Author Topic: US Military Base Closure list unveiled  (Read 1866 times)

Offline Kegger26

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 553
US Military Base Closure list unveiled
« Reply #30 on: May 13, 2005, 01:52:19 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by LePaul
I think Vermont still has F-16s?

Bangor is actually slated to GAIN more staff, etc


Sounds to me like we are massing at the border for our upcomming war with Canada.

Offline rpm

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15661
US Military Base Closure list unveiled
« Reply #31 on: May 13, 2005, 02:05:04 PM »
I wonder how loud Republicans would have cried "Weak on National Defense" and "Does not support the troops" if a Democratic president had done this, especially in a time of war.
My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives.
Stay thirsty my friends.

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
US Military Base Closure list unveiled
« Reply #32 on: May 13, 2005, 02:09:17 PM »
And how many rabid foaming at the mouth pinko leftists  would be praising this democratic president as a great peacemaker and a budget genious?

At least Booosch ist not a waaarmongering hitlaaa type anymore..

Offline DiabloTX

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9592
US Military Base Closure list unveiled
« Reply #33 on: May 13, 2005, 02:16:51 PM »
Rumsfeld: '21st Century Challenges' Require Change

In four previous rounds of closures starting in 1988, BRAC commissions have accepted 85 percent of bases the Pentagon recommended for closure or consolidation.

The Pentagon's list was delivered to Capitol Hill earlier Friday morning for distribution to lawmakers.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld (search) has said the move would save $48.8 billion over 20 years while reshaping the military for America's expected 21st century adversaries.

Rumsfeld's plan calls for a massive shift of U.S. forces that would result in a net loss of 29,005 military and civilian jobs at domestic installations. Overall, he proposes pulling 218,570 military and civilian positions out of some U.S. bases while adding 189,565 positions to others. The plan would add at least 400 jobs to each of 49 domestic bases, with troops and other workers coming from other U.S. facilities or abroad.

The closures and downsizings would occur over six years starting in 2006.

"Our current arrangements, designed for the Cold War, must give way to the new demands of the war against extremism and other evolving 21st century challenges," Rumsfeld said in a statement.

The BRAC process was revived in the late 1980s with the idea of cutting waste and maximizing the effectiveness of taxpayers' dollars. This is the fifth round of BRAC; the last was in 1995.

In previous rounds, 97 out of 522 major bases were closed, saving an estimated $29 billion. This year's cuts were expected to be even bigger, but U.S. military officials are planning to move some 70,000 personnel currently based in Europe and Asia back to the United States.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters Friday that the president was aware of the base closures and said the administration supports the process established by the Defense Department as to what happens next.

"This is the recommendation by the secretary of defense. There is a process in place, and there are steps in the process. It will now go to the [BRAC] commission. Then it will go to the president after that," McClellan said.

McClellan said base closings are a necessary, if painful, part of transforming the military into a force matched to modern demands.

"We want to make sure that our troops, particularly those in combat, have all the resources they need to do their job," he said. But the White House, well aware of the dread in many communities, is focused on helping affected towns move on, with federal assistance available through the Defense, Labor and Commerce departments, he said.

Closures From Coast to Coast

New England took a major hit, and Connecticut suffered the biggest loss in terms of jobs with the proposed closure of the Submarine Base in New London, Ct. Shuttering the installation would result in the loss of 7,096 military jobs and 952 civilian jobs.

Another facility that barely made it through the previous rounds but showed up on the latest hit list was Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Maine, whose shutdown would affect 201 military jobs and 4,032 civilian jobs.

President Bush's home state wasn't immune from the chopping block. Texas is slated to lose 15 facilities. In addition to Naval Station Ingleside, the Red River Army Depot and several Reserve and Guard installations are on the hit list.

New Jersey's Fort Monmouth is also slated for closure, triggering an angered Democratic Rep. Rush Holt to vow to "Fight like hell to change it. I'm not about to let the Pentagon's error put the fort and the soldiers it serves in harm's way."

Pennsylvania would lose 13 facilities, including the Naval Air Station at Willow Grove, while Alabama and California — the state hit hardest in the previous four rounds of closures — are to see 11 installations apiece shuttered, mostly affecting Reserve and Guard units and Defense Department accounting offices. New York is to lose nine.

Cannon Air Force Base in New Mexico also could lose more than 2,700 jobs, the Naval Station in Ingleside, Texas, costing more than 2,100 jobs, and Fort McPherson in Georgia, costing nearly 4,200 jobs.

Other major bases — including the Army's Fort Bliss in Texas, the Naval Shipyard in Norfolk, Va., and Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland — would see gains, as they absorb troops whose current home bases are slated for closure.

"I think we have quite a few bases that may be closed in addition to what we have here," Ret. U.S. Air Force Maj. Gen Burton Moore told FOX News. "After the Berlin Wall fell and after the fall of the Soviet Union, we reaped the peace dividends and we reaped it again after the Gulf War I" when the United States was able to reduce its structure due to fairly peaceful times.

"There's been a drawdown" but not enough of one, he added.

Also among the major closures is the Naval Station in Pascagoula, Miss. (search), which barely survived previous base closure rounds. The decision was a blow to Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., who had fought the 1995 round of closures. At stake are 844 military jobs and 112 civilian jobs.

"I opposed the BRAC process at its initiation because it represents a cop-out by the Congress of its duties," Lott said in a statement. "I continue to dislike the process and the fact that any Mississippi facilities are on today's closure list. That being said, I'm breathing a sign of relief for those facilities that weren't on the list."

Base closings represent a high-stakes political fight, because they affect jobs in congressional districts.

When a U.S. military installation shuts down, its officers and their families are uprooted and relocated to facilities elsewhere, leaving holes in customer bases of local businesses.

"Affected communities will be offered support and assistance through the Office of Economic Adjustment following the completion of the process," Wynne said.

For years, the military has operated more bases than it needs for the 1.4 million troops on active duty. Congress has refused to authorize a new round of base closings since 1995 but reluctantly signed off on the idea last year after President Bush threatened to veto an entire spending bill.

Lawmakers say it is unwise to close bases while U.S. troops are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the Pentagon argues that the timing is perfect to enlist cost-cutting measures given pressures from the ballooning federal deficit and to reshuffle the stateside network of bases while it reshapes the entire military.

Closures in 1988, 1991, 1993 and 1995 eliminated or realigned 451 installations, including 97 major ones, resulted in a net savings to the government of about $18 billion through 2001. The Pentagon projects recurring annual savings of $7.3 billion from those four rounds combined.
"There ain't no revolution, only evolution, but every time I'm in Denmark I eat a danish for peace." - Diablo

Offline Silat

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2536
US Military Base Closure list unveiled
« Reply #34 on: May 13, 2005, 02:27:08 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by rpm
I wonder how loud Republicans would have cried "Weak on National Defense" and "Does not support the troops" if a Democratic president had done this, especially in a time of war.



Didnt this radical right wing administration tell us that IRAQ would pay for the war?
Show me the money?:)
If they were paying for it we wouldnt be seeing the closures...
+Silat
"The first time someone shows you who they are, believe them." — Maya Angelou
"Conservatism offers no redress for the present, and makes no preparation for the future." B. Disraeli
"All that serves labor serves the nation. All that harms labor is treason."

Offline GtoRA2

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8339
US Military Base Closure list unveiled
« Reply #35 on: May 13, 2005, 02:59:09 PM »
Bush is the worst democrat president we have ever had.

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
US Military Base Closure list unveiled
« Reply #36 on: May 13, 2005, 03:00:35 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Bush is the worst democrat president we have ever had.


Aye! Fewcking libruhlus are destroying this country!

How the hell can rpm be such a pinko commie libruhl and still live with himself?

Offline GtoRA2

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8339
US Military Base Closure list unveiled
« Reply #37 on: May 13, 2005, 03:03:03 PM »
Did you hit the booze early Grun?


Did you see my RC tank? Bad bellybutton huh?

Offline Eagler

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18770
US Military Base Closure list unveiled
« Reply #38 on: May 13, 2005, 03:04:11 PM »
something tells me they are not closing down/removing anything that is still needed

more like cutting the fat

now if they can just do the same with the rest of the gov run biz...
"Masters of the Air" Scenario - JG27


Intel Core i7-13700KF | GIGABYTE Z790 AORUS Elite AX | 64GB G.Skill DDR5 | 16GB GIGABYTE RTX 4070 Ti Super | 850 watt ps | pimax Crystal Light | Warthog stick | TM1600 throttle | VKB Mk.V Rudder

Offline lada

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1810
US Military Base Closure list unveiled
« Reply #39 on: May 13, 2005, 03:05:07 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
And how many rabid foaming at the mouth pinko leftists  would be praising this democratic president as a great peacemaker and a budget genious?

At least Booosch ist not a waaarmongering hitlaaa type anymore..


I guess you have no arguments, whitch could beat his argument-less statement. You just flame each other.


You are an American right ?

Offline Octavius

  • Skinner Team
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6651
US Military Base Closure list unveiled
« Reply #40 on: May 13, 2005, 03:07:36 PM »
These are recommendations or 100% certainties?
octavius
Fat Drunk BasTards (forum)

"bastard coated bastards with bastard filling?  delicious!"
Guest of the ++Blue Knights++[/size]

Offline DoctorYO

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 696
US Military Base Closure list unveiled
« Reply #41 on: May 13, 2005, 03:17:54 PM »
goto your article of your choice and read..

"For years, the military has operated more bases than it needs for the 1.4 million troops on active duty. Congress has refused to authorize a new round of base closings since 1995 but reluctantly signed off on the idea last year after President Bush threatened to veto an entire spending bill."

Support our troops is a very accurate jab...

I find this laughable and ironic becuase a veto and a fillabuster (the current crap sessions in congress for nominees) are really of the same principle..

IMO having over capacity is not a bad thing considering the recent amount of world upheaval and volatility.

let it be known by the above who is forcing the issue..  

(kind of like realID being forced on a 82billion troop bill, click links for more info)

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050509-4886.html

or if you prefer more credibility

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/05/real_id.html


This isn't a republican thing nor is a democrat thing..  Its a american thing that has deep consquences across the board..  im against some of the bases being closed..  Some of them ive been on and some our neither glamourous or well know but still have a important mission..

To cannabalize the military in a time of conflict is irresponsible... (especially since they say we are winning/succeding in our missions across the globe....)

losers revamp their military in times of warfare just for the history lesson fellas.. dont take my word on it do your homework...


DoctorYo

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
US Military Base Closure list unveiled
« Reply #42 on: May 13, 2005, 03:32:46 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Octavius
These are recommendations or 100% certainties?


Recommendations.
sand

Offline Holden McGroin

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8591
US Military Base Closure list unveiled
« Reply #43 on: May 13, 2005, 03:34:03 PM »
From a functionality point of view, what makes closing a military base somewhere any different from decommisioning a ship?

Should we recommision the Intrepid, or should we spend our money on more effective weapons systems?
Holden McGroin LLC makes every effort to provide accurate and complete information. Since humor, irony, and keen insight may be foreign to some readers, no warranty, expressed or implied is offered. Re-writing this disclaimer cost me big bucks at the lawyer’s office!

VWE

  • Guest
US Military Base Closure list unveiled
« Reply #44 on: May 13, 2005, 04:17:31 PM »
Yeah New London, wow... went to sub school back in '85. I wonder what's going to happen to the Nautilus...