- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
America's Military Has Become Too Small To Succeed
Posted on 11/28/16 at 7:37 am
Posted on 11/28/16 at 7:37 am
Once upon a time, the U.S. had a large military that was technologically superior to its adversaries in many, even most, areas. Today, the U.S. military is a pale shadow of its former self.
In 2016, the active component of the U.S. Army of 479,000 soldiers shrank to the smallest it has been since before World War II, when it had some 269,000. The number of Army combat brigades is scheduled to decline to 30 by 2018, one third fewer than there were just in 2013. The U.S. Navy, with 273 ships, is about the same size as it was prior to America’s entry into World War I. At approximately 5,000 total aircraft, the U.S. Air Force is both the smallest and oldest it has been since its inception in 1947. The number of active duty squadrons in the Air Force is slated to decline to 39, less than half of the 70 that were available during Operation Desert Storm. Army, Navy and Air Force end strengths are each about 40 percent smaller than they were at the end of the Cold War. This is one of the main reasons why the Pentagon had to rely on more than a hundred thousand private contractors to provide the necessary logistics, sustainment and communications for its deployed forces when it went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
At the height of the Cold War, the U.S. maintained a two-and-a-half-war strategy: major, simultaneous wars against the Soviet Union and China plus another nation. The Nixon Administration changed the sizing criteria to one-and-a-half-wars: a major war with the Soviet Union plus a second, possibly related, conflict in the Persian Gulf or on the Korean peninsula. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the political system concluded that war between major powers was virtually impossible.
The sizing construct for the U.S. military changed in the early 1990s to two near-simultaneous Major Regional Contingencies (MRC), reflecting the belief that the likeliest threats came from regional actors such as North Korea, Iraq and Iran. It was assumed that each MRC would require approximately the quantity of forces deployed for the then-recently-concluded Persian Gulf War. Thus, a two-MRC U.S. force would consist of 10 Army divisions, two or three division-sized Marine Expeditionary Forces, 11 aircraft carriers, 120 large surface combatants, 38 large amphibious warfare ships, 200 strategic bombers, 60 tactical fighter wings, 400–500 tankers, 250 airlifters and some 75 maritime support ships."
LINK
More at the link.
Not good. But the thing too is, the force is smaller and yet more expensive at the same time. It is nuts.
In 2016, the active component of the U.S. Army of 479,000 soldiers shrank to the smallest it has been since before World War II, when it had some 269,000. The number of Army combat brigades is scheduled to decline to 30 by 2018, one third fewer than there were just in 2013. The U.S. Navy, with 273 ships, is about the same size as it was prior to America’s entry into World War I. At approximately 5,000 total aircraft, the U.S. Air Force is both the smallest and oldest it has been since its inception in 1947. The number of active duty squadrons in the Air Force is slated to decline to 39, less than half of the 70 that were available during Operation Desert Storm. Army, Navy and Air Force end strengths are each about 40 percent smaller than they were at the end of the Cold War. This is one of the main reasons why the Pentagon had to rely on more than a hundred thousand private contractors to provide the necessary logistics, sustainment and communications for its deployed forces when it went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
At the height of the Cold War, the U.S. maintained a two-and-a-half-war strategy: major, simultaneous wars against the Soviet Union and China plus another nation. The Nixon Administration changed the sizing criteria to one-and-a-half-wars: a major war with the Soviet Union plus a second, possibly related, conflict in the Persian Gulf or on the Korean peninsula. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the political system concluded that war between major powers was virtually impossible.
The sizing construct for the U.S. military changed in the early 1990s to two near-simultaneous Major Regional Contingencies (MRC), reflecting the belief that the likeliest threats came from regional actors such as North Korea, Iraq and Iran. It was assumed that each MRC would require approximately the quantity of forces deployed for the then-recently-concluded Persian Gulf War. Thus, a two-MRC U.S. force would consist of 10 Army divisions, two or three division-sized Marine Expeditionary Forces, 11 aircraft carriers, 120 large surface combatants, 38 large amphibious warfare ships, 200 strategic bombers, 60 tactical fighter wings, 400–500 tankers, 250 airlifters and some 75 maritime support ships."
LINK
More at the link.
Not good. But the thing too is, the force is smaller and yet more expensive at the same time. It is nuts.
Posted on 11/28/16 at 7:39 am to WhiskeyPapa
dims always gut the military and then waste that money on some garbage programs.
This post was edited on 11/28/16 at 7:40 am
Posted on 11/28/16 at 7:40 am to Crimson Wraith
quote:
dims always gut the military and then waste that money on some garbage programs
While true we need to stop trying to police the whole planet. We also need to put our military in a position to win, not contain.
Posted on 11/28/16 at 7:42 am to WhiskeyPapa
I say this as a former Army officer, the army should be about half the size it is now. The Navy should stay the same, it is good for projecting power. The army on the other hand, needs to be smaller. It's quite obvious we cannot trust Congress to have any self restraint when it comes to foreign adventurism. Therefore the only defense we have against random adventures to cover up domestic scandals is to have an army too small to conquer anyone for any length of time.
We will be just fine if we maintain our Navy at its current level.
We will be just fine if we maintain our Navy at its current level.
This post was edited on 11/28/16 at 8:28 am
Posted on 11/28/16 at 7:44 am to Wtodd
quote:
While true we need to stop trying to police the whole planet.
Amen to this. We are spread thin all over the place and it is costing us a fortune.
Posted on 11/28/16 at 7:45 am to WhiskeyPapa
Yet the current president thinks he has done a great job. Because no one tells him otherwise.
Posted on 11/28/16 at 7:49 am to Crimson Wraith
quote:
dims always gut the military and then waste that money on some garbage programs.
Geez, it is not the Democrats. frick. It is a total culture thing now and has been since Eisenhower called it.
Posted on 11/28/16 at 7:55 am to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
Geez, it is not the Democrats. frick. It is a total culture thing now and has been since Eisenhower called it.
Jimmah Carter gutted it, Reagan rebuilt it.
Clinton gutted it, Bush rebuilt it. The cuts Bubba made equaled the 4th largest military in the world at the time.
The dear leader gutted it, ...
I served 20 years on active duty and saw it first hand.
Posted on 11/28/16 at 7:55 am to WhiskeyPapa
the Army should be 1/2 its current size, if not smaller. The Marine branch should be disbanded and put on board navy vessels exclusively. The air force should be disbanded and put back under the army.
The fewer men available for the boondoggles of our government the better.
The fewer men available for the boondoggles of our government the better.
Posted on 11/28/16 at 7:58 am to WhiskeyPapa
We should have a tiny Army and a large Navy.
That way if we want to get involved in some stupid protracted ground war congress will have to authorize a major call up of reserve forces.
That way if we want to get involved in some stupid protracted ground war congress will have to authorize a major call up of reserve forces.
Posted on 11/28/16 at 8:02 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
We should have a tiny Army
Not very wise with our borders wide open.
Posted on 11/28/16 at 8:04 am to Crimson Wraith
quote:
Not very wise with our borders wide open.
What does our current large army do to protect the borders?
Posted on 11/28/16 at 8:17 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
What does our current large army do to protect the borders?
That's not the question. The question is what might they have to do since our borders are not secure.
Posted on 11/28/16 at 8:19 am to WhiskeyPapa
To briefly weigh in;
What is the mission of our Army? Our Navy? Our Marine Corps? Our Air Force?
Once we decided what we want them to do we can decide what they should look like.
What is the mission of our Army? Our Navy? Our Marine Corps? Our Air Force?
Once we decided what we want them to do we can decide what they should look like.
Posted on 11/28/16 at 8:24 am to GeauxxxTigers23
Wouldn't we have to shift our reserve forces to more combat arms units.
I know the guard has those, would the army reserve would need some restructuring?
I know the guard has those, would the army reserve would need some restructuring?
Posted on 11/28/16 at 8:26 am to Crimson Wraith
quote:
That's not the question. The question is what might they have to do since our borders are not secure.
Go on... (this should be fun)
Posted on 11/28/16 at 8:29 am to mmcgrath
quote:
quote:
That's not the question. The question is what might they have to do since our borders are not secure.
Go on... (this should be fun)
It's plain to see. If you don't see it or choose to ignore it I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you.
Posted on 11/28/16 at 8:30 am to WhiskeyPapa
quote:Today the U.S. has a military that is technologically superior to its adversaries in many, even most, areas... although it is smaller than it was before.
Once upon a time, the U.S. had a large military that was technologically superior to its adversaries in many, even most, areas.
Not getting the outrage. We don't fight like we used to.
Posted on 11/28/16 at 8:32 am to WhiskeyPapa
Then why hasn't the budget reduced accordingly.
The military budget is essentially the same it was 10 years ago.
The military budget is essentially the same it was 10 years ago.
Posted on 11/28/16 at 8:32 am to Wolfhound45
Wolfhound is wise.
Primary objective is to make money. Keep the peace for the anglo-american trade empire.
Euros will pay share of freight under trump.
China and Russia are contenders.
Trade war with china is implied by trumps stated intention to increase value of yuan. Long overdue.
Wild hair islam complicates things. As luck would have it china and Russia have borders with large muslim populations.
Primary objective is to make money. Keep the peace for the anglo-american trade empire.
Euros will pay share of freight under trump.
China and Russia are contenders.
Trade war with china is implied by trumps stated intention to increase value of yuan. Long overdue.
Wild hair islam complicates things. As luck would have it china and Russia have borders with large muslim populations.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News