re: Let's talk about military spending

quote:

---

Not the other way around which never works.

---

very small sample size to be saying "never works".

Actually we have a larger sample size of what doesn't work than what does.

You are a stupid

quote:

---

I just scanned the first ten pages

---

Yeah, I'm not surprised.

quote:

---

desirable to the powers that be

---

That's right, move those goalposts.

quote:

---

That's right, move those goalposts.

---

re: Let's talk about military spending Posted on 3/18/17 at 4:52 am WhiskeyPapa:

This thread is now 15 pages of debate on something that is never going to happen or even be considered -- moving the Army and Air Force into some sort of reserve status.

Although I do agree that the Navy/Marine Corps team could handle our overseas operations. We need to seriously draw in our horns since the country is basically falling apart physically and morally for the sake of Israel and the Military Industrial Complex/Deep State."

The Powers That Be have -zero- reason to want what this thread is based on. How do you sell them on it?

quote:

---

I don't have to sell it to them. I have to sell it to the American people.

---

This is another area where we're a victim of our own success. I still see the need for a regular army and regular air force, although certainly it could be structured in a more compact way if we were able to disentangle from treaty obligations and foreign investments with us in the role of Team America: World Police. But, the military is one of those aspects of American life that remains highly popular, highly credible and highly respected by the American people - going back to at least 1981 (with many thanks to Ronaldus Magnus).

And, as I've maintained in this - the reserve and guard components, while great (and cost effective) augments to force, simply can't do all the things the standing forces can do, and certainly not with the short response times of the 21st Century.

Even if we adopted your "activate and train 1 year out of 6" - how is that substantively different from a Regular Army and Air Force approximately 15% of the total army and air force?

Philosphically, I get it - without a standing army/air force, it's much harder to get us into some of these thickets. You're saying that the USN and USMC can handle "most" overseas issues, but they can get into a pickle as well - and it will take much longer to get things spun up in a "real" crisis - longer than we will have, honestly. 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, which even then would contemplate some regular force structure and a cadre available to build a much larger force around (even though I don't believe we will ever have the luxury of that much time).

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?

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.

That's a lot of copy/paste when you could've just said you were wrong.

quote:

---

After World War Two, senior military leaders contemplated ships and planes as far as the could see. And it was good. It was real good.

To be fair, there was a significant retraction between 1945 and 1950 (how the hell could there not be?), and the modern, Cold War Army wasn't born until Korea.

---

True enough.