quote:
In a way, Pandora's Box was opened when we kept a large standing military after WWII for the Cold War - it will take generations (if it can be done at all) to revert to a late 1930s structure

One counter to your argument is that as the 20th Century progressed, standing armies grew smaller and smaller around the world. I am not advocating a capability development cycle that is based on mirroring, but mass mobilizations seen first in the French Revolution period and later perfected in WWI and WW2 seems to be on their way out.

In this newer environment of smaller armies, what "pickles" could we end up in that couldn't be held steady for 60 days while current activated NG/Reserve unit gets ready and the Reserve/NG unit on deck moves up early?

As the military order of the world evolves we would be foolish to maintain the status quo if changes wouldn't make us more effective and nimble.

Revolutions in supply and logistics prompted by the expansion of 3D printing, automation, and unmanned systems are going to make operations more efficient. Why not see if a reexamination of structure makes sense at the same time?

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by Ace Midnight

Between sanity and madness

Member since Dec 2006

89706 posts

Posted on 3/20/17 at 2:50 pm to Foch

quote:
unmanned systems

And haven't hit on this issue in the thread (maybe I missed it

) - but this will have the most significant impact going forward into conflicts - not necessarily in the near-term (other than the proven descendants of the Predator and things like that), but certainly by mid-century - any conflict between sophisticated combatants will see robots of all shapes and sizes involved in all areas - R&S, mobility support, fires - dare I say it, maneuver - and it will be seen as a good thing (saving soldier lives), but will ultimately allow conflicts in the first place because of lower acute risk profile coupled with a high yield politically for a winner.

Now, when nations fight - even with robots - civilians will bear the brunt of the suffering - so that circles right back to GT23's very valid point about a large standing U.S. military facilitating foreign entanglements for political (and economic) gain.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Ace Midnight

Between sanity and madness

Member since Dec 2006

89706 posts

Posted on 3/20/17 at 3:18 pm to Foch

quote:
In this newer environment of smaller armies, what "pickles" could we end up in that couldn't be held steady for 60 days while current activated NG/Reserve unit gets ready and the Reserve/NG unit on deck moves up early?

Developed nations have smaller armies - the emerging threats - at least many of them - don't.

Defense is a lot stronger, too - so we can drop guys in before an invasion and probably be okay with limited support from an all reserve AF and the Naval/Marines forces in the area.

The problem would be dislodging someone. Yeah, the folks can wait until we get there, right? Unless it's Americans or allies and they're under the occupation of someone like Saddam Hussein or worse.

Whereas Saddam held Kuwait from August to February, under a very optimistic scenario with GT23's force structure - that's a 18 to 24 month operation - at a minimum. In fact, because it would be so slow and deliberative, I doubt we would even launch it at all.

So, there's that. If you're fine with us not being able to do that mission at all (which I'm neutral - that's a political decision), that should at least be a conscious choice.

I mean, we can't save the world, right?

This post was edited on 3/20/17 at 3:22 pm

1 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board