United States Defense Thread

barney41

Member
Maybe Putin will.whisper in Trump's ear that he could save billions by foregoing a new US bomber or SSBN? He could save enough money to build a Southern and Northern wall.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Don’t think his vacation state Florida would be happy with a Northern wall, no “snowbirds” spending tourist
dollars wouldn’t be good for the state economy. Then again, I doubt he cares.
 

barney41

Member
Just kidding on the wall, of course but my Spidey sense is tingling this is an elaborate ploy for Putin to mess with US strategic forces by "negotiating" with a compliant POTUS. We already know what would happen if he had his way with NATO. Fortunately, it looks like the Senate is growing .spine on Syria/Afghanistan and should go ballistic on a NATO withdrawal.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Hopefully the Senate starts to stand up to some of his impulsive and dangerous actions. Given his bizarre behaviour with Putin, it is no wonder many suspect his financial dealings with Russians is the heart of his wimpish interaction with Russia.
 

barney41

Member
While the Senate requires a supermajority to ratify a treaty, there is apparently no explicit prohibition to the POTUS terminating a treaty. The Supreme Court did not act on the matter the one time the issue was elevated to them so it's sort of a grey area. AFAIK iBush is said to have withdrawn from the ABM Treaty w/o asking for Senate approval. Would Trump unilaterally withdraw from NATO? He just may be brazen and desperate enough in w/c case the recent Senate vote on Afghanistan/Syria withdrawal should be considered a shot across his bow. IMO Congress would not stand for it and would pass a veto-proof law prohibiting him from doing so.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
I wonder about American public support for NATO should economic conditions take a downturn. Trump could easily turn the EU’s minimal defence spending as a wedge issue in the next election and hype a NATO exit. Probably as likely as an impeachable conviction in the Senate.
 

Ranger25

Active Member
Staff member
I wonder about American public support for NATO should economic conditions take a downturn. Trump could easily turn the EU’s minimal defence spending as a wedge issue in the next election and hype a NATO exit. Probably as likely as an impeachable conviction in the Senate.

Let’s stay on track and keep petty political opinions out of this please.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
The US says it's willing to sit down and negotiate. I can just see Trump and Putin meeting in private to work out a nuke deal. No doubting who will get the better terms. Maybe that is the intent of the Russian pullout, as an excuse for Russia to engage the US in another round of nuke talks where they can basically get what they want.
Unlikely. And I don't think they're being genuine given their unwillingness to substantiate their accusations. Previously the US pointed at the 9M729 missile as the offender. Russia recently demonstrated this missile publicly, and it appears to be exactly what they say - a 9M728 derivative with larger payload and a new guidance system, with even slightly reduced range (480kms vs 490). Following this, the US merely stated that they're already stated their position and are essentially waiting for Russia to unilaterally dismantle the 9M729 missiles. Pavel Podvig was has a decent breakdown of it.

Moscow shows the 9M729 missile and its launcher - Blog - Russian strategic nuclear forces
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #69
Let’s stay on track and keep petty political opinions out of this please.
JohnFedups post is somewhat sarcastic yes, petty no. However given the current divisive state of US politics, he does have a valid point about the possible future in US - NATO relations, given the present President's track record. You might be sensitive to criticism of your President, however to the rest of the world .... well maybe that's best left unsaid.
 

Preceptor

Super Moderator
Staff member
JohnFedups post is somewhat sarcastic yes, petty no. However given the current divisive state of US politics, he does have a valid point about the possible future in US - NATO relations, given the present President's track record. You might be sensitive to criticism of your President, however to the rest of the world .... well maybe that's best left unsaid.
At present essentially all US politics are petty. With that reality in mind, I'd feel much more comfortable if everyone kept discussion away from US politics here on DT, regardless of where a member might fall on the political spectrum. We Mods already have enough to do without DT members having to compete with political troll farms and/or botnets bashing one US political party or the other, and so on.
-Preceptor
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
The acting secretary of defence has withdrawn his name thus eliminating what would likely have been a brutal confirmation hearing. Also, he has resigned as acting secretary due to family reasons. Trump's list of "acting secretaries" illustrates the vetting problem but also the lack of qualified people willing to serve in his administration. Trump also seems to be drifting away slightly from Bolton, likely a positive for many in the uniformed services.
 

FormerDirtDart

Active Member
The acting secretary of defence has withdrawn his name thus eliminating what would likely have been a brutal confirmation hearing. Also, he has resigned as acting secretary due to family reasons. Trump's list of "acting secretaries" illustrates the vetting problem but also the lack of qualified people willing to serve in his administration. Trump also seems to be drifting away slightly from Bolton, likely a positive for many in the uniformed services.
It's an utter mess. Shanahan was never even officially nominated for the job. After the President publicly recommended him for the position, no one ever bothered to submit the actual nomination to the Senate.
Also, if Sec. Esper is nominated to be the "actual" Secretary of Defense by law he'll need to withdraw from the "Acting SecDef" position as soon as he's nominated. So, yet another Acting SecDef would need to be named during the confirmation process.
Plus, there's still the possibility that SecNav Spencer may have to resign (or be fired) because of that stupid promise/bet he made that the damned electromagnetic ammo elevator would be up and working by sometime last month (it's not)
So, technically right now the US military has an Acting Secretary of Defense, an Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense, an Acting Secretary of the Air Force, and now an Acting Secretary of the Army. there are also a myriad of priority Deputy positions that have been vacated in the last few weeks.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Is there a limit on how long someone can be an “acting secretary”? I vaguely recall 200+ days but not really sure. Not a good a scenario having one of the largest bureaucracies on the planet missing so many key positions with confirmed people in place.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Is there a limit on how long someone can be an “acting secretary”? I vaguely recall 200+ days but not really sure. Not a good a scenario having one of the largest bureaucracies on the planet missing so many key positions with confirmed people in place.
It depends on which US department is involved, as there are a few different laws which could be applicable. From a legal perspective, the US under the current administration has started to really drift off towards uncharted waters, legally speaking.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
With the increasing level of civil unrest in the US, Trump is threatening to utilize active duty troops. The attached link claims he has the ability to do this. As with all things Trump, the decision will be based on his perceived response of his base. Some of the right wing militia types within his base may take a dim view of such action. Certainly a lingering continuation of this unrest will add more concern about the upcoming November elections.
 

Ranger25

Active Member
Staff member
JF. This is a thread dedicated to US Defense issues, Not political ramblings. The only portion of the US where directly Active Duty action is easily allowed would the Washington DC where there’s no Governor. In the States, each has a national Gaurd who reports to and is commanded by the states Governor.
 
Top