More Obama Murder of America: The Pentagon Cuts

[grumbler]

Germany First Strategy Part II, what could possibly go wrong?

China

Gesundheit

[crazy canuck]

 Thank you

[LaCroix]

It's easy to ramp up an army when you really need one.  The Navy and the Marines represent the real power projection capability of the United States, and should retain current levels of funding.

this is was my first thought as well. we don't need a large army currently from what i can tell. what's the point? navy, however, is different, and we should maintain or increase numbers. it provides us with too many economic incentives

[Alcibiades]

Cut the Officers.

And let you NCO's try and take care of yourselves?   

[Alcibiades]

Eliminate the USAF and roll it back into the US Army.  It's only use is to support the Army anyways.  After that, slash the army.  It's easy to ramp up an army when you really need one.  The Navy and the Marines represent the real power projection capability of the United States, and should retain current levels of funding.

Lol retard talking.  What the fuck do you know about the American military,"you fucking faggot"?

[Alcibiades]

Shrink the Active Army and somewhat enlarge the Army Reserve.

I don't think they should enlarge, but I think there should be some big changes.  Remove combat MOS's and intensive jobs from the Guard/reserves and move non-essential jobs such as 88s, AG, mechanics, and even some medical to the reserves.   Weekend warriors aren't going to be able to stay proficient in a variety of tasks, which is why they need months of training beforehand.  Heck, a lot of them can't even stay within physical standards.


I've also heard the argument that some MI and some signal MOS's should be active only, that they can't stay proficient playing army less than 2 months a year.

[LaCroix]

Lol retard talking.  What the fuck do you know about the American military,"you fucking faggot"?

what is the point of a large army for the US, right now?

[FunkMonk]

Heard this on NPR: How many troops would it take to occupy Beijing? C'mon America.

[alfred russel]

In more recent budget and strategy documents, the military has been ordered to be prepared to decisively win one conflict while holding off an adversary's aspirations in a second until sufficient forces could be mobilized and redeployed to win there

The Schlieffen Plan part II, what could possibly go wrong?

I have a hunch that Germany would have been a bit more successful with a few thousand nuclear weapons.

[crazy canuck]

In more recent budget and strategy documents, the military has been ordered to be prepared to decisively win one conflict while holding off an adversary's aspirations in a second until sufficient forces could be mobilized and redeployed to win there

The Schlieffen Plan part II, what could possibly go wrong?

I have a hunch that Germany would have been a bit more successful with a few thousand nuclear weapons.

The point is that creating a doctrine which requires a decisive win in one conflict decisively and quickly enough to deal with another adversary in another conflict leads to a bias toward acting quickly to go to war in the first conflict.

[garbon]

Don't worry, we don't want Canada.

[crazy canuck]

Don't worry, we don't want Canada.

More to the point, Canada doesnt want you.  But you can really screw up the world for us and everyone else.

[garbon]

Don't worry, we don't want Canada.

More to the point, Canada doesnt want you.  But you can really screw up the world for us and everyone else.

That's cute.

[Alcibiades]

Lol retard talking.  What the fuck do you know about the American military,"you fucking faggot"?

what is the point of a large army for the US, right now?

Because even with a light occupation of Afghanistan and 160,000 soldiers in Iraq the army was stretched REALLY thin.

There were over 150,000 soldiers deployed at one point in 2008, of 490,000, nearly a third of the force(300,000 military personnel deployed at one time).  One third had just gotten back from deployment and another was getting ready to deploy.


My old unit deployed every other year for 8 years for a year to 15 months at a time. 2003-2004, 2005-2006, 2007-2009, 2010-2011.  A lot of active duty units were this way, the tempo was high.  There weren't enough troops and people were spread severely thin, which is why they increased the military by 80,000 soldiers - because they were desperately needed.

Yeah most people make a choice, but not everybody realizes what they're getting into when they sign a 4 year contract, do two one year deployments and are ready to get out of the military again, only to get stop-lossed and have to do a third deployment and end up spending 7 years in the military, 3 and a half of those years overseas and deployed - away from family and loved ones.


So what happens next time we have a difficult occupation?  Going to have all the growing pains of last time, desperately trying to increase numbers, lower standards, and inadequately train soldiers as the country tries to save face.



So why not keep the force at reasonable numbers?   I can't say what reasonable is, but less than 400,000 doesn't seem reasonable, and the army doesn't think so either.

[Jacob]

So why not keep the force at reasonable numbers?   I can't say what reasonable is, but less than 400,000 doesn't seem reasonable, and the army doesn't think so either.

Because its very very expensive?