What is the appropriate mission & size of the U.S. Military?

Rather than state "no cuts no matter what to the Military budget" or "slash the military budget"-

What is the appropriate mission for the U.S. military?
What size does it need to be in order to accomplish this mission?
Should budget constraints be considered when considering either?

 

. To defend your Concentration Camp in Cuba? 10.000 ought to do it.

 

I think we could cut about half the troops stationed in Germany and Europe and move the rest to the Asia Pacific theater.

 

Margot, I appreciate the response. But what you are saying is what I am trying to avoid- stating the cuts first, and neglecting the mission.

What is the U.S.'s appropriate mission- and as part of that mission, what is the appropriate size of U.S. military in Europe?

 

Join control of the seas with it allies, the EU and NATO member, India, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and south Korea.

 

John Huntsman had a lot to say on the subject.. You might want to check that out for yourself.

I thought he gave the most complete and insightful answers backed up with facts.

 

I think the US should need no military in European waters, unless they have move through southern Europe on there way back to the US.

I think the key for the US is to dominate the central and nothern Pacific, Caribbean, gulf of Mexico, and part of the Atlantic. The US doesn't need fleets next to Iran. That should be left up to India, and if they need help then fine the US can help from it's join US and EU base in the India Ocean.

 

Those troops are stationed in Germany and Europe for strategic reasons. Look at North America on a map in relation to the world's hotzones, then look at Europe compared to those same areas. Europe is a very centralized location that provides the U.S. with a great strategic position with which to operate out of. Troops aren't just stationed arbitrarily, they have a reason for being there. I'm sure we could afford to trim the numbers in Europe (and the entire military), but Europe is very important to U.S. strategic interests.

 

Joint control? India, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, and MOST members of NATO don't even have true blue water Navy's. They lack the ability to project throughout the seven seas.

 

What interests does India have in Iran? Why would they stretch their very limited fleet by trying to stick around Iran? They're much more concerned with China and Pakistna.

 

Yes now they do but if the US started cutting, they would need to build a bigger navy.

 

turst me in a 5 years India will dominate it's ocean, and have no problem projecting onto Iran, if Iran gets nuclear weapons India would need to projection power onto Iran.

 

The first question to answer: what is the mission to accomplish? The make up of the force follows the answer to that question.

So what do you want? A continued 'world police' presence? Complete isolationism with strong defense on our coasts and island holdings? Something in between?

 

This is more where I wanted this to go.

It really comes down to this first in my opinion- what do we want the U.S.'s mission to be- and then what forces do we need to accomplish that mission.

 

This is a simple question in my opinion.

All US military troops should come back to US soil. That includes South Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany, Turkey, Japan, or anywhere else.

The US military needs to be capable of defending non nuclear attacks from all other countries of the world combined at once. I understand we spend more money on our military than all other countries combined...so we'd better be able to take them all. Then we're totally secure, except for nukes, and nobody is secure from that

 

Zero troops outside of the USA. Significant troops along the Mexican border and a more limited number along the Canadian border and coasts. Defense spending (i.e. technology) should be kept at reasonably high levels after an audit (i.e. probably 85 % of current) and the military should be reduced (i.e. about 30 % of current).

Of course, the systemic problem of globalization may have weakened the USA so substantially that the only act left in the repertoire is to bully the world. We'll see.

 

How will they dominate their ocean? Do they have plans for multiple super carriers, nuclear submarines, cutting edge cruisers/destroyers, and a much more potent naval airwing? That's the only way they could "dominate" navally. India also lacks the logistical or amphibious capabilties to project power into Iran. The U.S. is the only dominate naval power in the Gulf/India ocean and no other Navy even comes remotely close.

 

That's a silly notion. Redeploying all our forces to CONUS would significantly decrease our military's effectiveness. What makes the U.S. military as potent as it is its power projection capability. No other country in the world comes even remotely close in terms of capability. Tying all our conventional forces to CONUS would take away one of our largest advantages and make the billions of dollars we've invested in logistic/power projection a waste.

 

Why would they worry about and need to project power to Iran in the first place?

Remember, you are talking about countries that are seperated by 2 other countries. And it is not like Iran is making threats to destroy India and wipe it off the face of the planet.

I think India is much more worried about the country next door with nuclear weapons, not one a long distance away.

And I think you need to do some research and see what the plan actually is for increasing the Indian Navy. Your "5 year" mark is off, by like 5 years.

They have an old 1959 UK carrier, it is long past time to retire it. It now spends more time in dock then it does at sea.

They are building another carrier, but it is far behind schedule. Started in 2005, it was originally to have been commissioned by 2010. That was then pushed back to 2012, then 2015. Most are saying it will be 2017 before it sees operation.

They also bought the Admiral Gorshkov from Russia. And just like what China bought, this is not a true aircraft carrier, but a "aircraft carrying missile cruiser". It's design is to operate as a missile cruiser, but carry aircraft for self defense and ASW operations. Even the aged INS Viraat carries more aircraft then this boat does. Because this is not a carrier. Even the US Amphibious ship the USS America carries more aircraft then this ship does (36 vs. the 12 of the Admiral Gorshkov). The USS Gerald R. Ford carries over 70.

This ship is currently undergoing refits (India bought it in 2004), and some say it might see service in 2014.

So there you have it, Indian Carriers of the present, and the next 10 years. 1 antique, 1 baby carrier on the way, and another maybe being finished. Not much of a force projection, is it?

 

i beleive it was Gates who said the days of cold-war level defense budgets is over and we just need a military large enough for one full scale conflict.

 

We don't have any where near a cold war defense budget right now. Remember "the peace dividend" we got from Clinton? We've never expanded our military from those baselines. Our current military is approximately 50% of what our Cold War military was.

Right now we can fight one full scale military conflict and a holding action in another theatre. We have 12 carriers, but 4 are always in dry dock every year getting refits, upgrades and painted. So that leaves just 8 to ply the world's oceans.

Carrier Battle groups used to be massive fleets, now they are usually just the carrier, one Ticonderoga class missile cruiser and 3-4 arleigh burke class destroyers with maybe an MEU attached in special cases.

We are actually stretched pretty thin right now given the way the world is constantly asking for a carrier somewhere nearby.

 

I'm against power projection globally. Unless they attack the US, I don't care. The trillions of dollars we've invested in logistic/power projection HAS been a waste, and continuing to waste money on it won't help the US economy.

 

It's still 3 carriers more than any one else in the Indian ocean, and more than China. Iran is in real terms right next to India, and it is a power India would need to beat down to control the Indian ocean, why does the US need to project power on to Iran?

 

India in 5-10 year will come close.

 

No they won't. Mushroom just spelled it out for you. They MAY have 1 "baby carrier" and 1 old carrier that's not even remotely close to a supercarrier.