Here are some important takeaways from the new NDAA. What do you think?

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 01 Oct 2015 09:13:02 -0400

I realize that this is from the Heritage Foundation and some may not agree with the side of the aisle they fall on. However, try to look beyond that & read the 8 takeaways that they are focusing on. I think they did a pretty good job pointing out the major ones for those of us here.

8 Important Takeaways From the 2016 Defense Authorization Act

This year’s NDAA has some major reforms that will affect the Pentagon, the military and our national security.

Response by SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL made Oct 1 at 2015 9:15 AM

SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL — Thu, 01 Oct 2015 09:15:16 -0400

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member I like #1
1. Increases the defense budget (but not enough).

The base budget for national defense has gone down 15 percent in real terms in the last four years while threats have dramatically increased.

This bill would increase the defense budget by just under 6 percent in real terms, but it relies on a budget gimmick to do so. While the increase for national security is good, it should be increased much more. One Heritage expert argued for a 10-percent increase in defense spending so that the Army can stop cutting soldiers and the Navy can start growing again.

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Oct 1 at 2015 9:45 AM

SSG Warren Swan — Thu, 01 Oct 2015 09:45:23 -0400

I like most of it. Still not a fan of the new retirement system. Lets be real though; is there ever a time where the defense budget has ever been enough? Even in peacetime military, new and emerging technologies required bumps in the budget to properly investigate and evaluate them. One issue I have is the method of cutting the DOD. I agree with it in principle, but I have an issue with it when it can be bent to suit someone. I might be addressed in the actual document, but until I get to read or see it. I'll have that question. I think this could've been better placed in a VA reform package, but we have to start somewhere. Why do we need "new" nukes? We can't keep track of what we have. We can't seem to properly maintain what we have, and are they going to build a nuke version of the F-35? If so, we don't need it. Acquisition reforms. How about "what we have reforms"? We want stupid new junk, and we already have stupid Nused junk. So what do we do with the junk? But in the end, I'd sign it just because the A-10 keeps flying.

Response by SGT David T. made Oct 1 at 2015 11:04 AM

SGT David T. — Thu, 01 Oct 2015 11:04:42 -0400

It will be interesting to see how this plays out with the veto threat.