate as your body, Neo40 is your best bet to get you kicking it without straining your body. Fortunately, there are numbers of herbal supplements to eliminate sexual weakness can be now available at different online stores dealing with sildenafil pills davidfraymusic.com herbal supplements.
There are no new weapons systems or innovative methods coming on line that will take over the tank’s front-line tasks. Indeed, even if there were, there are no funds available to fund them. Another armored development program, the Ground Combat vehicle, a multi-purpose platform, has been defunded.

According to current plans, by 2020, there will be only 30,000 American troops in Europe, approximately one-tenth of the maximum strength during the first Cold War. This spring, further cuts to U.S. military infrastructure in Europe will be presented.

These actions take place in the face of massive new funding for the Russian military, as well as exceptionally aggressive behavior on the part of the Kremlin.

What will happen if the U.S. continues with “sequester level budgets” for the military?

According to Pentagon sources, it would result in continued force-level cuts across the military services. The Army would be reduced to 420,000 active duty soldiers along with 315,000 in the Guard and 185,000 in the Reserve. The Marine Corps would drop to 175,000 active duty personnel. The Air Force would have to eliminate its entire fleet of KC-10 tankers and shrink its inventory of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). The Navy would be forced to mothball 6 destroyers and retire an aircraft carrier and its associated air wing, reducing the carrier fleet to ten.

Modernization would also be significantly slowed. Compared to plans under the fiscal 2015 budget, the department would buy eight fewer ships in the years beyond fiscal 2016– including one fewer Virginia-class submarines and three fewer DDG-51 destroyers – and would delay delivery of the new carrier John F. Kennedy (CVN-79) by two years. The services would acquire 17 fewer Joint Strike Fighters, five fewer KC-46 tankers, and six fewer P-8A aircraft.

There would also be sharp cutbacks in many smaller weapons programs and in funding for military construction. In addition, the department would invest about $66 billion less in procurement and research funding compared with levels planned in the fiscal 2015 budget.

The report notes that sequester-level budgets would worsen already existing readiness shortfalls across the force and delay needed training to prepare the joint force for full-spectrum operations.
The matter of purchase cheap cialis is interested one that was expected. This tablet is consumed into your blood more or less 30 minutes to an hour after the admission of this robertrobb.com levitra generika tablet and keep going for 4 hours. You are advised to cheap levitra no prescription go for walking daily. It tadalafil 40mg india is available in blister packing of 10 tablets.
The Department of Defense notes that “Overall, sequester-level cuts would result in a military that is too small to fully meet the requirements of our strategy, thereby significantly increasing national security risks both in the short- and long-term.”

Unlike the days of World War II, when America was able to recover from the devastating Pearl Harbor attack thanks to a massive industrial base, our manufacturing capability is now too limited to gear up in the event of a war. Indeed, there is only one plant in the entire US that manufactures tanks, and the Obama Administration has been attempting to close it down.

All this is occurring as Russia has dramatically modernized and improved its conventional and nuclear forces, and China has become a superpower. Iran and North Korea have also developed exceptionally strong and vehemently anti-American militaries.

The continued refusal to acknowledge the perilous international climate, and the ongoing cuts to our armed forces, are clear, present, and immediate threats to our national safety and sovereignty.

Quick Analysis

Why the Electoral College is Vital

Proposals for radical alterations in the way Americans vote are dangerous concepts that would have dramatic consequences for the nation and its Constitution. Some, such as ranked choice voting, are an unblushing bid to prop up fringe, leftist candidates. Others. if adopted, would essentially disunite the nation and overturn its Constitution. As they consistently have after each election loss, Democrat spokespeople have flooded the airwaves with complaints about the Electoral College. Why, they ask, can’t we have a “popular vote,” and let it be done with. Since the Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution, it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system. The National Archives notes that over the past 200 years more than 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The answer is as simple as the name of the country: The United States of America. The incredibly successful nation created almost two and a half centuries ago was a union of separate states. Fresh off of dealing with a monarch, it was intentionally set up that way to both prevent the possibility of having an all-powerful dictator, and to prevent larger states from bullying smaller ones. Abolishing the electoral college would essentially disenfranchise smaller states from having any say in the presidency. Indeed, even less populated areas of large states would lose influence. A collection of large cities, (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, Austin, Jacksonville, etc.) would decide the outcome in who gets the White House. Considering how badly many of those urban centers are run, that would not bode well for the future of the country! Beyond the practical policy implications, it would alienate the populations of those not living in California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, who would, for the most part, be reduced to bystanders in the race for the only nationally-elected position. A Heritage study analyzed the concept of a “National Popular Vote” (NPV) this way: “The National Popular Vote (NPV) plan is the latest in a long line of schemes designed to replace the Electoral College. Imbued with the ideals of this nation’s Founders, the Electoral College has proved itself to be both effective in providing orderly elections for President and resilient in allowing a stable transfer of power of the leadership of the world’s greatest democracy. Therefore, while it would be a mistake to replace the Electoral College, replacing this system with the NPV would be a disaster. The NPV would devalue the minority interests that the Founders sought to protect, create electoral administrative problems, encourage voter fraud, and radicalize the U.S. political system. It also would likely violate the U.S. Constitution’s Compact Clause while directly contravening the Founders’ view of federalism and a representative republic. In an age of perceived political dysfunction, effective policies already in place—especially successful policies established by this nation’s Founders, such as the Electoral College—should be preserved.” Trent England, writing for the National Conference of State Legislatures outlined key reasons for the institution: “At the Constitutional Convention, the primary concern of delegates opposed to direct election was that big states would dominate presidential politics. By using a two-step election process, the Electoral College prevents one region, or a handful of major metropolitan areas, from controlling the White House. Support must be geographically distributed around the country in order to win enough states to capture an electoral vote majority. This was particularly important after the Civil War. The nation remained divided, and Democrats became dominant in the south. A combination of intense popularity with some voters and violent suppression of others allowed Democrats to receive the most popular votes in 1876 and 1888 even though they lost the Electoral College and thus those elections.” Eliminating the Electoral College would be a disaster for the United States/