Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Defense Department Spending Cuts
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="mugsy" data-source="post: 1991018" data-attributes="member: 18914"><p>Umm...the solution to what you are saying in your last line is NOT large standing ground forces in peacetime, it is a logical mobilization plan for war but read on...</p><p></p><p>You misunderstand - I am not saying that IF we have to engage in another ground war that we should do it on the cheap. I am saying that since we are, in fact, regrouping after a long ground war and will inevitably contract our land component/don't aniticipate another large ground war for a while then it is time to modernize what we do have and re-capitalize our force for future operations. The simple fact is that if we are going to be on a lean budget then keeping large numbers of troops in garrison is not the way to go. If money was not an object I'd say do it all - but money is an object and we do have an opportunity for a strategic pause. So let's take advantage of that pause to rebuild our core capability which has always been high-tech capability both in destructive potential, self-defense potential, and intelligence gathering potential while keeping our remianing ground troops from becoming hollow. </p><p>A lot of the success we have had was due to long-term past investments we made, as a nation, in drones, aircraft that rule the skies and give us assymetric advantages, long-haul logistics capability, etc. The next war may not be fought against what is essentially an army of primitives and every soldier on the battlefield will darn well want the latest and greatest technology to give him an advantage.</p><p>The Army hasn't suffered a hostile air attack since the Korean War (60+ years ago) - that didn't happen by accident or by our great force of numbers. It happened because we invested in military technology that let us keep our soldiers and airmen more capable. Likewise, the Navy has protected our ability to move troops globally and project American power quickly long before masses of troops can be moved - again didn't happen cheaply, low-tech, or easily. If we don't invest NOW - while we have the chance to trim back on ground force expenses then we will see soldiers killed because we can't control the skies or the seas and we will lose our next fight. Heck and we haven't even touched on the relatively new realm of cyber-warfare.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="mugsy, post: 1991018, member: 18914"] Umm...the solution to what you are saying in your last line is NOT large standing ground forces in peacetime, it is a logical mobilization plan for war but read on... You misunderstand - I am not saying that IF we have to engage in another ground war that we should do it on the cheap. I am saying that since we are, in fact, regrouping after a long ground war and will inevitably contract our land component/don't aniticipate another large ground war for a while then it is time to modernize what we do have and re-capitalize our force for future operations. The simple fact is that if we are going to be on a lean budget then keeping large numbers of troops in garrison is not the way to go. If money was not an object I'd say do it all - but money is an object and we do have an opportunity for a strategic pause. So let's take advantage of that pause to rebuild our core capability which has always been high-tech capability both in destructive potential, self-defense potential, and intelligence gathering potential while keeping our remianing ground troops from becoming hollow. A lot of the success we have had was due to long-term past investments we made, as a nation, in drones, aircraft that rule the skies and give us assymetric advantages, long-haul logistics capability, etc. The next war may not be fought against what is essentially an army of primitives and every soldier on the battlefield will darn well want the latest and greatest technology to give him an advantage. The Army hasn't suffered a hostile air attack since the Korean War (60+ years ago) - that didn't happen by accident or by our great force of numbers. It happened because we invested in military technology that let us keep our soldiers and airmen more capable. Likewise, the Navy has protected our ability to move troops globally and project American power quickly long before masses of troops can be moved - again didn't happen cheaply, low-tech, or easily. If we don't invest NOW - while we have the chance to trim back on ground force expenses then we will see soldiers killed because we can't control the skies or the seas and we will lose our next fight. Heck and we haven't even touched on the relatively new realm of cyber-warfare. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Defense Department Spending Cuts
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
