What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

It is now time for a "Soft" Military Draft

task0778

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
7,877
Reaction score
6,055
Points
2,065
Location
Texas hill country
Do we really need 'cannon fodder' these days? I think we need a dependable shield against missile attacks and an array of offensive weapons that can be activated from space and maybe a fleet of ships and planes that reduce any place on Earth to a pile of rubble. And a smaller but more technically advanced force of people than can operate said systems. And on top of that a gov't that has the balls to use them if necessary. If we want to use special forces units or the Marines in some cases, fine, but I don't believe we need large numbers of people in a ground force to invade somewhere. If things have gotten to the point where we need that, then IMHO we oughta just bomb the fuck out of whoever until they surrender. Then tell the UN to go in and clean up the mess, minus our troops. I would imagine we'll only have to do it once, to send the message: "don't get obstreperous, place nice or else".
 

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
3,460
Reaction score
2,063
Points
918
Do we really need 'cannon fodder' these days? I think we need a dependable shield against missile attacks and an array of offensive weapons that can be activated from space and maybe a fleet of ships and planes that reduce any place on Earth to a pile of rubble. And a smaller but more technically advanced force of people than can operate said systems. And on top of that a gov't that has the balls to use them if necessary. If we want to use special forces units or the Marines in some cases, fine, but I don't believe we need large numbers of people in a ground force to invade somewhere. If things have gotten to the point where we need that, then IMHO we oughta just bomb the fuck out of whoever until they surrender. Then tell the UN to go in and clean up the mess, minus our troops. I would imagine we'll only have to do it once, to send the message: "don't get obstreperous, place nice or else".

We're moving to drone forces these days. A lot of the old timers don't like it and whine about it, but it's a fact, especially for aircraft and armor units. A significant percentage of military careers will be in maintenance and logistics in less than 20 years. Some troops are necessary, but not in the numbers needed in the past. We handled WW II with a much smaller population than we have now. The question is does the breadth of mid level logistics skill sets today match those of that era, since we outsource everything and don't have that kind of manufacturing and rail capacity any more. Having those big giant automobile factories, shipeyards, aircraft factories, steel mills, and aluminium smelters and workforces matter.
 
Last edited:

Mushroom

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
1,402
Reaction score
440
Points
198
Location
Near Baghdad By The Bay, California
IMHO we oughta just bomb the fuck out of whoever until they surrender.

Uh-huh. And exactly how many times has that ever happened?

That is a strange Air Force Fantasy that started in WWII, and has never been true. The coalition bombed the crap out of Saddam for months, but it took the ground forces streaming into Kuwait to make him surrender.
 

Mushroom

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
1,402
Reaction score
440
Points
198
Location
Near Baghdad By The Bay, California
We're moving to drone forces these days
And yet another fantasy.

Drones are not reliable, not practical for most applications, and far to easy to defeat.

When even Iran is able to hijack one of our drones, and Syria was able to throw up enough interference that many times they were unusable, what in the hell do you think a nation like Russia would be able to do?
 

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
3,460
Reaction score
2,063
Points
918
And yet another fantasy.

Drones are not reliable, not practical for most applications, and far to easy to defeat.

When even Iran is able to hijack one of our drones, and Syria was able to throw up enough interference that many times they were unusable, what in the hell do you think a nation like Russia would be able to do?

Auto weren't reliable the first couple of decades either, neither were aircraft. Neither are 100% reliable today; we still drive them and buy airline tickets. Development and improvement moves a lot faster these days. They can hijack a few, and shoot down a few, nobody has claimed they were invincible and perfect. So what? We're 15 years ahead of our nearest competition in hardware and software design, so don't get all obsessed with modern news stories; many of them are planted, or the author doesn't know half of what is going on.
 

Mushroom

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
1,402
Reaction score
440
Points
198
Location
Near Baghdad By The Bay, California
Auto weren't reliable the first couple of decades either, neither were aircraft.
They still had a human operating them. And they were still used.

The first Armored Car was built in 1899, a decade before even the Model T. And by 1911 both Turkey and Italy were both using cars and aircraft in their war against each other.

And we have had "drones" since before WWII. But guess what? They are still limited, easy to block, and not very reliable. All one has to do is throw up huge amounts of interference and they become worthless. That is simply impossible to avoid, and why piloted vehicles will always trump remote ones. It does not matter who is the most "advanced" in this, I already gave examples of the limitations.

Iran has not only used their capabilities to limit the use of our drones near their border, they have actually hijacked one and recovered it after they had it crash inside of their territory. And Syria was highly effective in throwing up a lot of EM interference which resulted in the US having to send in manned aircraft on many occasions. It became impossible to use drones, without communication they can do nothing.

And that will never change.
 

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
3,460
Reaction score
2,063
Points
918
They still had a human operating them. And they were still used.

The first Armored Car was built in 1899, a decade before even the Model T. And by 1911 both Turkey and Italy were both using cars and aircraft in their war against each other.

And we have had "drones" since before WWII. But guess what? They are still limited, easy to block, and not very reliable. All one has to do is throw up huge amounts of interference and they become worthless. That is simply impossible to avoid, and why piloted vehicles will always trump remote ones. It does not matter who is the most "advanced" in this, I already gave examples of the limitations.

Iran has not only used their capabilities to limit the use of our drones near their border, they have actually hijacked one and recovered it after they had it crash inside of their territory. And Syria was highly effective in throwing up a lot of EM interference which resulted in the US having to send in manned aircraft on many occasions. It became impossible to use drones, without communication they can do nothing.

And that will never change.

That change is already here. Most commercial airliners fly themselves these days, the pilots just sit and watch; that has been the case for many years now and nobody has hacked those. The private drone industry is already going strong, growing 13% or so a year, a $40 billion a year new industry and getting bigger. This will lead to more military spending on them in the future as more bugs get worked out by the private sector experiences. We already see a few drone private cars on the highways now. I saw a driverless Caddy a couple of weeks ago pull into the slot next to me at a Sonic I was getting a quick breakfast at. The window rolled down, the car hop put the order in the front seat, and it left. Last I heard cruise missles were still pilotless, as are lots of other ordnance delivery systems that have been around for while.
 
Last edited:

Mushroom

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
1,402
Reaction score
440
Points
198
Location
Near Baghdad By The Bay, California
Most commercial airliners fly themselves these days, the pilots just sit and watch; that has been the case for many years now and nobody has hacked those. The private drone industry is already going strong, growing 13% or so a year, a $40 billion a year new industry and getting bigger. This will lead to more military spending on them in the future as more bugs get worked out by the private sector experiences. We already see a few drone private cars on the highways now. I saw a driverless Caddy a couple of weeks ago pull into the slot next to me at a Sonic I was getting a quick breakfast at.

Tell you what, let's run a test.

Right near them, let's put up an old Wild Weasel type of aircraft, blasting massive amounts of EM interference. Blocking out all communications with huge amounts of radio frequency hash.

What happens to those airplanes and cars then, hmmm?

I can tell you what, they crash, or shut down automatic operation and immediately demand a real human take over.

Funny how I can say this exact same thing over and over, and over and over you completely ignore it. And instead talk about the perfect world where there is no threat, in a controlled environment.

We already know that both Syria and Iran have systems that can block off all communications for drones, including GPS. Do you really think that China and Russia do not have similar systems? And HOW IN THE FRACK IS A DRONE GOING TO OPERATE WHEN IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NO COMMUNICATION WITH THOSE THAT CONTROL IT BACK AT BASE!

Yes, I got it. You are a true believer, and will absolutely ignore every time when challenged with real world issues and instead just talk glowingly as if such challenges were never made. Oh, and most drones are still reconnaissance systems, and not attack systems.
 

Concerned American

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2020
Messages
8,690
Reaction score
8,943
Points
2,118
Location
In your head
Tell you what, let's run a test.

Right near them, let's put up an old Wild Weasel type of aircraft, blasting massive amounts of EM interference. Blocking out all communications with huge amounts of radio frequency hash.

What happens to those airplanes and cars then, hmmm?

I can tell you what, they crash, or shut down automatic operation and immediately demand a real human take over.

Funny how I can say this exact same thing over and over, and over and over you completely ignore it. And instead talk about the perfect world where there is no threat, in a controlled environment.

We already know that both Syria and Iran have systems that can block off all communications for drones, including GPS. Do you really think that China and Russia do not have similar systems? And HOW IN THE FRACK IS A DRONE GOING TO OPERATE WHEN IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NO COMMUNICATION WITH THOSE THAT CONTROL IT BACK AT BASE!

Yes, I got it. You are a true believer, and will absolutely ignore every time when challenged with real world issues and instead just talk glowingly as if such challenges were never made. Oh, and most drones are still reconnaissance systems, and not attack systems.
Oh, and most drones are still reconnaissance systems, and not attack systems.
LOL, why put weapons on them when they can be aiming devices for ground based batteries.
 

justinacolmena

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2017
Messages
8,860
Reaction score
2,739
Points
210
Location
alaska, usa
The officers and NCO's occasionally got killed, but the canon fodder were put out front, in the greatest danger.
Just like Nero twiddled his thumbs while Rome burned. Guns are banned on U.S. military bases, except for the M.P.'s themselves, whether that's Constitutional or not, it doesn't make sense for "Armed" Forces who are supposed to be prepared for war, or ready for combat, but their hands are tied by incompetent middle management and vicious backstabbing careerism.

And soldiers on active duty are still subject to federal felony charges even on base for possessing Firearms.
 

Mushroom

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
1,402
Reaction score
440
Points
198
Location
Near Baghdad By The Bay, California
LOL, why put weapons on them when they can be aiming devices for ground based batteries.
Range mostly.

But that was one of the earliest uses of drones, and they are still used for that purpose today. But they are also used for recon, target acquisition and tracking, even bomb damage assessments. The Army and Marines also have drones that can even operate with artillery batteries, and can mount laser designators for smart munitions like the COPPERHEAD.
 

Mushroom

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
1,402
Reaction score
440
Points
198
Location
Near Baghdad By The Bay, California
And soldiers on active duty are still subject to federal felony charges even on base for possessing Firearms.

Not true.

However, military bases do not recognize state issued Conceal Carry permits. Which should be obvious as they are Federal and not State property. And possession of course is not allowed in any work or living areas.

But I have absolutely no idea where you get the idea it is a felony to bring a weapon on base, it is not. I knew a lot of single soldiers who stored their personal weapons in the unit armory, and we often took off early on Fridays and went to the base range to blow off some rounds with our personal weapons. We just had to do some paperwork first with the PMO before we brought them on base.

Try telling the truth and not passing lies. As well as sticking to the topic itself.
 

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
3,460
Reaction score
2,063
Points
918
Funny how I can say this exact same thing over and over, and over and over you completely ignore it. And instead talk about the perfect world where there is no threat, in a controlled environment.



Yes, I got it. You are a true believer, and will absolutely ignore every time when challenged with real world issues and instead just talk glowingly as if such challenges were never made. Oh, and most drones are still reconnaissance systems, and not attack systems.

Blah blah blah

So how is all the electronic warfare stuff working on stealth technology? We can fly over countries with impunity these days, and you may think Russia and Iran have enough ECM systems that are strong enough to stop everything but of course that is just your opinion. ECM can only work if is still functioning, which isn't the sure thing you think is. Like I said before, nobody is hijacking airliners or any other aircraft with ECM or hacking, and you most likely don't know the full story re the alleged Iranian hacking of a drone either. One great benefit of drone systems, ground or air , will be no more foot and vehicle patrols putting troopers at risk from mines and IEDs, just to name one stupid tactic that never should have been used. I know you think you're irreplaceable but you aren't; the world is changing and so is military technology and capabilities, and they're changing a lot faster than you can adapt to the new world.

Iran captured one drone and shot down one some 10 years ago, out of how many? And, as one would expect, the Iranians are copying the one they caught ... which was probably deliberate on the part of the U.S., for a number of reasons, like giving them a false sense of security.


The BAMS-D flies at high altitude, but is not a stealth aircraft.[15] It does not carry munitions.[15]

The CIA is running most drone operations. And we only have Iran's word the one they claimed they captured was by their cyber warfare unit.
 
Last edited:

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
3,460
Reaction score
2,063
Points
918
Looking at the record of those 'Wild Weasels' they weren't all that effective, just some hagiographic puff pieces over -rating their importance. I doubt the Iranians have nearly enough, nor any other force in the ME either; they certainly didn't stop anybody in the Syrian war from hitting targets if they're so numerous. It's also dumb to claim we would be blocking our own communications with them. They had to deploy 12 of the advanced version just to cover Serbia, and 24 in the Iraq war. As we know, the IRaqis still managed to fire off quite few missiles anyway. F-35A's are being outfitted now with the latest gear. And, oh my, say it ain't so ....


"Some members of the Wild Weasel community believe the days of the dedicated Wild Weasel platform may be numbered. From the outset, the Weasel mission comprised a mix of sensors, command and control, and execution authority in one aircraft, but the integration of advanced sensors and communications now seen on combat aircraft means that the SEAD mission is less of a dedicated aircraft/aircrew issue.


Inhabited and uninhabited platforms – particularly those with a low radar cross-sections (RCS) – will attack key elements of the enemy IADS architecture and precision weapons from other platforms would clean up the remainder using data from either their own sensors or cued by those of offboard platforms.
nhabited and uninhabited platforms – particularly those with a low radar cross-sections (RCS) – will attack key elements of the enemy IADS architecture and precision weapons from other platforms would clean up the remainder using data from either their own sensors or cued by those of offboard platforms."


Apparently nobody is paying much attention to the claims of old guys.
 
Last edited:

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
3,460
Reaction score
2,063
Points
918
2 reasons i became a Marine: they go where the action is, and i love the uniforms

They don't have a mission any more. Guadalcanal and D-Day showed the Army can do the job. They have a lot of propaganda going for them, and all those John Wayne movies, so they're still around anyway. We're going to move back to having just two services again, Army and Navy.
 

Dayton3

Gold Member
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
1,100
Reaction score
406
Points
198
They don't have a mission any more. Guadalcanal and D-Day showed the Army can do the job. They have a lot of propaganda going for them, and all those John Wayne movies, so they're still around anyway. We're going to move back to having just two services again, Army and Navy.

New laws would have to be passed. The Marine Corps is protected by the letter of U.S. law.
 

Mr Clean

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
17,649
Reaction score
5,638
Points
360
Looking back on my military days and as much as I hated them at the time, I have to say that I learned a lot from them.
 

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
3,460
Reaction score
2,063
Points
918
New laws would have to be passed. The Marine Corps is protected by the letter of U.S. law.

They have a pretty effective lobby and propaganda organizations, yes. They can merely have their budget cut way down, and go back to guarding those ships and bases while they're in port again without having to change any laws.
 

Dayton3

Gold Member
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
1,100
Reaction score
406
Points
198
They have a pretty effective lobby and propaganda organizations, yes. They can merely have their budget cut way down, and go back to guarding those ships and bases while they're in port again without having to change any laws.

Actually they can't. The Marine Corps is mandated by U.S. law to be at a minimum strength of three divisions and three air wings.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$166.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top