Pentagon Plans To Cut U.S. Military to pre World War II Levels!!

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/mi...slash-military-pre-world-war-ii-levels-n37086

You know, the pre World War Two military of the U.S. (even back when we had powerful allies) did not turn out too well for us or the world overall.

The article notes that the U.S. may now lack the ability to ever fight another major ground war.

I'm curious. What if enemies of the U.S. notice this and decide to force a situation where the U.S. MUST fight a major ground war?

You will be made commander-in-chief and will lead us to glorious victory with only your football players.

We haven't retired the U-2 yet?!?

Sensational headline is sensational!

That's what I was thinking. It looks to me like the US military is shifting from a long term occupation type set up to a defensive/donkey-kick-and-go-home military.

The headline is a lie, and Dayton's hard-on for war is disgusting.

At this rate, my football players will about be all that's left.

Headline is from the linked to article Rick.

Your nation is protected by the United States as surely as any other in Western Europe.

Never fear! If Ricks country is threatened they have the support of the U.N.,UNICEF, the Peace Corps and PETA. They will be just fine.

Does that unwanted "protection" make your thread any less dishonest?

Or are you just seeking to thump your chest - vicariously so, since you're too cowardly to fight yourself?

"Let he who would have peace, first prepare for war."

Neither this thread nor the link in question had any advocacy for U.S. involvement in a current or specific military conflict. Simply take it at face value.

Of course, as we shrink our military, our influence over world affairs--in both positive and negative terms--will shrink. We will be less able to provide security to allies and deter adversaries from action. We will see new adversaries arise as the opportunity for influence emerges. Nature and geopolitics abhor a vacuum. As we contract, someone will fill that void.

Even if you're not terribly fond of a world order maintained by the United States, you should consider that you may like even less the multi-polar world that will emerge as its power wanes.

If you axe a hundred pilots, and replace them with 200 drones, have you shrunk or grown your military?

Does the fact that we are MORE likely to use drones than piloted planes (lower risk) enter into the equation?

If you lose a support battalion, but add a special operations company, have you shrunk or grown?

Depends on the specifics.

Drones are useful for some tasks, B-52s for others.

Is an adversary shooting down one of our drones or shooting down one of our manned planes likely to draw similar response?

Air power--drone or otherwise--doesn't hold ground.

A base with 30,000 troops says more about our commitment--both to our allies and our adversaries--than an airfield with a few hundred personnel and a dozen drones, no matter how effective the drones are.

Drones say we're minimizing risk to our own people. Troops say we will spill our own blood.

The amount of troops you are willing to spend is not an indicator of success. If it was we would all be speaking French.

You didn't get what I said.

It isn't that we want our troops to be harmed. It's that we are willing to put them in harm's way.

That shows our allies that we will go to the mat for them, that we are willing to put our own people at risk.

Drones have never been used in large scale operations as primary air support tool. An active duty officer was quoted in Foreign Policy magazine as saying that "in a real war, drones will be falling out of the sky like confetti"

Raw numbers do matter in the long run.

Remember, Donald Rumsfeld was much maligned by thinking he could deal with invading Iraq with nothing but special forces and air strikes. People who say the same with drones and small unit special forces are kidding themselves as well.

Drones are really good at killing terrorists who like to gather in isolated locations. They're all but useless for ejecting a technically capable occupation force from a country.

...is a well worn troll.

Quit indulging him.

Do you have any scenario for this? Short of invasion of the US proper, where would we need to fight a major ground war? As long as we maintain control of the world ocean and air space, there really is no significant ground based threat.

Why should we use occupation as the metric for power projection? There has never been a sound strategic reason for occupying other countries. A fast, nimble military that can get in, kick ass in a tightly targeted fashion, and get back out should be our default strategy.

Exactly. Much as Dayton pines for the Cold War, it's a different world and a different enemy now.

North Korean attack upon South Korea.

Iranian sweep through southern Iraq into Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

Radical Egyptian govt. decides on going back to Nasser's dream of a Pan Arab Empire.

Hell, for that matter, Putin decides he is too old to keep dicking around with cutting off natural gas supplies and decides he wants Eastern Europe back right now.

In 1989, there was the cover story of U.S. News & World Report "Do We Need An Army?" Because after all, with the better relations with the Soviets there was NO WAY the U.S. would ever fight a major ground war.

And we won't have years to build a bigger army if we need one. The 1990 Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait was not exactly predicted or expected.

Tell that to the Russians......

Some won't even risk their own.

We can't do that. For one, it has been the American belief going all the way back to World War Two that

"If we break it we buy it" That is if we devastate a country we owe it to them to help their new govt. recover.
Whether that is reasonable is anyone's guess.

Second, it is very bad public relations for the U.S. to smash a nation flat with overwhelming firepower and then just walk away and let people starve and die of disease.

If only the real world were as simple as Stratego...

That's because we fought differently during WWII. We don't annihilate entire cities just to take out one factory anymore. We don't "smash a nation flat". We smash a nation's ability to fight flat. It's when we try to stick around and nation build that civilians start dying for some reason.