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

I have had some thoughts about what I really want from the next big war, or at least the next limited engagement involving 2 million troops on each side.

That the military let people like me who would sign up but have health/ age/ family/transport/financial/literary/spacial/cosmic/religious/sexual reasons for not , direct some of the battles.
Maybe even with some lasers and at night time.

I could post the photos on the spacebattles site and maybe even submit some to Paramount as part of the storyboard for the next non-Abrams Trek movie, starring Captain Kitchens in the 28th century.

You didn't read what I wrote carefully enough. I'm talking about being able to dislodge an occupying power, not becoming one.

That's fine for the police-action type conflicts where that would work. But that's not going to work everywhere.

@Paladin:

I'm not convinced we should dislodge an occupying power. Leave that to the occupied folks. We can give them material assistance and high leverage spot military assistance. If that's not enough, then they probably don't mind the occupation enough for us to mind it.

Iran isn't positioned to do that. Iraqi ground forces would slow them, Saudi air forces would finish them off (with USAF and USN assist if needed). More to the point, this isn't Iran's strategy.

Egypt is no longer strong enough to do this, and is preoccupied with internal issues.

Eastern Europe might have a thing or two to say about that, as would the rest of NATO. We are strong enough to block a Russian thrust in conjunction with our allies in central Europe.

So you are stuck in a defensive mind set established 25 years ago?

The response used reserve forces. Presumably we will still have these. And remember, we aren't talking about eliminating the standing army, only a reduction of 30,000 troops.

The really scary/funny thing about this troll is that it often takes me a moment to realize it's not actually Dayton...

We're never going to fight a major ground war again.

Until we do.

Yep.

Size your forces based on what you think the other guy WILL do, and you'll probably be wrong.

Size your forces based on what you think the other guy CAN do, and you'll be prepared for any contingency.

It is quite impressive. I believed that actually was Dayton until I saw your reply.

Anyone else not surprised that they'd gut operational readiness in favor of their various projects?

I know what you meant. But there are no points for needlessly losing lives when we have the technology to avoid it.

I think you're mistaken if you think that any direct war with China or Russia would not involve scaling up, if we were to engage in a direct war with either it would very likely involve the complete conversion of the US into a wartime economy once again. Not only that, we'd be completely insane to get involved in a traditional ground war with either. The United States' position should be similar to that of the historical United Kingdom, where we have a navy and air force so advanced that the mere prospect of drawing our ire would seem suicidal.

Maybe I was too vague as you and Paladin both missed my point.

Raw numbers in and of themselves don't matter. What matters is capability. For example containerization and other logistical improvements have cut down dramatically the number of support personnel needed per combat unit.

This has happened all over the force. More teeth, less tail. This is a good thing.

Is there a reason you're killing the pilots instead of laying them off?

I thought he was surveying them.

Of concern is the plan to reduce benefits and pay increases for personnel, not just to reduce their numbers.

But in general, I don't see this as a problem. Wars in the 21st Century are fought with hardware and a minority of special forces, not masses of soldiers. I don’t see how this will necessarily reduce the US’s ability to project force around the globe.

And yet it has little, if anything to do with our ability to actually accomplish military goals.

Assuming that’s true, our allies need to take a hint that they need to start pulling their own weight and not depend solely on our tax dollars to keep the peace.

And just to keep things in perspective:



We and our allies outspend our rivals 5 to 1.

Or cut deals with our geopolitical adversaries to keep the peace. Or start regional arms races that threaten our interests or our trading partners.

Business as usual, you mean?

Show us one comparing defense budgets for the British Empire and the American Colonies in 1774.

The security concerns of all the other countries you listed are limited mainly to their own borders. The concern of the United States is the whole world.

The interesting thing about that chart, is that we spend three times what all of our enemies/potential enemies spend put together. It really exposes the extent to which people concerned by these cuts are just military fetishests.

Your point being what exactly?

If by business as usual you mean the Cold War, yes. THAT is what a multi-polar world looks like.

Then the concerns aren't about security, but dominance.

With or without their legs?

That you can be the mightiest on Earth, have the most money to spend, and STILL LOSE because you can't concentrate enough power in a particular theater to win.

Is that supposed to be an argument that we should spend more?

To the extent that's true, it's going to be true of any large power that exerts influence over a region.

Without steadfast U.S. influence in Europe, perhaps Russia would seek to regain her lost empire. Without security guarantees in the Far East, Japan might re-militarize and would probably develop nuclear weapons.

In your scenario who is the US's France?

The British were not equipped to conquer and occupy such a large portion of enemy land. Do you think our goal should be that capability?

Yes, and these cuts do not hamper that mission. The US defense goal should be controlling the world ocean and air space, leaving land occupation to the folks who are already there. The British in 1780 were well equipped for the former, not so much for the latter. It was proper for them, it's proper for us.