https://buy-zithromax.online buy kamagra usa https://antibiotics.top buy stromectol online https://deutschland-doxycycline.com https://ivermectin-apotheke.com kaufen cialis https://2-pharmaceuticals.com buy antibiotics online Online Pharmacy vermectin apotheke buy stromectol europe buy zithromax online https://kaufen-cialis.com levitra usa https://stromectol-apotheke.com buy doxycycline online https://buy-ivermectin.online https://stromectol-europe.com stromectol apotheke https://buyamoxil24x7.online deutschland doxycycline https://buy-stromectol.online https://doxycycline365.online https://levitra-usa.com buy ivermectin online buy amoxil online https://buykamagrausa.net

A bad size comparison in the military spending cut proposal

The original AP story covering the proposed reduction in the active duty military said the result would be "the smallest number since 1940 when the nation was gearing up to enter World War II." This got picked up on as some sort of OMG INSANE WEAKNESS LIKE WE HAD BEFORE WW II WHEN WE WERE ATTACKED!! thing.

The problem is, the whole paragraph makes it clear that 1940 number was a mid-mobilization figure, not where the US was during the heyday of Isolationism.

'The active-duty Army would shrink from today's 522,000 soldiers to between 440,000 and 450,000 — the smallest number since 1940 when the nation was gearing up to enter World War II. The Army currently is scheduled to be reduced to 490,000. The Army's post-World War II low was 480,000 in 2001, according to figures provided by the service. In 1940 the Army had just 267,000 active-duty members, but that number surged to 1.46 million the following year as America prepared for war in Europe and the Pacific.'

Folks looking to criticize the plan, though, have latched on to that 1940 number to make it all sound like Neville Chamberlain is at the helm.

Reshared post from +The Wire

The reduction in the size of the military overall still maintains a force that's far larger than we had shortly …

A Visualization of the Proposed Military Cuts That Terrify Dick Cheney
Yes, Chuck Hagel is proposing reductions in the size of the United States military. But the terrifying spectre of an Army at “pre-World War II levels” pretty dramatically oversells the case, as we can demonstrate.

33 view(s)  

2 thoughts on “A bad size comparison in the military spending cut proposal”

  1. Always feel a bit sorry for Chamberlain. No one wanted another war, its very hard to factor in ‘complete and utter lunatic’ into international diplomacy.

    You do realise Britain was preparing for war in 1936 – We knew we were going to have to fight, but didn’t think we had the strength to.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *