Quote:
Originally Posted by theking
The primary reason is it would mean that we can only field less than a hundred thousand active members of the Combat Arms to confront all possible contingencies this world has to offer. In other words less than a hundred thousand combatants is a ridiculously small number of combatants.
|
What's the current #? If we're looking at a 5 -1 ratio of supply personal to fighters, if I recall correctly, then the difference is what, 30,000 fighters less? I don't see how this is better than cutting other parts that are clearly hemorraging money.
While I don't agree with cutting military employees, or really military spending, I do have issues with the idea of cutting a-10 program while leaving the f35 project ( and the others like it) intact.