In response to:

War of 1812: Waging War With the Navy You Have

edavis885 Wrote: Jul 11, 2012 9:02 PM
It's not how much you cut as it is what you cut. If you abandon the farce in Afghanistan and pulled out completely by the end of the year, then that you save billions. If you close down most overseas bases, that would save a lot of money. You can save money be shedding excess administrative fat in the military's structure and ending some missions. The last thing you should cut is actual combat force structure. Even then there are choices that can be made. How many warheads do you want to put on a SLBM? We can actually carry our entire allowed New START nuclear weapon force on 9 Ohio missile subs with room left over. How many Ohio replacements do we need to buy? There are trade-offs than can be made between bombers and carriers.
Last month (June 18) marked the 200th anniversary of the start of the War of 1812. In this "second round" of the Revolutionary War, a weak, aggrieved yet ornery United States confronted its former colonial master, the eminently powerful but also riled Great Britain.

The diplomatic vocabularies of several current international conflicts echo, albeit distantly, 1812's route to war. Economic sanctions and (backfiring) embargoes aggravated U.S.-British relations. Britain's apparent lack of respect for U.S. sovereignty angered Americans. The forced "impressment" of U.S. sailors into Royal Navy service, usually backed by the threatened broadside of a RN warship, was a Yankee cause...