Where would you make the budget cuts?

@oralloy,

I am a US Army veteran, oralloy; I doubt that you ever served this country. Don't lecture me about "the nation's defenses." You are a disgrace and an embarrasment to anyone who actually cares about the image this country is begining to present to the rest of the world under GOP "leadership."

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralboy,

Quote:

I merely object to the fact that the Left actively tries to get America conquered by a foreign enemy.

You really are pretty ignorant.

http://pgpf.org/sites/default/files/sitecore/media%20library/PGPF/Chart-Archive/0053_defense-comparison-full.gif

0 Replies

@oralloy,

The US military only has 2 brigades? Since when?

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

Lustig Andrei wrote:

I am a US Army veteran, oralloy;

As if that excused your wanting us to be conquered by a foreign enemy.

Lustig Andrei wrote:

Don't lecture me about "the nation's defenses."

You'd like that, wouldn't you, if no one were allowed to speak out against your efforts to destroy the country.

Lustig Andrei wrote:

You are a disgrace and an embarrasment to anyone who actually cares about the image this country is begining to present to the rest of the world under GOP "leadership."

Leftists don't like it when Republicans keep the nation strong.

People who want the nation to continue to survive need to send as many Republicans to Washington as possible.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

The US military only has 2 brigades? Since when?

Don't be silly. You know very well that it was "2 brigades capable of serious combat".

And you know very well that it was just last year. You just spent the last several pages talking about it.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Now, this is silly! You wrote, [quote]Don't be silly. You know very well that it was "2 brigades capable of serious combat".[/quote]

Those 2 brigades 'capable of serious combat' are supported by the biggest military machine in the world with more than 1.4 million personnel.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Don't be silly. You know very well that it was "2 brigades capable of serious combat".

Actually, I know that is NOT true. The US Army claimed that they only had 2 brigades that were "combat ready" but your statement ignores several other facts.
1. The US Army is not the entire US military.
2. "Combat Ready" is a term used to designate that a brigade is fully trained and fully equipped and ready and able to be sent to a war zone.
3. Brigades that are not fully trained or fully equipped are still capable of engaging in combat. (In fact most of the brigades of other countries would not meet the standards set by the US Army but that doesn't prevent them from fighting.)
4. The National Guard and Reserves are a force larger than the active Army, are capable of serious combat, and were formed to defend the country in case of an invasion.

In short, the US military with only 2 combat ready brigades in the Army is still quite capable of defending the US. We do have an air force, navy, reservists and Marines.

2 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

. Brigades that are not fully trained or fully equipped are still capable of engaging in combat

actually no, they are usually not to strength, and are not trained up to the extent that they can be expected to fight successfully.

Quote:

The National Guard and Reserves are a force larger than the active Army, are capable of serious combat, and were formed to defend the country in case of an invasion.

While the army claims that they can do this in 30 days during the recent wars it has taken at least 3 months to get a unit ready to ship, and this is only if they have equipment. Most reserve units dont have the tools to fight, they are expected to find it in theater. There are some stocks in Europe and the Mid East but not a lot, so the problem is what exactly are they supposed to use. During recent wars they have taken over the stuff that the active units that came in before brought over. One would hope that there is stuff in America ready to go, but I doubt it, the military tends to mouthball everything it is not currently using either in war or the equip a unit that is on the ready for orders. Getting stuff ready to use, and put in place to use, takes serious time.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
. Brigades that are not fully trained or fully equipped are still capable of engaging in combat

actually no, they are usually not to strength, and are not trained up to the extent that they can be expected to fight successfully.

Actually, YES. Even if they can't fight successfully they can still engage in combat.

US history is full of men not fully trained, equipped or with a complete platoon, battalion, brigade still fighting quite successfully.

1 Reply

@parados,

How hawk is able to determine all by himself why our troops are not ready for combat is an amazing feat! Not ready in comparison to which countries?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

How hawk is able to determine all by himself why our troops are not ready for combat is an amazing feat! Not ready in comparison to which countries?

I brought to evidence a year old military readiness report to show that money is tight, I never said anything about current readiness.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

So, what exactly is your complaint - if any? This country still spends more than the top 10 countries on defense. Money is tight? Compared to what?

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

your statement ignores several other facts.
1. The US Army is not the entire US military.

Even modern air power is no substitute for ground forces. And the same Leftists who are dismantling the Army are also dismantling the Air Force, so don't count on us having modern air power.

parados wrote:

2. "Combat Ready" is a term used to designate that a brigade is fully trained and fully equipped and ready and able to be sent to a war zone.

Which is what we would need if we ever faced a serious invasion.

parados wrote:

3. Brigades that are not fully trained or fully equipped are still capable of engaging in combat. (In fact most of the brigades of other countries would not meet the standards set by the US Army but that doesn't prevent them from fighting.)
4. The National Guard and Reserves are a force larger than the active Army, are capable of serious combat, and were formed to defend the country in case of an invasion.

If we were facing a serious invasion, confronting it with undergeared and undertrained troops would be the surest way to end up conquered.

parados wrote:

In short, the US military with only 2 combat ready brigades in the Army is still quite capable of defending the US.

Not against a serious invasion.

parados wrote:

We do have an air force, navy, reservists and Marines.

An Air Force crippled by a shortage of F-22s and a Navy hobbled by reliance on outdated destroyers.

Except for the Marines, the rest of the armed services are not able to substitute for Army ground forces. And there aren't nearly enough Marines to cover for the lack of an Army.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Our military uses all its resources as needed in any war. We have the necessary manpower and equipment in all of our defense department - that includes the Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force, National Guards, and Special Forces.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Modern air power and a Navy is going to seriously reduce any invasion force unless the invasion is from Canada or Mexico.

Quote:

don't count on us having modern air power.

I hardly doubt the US is using single engine biplanes.

Quote:

If we were facing a serious invasion, confronting it with undergeared and undertrained troops would be the surest way to end up conquered.

You keep saying this and I still don't know where you think this "serious invasion" is going to come from without advance warning to attack the forces with a Navy and air force capable of pretty drastically crippling the mode of transportation of the "serious invasion."

Quote:

An Air Force crippled by a shortage of F-22s and a Navy hobbled by reliance on outdated destroyers.

F-22s are important for fighting against a ground invasion? This is right after you argued they can't do anything against a ground invasion?

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Modern air power and a Navy is going to seriously reduce any invasion force unless the invasion is from Canada or Mexico.

It's a shame the Air Force is crippled by a lack of F-22s and the Navy is stuck using out-of-date destroyers.

parados wrote:

I hardly doubt the US is using single engine biplanes.

Anything that isn't an F-22 might as well be a single-engine biplane.

parados wrote:

I still don't know where you think this "serious invasion" is going to come from without advance warning to attack the forces with a Navy and air force capable of pretty drastically crippling the mode of transportation of the "serious invasion."

I'm not making any predictions as to where it might come from.

Clearly at the moment there is no one poised to mount such an invasion. This lack of a strong enemy is the only reason we weren't conquered last year.

Countries that are unable to defend themselves only coast through history for so long. If they do not regain the ability to defend themselves, eventually someone conquers them.

parados wrote:

F-22s are important for fighting against a ground invasion? This is right after you argued they can't do anything against a ground invasion?

Air power can not act as a substitute for ground troops. At the most it can aid ground troops.

If you wish to rely on air power to aid our ground troops, that air power needs to survive against enemy air power.

F-22s, if we had enough of them, would ensure American control of the skies (and thus the ability for American planes to aid our ground troops). The F-22s may not be the planes providing the aid to the troops, but they would be the ones ensuring American ownership over the skies.

Lack of enough F-22s will ensure enemy control of the skies (resulting in enemy planes aiding enemy troops).

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Anything that isn't an F-22 might as well be a single-engine biplane.

the capability of any one is only part of the story, ask the ants. Our planes are so expensive and expensive to operate that any likely opponent should have no trouble outnumbering us 10-1. Add this to the almost certainty of our aircraft carriers going to the bottom of the sea in the first days and the very uncertainty of our satellites working we are certainly going to have a fight on our hands.

Quote:

Air power can not act as a substitute for ground troops. At the most it can aid ground troops.

The Professor has not figured this out yet. He might if he pays attention to how his ISIS war goes.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

When troops aren't on the ground but are in planes or ships, US ground troops aren't going to do much good. Those planes and ships need to make it to the US coastline without any loses in order for you to be correct on this one.

The US has 10 carriers and over 50 attack submarines. Who has more up to date destroyers than the US? The US airforce has 343 A10- Thunderbolts. The F-22 can't begin to match the ability of the A10 when it comes to supporting ground troops.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

In case you hadn't noticed, ISIS hasn't invaded the US which is what we are talking about.

0 Replies

@parados,

With all the intelligence equipment available to the US, there's no way any enamy sub or anything else is going to be in our 'space' to attack us. It'll be tantimount to committing suicide.

0 Replies

Where would you make the budget cuts?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know