- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
re: Let's talk about military spending
Posted on 3/20/17 at 3:19 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
Posted on 3/20/17 at 3:19 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
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.
What conceivable contingency would require massive amounts of ground and air power immediately?
Them Rooskies.
1
Posted on 3/20/17 at 3:20 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
What conceivable contingency would require massive amounts of ground and air power immediately?
Off the top of my head:
North Korean invasion of South Korea.
Russian attack on a NATO ally.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 3:22 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
I mean, we can't save the world, right?
One to a customer.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 3:23 pm to Ace Midnight
Yes but the entire premise of my OP is that we withdraw from those permanent alliances, at least so much as we are the absolute guaranteors of their defense. We can remain allies without being what amounts to the sole line of defense against the Russian hoardes.
This post was edited on 3/20/17 at 3:24 pm
Posted on 3/20/17 at 3:28 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Yes but the entire premise of my OP is that we withdraw from those permanent alliances
So, sadly I must agree with WP that this is a (with all due respect to John Lennon) a double fantasy. We're not going to significantly retrench from these agreements (not anytime soon, anyway), and even if we do, there is too much invested in a "permanent" standing army/AF of some respectable size. It's politically supported for prestige, leverage, and just economic impact the posts and garrisons have in dozens of congressional districts in CONUS.
But, an interesting academic exercise. A competent, cost effective, modern, lethal Army and Air Force of all citizens - a fantastic dream.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 3:32 pm to WhiskeyPapa
What forces are we going to use? Combat forces? Sustainment forces? And how are we going to get there? How long will it take? How much sea and air lift do we have? What air and sea ports will we use on this side? On that side? Roads to move to assembly areas? Rail lines? How are we going to protect them against air interdiction? Special operations forces?
They are not going to attack Western Europe. Why? Because of nuclear weapons. You know, deterrence.
Damn, you are dumb beyond measure.
They are not going to attack Western Europe. Why? Because of nuclear weapons. You know, deterrence.
Damn, you are dumb beyond measure.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 3:37 pm to Wolfhound45
You mean we'd have to actually use MDMP?
Whatttt...?!
Whatttt...?!
Posted on 3/20/17 at 3:38 pm to Woobie
quote:
You mean we'd have to actually use MDMP?
Ain't nobody got time for that.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 3:42 pm to Ace Midnight
So, because it's hard and would take time. Got it.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 3:45 pm to Wolfhound45
quote:
They are not going to attack Western Europe. Why? Because of nuclear weapons. You know, deterrence.
Damn, you are dumb beyond measure.
At its height of tension with the USSR, NATO could field (sorta kinda) 22,000 tanks to the USSR's 50,000 tanks although some huge number of them Rooskie tanks probably didn't even run.
But the point is, you can't depend just on deterrence. Oh gosh I won't look it up, but when the USSR fell and its archives were somewhat partially opened, they found that the USSR as late as 1986 was moving units around in east Germany looking for an opening to break into the West.
Even though we had nuclear weapons. One of the the things it was suggested them Rooskies might do is quickly get in amongst the cities in Western Europe which is pretty urban. This was called grabbing NATO "By the belt," as I recall. That would stop NATO from using nuclear weapons was the rationale. Would the Soviets try that? They never did of course, but you have to be prepared.
This post was edited on 3/20/17 at 4:03 pm
Posted on 3/20/17 at 3:47 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
So, because it's hard and would take time. Got it.
Remember - this is 21st Century America now - there is no decade long drive to go to the moon. If it takes more than 5 seconds to explain or is harder than sending a text to your SO, "frick it."
So, that is part of my calculus. At some point, fiscally, everything will come to a head on this and many, many other issues. It will just be out of necessity at that point, rather than some well thought out - long-term strategy of retrenchment and force restructuring.
I'm just calling them like I see them.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 3:51 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
I'm no military historian but I'm pretty sure the tactics weren't much different than what the army was using. If anything the Marines were just more aggressive in their application of those tactics, much as it is today.
Probably not, but, if anybody has more information I like to learn more about it.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 3:52 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
Remember - this is 21st Century America now - there is no decade long drive to go to the moon. If it takes more than 5 seconds to explain or is harder than sending a text to your SO, "frick it."
It wouldn't be that hard to present this in a positive manner to get the ball rolling. That's all that's necessary. After that, apathy can take over and it will still get done.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 4:00 pm to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
This will shock you but I don't know. I don't think WWI tactics were any different than just get online and go forward.
If you have any books or other military history resources that might provide us more into at some future point, the please post a thread about it. There's no time limit.
It looks like the Marines and Army of 1918 both used the same tactics, but, I'm still wondering whether any US military leader, started to experiment with the new Infiltration or "Stoss" tactics developed by the Germans.
I'm grateful that both the USMC and US Army of the 21st Century are both the most competent developers of new methods in the world.
Too bad that at the end of 1918, our ground forces were using the infantry assault tactics of 1914, because the Stoss tactics had been around for about two years by the time of Belleau Wood.
This post was edited on 3/20/17 at 4:03 pm
Posted on 3/20/17 at 4:50 pm to WhiskeyPapa
Thanks for proving my point dumbass. It never was and never will happen. You are just contributing to the fear mongering of the military industrial complex and the bankrupting of our Nation. Congrats.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 6:32 pm to Wolfhound45
You should review U S. Policies governing the use of nuclear weapons through unclassified sources. I posted some earlier in this thread.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 6:58 pm to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
unclassified sources
This is one of my favorites.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 7:25 pm to WhiskeyPapa
Let's just say I know a little bit more about US defense policy than a retired company grade Marine who has been out of uniform for ten or more years. Might have a bit more schooling and command experience. And might be more senior in grade.
Just a little bit.
Just a little bit.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 7:48 pm to Wolfhound45
TIS/TIG Boom
Posted on 3/20/17 at 8:06 pm to Wolfhound45
I could give a frick less about your TIS or TIG. It is not in any way germane. And when you suggest something as nuts as the U.S. would easily default to the use of tactical nuclear weapons in a NATO country you totally lose credibility on any issue touching the use of military force.
And it is pathetic to suggest that your rank substitute for intellect.
And it is pathetic to suggest that your rank substitute for intellect.
Page 31 of 32
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News