Army planning to cut number of combat brigades, officials say [45 to as low as 32....

[High_Gravity]

We will not send massive numbers of troops overseas in combat formations in the future.

Why? The win wars but not the peace.

Force demand and configuration needs have changed dramatically over the last twenty years.

Get rid of satellites and nuclear weapons, and then we need the force sizes the neanderthal strategos here are arguing for.

We are neanderthals for wanting a strong standing Army?

 

[Trajan]

Because the nature of war has changed fundamentally with atomics.

The neo-cons failed to understand that a massive commitment was necessary for Iraq, and that is why we won the war but lost the peace. The American people will never tolerate such an adventure again.

Show me who China or Russia is going to invade.

Umm..Taiwan

Chechnya or any of the other 'breakaway' reps. ala Georgia...

 

[Trajan]

We will not send massive numbers of troops overseas in combat formations in the future.

Why? The win wars but not the peace.

Force demand and configuration needs have changed dramatically over the last twenty years.

Get rid of satellites and nuclear weapons, and then we need the force sizes the neanderthal strategos here are arguing for.

thats some crystal ball you have......they said same when they signed the Washington Naval treaty of 1922, that lasted 8 years and the cheating etc. started almost immediately while we and Britain scrapped ships and plans for ships. meanwhile japan who did sign, made their own plans and we had another go at the treaty to head off u boats and reinvigorate the old treaty, germany for example who refused to sign, said no thx to that with the results that are well known.


neanderthal ? Oh I see I knew it wouldn't be long till you went there.........we've had nukes since 1945, Russia since 1949, China since 1964, and?

 

[JakeStarkey]

We will not send massive numbers of troops overseas in combat formations in the future.

Why? The win wars but not the peace.

Force demand and configuration needs have changed dramatically over the last twenty years.

Get rid of satellites and nuclear weapons, and then we need the force sizes the neanderthal strategos here are arguing for.

We are neanderthals for wanting a strong standing Army?

My apology. Trajan, I am not referring to you. You are not a neo-con but rather an American who wants to be safe. I understand that.

We have a strong standing army. We will still have a strong standing army with 32 combat brigades. I also served in combat arms for twelve years active duty, some of it in heavy units, and they can unleash hell on earth.

 

[Unkotare]

The USA is not going to fight a major land war in Asia, not in China or Manchuria or Vietnam. Neither will China, when economically its power continues to grow. There is no need for a Patton in the future.

Yeah, and WWI was 'The War to End All Wars.' You remember how that assumption/hope worked out, right?

False analogy.

= you can't account for it so you have no other option than to try and dismiss it.

 

[cooky]

I firmly believe that we can not sustain our defense spending at anything near what we are spending now. Whether you agree with me or not the US military is going to face significant cuts over the next decade. I think we can maintain a military that is capable of defending our national interests with a budget similar to what we spent pre 9/11 if the defense and political apparatus confronts significant problems and makes decisive changes.

It is no longer realistic for the US to maintain a military designed and capable of simultaneously engaging in two major global conflicts. For the future, we should maintain a military that is 1) capable of engaging china in the western pacific in a short but high intensity conflict and 2) capable of sustained low intensity engagements against non-state militants.

The primary problems we are gonna face in developing and maintaining a military capable of meeting these missions are 1) getting the political apparatus (POTUS & Legislature) to envision, develop and fund the appropriate sytems and doctrines 2) getting the heads of the AF, Army, and Navy/Marines to design doctrines that are commiserate with the future of warfare and then procure weapons systems that best serve these doctrines.

Our militaries stubborn insistence on procuring a high tech/high cost solution to every combat contingency is crippling our military. The AF, Navy and Army are particular burdened by the pentagons belief in the High Tech only future of warfare. Instead of relying only on the high tech our nation should develop Hi-Low weapons systems that allow the defense establishment operational flexibility as well as pragmatic apllications of US power. Essentially, its foolish for the US to deploy 200m F-22s or 100m f-35s to attack an enemy truck park full of 10,000 dollar targets. Ideally, each service branch should maintain a hi low force i.e. the airforce would have F-22, F-35, F-15, F-16, Drones or even armed Cessna Caravans rather than a force built around just F-22/F-35.

I'm vary concerned that for a number of our reasons our military is not developing the doctrine or equipment to prepare the nation for future wars. There is a real possibility that the aircraft carriers role in future conflcts will be like the battleships role in WWII. Our nations reliance on force projection from the decks of carriers could be seriously threatened. The chinese are doing a helluva job in developing anti-carrier capabilities centered around submarines and missiles. Additionally, their air force is being built to conduct combat at long ranges with long range AA weapons. Any conflict with china will occur across vast distances. Rather than targeting our stealthy and advanced fighter the chinese will target our tankers as destroying them will render short range tactical aircraft useless.

 

[idb]

Yeah I know but, well, someone in Washington might wake up in a bad mood one day and decide to kick the cat - or invade a small country in the middle of the ocean.
Either way it would hardly register in the US - in fact, cruelty to a cat would probably cause more of a storm in certain parts of the media.

If something happened to New Zealand the US would be some of the first boots on the ground to help you out.

And chase your women. That's one of the many things American soldiers do well overseas.

Damn your good looks, Hershey bars and nylons!!!

 

[High_Gravity]

If something happened to New Zealand the US would be some of the first boots on the ground to help you out.

And chase your women. That's one of the many things American soldiers do well overseas.

Damn your good looks, Hershey bars and nylons!!!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yeah, and WWI was 'The War to End All Wars.' You remember how that assumption/hope worked out, right?

False analogy.

= you can't account for it so you have no other option than to try and dismiss it.

YOU have not accounted for it with evidentiary argumentation. You simply made an assertion. I counter asserted. Now show us how the analogy works to your advantage.

You can't, so I will save you the trouble. WWI was a war outdated by 1929 with the development of air power, aircraft carriers, and mechanized armor. WWII demonstrated the WWI ways were wrong and gone. The atomic bomb and cyber warfare has ended the mass formations of power in the 21st century. The massive formations of past days are dinosaurs. Let's build for the future.

 

[Ropey]

We will not send massive numbers of troops overseas in combat formations in the future.

Why? The win wars but not the peace.

Force demand and configuration needs have changed dramatically over the last twenty years.

Get rid of satellites and nuclear weapons, and then we need the force sizes the neanderthal strategos here are arguing for.

We are neanderthals for wanting a strong standing Army?

Not when you look at some of the other standing armies of the world. Not in my view, at any rate.