United States Defense Thread

[MARKMILES77]

Pete Hegseth has been forced into damage control mode releasing a video about DOGE in the DOD, the $50 billion savings to be made in 2026 and the firing of DOD employees. He spins it as just removing DEI and Woke leading to a more "lethal badass" military. Might leave you thinking they are just moving that $50 Billion from one part of the DOD to another part of the DOD.
But the key statement is from 3:58 to 4:18:

We are pulling around 8% or $50 Billion from the Biden Budget We're planning....this is planning for this year that we will move away from Woke Biden era non lethal programs and instead spend that money on President Trump's America First, Peace through Strength priorities for our national budget.

Not exactly a commitment to keep the money within the DOD.

x.com

x.com

 

[Todjaeger]

Regarding the current POTUS and proposals to 'trim' the US defence budget... The current POTUS has no legal authority to do that, apart from vetoing any relevant spending bills or budgets passed by Congress. Even then, Presidential vetoes can be overrode by Congress. Given how significant and massive the cuts would have to be to achieve anything nearly as significant as a 50% reduction, and how hard such cuts would hit virtually every single state, I could easily see bi-partisan support to override and/or ignore attempts by the current administration to make such cuts.

If administration officials still try and take things too far, I could even see some officials end up getting enough bi-partisan opposition to the point where the officials are removed and permanently barred from ever holding any future office or security clearance.

 

[SolarisKenzo]

POTUS is just making things up.

50% defense budget cut is just bs, no one can do that.
Also, nice math when he says he wants China and Russia to do the same.
Their military budget is just a fraction of US one, which means they would be very happy to cut 50% of their budget if Trump really wanted to cut his own by half.
Chinese and Russia would slash basically 15-20% compared to the US.

The real problem is that, we can clearly say that at this point, most of the administration has no idea whatsoever of what they're talking about.
Which wouldn't be a huge problem for me since I'm European, but it actually is because of obvious reasons.

The fact that the most powerful man on earth can just go around and talk nonsense, saying that Spain is a South American BRICS country, that Germans should vote for the Nazis and that he is basically making up half of things he says is just frightening.

 

[MARKMILES77]

,

French Magazine, Le Point is claiming their sources tell them Trump is planning to attend the Victory Day Parade in Moscow on May 9.
Not sure if it is to celebrate Victory in WW2 or in Ukraine?

x.com

x.com

Trump will be in Moscow for end of war commemorations.

 

[Sandson41]

, View attachment 52324

French Magazine, Le Point is claiming their sources tell them Trump is planning to attend the Victory Day Parade in Moscow on May 9.
Not sure if it is to celebrate Victory in WW2 or in Ukraine?

x.com

x.com

Maybe they'll let him drive that single T-34. Only tank they've had the past 2 years.

Remember when he wanted a US Army parade in Washington? He's always wanted to be in a parade.

I'll be interested to see how many US career personnel take up offers like Australia's to emigrate and re-enlist instead of stick with a Russian allied force in the coming years. Propping up Putin is not what most of them enlisted for.

Surely it won't be good for retention, on top of the other changes coming into effect soon.

 

[MARKMILES77]

Trump is already being asked by reporters is he going to Moscow.
Said No but still a long time till May 9!

 

[MARKMILES77]

The Cyber security specialist publication "The Record" is reporting that the U.S. Cyber Security Command has been ordered by Pete Hegseth to cease all planning against Russia including offensive digital actions.

Exclusive: Hegseth orders Cyber Command to stand down on Russia planning

The secretary of Defense has ordered U.S. Cyber Command to stand down from all planning against Russia, including offensive digital actions, sources tell Recorded Future News.

therecord.media

The Guardian is also saying the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency(CISA) has been told to stop acting against Russian threats.
CISA is claiming there is no change to their policy.

The Guardian Mar 1 2025
Trump administration retreats in fight against Russian cyber threats

The Trump administration has publicly and privately signaled that it does not believe Russia represents a cyber threat against US national security or critical infrastructure, marking a radical departure from longstanding intelligence assessments.

The shift in policy could make the US vulnerable to hacking attacks by Russia, experts warned, and appeared to reflect the warming of relations between Donald Trump and Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin.........



......The US policy change has also been established behind closed doors.


A recent memo at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (Cisa) set out new priorities for the agency, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security and monitors cyber threats against US critical infrastructure. The new directive set out priorities that included China and protecting local systems. It did not mention Russia.

A person familiar with the matter who spoke to the Guardian on the condition of anonymity said analysts at the agency were verbally informed that they were not to follow or report on Russian threats, even though this had previously been a main focus for the agency.


The person said work that was being done on something “Russia-related” was in effect “nixed”.

“Russia and China are our biggest adversaries. With all the cuts being made to different agencies, a lot of cybersecurity personnel have been fired. Our systems are not going to be protected and our adversaries know this,” the person said.

The person added: “People are saying Russia is winning. Putin is on the inside now.”

Trump administration retreats in fight against Russian cyber threats

Recent incidents indicate US is no longer characterizing Russia as a cybersecurity threat, marking a radical departure: ‘Putin is on the inside now’

www.theguardian.com

 

[MARKMILES77]

I thought the World could not get any more bizzare but I was wrong!

Trump weighs in on report King Charles will offer U.S. commonwealth membership

Trump indicates willingness to have America become 57th Commonwealth member

www.independent.co.uk

 

[MARKMILES77]

Maybe he wants America to compete in the Commonwealth Games?

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114200783339413306

 

[John Fedup]

Sounds like a great plan to ruin the Commonwealth.

 

[swerve]

It's The Sun. It's been known to make up stories, or build tottering towers of speculation on the most flimsy foundations.

 

[John Fedup]

It's The Sun. It's been known to make up stories, or build tottering towers of speculation on the most flimsy foundations.

I used to buy our local Sun, the Toronto Sun, when they posted a picture of the hottie of the day on page three. The only worthy page, the rest, advertisements and BS.

 

[swerve]

Our Sun used to do the same. It was the first to do so in this country, in 1970.

 

[John Fedup]

Our Sun used to do the same. It was the first to do so in this country, in 1970.

The good old days!

 

[hauritz]

Remember Reagan's Star Wars ballistic missile defence system?
Trump now has his own version. Drawing mostly from existing capabilities it is being described as more of an organisational issue than a technological one. Its name, Golden Dome, does hint at Israel's Iron Dome system as its main inspiration. Of course the land area of the US is much greater than that of Israel.

Lasers, space radars, missile interceptors: Defense leaders lay out vision for Trump's 'Golden Dome' project

Experts say President Donald Trump's "Golden Dome" will need space-based radars, missile interceptors and laser weapons around the U.S. to defend the country from long-range assault.

www.foxnews.com

 

[MARKMILES77]

To achieve the 8% ($50 Billion) cuts planned for the DOD this year, the Pentagon is contemplating a massive cut to regular Army numbers.
The Army could be cut to as few as 360,000, which would be a reduction of 90,000.
Would likely mean multiple divisions would be lost.
Doesn't look like a Pivot to the Asia-Pacific, looks like a Pivot back to an Isolationalist U.S.A.

Army Planners Are Weighing Force Reductions of Up to 90,000 Active-Duty Soldiers

The Army is quietly considering a sweeping reduction of up to 90,000 active-duty troops, a move that underscores mounting fiscal pressures at the Pentagon and a broader shift in military strategy away from Europe and counterterrorism.

www.military.com

 

[hauritz]

To achieve the 8% ($50 Billion) cuts planned for the DOD this year, the Pentagon is contemplating a massive cut to regular Army numbers.
The Army could be cut to as few as 360,000, which would be a reduction of 90,000.
Would likely mean multiple divisions would be lost.
Doesn't look like a Pivot to the Asia-Pacific, looks like a Pivot back to an Isolationalist U.S.A.

Army Planners Are Weighing Force Reductions of Up to 90,000 Active-Duty Soldiers

The Army is quietly considering a sweeping reduction of up to 90,000 active-duty troops, a move that underscores mounting fiscal pressures at the Pentagon and a broader shift in military strategy away from Europe and counterterrorism.

www.military.com

To be honest this doesn’t look entirely dissimilar to Australia’s DSR. America is clearly in the process of disengaging from the European theatre and concentrating on countering the Chinese.

However I believe the US would only be willing to fight a limited war against China. Last thing the US would want is to fight another land war in Asia.

Isolationism is always a possiblity for the US. The current tariff wars ultimate goal might be for the US to largely disengage from the global economy. Take that away and suddenly the US no longer needs to be a global superpower.

Could the United States and China really go to war? Who would win?

Were the United States and China to go to war global prosperity might soon become the least of our concerns.

www.brookings.edu

 

[SammyC]

To be honest this doesn’t look entirely dissimilar to Australia’s DSR. America is clearly in the process of disengaging from the European theatre and concentrating on countering the Chinese.

However I believe the US would only be willing to fight a limited war against China. Last thing the US would want is to fight another land war in Asia.

Isolationism is always a possiblity for the US. The current tariff wars ultimate goal might be for the US to largely disengage from the global economy. Take that away and suddenly the US no longer needs to be a global superpower.

Could the United States and China really go to war? Who would win?

Were the United States and China to go to war global prosperity might soon become the least of our concerns.

www.brookings.edu

If the US defence system pivots to Asia, it becomes less of a land war (like Eurpoe) and more of a sea/litoral war scenario.

So reducing the size of the army aligns with this intent.

There are about 100,000 US troops in Europe, so again this aligns with a withdrawal from the European theatre.

 

[John Fedup]

Really have to wonder WTF to make of this news considering Trump's recent off/on decisions. Some significant programs would be vulnerable to this new directive.

Trump order threatens cancellation for over-budget, delayed Pentagon programs - Breaking Defense

 

[downunderblue]

Question. Can the US sustainably supply INDOPACOM with the resources needed to fight/win a peer to peer conflict (i.e. war over Taiwan).

In WWI US General John Pershing is alleged to have stated "infantry wins battles, logistics wins wars".

On 10APR25 in a SASC hearing, INDOPACOM Commander Adm Sam Paparo advised the committee that it recently took seventy-three (yes, 73) C-17 Globemaster flights to move a single Patriot air defense battalion from INDOPACOM to CENTCOM.

This got me thinking.

In a recent podcast ‘Why Should We Care About "Dark Fleets"?’ from the ‘Why Should We Care About the Indo-Pacific?’ series by Ray Powell & Jim Carouso (of which I highly recommend btw), Dr. Sal Mercogliano made some revealing comments about the preparedness of the US Military Sealift Command to sustainably support INDOPACOM in a period of peer-to-peer conflict.

I used Google AI (btw which is mighty impressive) to summarise his key concerns:

• Critical Shortage of Merchant Mariners: One out of every five ships in the US Navy are crewed by merchant mariners, specifically in auxiliary vessels like oilers and supply ships. There is a critical shortage of these mariners, currently around 1,600 short across the entire US Merchant Marine, and about 1,400 short in the field supporting the US Navy. This shortage is so severe that the commander of the Military Sealift Command announced a program to lay up 17 ships to repurpose their crews to forward-deployed vessels. A recent incident involved a forward-deployed oiler, the USNS Big Horn, running aground off the coast of Oman, potentially due to crew fatigue from overuse, leaving a US carrier strike group temporarily without an oiler.
• Aging Ready Reserve Force: The United States has a Ready Reserve Force of approximately 50 vessels intended for the initial deployment of forces in a conflict. However, the average age of these vessels is 44 years old. Furthermore, these ships do not have sufficient crew on board and rely on calling up additional mariners, which is problematic given the existing shortage.
• Low Readiness Levels: A test conducted in 2019 revealed a significant shortfall in the readiness of the Ready Reserve Force. These vessels were supposed to have an 85% readiness rate (meaning 85% should be ready to deploy within 5 days), but the test showed a readiness rate of only 40%. This significantly impacts the ability to rapidly deploy equipment for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force in case of a conflict.

[AI summary:] These issues highlight a significant vulnerability, particularly in the context of a potential peer-to-peer conflict in the Indo-Pacific, as the US relies heavily on merchant mariners and these aging, potentially under-crewed, and not fully ready reserve vessels to support military operations. Dr. Mercogliano argues that these problems stem from a long-term neglect of the commercial shipping sector since the 1980s. He suggests that investing in and reforming the US Merchant Marine now is crucial to address these critical shortfalls.

Thoughts? The risk calculation here seems to be mounting and mounting. If it’s not one thing its another. Whilst we focus so heavily on the latest capability ($$$$$) to give us a peer advantage, do we forget about the fundamental basics of conflict management in the process?