Best way to reduce military budget?

SFC Vernon McNabb — Wed, 02 Apr 2014 10:01:49 -0400

I read an article today about a British sniper who got six kills from one shot. The article is below. This got me thinking. If Congress wants to reduce military spending, then make half of our armed forces snipers, and the other half spotters. Just think of how much money we would save in ammo alone. Not to mention, payouts for death benefits would decrease exponentally since our military would be shooting from greater distances.

http://www.sofmag.com/one-shot-six-kills

ONE SHOT, SIX KILLS

Snipers usually live by the motto “one shot, one kill,” but a British sniper in Afghanistan went five better than that this past December. The incident is among the latest notable sniper incidents fro...

Response by SSG Steven Borders made Apr 2 at 2014 10:10 AM

SSG Steven Borders — Wed, 02 Apr 2014 10:10:06 -0400

That is an interesting thought. But I am sure eventually the enemy would figure out what we are doing at find other ways not to be spotted. Plus I am sure that the schooling to turn everyone into sniper's or squatters would cost a pretty penny. I do agree that it would limit down the number of deaths though.

Great read by the way SFC McNabb

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2014 11:05 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 02 Apr 2014 11:05:37 -0400

I would suggest not investing billions of dollars into MRAPs only to scrap them or give them away for free. I would also say that the Army shouldn't be buying "smart guns" at $27,000 a pop.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2014 12:05 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 02 Apr 2014 12:05:18 -0400

I would fire all civilians, bring all the US Troops home. I would bring all outsourced jobs back to the US. Finally, We as a Nation should mind our own business.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 4 at 2014 10:09 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 10:09:45 -0400

There would need to be fundamental changes to how the Military pays for things. This means no more paying $200 for a hammer and things like that. This would also mean getting rid of a large portion of contractor positions and using soldiers to fill those positions. On one side it would benefit the soldiers allowing them to use the skills they are trained and paid for and second reduces spending. The down side is the loss of jobs, which won't sit well in the current political or economic climate.

Give units set budgets, they will find ways to save money. Reward units and their commands that are able to save money and maintain effective readiness. Those that don't, make it noted in that commands evaluations. Most of us know ways to nickle and dime in everyday task, so just let us do it. It would be hard at first, especially hard on units that lack effective leadership, but overtime (in theory) bad leadership would be weeded out as they fail to maintain a unit's readiness.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 29 at 2014 3:37 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Jul 2014 15:37:03 -0400

Ditch the F-35. Easy.