[USAF] Why Shutting Down USAF Isn't the Answer

Day 2,162, 11:28 • Published in USA USA • by dmjohnston


Mood Music: Sorry for Party Rocking

There's been a lot of talk lately, America. Talk of shutting down USAF to reduce taxes. I've responded to a lot of articles and posts, but to put it all on the table, it's time for an article from your Secretary of Defense. As the SECDEF, I'm tasked with the operation of our Armed Forces.

Over the last few months, USAF's weekly budget has been reduced by about 10k USD. We've cut costs. We've cut supplies. We've been doing our best to ensure that we are operating efficiently. We've been more open about our spending than ever before.

In conjunction with that, there has been increased scrutiny on taxation, particularly during the 10% Work Tax with vastly overvalued Average Wage. Naturally, people have been targeting the largest user of tax revenue, USAF, as the scapegoat. "If we shut down USAF, then we won't have to pay taxes."

Israel Stevens already addressed the more "meta" reasons that having USAF around is important. But this is more than just community and foreign policy concerns. It's a numbers game.

There's been three main options put forth, so let's look at each and what would happen.

Option 1: Close a couple of USAF's branches to cut costs.

As supported by: Several people who bring it up to me often

This may seem pretty logical. If each branch takes a portion of the budget, than closing down branches would be an easy way to reduce the costs. However, assuming people in USAF stay in USAF by moving to a different USAF branch when theirs is shut down, we have the same number of people being provided for by roughly the same infrastructure. With the cost/soldier of each branch being fairly similar when you account for more supplies given in higher branches, we would need the same amount of money if not more to continue operating in this option.

Option 2: Shut down USAF entirely.

As supported by: Gnilraps

Gnilraps specifically states that multiple private MU's exist to pick up the slack when USAF is gone. As mentioned by a number of authors recently, it is virtually impossible to support an MU without gold buying. Without a significant investment in infrastructure (requiring mass initial gold buying), Private MUs rely on the good nature of their personal benefactors. So option 2 would move us from a somewhat tax supported damage base to one entirely paid for with gold bought by a handful of players. The same number of fighters would be in the market, but now significantly more would need to be supported privately, driving private costs through the roof and likely making them unmanageable for PMUs to continue normal operations.

Option 3: Put all the branches together in the Civilian MU and supply people based on the previous day's fights.

As supported by: Franklin Stone

My biggest response to this that supplying in that manner is ridiculous. There is zero accountability for where the fights are being used, when they are being used, etc. Numbers-wise, it requires us to supply more people with the same (or probably less if they want to pay less taxes) money. That doesn't work out. At all.

Proponents of this option are mostly interested in combining the branches, but that gains us nothing. Running this large an operation becomes easier when we split the responsibilities across multiple groups of officers. Multiple quartermasters handing out supplies to their branch means less waiting time. Keeping in mind that all USAF soldiers are required to request supplies via IRC, meaning they are always receiving the most up to date orders available from the NSC.

What does all this mean? Quite frankly, USAF is the best use of our collective dollar. We continue to work hard to make sure we are being responsible in using it. The numbers aren't going to change just because you want them to.

Stay Frosty, America.