Minor Cuts to Defense Budget Could Lead to War: Top US Military Official (InformationLiberation)
Wednesday June 13th, 2012
With minor defense budget cuts scheduled to kick in next year, the Pentagon is going into fear-mongering overdrive to prevent such a scenario from taking place.
According to a top U.S. General, slight reductions to the Pentagon's defense budget will pretty much lead to WW3.
(Please ignore the chart to the right, as acknowledging the U.S.'s insanely bloated military budget only gives aid to our enemies.)
Via Fox News
The top U.S. military official suggested Wednesday that scheduled Pentagon budget cuts could lead to war. While these government parasites whine about how they couldn't handle even the slightest reduction in taxpayer loot, the public in the meantime lost conservatively 40% of their net worth in the time period between 2007 and 2010. That study does not accurately factor in the rising cost of living, so it's likely even worse. During that same time period, defense spending rose 23%.
Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before a Senate committee Wednesday alongside Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Both offered dire warnings about the potential impact of the automatic budget cuts, known as sequestration, which will go into effect starting next January unless Congress intervenes.
Dempsey said the cutbacks could lead to the cancellation of weapons systems and disrupt "global operations." In turn, he warned, the U.S. could lose global standing -- opening the door for enemies to test American military might.
"We can't yet say precisely how bad the damage would be, but it is clear that sequestration would risk hollowing out our force and reducing its military options available to the nation," Dempsey told the senators. "We would go from being unquestionably powerful everywhere to being less visibly globally and presenting less of an overmatch to our adversaries, and that would translate into a different deterrent calculus and potentially, therefore, increase the likelihood of conflict."
Panetta made a similar argument last year when he said the sweeping cuts could weaken the military substantially, and invite "aggression" abroad.
Yet so far, Congress has not averted the planned cuts, which were set in place after lawmakers failed to reach a broader deficit-reduction deal.
The Pentagon would face cuts of about $500 billion in projected spending over 10 years on top of the $492 billion that President Obama and congressional Republicans already agreed to in last summer's deficit-cutting budget.
Dempsey said the cuts would mean fewer troops, the possible cancellation of major weapons and the disruption of operations around the world.
Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, called the description "candid but frightening."
Boy, they sure must be struggling!
The truth is if the military had less money we'd be infinitely less likely to face conflict, as the U.S. government would have less money to spend on killing random foreigners (in order to justify their huge budgets), we'd be less likely to face blowback from their foreign policy.
Of course, this is all a pipe dream as they're not actually going to reduce any spending, there is too many pigs at the trough for anyone to cut the gravy train off. That said, the problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money. With the U.S. now completely bankrupt, a Greece-style collapse is just on the horizon.
I'm looking forward to it.