- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- 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 3/18/17 at 8:49 am to Ace Midnight
Posted on 3/18/17 at 8:49 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
We will not have years and years to get ready for a major conflict.
Not sure why you think we'd need it or why you think that runs counter to what I said.
0
Posted on 3/18/17 at 8:50 am to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
I haven't insulted you personally and I typically don't make a habit of that.
bullshite.
Posted on 3/18/17 at 8:53 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:In his defense, I have called him dumbass and moron more times than I can count
Youve called me and Wolfhound idiots like three times in this thread
Posted on 3/18/17 at 8:54 am to Ace Midnight
quote:Lol. Army.
This is the problem with the Department of the Navy branches (USN and USMC) - the traditions are pretty strong (relative to the Army and Air Force) - couple that with the self-confidence they instill in marines and you get an inflated sense of what IS and what IS NOT possible with this structure.
quote:What he said was absolutely true. But it's not something you say when people are talking about up-armoring vehicles when 18 year-olds are dying preventable deaths from fricking crude IEDs. He was never a good SECDEF, but that's when he lost the military. Funny you should cite it.
So, you have to go to war with the military you have, not the military you would like to have - Rummy was 100% spot on with that.
quote:I've undersold GT. Guy gets a lot of shite. How about enough of the "more with less." How about less with less.
But, I think we're pretty barebones - Army and AF wise unless we significantly curtail international agreements, which is also GT23's point.
Posted on 3/18/17 at 8:59 am to Ace Midnight
Ace, your points are well taken. We talk about the 4+1 threats. From your perspective, which is the most likely threat and location? What is the friction point? I am immersed in DATE 2.2 because of my current responsibilities so I do not give a lot of thought to this.
Posted on 3/18/17 at 9:02 am to Wolfhound45
I think we need to avoid entanglements such as everything in the ME or anywhere in Africa. However, I don't think it's a good idea to abandon our European allies and trading partners. Make them pay more, reduce our commitment and size of the military....but don't abandon them to the whims of the klepto-state of Russia.
Posted on 3/18/17 at 9:05 am to cwill
What about forward positioning of forces?
Posted on 3/18/17 at 9:10 am to Wolfhound45
quote:
From your perspective, which is the most likely threat and location?
The biggest wild cards, in my mind, are Iran and North Korea, just based on their relative isolation, being at odds with absolutely anybody in their vicinity and their alien mindset. Why do we care about North Korea? Obviously, the never ending cold war on the peninsula and our allies S. Korea and Japan. Plus, any disruption of trade out of Asia would cause months-long/years-long problems with the U.S. and global economy. China should have solved this problem a long time ago, but prefer to leave that festering wound to bother S. Korea, Japan and us.
Why do we care about Iran? They border a NATO ally and straddle the Persian Gulf. Enough said.
Speaking of our NATO ally - I'm not liking where Turkey is headed - that could be the thing that turns on the Crusades/Jihad again and I'm only half joking. The entire region is going in the wrong direction. It's easy to blame our intervention, but things have been heading this way since the independence movement.
Those are the biggest risks to drawing us into a broader conflict in the near term from my perspective.
Posted on 3/18/17 at 9:10 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
I think we can maintain this status quo for the most part with an extremely large and strong Navy and a properly trained and funded national guard component. I have some ideas on how we could make that work and lessen some of the risks of going to a primarily reserve component Force but that would be getting into the weeds I think
The problem with your plan to do away with the active duty army and Air Force is it ignores the speed of the modern battlefield.
Let's take Europe for example. Let's say tensions are rising between Russia and Poland. We're out of NATO. But at the same time, we still have as a vital national interest that Russia remain in check and Europe remains stable.
But due to our absence from NATO and lack of an effective army or Air Force, a war in Europe for Russia now looks plausible. And you know as well as I do that when a war looks like it could be successful, that's when wars happen.
So let's say it's March 18, 2019 and Russia invades Poland (or any other NATO country on its border) how long do you think it would take for them to overrun whatever portion of Europe they want? Not sure? Well as you know I've studied this very subject for decades and in my opinion, as the balance of forces in Europe stand now, especially if you remove the US, it would take Russia no more than roughly six weeks to get from its current border to at least central Germany.
So, we'd have six weeks (at most) to have any real influence on a war in Europe. And in a war of that size and scope, we'd need to field a force at least as large or better yet larger than what we fielded in 1991 in Desert Storm.
Take a guess how many divisions we had there in 1991. We had a total of eight army divisions (2 airborne, 1 cavalry, 3 armored(I was in one of them), and 2 infantry). On top of this there was 2 armored cavalry regiments and 2 corps headquarters. And then their was 2 marine divisions as well. That's a total force of 10 divisions. And that's just the division and corps assists. You know as well as I that these are just the tip of the spear. For all those front line forces, there are even more behind them in support. Basically 10 divisions isn't just an army, it's closer to an army group.
Now, how fast do you think we could muster, train, and ship out and deploy into an active combat zone a 10 division strong army group? Could we get them to Europe in six weeks? You know as well I that we could never pull something like that off even if we commandeered the entire combined merchant navies of the world. The war would be over and we'd still be calling up guard units just to go to their mobilization points for training to even get ready to ship out.
Posted on 3/18/17 at 9:15 am to Ace Midnight
Excellent. Thanks!
Posted on 3/18/17 at 9:18 am to Wolfhound45
On the point of not having years to get ready for a war I need to disagree a tad or at least counter the argument.
For the both the Gulf War and the Iraq War we had at least 6 months to prep before we started the invasion. Enough time that even reserve and national guard units had time to mobilize, train up and deploy for the initial assaults.
An often cited recently released report says that all of 3 army brigades are currently ready for deployment. THREE. How is that different than having a bunch of reserve component brigades that need time to be spooled up for a deployment? Please take into account that under my plan there would be a strong Marine Corps as part of the Navy.
By my quick googling I see we currently have about 23ish divisions of ground troops between the active and national guard components.
What if we made that a good round number of 24 divisions all in the national guard. Part of the deal with would be that one year out of every six your division would be placed on active duty to train and be ready to deploy. That gives us two ready to deploy divisions at any one time(that's more than the current 3 brigades). This would also keep at least some level of skill and currency in the national guard from atrophying. Something similar could be worked out with the Air National Guard if we have to.
I think if done correctly we could save a shite ton of money and really not lose any capabilities. This would also force us to take pause before entering into large unending conflicts. The public is much less receptive to citizen soldiers being deployed for years on end than they are active duty guys.
For the both the Gulf War and the Iraq War we had at least 6 months to prep before we started the invasion. Enough time that even reserve and national guard units had time to mobilize, train up and deploy for the initial assaults.
An often cited recently released report says that all of 3 army brigades are currently ready for deployment. THREE. How is that different than having a bunch of reserve component brigades that need time to be spooled up for a deployment? Please take into account that under my plan there would be a strong Marine Corps as part of the Navy.
By my quick googling I see we currently have about 23ish divisions of ground troops between the active and national guard components.
What if we made that a good round number of 24 divisions all in the national guard. Part of the deal with would be that one year out of every six your division would be placed on active duty to train and be ready to deploy. That gives us two ready to deploy divisions at any one time(that's more than the current 3 brigades). This would also keep at least some level of skill and currency in the national guard from atrophying. Something similar could be worked out with the Air National Guard if we have to.
I think if done correctly we could save a shite ton of money and really not lose any capabilities. This would also force us to take pause before entering into large unending conflicts. The public is much less receptive to citizen soldiers being deployed for years on end than they are active duty guys.
Posted on 3/18/17 at 9:19 am to Navytiger74
quote:YES!
How about less with less
Posted on 3/18/17 at 9:19 am to Wolfhound45
The "50 levels above your head" planners focus on Iran and Russia. In that order.
Posted on 3/18/17 at 9:24 am to Darth_Vader
Darth, we all see the problem set the same (for the most part). Getting there the firstest with the mostest. Modern surveillance capabilities have rendered the ability to furtively marshall land forces a moot point. They cannot do it without us knowing. We would be actively signaling them through Phase 1 operations that this is not acceptable. At some point a political decision would be made to forward position forces while we have a degree of control of the seas. And there is always the question of nuclear weapons.
I think the most plausible scenario is expansion into Eastern European nations. I do not see the Russians willing to risk it all by attacking Western Europe.
Just my thoughts on most dangerous COA (your scenario) versus the most likely COA (my scenario).
I think the most plausible scenario is expansion into Eastern European nations. I do not see the Russians willing to risk it all by attacking Western Europe.
Just my thoughts on most dangerous COA (your scenario) versus the most likely COA (my scenario).
Posted on 3/18/17 at 9:25 am to Lakeboy7
quote:In other words, DATE 2.2
Iran
Posted on 3/18/17 at 9:26 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
For the both the Gulf War and the Iraq War we had at least 6 months to prep before we started the invasion. Enough time that even reserve and national guard units had time to mobilize, train up and deploy for the initial assaults.
No Guard maneuver unit was certified "combat ready" and deployed for Desert Shield/Desert Storm. They were just getting to that point when it was all over. It was support and services units, primarily, that deployed and a couple of field artillery brigades.
For OIF, you didn't really see NG rotations until OIF-2, or about a year after the invasion (give or take).
Posted on 3/18/17 at 9:29 am to Ace Midnight
Sure, but that was all under how we currently view the military and war, budgets, training, etc. Obviously, there would be changes to all of that.
Posted on 3/18/17 at 9:29 am to Ace Midnight
Correct. But I think that is more of a symptom of not having the necessary emphasis from the active component. If you decreased the active component and reoriented them towards multi-compo formations and training support to the reserve component, they could be maintained at a higher level of readiness. Same with the air component.
Posted on 3/18/17 at 9:33 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Part of the deal with would be that one year out of every six your division would be placed on active duty to train and be ready to deploy.
Good luck with those cats having jobs. You're a plumber? Well, you have to shut that shite down 1 out of 6 years?
quote:
This would also force us to take pause before entering into large unending conflicts. The public is much less receptive to citizen soldiers being deployed for years on end than they are active duty guys.
I don't disagree with your overall philosophical approach to "less with less" - but that's a political decision, not a military decision. There is simply no way to remain in a state of readiness with our existing obligations (assuming NO significant increase by some of these unstable state actors and major terror organizations) that provides a credible response with much less active forces than we have now.
Is there some fat and waste that can be trimmed? Certainly. But a notion that we can return to a pastoral time, where we know the war is coming years away - that time is just 80 years past. There were no nukes, no jets, no internet - it's just a different time.
The proposals that say we should trim to a few mech/armor heavy units and LOTS of special operators make more sense than "only" Navy/Marines - at least there is some flexibility. WTF is the navy going to do about Afghanistan for example? And good luck fighting anybody with tanks.
Posted on 3/18/17 at 9:34 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
For the both the Gulf War and the Iraq War we had at least 6 months to prep before we started the invasion. Enough time that even reserve and national guard units had time to mobilize, train up and deploy for the initial assaults
Do you know how many guard combat arms units made it to the desert in time to take part in the fighting? Keep in mind Desert Shield started in August 1990 and we launched Desert Storm in Feb 1991. So how many national guard combat units do you think we were able to mobilize, train, ship out, and deploy in time to fight?
THREE. Yes three. Three artillery brigades. That's it. No other national guard combat units were ready in time to take part in the war. And that's having six months to get ready.
Do you think we could fight a major war with three artillery brigades?
This post was edited on 3/18/17 at 9:45 am
Page 16 of 32
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News