• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Dept of War

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
I do not like it. Our military is for the national defense and national interests, regardless of war.

I would rather things change than they be renamed.

Each renaming costs the tax payers millions. It is a waste of money.

BUT....a selfish reason....I do not want to have to get another ID card.
 

Charlie24

Well-Known Member
I do not like it. Our military is for the national defense and national interests, regardless of war.

I would rather things change than they be renamed.

Each renaming costs the tax payers millions. It is a waste of money.

BUT....a selfish reason....I do not want to have to get another ID card.

I think it's Trump's way of sending a message. But Hegseth is making some serious changes in the military.

He's upgraded the Army Fitness Test, and zeroing in on combat readiness.

Got to do something when Xi, Putin, and Kim begin having secret meetings.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
I think it's Trump's way of sending a message. But Hegseth is making some serious changes in the military.

He's upgraded the Army Fitness Test, and zeroing in on combat readiness.

Got to do something when Xi, Putin, and Kim begin having secret meetings.
It is his way of reaching back (going back in time). I just don't think the name change is worth the cost.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Actually, it not officially happen until Congress approves it
Yep. But I found out it cost taxpayers several millions to change Ft Gordon to Ft Eisenhower. Then it cost several million to change it back to Ft Gordon. Multiply that by all the name changes.
 

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
What got me about the name changes of military bases - is that the dems snuck the change in a DoD funding bill. Had it been a seperate bill - It never would have pass. Yes, it cost a lot to change back to the original names - but many are happy that happened.

In addition, The Dept of War was established on August 7, 1789; and then on 18 June 1798 the Dep of Navy was formed. Thus from 1798, the Dept of War was only the US Army!. On September 18, 1947, the DoD was formed - which included all Branches including the Army, Navy, and Air Force. (FYI, the Marine Corps is part of the Dept of Navy). Also, the US Coast Guard only comes under DoN during wartime, otherwise the CG is part of the Dept of Homeland Security. (US Space Force comes under the the Dept of the Air Force. And finally, these depts come under DoD:
Dept of the Army
Dept of the Navy
Dept of the Air Force
National Security Agency
Defense Intelligence Agency
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
National Reconnaissance Office

The web page for DoD is WAR.GOV

Wiki page for DoD



 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
LOL, as usual JonC, we diagaree.
Lol....perhaps. It just depends on how we weigh the cost to the benefit. I prefer a show of strength.

We paid about $50,000,000 in changing the name of military posts and bases. But that's money already spent.

The DoD os more substantial. We are talking over $1 billion.

I just am not sure the benefit of a name change is worth the cost.

And 8s it just a name change or are we going back to the Department of War (are we getting rid of the Department of the Army, Department of the Airforce, changing the entire structure?


The Department of War ended in 1947 with the National Security Act. It was not just a rename.

The National Military Establishment was renamed the Department of Defence in 1949.
 

Charlie24

Well-Known Member
Lol....perhaps. It just depends on how we weigh the cost to the benefit. I prefer a show of strength.

We paid about $50,000,000 in changing the name of military posts and bases. But that's money already spent.

The DoD os more substantial. We are talking over $1 billion.

I just am not sure the benefit of a name change is worth the cost.

And 8s it just a name change or are we going back to the Department of War (are we getting rid of the Department of the Army, Department of the Airforce, changing the entire structure?


The Department of War ended in 1947 with the National Security Act. It was not just a rename.

The National Military Establishment was renamed the Department of Defence in 1949.

I do agree the costs you're showing here is ridiculous, and it is obviously a waste.

I'm hoping that Trump will continue cutting the red tape, eliminating this type of nonsense.

My view of this mess in the world is that the US military has got to flex its muscles and show a determination by all means necessary.

I think we have the right man to get it done.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
I do agree the costs you're showing here is ridiculous, and it is obviously a waste.

I'm hoping that Trump will continue cutting the red tape, eliminating this type of nonsense.

My view of this mess in the world is that the US military has got to flex its muscles and show a determination by all means necessary.

I think we have the right man to get it done.
The costs are necessary. Sinage, seals, paperwork, ID cards for the military and retirees, VA signage, computer programs, websites...all of this has to change from DoD to DoW.

And that figure was just if we are changing the name to the name of an older organization. It is much more if we are going back to a Department of War (the Department of the Army, Department of the Airforce, etc., has to be disolved).


I guess what bothers me about it is we expected Trump to spend more responsibility. I would much rather that money be spent on strengthening our military.
 

Charlie24

Well-Known Member
The costs are necessary. Sinage, seals, paperwork, ID cards for the military and retirees, VA signage, computer programs, websites...all of this has to change from DoD to DoW.

And that figure was just if we are changing the name to the name of an older organization. It is much more if we are going back to a Department of War (the Department of the Army, Department of the Airforce, etc., has to be disolved).


I guess what bothers me about it is we expected Trump to spend more responsibility. I would much rather that money be spent on strengthening our military.

As long as America continues being the #1 exporter of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and we keep God's Chosen (Israel) safe from destruction, Satan will be on our backs.

The spiritual battle for America is raging as never before.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
As long as America continues being the #1 exporter of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and we keep God's Chosen (Israel) safe from destruction, Satan will be on our backs.

The spiritual battle for America is raging as never before.
I think there is a spiritual battle, but I leans toward our nation declining in that respect. We are following the path so many other nations have taken.

It is true that the US sends the most missionaries to spread the gosoel....but by percentage of population Palestine and Ireland has sent more and the area where Christianity is growing the most is Africa. South Korea and Africa (among others) send missionaries to the US to spread the gospel.

As a nation we dropped the torch decades ago.

That is probably how it should be as spiritual battles are not fought by nations.
 

Charlie24

Well-Known Member
I think there is a spiritual battle, but I leans toward our nation declining in that respect. We are following the path so many other nations have taken.

It is true that the US sends the most missionaries to spread the gosoel....but by percentage of population Palestine and Ireland has sent more and the area where Christianity is growing the most is Africa. South Korea and Africa (among others) send missionaries to the US to spread the gospel.

As a nation we dropped the torch decades ago.

That is probably how it should be as spiritual battles are not fought by nations.

The torch was taken from the UK and given to us, there's no one else to pass to with the power and resources necessary.

This may be the writing on the wall.
 
Top