US military needs to be completely revamped

[22lcidw]

To tell you how powerful we were in WW 2, After the logistics of ramping up and getting ready. In about 14 months after D Day the war was over on all fronts. Production is important.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Most of those who claim to be "homeless vets" are outright frauds.

 

[JoeB131]

The problem is that in a coalition, your actions have to be acceptable to your partners. None of the locals wanted Saddam ousted because they knew it would destabilize the entire region. The only functional democracy in the entire ME is made up of European immigrants and a minority of very long-term (hundreds of years at least) natives of a distinctly dissimilar culture to the dominant Muslim one. Islam is incompatible with democracy.

Israel isn't a democracy.
Just because a country like Iran doesn't hold our values doesn't make it less of a democracy. Iran has elections.

Democracy is overrated.

In a war it would be one of the functions. However none of the Chinese or Russian carriers could reasonably survive an engagement with an American carrier. I’d be willing to bet that all four Russian and Chinese carriers together couldn’t defeat a single U.S. carrier.

The question becomes how much value does a carrier have today. I mean, it's great for pummelling a third-world country if it's close enough to an ocean, I guess. But against a superpower like China?

 

[sparky]

Democracy is overrated.

so what does one pledge to Joe?

~S~

 

[JoeB131]

so what does one pledge to Joe?

Me, nothing.

I did my bit for King and Country, thank you.

The thing is we are seeing in China the world's first fully functioning technocracy, and they are beating our pants off. Meanwhile, we have one political party trying to impeach the other side's president out of revenge because their president got impeached. The Chinese must be looking at us and laughing their asses off.

 

[sparky]

Me, nothing.

I did my bit for King and Country, thank you.

The thing is we are seeing in China the world's first fully functioning technocracy, and they are beating our pants off. Meanwhile, we have one political party trying to impeach the other side's president out of revenge because their president got impeached. The Chinese must be looking at us and laughing their asses off.

interesting response Joe

but not out of the ordinary , as many that have paid attention point out the signs and symptoms of our nations slow spiral downwards

~S~

 

[JoeB131]

interesting response Joe

but not out of the ordinary , as many that have paid attention point out the signs and symptoms of our nations slow spiral downwards

Someone should have taught you at an early age the proper use of italics.

Our biggest problem is ourselves. We want government to do all this stuff, and we don't want to pay for any of it.

 

[Stryder50]

Yes indeed. The Vietnamese who sided with the invaders had to flee.

Like a few other posters here your ignorance is boundless.
You may want to review the history of the French experience there post World War Two.
The initial invaders were the communist advisors and organizers sponsored(and in some cases coming from) by USSR and CCP China.
After the partition of the region into Cambodia, Laos, North & South Vietnam; it was North Vietnam, with material/weapons aid along with "advisers" from the USSR and CCP China whom invaded South Vietnam and prolonged the conflict there.

 

[Stryder50]

Israel isn't a democracy.
Just because a country like Iran doesn't hold our values doesn't make it less of a democracy. Iran has elections.

Democracy is overrated.




The question becomes how much value does a carrier have today. I mean, it's great for pummelling a third-world country if it's close enough to an ocean, I guess. But against a superpower like China?

Israel is a republic, like the USA, which is a step at least beyond a democracy.
Iran is a theocracy and there are limits whom can run for office, especially if not backed or allowed my the mullahs. See the repression of the Greens Movement for an example. A repression/suppression supported by your hero, POTUS Obama.

As for democracy overrated;
The American Form of Government

video is 10 1/2 minutes long

China's superpower status is overrated in many ways. Currently they are experiencing some significant economic problems, especially as result of their deficit and debt issues along with decline in trade with the rest of the world, which has helped to prop up their government.
The more the West stops buying from and using China as a manufacturer the less super their power is.

China's military has very limited capability to project power or influence more than a few hundred miles beyond it's borders. It might at best invade Taiwan if the USA doesn't help that nation defend itself. Whether CCP China would succeed in such an endeavor is questionable.

An aircraft carrier(AC) is a mobile airbase that can go where the USA has no land-based airbases. If two or more AC task forces are operating in support and proximity to each other their effectiveness is multiplied. Given how much world trade has to travel over the oceans, naval power is still a useful military force and ACs still provide the type of global power projection to significantly affect that ocean trade routes.

There are ways to counter "hypersonic" missiles and there is also the option/capability to respond by destroying the launch sites of those missiles and the airbases of the aircraft that might carry them. Also, the carrier task force includes long range airborne radar and early warning aircraft which can direct a combat air patrol(CAP) towards a threat as well as ready launched fighters from the deck(s). Note that "task force" term; a USN aircraft carrier doesn't sail alone, it has several escorting ships that help screen it from threats.

Onesy~twosy of missiles/aircraft won't be enough. It would require a swarm of several to dozens and that sort of clear sign of war would initiate a massive response, likely on a strategic scale. Provided the USA has a POTUS with balls, which the current sock-puppet lacks. In that sense, the biggest threat and danger to our nation is ourselves in form of the current occupant of the White House.

 

[Stryder50]

They have the moral right to repeal invaders.

All victims of genocide have means to fight back.

But what a sick idea on your part.

Tell that "means to fight back" to the millions of Jews and others exterminated in Nazi death camps.

 

[Stryder50]

ah the ever popular world police debate.....

i'll simply say we've no right to trot the torch of freedom around this rock, if w can't serve as example to it .....

in the sense of propaganda Joe?

i'm inclined to agree.....

what America needs is a war on bullsh*t!

~S~

When we have an economy and related lifestyles that depend upon a global economy and related global~international trade than yes, we may have to be the "world police" so far as our interests and investments are concerned. No one else is going to do it for us.

Also, after twice having to get involved the world wars started by our so-called European and other foreign "betters"; which required the US to scale up related productions and military size; one could say "third time is the charm".

Those two oceans don't protect us from the rest of the world, nor did our isolationist policies that allowed foreign dictatorships to threaten and attack us. We learned out lesson that for now we need a combination of a military large enough to deal with and discourage threats from other nations. Along with foreign policies that reduce the conditions for such foreign threats to exist, if possible.

A reminder that this world has many areas where national boundaries were drawn by the earlier European colonial powers, hence a source of many conflicts and flash points. Also there are a couple of major "super-powers" that have been around for decades now and likely so because of neglected and/or botched efforts to nip those in the bud when first forming.

BTW, one person's bullsh*t is often another persons "truth" (pravda).

 

[pknopp]

Tell that "means to fight back" to the millions of Jews and others exterminated in Nazi death camps.

Afghanistan learned that lesson.

We never seem to learn.

 

[Stryder50]

We killed at least 100,000 innocent people because Saddam was a pain in the ass? Colin Powell told us that the war couldn`t have been sold on "removing Saddam" and that`s why they concocted a most ridiculous story about Iraq being a threat to us and we needed to make a pre-emptive attack. Half measures? How many more Americans were you willing to sacrifice? Iraq wasn`t even a threat to their neighbors. Zionist masters?

NO!
"We" ~ USA did not "kill at least 100,000 innocent people"; not even a single digit fraction of that. Though we did kill a few in the Iraqi military during the "invasion", those innocents killed were by their fellow Iraqis or by the Iranian insurgents* whom entered after our occupation started.

Some of those "innocent people" killed as result of the embargoes and sanctions after the first Gulf War (Desert Storm) were Saddam's fault since he directed that "Oil for Food" money towards weapons and military build up rather than the food for his people. Also there was the efforts by his military to suppress the opposition and protests in that nation's southern region. BTW, his air force used in that campaign made sure to not operate in the No Fly Zone.

As part of that suppression of political opposition in the South, Saddam cut and diverted the flow of Tigris and Euphrates rivers from the southern marsh lands region, causing them to experience drought, which had a severe impact on local ecology. Also this use of drought had major impact on local fisheries in the Persian Gulf region, impacting the neighboring states/nations, but also a negative impact on the migrating birds that used those marshes. In effect, Saddam was deploying an environment/ecological weapon of mass destruction which needed to be stopped.

Along with the above, Saddam was targeting our aircraft patrolling that No Fly Zone which was causing concern if he might launch SAMs. Also, enforcing that no fly and stationing troops to defend the border with Iraq was beginning to look like too long a lasting and too expensive a proposition.

Saddam's regime was also supporting, if not training "terrorists", aka Islamic Jihadists. Part of the expression of his hate and contempt of the West.

The first Gulf War/Desert Storm was placed on hold with a cease fire agreement, which Iraq/Saddam said they would comply with to avoid that war's invasion continuing towards Baghdad. However, Saddam did not comply with the terms of the cease fire and when the list of offenses grew too large, that war was restarted. Not as a "pre-emptive" attack, but more as an effort to "finish business" and get out of containing Saddam.

He was more than just a "pain in the ass".

That first year of occupation, 2003-2004 was relatively peaceful. Iraqi became the largest market in the Middle East and Mediterranean region for used cars. Along with huge influx of consumer goods and appliances, like TVs, Satellite dishes, refrigerators, etc. To the point that the electrical grid was overwhelmed, and the gas stations too few.

The insurrection that started in April 2004 was largely the efforts by Iran to destabalize Iraq and negate USA influence there. My oldest son whom was with the 1st Cav, part of the replacement units releaving the initial invasion and occupation units, told me that about half the "insurgents" they killed and captured carried grave markers written in Farsi. Farsi is the language of Iran, and the Shia faction of Islam believes in marked burials (Sunnis don't).

In essence, we were fighting a proxy war with Iran which USA leadership didn't inform our people of, nor did we take effective measures against Iran. Most of your "100,000 innocents killed" were the fault of Iran and fellow Iraqis.

 

[Mushroom]

I'm not sure the wisdom of even trying to address this ignorance.

Translation, "I can't think of anything factual, so I am going to bullshit some more".

 

[Mushroom]

To tell you how powerful we were in WW 2, After the logistics of ramping up and getting ready. In about 14 months after D Day the war was over on all fronts.

That is not "power", it is that neither Germany nor Japan had planned on or were prepared for fight a long war.

Germany expected to strike West, and that the UK would sue for peace once France fell. He thought a hard and fast crippling blow into the Soviet Union would see them collapse quickly.

And the Japanese expected more or less the same thing. That their warrior spirit would see them sweep all in front of them, and the US simply did not have the stomach for a long war (2 years or more) with the kind of crippling and punishing damage Japan would do to them. They expected that there would be no more than 2 or 3 major Naval battles, each time with their superior abilities allowing them to completely crush the US and leaving Japan supreme. Then the US would bow down to their superiority and conditions return to how they were in 1940.

It is kind of like matching teams in very different sports. A boxer with a wrestler, a sprinter with a marathoner, or expecting an NBA basketball team to compete effectively on the football field against an NFL team. And the thing was, each of those attacks by Germany and Japan went almost exactly as planned. Japan did take out significant US assets, took over almost all of their overseas possessions (as well as those from all of the European powers), and for about a year were Supreme in the Pacific. Germany did indeed conquer almost all of Europe, and a big chunk of Asia.

However, neither side expected the Allied Powers to continue to fight on despite those losses. And that unlike either Japan or Germany continue to innovate and produce equipment that was better each generation, as well as faster. While Germany saw their tank production fall as they kept chasing after "Wunderweapons", the US mostly cranked out huge numbers of tanks that were roughly on par with the Panzer III. But in such superior number that the Germans could never match.

And the reverse, Japan was fighting with almost the same equipment at the end of the war as they did at the start. It was superior in December 1941, but by late 1943 most of it had become inferior to what the US was making.

Plus for Germany, where it put their money and research. They never really had a heavy bomber for the entire war. Instead putting huge resources into rockets. The V-1 was essentially the first "cruise missile", but with only a single 850kg warhead not all that effective for strategic bombing. The V-2 was the first operational heavy ballistic missile, but once again with only a 1,000kg warhead not very effective at strategic bombing.

To compare, a single B-29 Superfortress had a bomb payload in excess of 9,000 kg. That means that a single bomber could rain down as much destruction as 9 to 10 of their "super weapons". And after returning to base and reloading could do the exact same thing again and again and again. In one year the US and UK combined dumped over 45,000 tons of bombs on Berlin alone. In some of the later raids on Tokyo the Allies would dump over a million tons of bombs.

As wonderful as the V weapons were, they were in the end inefficient. And wasteful of materials, resources, manpower, and assets that could have been put to far better use in manufacturing conventional weapons.

And to add to the mix, they then had in their third partner what is unquestionably the most ineffective and worthless of allies, Italy. Who had to have their arse bailed out multiple times, which only hampered the German war efforts as Der Wall Painter kept having to pull The Lamp Ornament's ashes out of the fire over and over again. Most forget that Germany itself actually had little to no interest in Africa. They were only their to try and save the Italians who were getting their butts kicked. And in doing, pulled a lot of resources and assets that could have been used in fighting the Soviets.

Things in Europe would have unquestionably gone a lot better if Italy was not so worthless. They could not even defeat one of the weakest military powers in the world in that era, and even though they ultimately won it was largely a pyrrhic victory. As a military force they essentially outnumbered ten to one or more in many areas held them off for a year and a half. In the Abyssinian War, Italy had 800 tanks, Ethiopia had 4 (and another 7 armored cars). Italy had over 2,000 artillery pieces, Ethiopia had 200. Italy had just under 600 aircraft, Ethiopia had 13. That should have been a cakewalk for Italy, yet the war dragged on for over 16 months.

 

[Mushroom]

Also there are a couple of major "super-powers" that have been around for decades now and likely so because of neglected and/or botched efforts to nip those in the bud when first forming.

I would argue that a "Super Power" is not really a threat, unless it is expansionist in mindset. At one time that meant "colonialism", but in the last century that largely died and it has since become expanding their borders into their neighbors for the aggressive ones.

China as the ROC was not really expansionist, but as the PRC they are. The Soviet Union unquestionably was, and Russia after that broke up was not, but then became expansionist again. It is now almost hard to believe that just a few decades ago many were pondering Russia possibly joining NATO, and what appeared to be a US-Russian alliance starting to form. But that barely lasted a decade, and it went right back to how it had been before.

I still find it hard sometimes to realize that I in some ways "miss" the Soviet Union. Yes, they were expansionist bastards, but one thing they were was honest negotiators and deal makers. They would try to get all they could out of an agreement, but they did stick to those promises and almost never broke them. Which is very unlike the Russia of today, where any treaty, agreement or promise is essentially worthless. Even to their own allies.

 

[Couchpotato]

And I support scaling the military way back.

What would you cut? Easy to say we should scale it back what would you cut?

 

[pknopp]

What would you cut? Easy to say we should scale it back what would you cut?

The many bases around the world.

 

[Mushroom]

The many bases around the world.

The US really does not have all that many bases overseas.

The majority are small contingents stationed on the base of an ally. Like a handful of sailors on a UAE Navy Base that handle any shipments arriving or departing for the US Navy. Or at a German Air Force Base that handle the flights that arrive and depart to and from the US.

One of the largest Air Bases in the Middle East has a large US contingent. But is it not a "US Base", nor is the second largest one. Both are bases of the host nation, the US only uses part of it.

And not unlike the exact same thing here in the US. Germany and Japan both have "military bases" here in the US. Just a small contingent on one of our bases that is in charge of the training of their own forces when they come over here.

 

[pknopp]

The US really does not have all that many bases overseas.

Cut them.

List of United States military bases - Wikipedia

I'm not sure how you define "many".

The majority are small contingents stationed on the base of an ally. Like a handful of sailors on a UAE Navy Base that handle any shipments arriving or departing for the US Navy. Or at a German Air Force Base that handle the flights that arrive and depart to and from the US.

One of the largest Air Bases in the Middle East has a large US contingent. But is it not a "US Base", nor is the second largest one. Both are bases of the host nation, the US only uses part of it.

And not unlike the exact same thing here in the US. Germany and Japan both have "military bases" here in the US. Just a small contingent on one of our bases that is in charge of the training of their own forces when they come over here.

You asked, I answered.