• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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!

Reductions In Force

Aunt Spiker said:
I pay attention a lot to military goings-on and what he says about it (has said about it before his presidency as well) . . . I feel it's quite true. If we weren't so tied up in the Middle East we'd be involved deeply in Africa right now - haven't you been paying attention to the pleas for involvement and the Democratic party's directive to become involved with countries such as Darfur?

Obama and many like him feel it's quite unfair that we involve ourselves so much with some countries - and not enough with others who have just as much - if not more - suffering going on.
Click to expand...

He does have a point there.
Do you see our current CIC actually ordering an invasion of Darfur or Sudan?
 
Dittohead not! said:
He does have a point there.
Do you see our current CIC actually ordering an invasion of Darfur or Sudan?
Click to expand...

I see them making it important to assist and solve problems as much as possible in some countries in Africa - and for some situations and places I'd agree that our help is warrented. . . but in what fashion - by what means . . . I don't know.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Maybe someone is trying to live within their means. It's a radical concept for the US military, but we're all in this together. Everyone is lacking a flat bladed instrument to propel us out of this ordure filled small waterway.
Click to expand...
So how much welfare are we going to cut. I hope you'll agree that 50% should be cut, far more than the military. The military protects us all, and should get priority. I know you'll agree.
 
American said:
So how much welfare are we going to cut. I hope you'll agree that 50% should be cut, far more than the military. The military protects us all, and should get priority. I know you'll agree.
Click to expand...

You are more protected by the Atlantic and the Pacific.
 
I wouldn't argue with that, but who is capable of a credible seaborne (or airborne) assault on the USA, even in this day and age?
 
ChuckBerry said:
That's precisely the point I was trying to make PSK...right now, of course the U.S. has to maintain the posture of world policeman, but it's a role we could phase out of...IF we start taking steps now.
Click to expand...

Ah, must have mistaken your point. NATO during the Cold War was well known for members bickering about each defense contributions. Still bickering bitterly, from what I hear
 
Manc Skipper said:
I wouldn't argue with that, but who is capable of a credible seaborne (or airborne) assault on the USA, even in this day and age?
Click to expand...

That's right bitches! We still ****in rock. . . party on!

Seriously, however - maybe Russia or China but that's about it. . . and they obviously have other fish they'd like to fillet. (If we're purely looking at ability - I'm not saying they're GOING to do it)
 
Manc Skipper said:
I wouldn't argue with that, but who is capable of a credible seaborne (or airborne) assault on the USA, even in this day and age?
Click to expand...

That's one major reason why the US is a superpower. It's virtually immune to conventional attacks. No country can invade across such giant oceans without being detected, destroyed, and even if troops do land, they have an impossible task of sustaining those troops, which not only requires huge amounts of effort, money, equipment, and personnel, but also vulnerable to attack, making the use of escorts necessary.
No wonder the US has a perfect safety record of protecting its homeland. Not even Hitler was mad enough to attempt a cross-Atlantic landing, and the Japanese knew that invading the US mainland was impossible. Their strategy was to make an invincible Pacific Wall so that the US will be in a sea-version of WWI, tiring out the resources, manpower, equipment, and making the country sue for peace. No madman, no dictator was mad enough to think that their country can invade the US successfully
 
cpwill said:
we could definitely shrink a bit without harming mission. we cannot shrink this much without harming mission. it is the difference between going on a diet, and anorexia.
Click to expand...

5 Jan 2012 - CNN
President Obama unveiled his plan for a leaner, cheaper military Thursday in a briefing at the Pentagon. He said U.S. armed forces will retain the ability to fight terrorism and confront new threats from countries such as China and Iran.

"The tide of war is receding," Obama said in prepared remarks. "But the question that this strategy answers is what kind of military will we need after the long wars of the last decade are over. And today, we're moving forward, from a position of strength."

The new strategy is the result of months of study at the Pentagon. It reflects a high-stakes, high-wire balancing act by Obama as he faces a more austere budget climate combined with continued high U.S. responsibilities at home and overseas.

The plan already has run into opposition from Republicans on Capitol Hill and GOP presidential candidates, citing concern about paring back the military. In addition, conservative defense analysts say the plan steps away from the l ongtime U.S. commitment to be able to wage two major wars simultaneously.

There is no overt mention in the Pentagon's strategy document, however, that the U.S. is stopping its policy of being ready to fight two ground wars simultaneously, but the reduced size suggests that is the case.
Click to expand...

I think this should provide some insight into what you're talking about.
 
Manc Skipper said:
I wouldn't argue with that, but who is capable of a credible seaborne (or airborne) assault on the USA, even in this day and age?
Click to expand...

Oh, we're pretty safe from a conventional assault and invasion. Terrorist attacks, however, are another matter. We think we've put some security measures in place, particularly at airports, but we still have so many vulnerabilities that another attack is pretty likely.
 
cpwill said:
the problem comes when your economy is dependent upon global trade, and the thing you are cutting is precisely the force that provides the security necessary for global trade. we risk sawing off the branch we are sitting on.
Click to expand...

When was the last time we had to fight a war over international trade...the Barbary pirates? Trade is economically beneficial to all parties, it's not our navy that keeps open trade lanes.
 
Manc Skipper said:
I wouldn't argue with that, but who is capable of a credible seaborne (or airborne) assault on the USA, even in this day and age?
Click to expand...

There are no single nations that could pull that off, but a coalition of several nations could realisticly conduct a sucessful amphibious and/or airborne invasion of the United States.
 
apdst said:
There are no single nations that could pull that off, but a coalition of several nations could realisticly conduct a sucessful amphibious and/or airborne invasion of the United States.
Click to expand...

and the likelihood of that happening is somewhat less than the likelihood of pigs flying, Hell freezing, and San Francisco voting Republican, all in the same day.

What is much more likely is another terrorist attack. All it would take would be a group of nutters willing to give up their lives in order to attack the "Great Satan" and kill a few of us infidels.

How does this scenario sound? Remember the guys going around shooting people at random from the trunk of a car a few years back? So, they send in a dozen or so teams of killers, shooting people at random all over the country. They wouldn't have to kill very many, just make it obvious that no one is safe, anywhere. What effect would that have on the country?
 
apdst said:
There are no single nations that could pull that off, but a coalition of several nations could realisticly conduct a sucessful amphibious and/or airborne invasion of the United States.
Click to expand...

This is almost true, but with a whole lot of caveats.

1) The US would have to be involved in a very large war overseas which has drawn the vast majority of the force there and tied them down.

2) It would have to be airborne. Amphibious would not work as they would be intercepted before they got to the US.

3) Successful would have to be defined as creating a foothold for a short period of time. No way such a force would be able to hold for long.
 
all we need is enough troops to participate in two small wars at the
same time.

anything else is unneccessary and a waste of $$$.
 
Thunder said:
all we need is enough troops to participate in two small wars at the
same time.

anything else is unneccessary and a waste of $$$.
Click to expand...

But...but...but...what about those ever important government jobs???
 
Redress said:
This is almost true, but with a whole lot of caveats.

1) The US would have to be involved in a very large war overseas which has drawn the vast majority of the force there and tied them down.
Click to expand...

No, we wouldn't. It could be peace time and our armed forces would be drawn down to peace time levels.

Politically speaking, there are politicians that would never allow the United States to maintain a standing army of 1 million+ soldiers, during peace time.

2) It would have to be airborne. Amphibious would not work as they would be intercepted before they got to the US.
Click to expand...

Not if they were disguised. Admittedly an amphib assault would be tough, but not impossible. I agree, though, that an air-land invasion would have th best chance of success.

3) Successful would have to be defined as creating a foothold for a short period of time. No way such a force would be able to hold for long.
Click to expand...

Oh, there's a way. The same way that we got a foothold in Iraq and the same way the Soviets got a foothold in Afghanistan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom