Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: jihad on August 01, 2001, 06:20:00 AM
-
http://www.military.com/Content/MoreContent?file=FL_pentagon_072901 (http://www.military.com/Content/MoreContent?file=FL_pentagon_072901)
Yeah...sure, lets just line the pockets of all our defense contractor buddys but not worry about the men in uniform, hell we don't need them anymore.
I'm sure the space bomber and missile defense sheild will be enough to save our bellybutton in the future. :rolleyes:
Dubya really picked a winner for Secretary of Defense didn't he?
-
sounds like they want to get out of the global police business.
I'm for that!
-
We dont need a military!
We should all just grow flowers and love each other :)
Y
-
Originally posted by Eagler:
sounds like they want to get out of the global police business.
I'm for that!
Same old slimey ratpublican tactics - try to divert attention by leading off on a tangent.
;)
Explain this:
http://www.military.com/Content/MoreContent?file=FL_baseclose_073001 (http://www.military.com/Content/MoreContent?file=FL_baseclose_073001)
We don't need men or bases - just lots of high priced equipment...RIGHT?
Different Day..Same Old toejam from the ratpublicans, feed my election campaign..I'll pad your companys profits with exorbitant and unneccesary contracts/spending.
-
the days of huge armies are gone. technology is the war of the future. How many fingers do you need to press a button? the article stated we'd be unable to maintain our global police force with the decreased body count.
I think Ryan in the Clancy novels is more "ratplican" than "handsomehunkcrat" :)
Yep Y, I'm all for growing flowers and living in peace. That day just ain't here yet....
-
I read this proposal in 1998, its not a "W" admin idea, its been on paper in the Pentagon for quite some time now. Remember, I support the military division too here at work. ;)
-
Let me get this straight Jihad. You're extremely concerned this wild and crazy right wing wacko might reduce the size of the military?
-
technology is the war of the future. How many fingers do you need to press a button?
Spoken like someone who knows dick about what wins wars - it's the men in the field with guns who win wars, always has been, probably always will be.
Look at the Persian Gulf war, the air war smashed infrastructure and the enemys ability to affect the ground war, the armor and troops won it.
-
Originally posted by jihad:
Look at the Persian Gulf war, the air war smashed infrastructure and the enemys ability to affect the ground war, the armor and troops won it.
Or rather once the air war smashed infrastructure and defences, the armor and troops rolled in and occupied territory.
You do not need that many grunts for that.
US is not planning on occupying anyone. If some large country declares war on us, smashing their infrastructure to stone age and leaving them alone would be our strategy - not ground war.
It is extremely unlkely that a huge foreign occupation army will ever disembark on our soil and need troops to repell it.
Half a million of well-trained professional soldiers backed by reserve is a lot of power in modern war.
miko
-
sorry jihad
I believe we have the technology which allows us to win a war without ever setting foot in the country we would be fighting. Non nuclear bombing the infrastructure to dust. Once you set them back to the stone age, they'd surrender without troops and tanks rolling into town.
Of course the warm and fuzzy side would then want troops to go in and rebuild what we just destroyed - I say give that to private industry, if/when the defeated country can afford it..
-
Ah! Shades of Drouhet and Billy Mitchell. We've been believing in winning wars with bombers as long as they've been around. So far nobody has figured out a way to do it, and I don't think we're there yet, by a long shot. The reason is that bombing people back to the stone age doesn't make them quit - it just makes them angry, bitter and fanatical. Maybe in the future it won't but there's no reason to believe it.
- Yoj
-
Originally posted by Yoj:
We've been believing in winning wars with bombers as long as they've been around. So far nobody has figured out a way to do it, and I don't think we're there yet, by a long shot.
Technically, you are correct. But if we change the goal from "winning war" or "defeating and occupying the enemy" to "not loosing war at the lowest expenditure of american lives", then pulverising the enemy's infrastructure, fleet and airforce may just work.
Unless of course we are attacked by Canada or Mexico who do not need ships or planes to invade us.
miko
-
all a military would have to do is take out there commerce centers, electricity, communications, major bridges - roadways etc with "smart" bombs. Blockade any inbound aid... surrender is guaranteed. They may need to overthrown their current gov, but the ppl would demand it..
-
Ya know whats really funny about this?
Remember all the ratpooplican wailing and gnashing of teeth about Clinton/Democrats gutting the armed forces prior to the election?
Now look at what the slack jawed idiot in the White House wants to do.
;)
[ 08-01-2001: Message edited by: jihad ]
-
How much would each space bomber mission cost? It's all well and good being able to take out bridges, communications centres, factories etc, but with the cost of space launches it's not going to be cost effective to do so. Seems to me it will destroy the American economy faster than it destroys the enemy's.
[ 08-01-2001: Message edited by: Nashwan ]
-
....was gonna post, but recalled Jihad is a kook who LOVES his liberals...so, why bother. Its more fun to watch him writher in agony while Dubya is President.
And that, is priceless :P
-
Originally posted by jihad:
Ya know whats really funny about this?
Remember all the ratpooplican wailing and gnashing of teeth about Clinton/Democrats gutting the armed forces prior to the election?
Now look at what the slack jawed idiot in the White House wants to do.
;)
[ 08-01-2001: Message edited by: jihad ]
Bush is just transfering the funds, spending more but wisely. He's not sending troops to BFE to play cops with groups who are happier killing each other. He's not giving our naval bases to his political contributors his buddies the chinese. He's building a stronger, modern military the world will respect/fear not laugh at as it has been the last 8 years...
-
Clinton was a total POS. Hell, he did a fat and ugly intern while sober,LOL.
xBAT
-
....was gonna post, but recalled Jihad is a kook who LOVES his liberals...so, why bother. Its more fun to watch him writher in agony while Dubya is President.
And that, is priceless :P
Where are the 'debating skills' you bragged about once upon a time?
So far your skills are as much in evidence as dubyas intellect. <non existant>
I really enjoy tweaking you republinazis, your so ideologically driven old adolph would have loved you ;)
-
Originally posted by Eagler:
all a military would have to do is take out there commerce centers, electricity, communications, major bridges - roadways etc with "smart" bombs. Blockade any inbound aid... surrender is guaranteed. They may need to overthrown their current gov, but the ppl would demand it..
That's exactly what Goering told Hitler about England. And of course, England capitulated, Germany turned east and beat Russia, America settled up with Japan and the Third Reich stood a thousand years. Wait a minute....
- Yoj
-
Re: comparison with Clinton, there is a very large difference between not being able to adequately supply your standing army, and reducing the size of your standing army.
I still am utterly amazed at a left wing complaint about proposed military reduction. Honestly though I voted for Bush I was afraid he would buckle when it came to military spending, and needed cutbacks. Does this mean you would prefer a massive buildup?
Yoj, if Hitler's aim was simply to defend Germany's borders, it would have been sufficient. You're not hoping to invade Canada and Mexico in a grand scheme of world conquest are you?
-
Originally posted by Yoj:
That's exactly what Goering told Hitler about England.
Considering that Hitler never intended to fight England, there is little surprise he was not ready to do so when England declared war on him.
No country was able to use aviation to destroy strategic targets until both long-range bombers and long-range escorts were available to conduct daytime raids - well into 1944.
miko
-
Originally posted by Fatty:
Re: comparison with Clinton, there is a very large difference between not being able to adequately supply your standing army, and reducing the size of your standing army.
I still am utterly amazed at a left wing complaint about proposed military reduction. Honestly though I voted for Bush I was afraid he would buckle when it came to military spending, and needed cutbacks. Does this mean you would prefer a massive buildup?
Why do you call me left wing, is it because I think dubyas a slack jawed fool? <I wonder if his parents were brother and sister>
I don't want a massive buid up, but I do think its foolish to reduce the size of our armed forces instead of properly funding what we already have.
Gee whiz weapons cannot replace our armed forces or the ability to project power in more than one area of conflict at a time.
My complaint is the shortness of dubyas *vision*, all he seems interested in is feeding the big defense contractors at the expense of proven defense capability.
-
Technology is great.. hell I make some of the military's neatest new toys... RPV's.
But reality rears it's ugly head... you don't win a war of attrition with technology. By the end of the gulf war we were OUT of Tomahawks, could no longer load med/long range AA missiles on our fighters and were criticly short of everything from Durandels to Mavericks.
Towards the end, we were dumping 30 year old iron eggs; eyeball aimed...
How we gonna do against China? India?? The CFS? Survival means we must HONOR THE THREAT. That does not mean we attack; that means we continue to project what any possible future agressor could do; and plan accordingly.
Toys are neat.. but yah still need an Army; a Navy, A Marine Corps, and Air Force; all fully equipped and trained, with logistical support consistent with the mission... and that mission remains "take the fight TO the enemy".
We can't do that by cutting bases; cutting transport A/C, cutting the Navy back, and REDUCING any damn thing at ALL.. YES.. the potential threat remains, and dammit that means we continue to BUILD, continue to EQUIP and continue to SUPPORT the LARGEST MOST EFFECTIVE BEST TRAINED MILITARY IN THE WORLD... lets hope it remains OURS.
Period.
Bush; you fediddlein dipshit; here's my $300.00 back. Buy the boys some gawdamned bullits.
-
What is a republican??
Is that the same as a Liberal Canadian?
-
What kind of situation do you forsee requiring 1.4 million regular forces (not counting reservists)? Short of a land war with China or Inda, I don't really see a lot. If anyone does plan on sending an occupying force to Asia, we're going to need a hell of a baby boom first.
Lacking a war, what we need is a modestly sized, well trained, well funded standing army, together with the technology and research that should a the situation arise we have the ability to raise and supply an army. The world seems tired of the US playing policeman, and I'm certainly tired of paying for it. Decrease the size, increase per/soldier funding, and increase R&D.
-
I love to hear some of the more retarded Democrats in here squeaking. :rolleyes:
Say what you will but that "slack jawed idiot" beat your best so what does that make you guys? :p
-
No country was able to use aviation to destroy strategic targets until both long-range bombers and long-range escorts were available to conduct daytime raids - well into 1944.
Hamburg, 1943
-
Originally posted by skernsk:
What is a republican??
Is that the same as a Liberal Canadian?
Nah..they're the offspring of the Cletus and Lurleens of the world.
(http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/9140/ahhelt.jpg)
:p
[ 08-02-2001: Message edited by: jihad ]
-
It's interesting to see who comes out of the woodwork when the army is threatened.
In this case it's funnier to see who takes what stance. Face it folks, this isn't arriving on your doorstep out of nowhere. Gen. Chung (sp?) was establishing the basis of the rapid deployment doctrine for the last 6 years. The Gulf war ended with the US command structure quietly agreeing that they needed massive and fast changes before ever deploying another combat force of that level. Military Opfor was proving for the last 10 years that US armed forces operating without the full infrastructure of armor/airforce/artillery was incredibly vulnerable to ending up in a situation where casualties were on parity to the enemies and accomplishment of even minor objectives would lead to unacceptable losses.
Now your army realises it has to adapt. Schwartzkopf (sp?) wrote after the gulf war of an overwhelming need to change the trend of american armed forces sustaining huge losses and defeats entering into a major conflict and adapting to achieve victory. His beliefs were probably one of the core reasons why the Gulf war was the only conflicts of the modern century US armed forces broke that trend.
Now your armed forces are going to try and adapt before the next major conflict. Besides their training and organization they are going to use the Land Warrior program to give them technical advantages over their foes. I have seen this dismissed as "60 pounds of electronics does not a good soldier make" which is false. It's a centralizing of the current GPS and Night Vision equipment in use into less bulky and easier to use packages. It's not meant to replace the elements of a good soldier it is meant to give that soldier better equipment, better weapons and protection than his enemy will have. To NOT give your soldiers the advantages you can is almost criminal. By the end of Land Warrior concept each soldier will have integrated night vision and GPS with his gear, allowing him to position himself exactly and see where others cannot, he will have ceramic and kevlar protection enabling him to survive and be less in danger from low calibre high velocity bullets. And he will have weapons integrating more firepower into an infantry grunt than ever before! How is this a bad thing? I wish TO HELL CANADA COULD DO THIS FOR OUR BOYS!
Of course there is a price, no longer will the armed forces support the concept of winning two front lines concurrently. The US simply cannot maintain the manpower to do this anymore. Thats not my conclusion- it is the Pentagons.
And gone soon will be the overwhelming firepower of the armored divisions. To equip, deploy and use these proved to take to long, and be too expensive in the Gulf. They work, but need to take a different form to be used in combat anymore.
Instead we see the US move to a force that concentrates firepower into a faster moving better co-ordinated package that can deploy and smash any opponent in a matter of weeks instead of months.
Gee whiz weapons cannot replace our armed forces or the ability to project power in more than one area of conflict at a time.
Yes it can. Believe me, what the US did in the gulf would be nothing to the power they would project 10 years from now when they can do even more punishing damage in a time frame of 1 month instead of 6 or more.
But reality rears it's ugly head... you don't win a war of attrition with technology. By the end of the gulf war we were OUT of Tomahawks, could no longer load med/long range AA missiles on our fighters and were criticly short of everything from Durandels to Mavericks.
Towards the end, we were dumping 30 year old iron eggs; eyeball aimed...
How we gonna do against China? India?? The CFS? Survival means we must HONOR THE THREAT. That does not mean we attack; that means we continue to project what any possible future agressor could do; and plan accordingly.
Toys are neat.. but yah still need an Army; a Navy, A Marine Corps, and Air Force; all fully equipped and trained, with logistical support consistent with the mission... and that mission remains "take the fight TO the enemy".
Well said Hang, but some points to make back- sure we aere out of missiles- but by that time we had relied on the airforce to do a job for over 3 months longer than they should have had too. Do you really want to fight any war of attrition? in modern war they just never happen. The supplies ran out because the armored divisions took too long to setup and supply to do their job on the ground.
I don't think the objective is to reduce the infrastructure of the armed forces. I think it is just a transition that is part of adpating them. And I think that the US armed forces in 5-10 years will have even more functionality, power and equipment than any US standing army has had since the height of the cold war.
Sorrow