• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Military Branches

Which branch and explain?


  • Total voters
    49

TheGirlNextDoor


DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
20,033
Reaction score
7,647
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
If we were to consolidate our overall military strength to just one branch, which branch should it be and why?

My apologies for making this a U.S. poll question - feel free to start one that outlines military branches in other countries.
 
Last edited:

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
50,433
Reaction score
32,190
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
DoD
because that is the way it is presently, effectively structured


if it's not broken, don't break it
 
Last edited:

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I put "other" because it would be idiotic to put everyone in the same catagory. Each branch has different approaches to the art of warfare. Which is the main reason to seperate them.

Keeping them seperated also makes communication far easier.
 

TheGirlNextDoor


DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
20,033
Reaction score
7,647
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
DoD
because that is the way it is presently, effectively structured


if it's not broken, don't break it
I got into an argument with a co-worker about this topic. He seems to think that the consolidation of branches would make for a smoother deployment when necessary, communication would be virtually seamless, etc... I disagreed and the 'chat' got a little heated. I didn't (and still don't) see the point in consolidation, but thought maybe someone here could clue me into something that maybe I was missing when I was 'talking' to this guy.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Yes, it is kind of silly :)

Consolidation would make things more complicated, actually.
One of the *reasons* for there being separate branches is so the drama that occurs within one - due to their specialty (land, air, sea, elite) doesn't taint the rest.

Aside that - have you experienced the overwhelming inefficiency *of* any one of these branches?
Inefficiency (clerical, organization and otherwise) is largely due to the sheer number of soldiers being processed and powered about.

Consolidation would *mean* consolidating *everything* including paperwork. Thus constipating the already pact system and sending everyone to the ER with chronic constipation worthy of a one hell of an enema.
 

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
25,983
Reaction score
6,488
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Other: Don't.
 

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
36,117
Reaction score
21,520
Location
Didjabringabeeralong
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
Navy, then the Village People dream would finally be realised.
 

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,550
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Army, the Chinese already do it that way. They got the People's Liberation Army, the People's Liberation Army Navy, and the People's Liberation Army Air Force.

And look... how... good... they... are.... hrm...
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,344
Reaction score
7,210
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I put "other" because it would be idiotic to put everyone in the same catagory. Each branch has different approaches to the art of warfare. Which is the main reason to seperate them.

Keeping them seperated also makes communication far easier.
I disagree that keeping them seperated makes communication easier.

I'd be interested in knowing why you feel this way.
 

Johnny

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
571
Reaction score
205
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I don't like the idea of merging all of the branches together. But since that's what the question is I voted Army. The Army has planes, ships, Special Forces, etc etc. They'd probably be the best in absorbing the other branches. I don't think it's a good idea though. But if they were to merge the branches Boot Camp should be to the Marine Corps' standards.

I do however think the Air Force should be given back to the Army.
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,344
Reaction score
7,210
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I don't like the idea of merging all of the branches together. But since that's what the question is I voted Army. The Army has planes, ships, Special Forces, etc etc. They'd probably be the best in absorbing the other branches. I don't think it's a good idea though. But if they were to merge the branches Boot Camp should be to the Marine Corps' standards.

I do however think the Air Force should be given back to the Army.
The way I see it....
The AF should go back to the Army.

The Marine Corps should be a part of the Navy.
The Coast Guard should also be a part of the Navy.
 

Johnny

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
571
Reaction score
205
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The way I see it....
The AF should go back to the Army.

The Marine Corps should be a part of the Navy.
The Coast Guard should also be a part of the Navy.
The Corps is under the Department of the Navy. That's why the Corps doesn't have it's own Chaplains, Corpsmen, and a few other jobs. They come from the Navy. The Coast Guard in times of war can be put under Department of the Navy control.
 

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,206
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The Army because you can't win a war without boots on the ground.
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,344
Reaction score
7,210
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Corps is under the Department of the Navy. That's why the Corps doesn't have it's own Chaplains, Corpsmen, and a few other jobs. They come from the Navy. The Coast Guard in times of war can be put under Department of the Navy control.
Yes, Im aware... but what I mean is... It should be absorbed by the Navy entirely.
Same with the Coast Guard.

Our Military Branch Choices should be Army...or Navy?
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Navy already owns the Marine Corps and the Coast Guard in times of war.

Ask any Marine, and he'll be glad to tell you he's better than any five soldiers.

Ask any Air Force pilot to land on a heaving carrier deck, see what he says.

Besides, I'm a Navy veteran.
 

Andalublue

Hello again!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
27,097
Reaction score
12,352
Location
Granada, España
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I think the US would be better served by consolidating its law-enforcement services. Do you really need Police departments, Sheriffs departments, Marshalls, State Troopers, DEA, ATF, FBI and Lord knows what else?
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I don't like the idea of merging all of the branches together. But since that's what the question is I voted Army. The Army has planes, ships, Special Forces, etc etc. They'd probably be the best in absorbing the other branches. I don't think it's a good idea though. But if they were to merge the branches Boot Camp should be to the Marine Corps' standards.

I do however think the Air Force should be given back to the Army.


The Army has ships?

Heck, the Army couldn't even keep it's Reactor Operator's Licence after it melted it's SL1 reactor in Idaho. So how's the Army going to run the submarine fleet?

(Note: The Founders of the Constitution knew that there were enough logistical, tactical, and operational differences to mandate both Army and Navy.)
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I think the US would be better served by consolidating its law-enforcement services. Do you really need Police departments, Sheriffs departments, Marshalls, State Troopers, DEA, ATF, FBI and Lord knows what else?
Police Departments enforce munipal law.
Sheriff's patrol the county.
A state couldn't function if the State Police weren't out there collecting taxes on the highways.
The FBI enforces federal law.

The DEA shouldn't exist, since the federal government doesn't have constitutional authority to regulate drugs.
The federal government does not have the athority to regulate alcohol or tobacco, either, per the Constitution. And fire arms are heavily over-regulated in defiance of the Second Amendment. Thus the BATF isn't necessary.

DHS should never have been created, since FBI already exists.

Border Patrol is a specialized task, but there's no reason the FBI couldn't absorb that.

Treasury directs the Secret Service to deal with counterfeiters and Presidential Security. Clearly both functions can fall under the FBI umbrella.

In general, there are too many bureaucracies and too many duplicated functions for efficiency or coherence in policy.

82 Americans died protecting their freedoms under the First and Second Amendment simply because the bureaucrats running the BATF wanted a high profile arrest just before their budget came under review by Congress.

DHS is prevented from acting in matters of border security, and hence it can't possibly be responsible for "homeland" (something wrong with the word "national"? Closet nazis refer to the "homeland"...) security.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Army because you can't win a war without boots on the ground.
That's wrong.

Wars can be won without putting troops on the ground if the victor is willing to admit that it plans to deny all people future use of the property for the next hundred years or so.
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,316
Reaction score
6,470
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I got into an argument with a co-worker about this topic. He seems to think that the consolidation of branches would make for a smoother deployment when necessary, communication would be virtually seamless, etc... I disagreed and the 'chat' got a little heated. I didn't (and still don't) see the point in consolidation, but thought maybe someone here could clue me into something that maybe I was missing when I was 'talking' to this guy.
You're absolutely right.

Joint interaction is good for our military. We need the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps to work together. Doing so prevents interservice rivalry from interfering with the waging of war and achieving victory.

Having consolidation is a bad idea. The reason why it's a bad idea is because different military branches has different demands on their enlisted and their officers. An example of this is how the Navy fights from ships at sea and not in broad fronts in the middle of the woods, which is what those in the Army and Marine Corps may do. Likewise, the Air Force perform strategic air operations (such as bombings,) air superiority operations, and close air support for the Army and the Marine Corps (when their aviation units or naval aviation units can't), but those same Air Force personnel don't usually fight from tanks.

This is no offense to any one service branch. Rather, the different service branches operates in different areas of warfare. Those different areas require different kinds of training and different kinds of equipment.

I would also like to add that ever since the Goldwater-Nicols Act the different service branches have been able to act much better in a cooperative fashion. The major armed conflicts that have proven this are the Gulf War and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There were many soldiers on the ground of the Army that were saved by Air Force officers piloting the Warthog, and the Navy's hospital ships have saved the lives of not just servicemen from many branches but also many civilians as well.

While I think that there may need to be some better interaction between the service branches, I think it would be utter folly to combine all the branches into one service. It would not clear things up the way your co-worker believes it would. Rather, there would be still be four units that all share the same rank and hierarchy. That's the only thing that would be a de facto difference.

I would also like to know if the person you spoke with has any actual military experience. I have a few ideas with regards to making the military a better organization for waging war and saving the lives of servicemen, but I haven't served, and probably never will, and so defer most of my opinions on these matters to those who have. I think for those who have risked their lives for this country, such deference has been earned.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
106,798
Reaction score
50,719
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
There is no good reason to combine the military branches any more than they already are. At the top, they do have the same leadership. The reality is that any such merger of forces would be cosmetic only and not improve readiness.
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,316
Reaction score
6,470
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Yes, Im aware... but what I mean is... It should be absorbed by the Navy entirely.
Same with the Coast Guard.

Our Military Branch Choices should be Army...or Navy?
The Coast Guard cannot be absorbed by the Navy because the Posse Comitatus Act prevents the use of the military for law enforcement purposes in domestic territory.
 

WI Crippler

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
15,429
Reaction score
9,577
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I think the Air Force never should have been separated from the Army. Now the Army has to rely on a whole different branch to supply air support that is not helicopter related and that branch is disconnected from the culture of the people they are charged with supporting. The Navy and Marine Corps are technically in the same department, and while there are differences between the two, there is a common culture and language shared that makes working with sailors more efficient than working with the Air Force or Army for that matter. With the exception of their special forces, the majority of the air force is too far removed from the culture of combat operations and the sacrifices that entails. Don't get me wrong, they are good at what they are asked to do, i just think they need to be brought a little closer to the reality of what our guys on the ground face.
 

rathi

Count Smackula
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
7,890
Reaction score
4,730
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
If you were going to create a unified service for all branches, giving it an entirely new name would make the most sense as you would avoid hurting any delicate feelings. Hypothetically, I would agree that having separate branches is not efficient and a better system based around modern communication technology and logistics could be devised. In reality, the incredible costs of re-organizing the entire military and regaining the institutional knowledge are way more than it is worth.
 
Top Bottom