U.S. Military Can't Even Fight One War Today

Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by APACHERAT, Feb 28, 2016.

  1. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Obama Doctrine

    Talk Loudly
    and Carry a Wet Noodle





     
  2. US Conservative

    US Conservative Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 19, 2015
    Messages:
    66,099
    Likes Received:
    68,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This is what happens when people elect leftists.
     
  3. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    "Talk Loudly and Carry a Wet Noodle"

    Like when Obama drew the red line in the sand in Syria and Putin got in Obama's face and Obama blinked. :roflol:
     
  4. Pax Aeon

    Pax Aeon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2015
    Messages:
    7,291
    Likes Received:
    432
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Female
    `
    Poor OP. The changes that have been made by the US Military, which he for some reason blames Obama, are a done deed and will not be reversed. The only thing left to do is whine. Never mind, that the war mongering Obama has a trail of innocent blood across the middle east but that's not enough for those who thirst for greater carnage and death. What person on the right doesn't love that?
     
  5. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The vast majority of the Officers Corps who haven't already been puged by Valerie Jarrett and Barack Obama and the SNCO Corps and the military veterans will see that the PC social engineering that has been forced upon our military be erased, our country's survival is dependent on it being done.

    Give me a break, drag queens on air force bases and buggery on American warships. :roflol:
     
  6. Pax Aeon

    Pax Aeon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2015
    Messages:
    7,291
    Likes Received:
    432
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Female
    `
    Well some people have larger demons to live with than others. To that extent, I wish you well.
     
  7. tkolter

    tkolter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,134
    Likes Received:
    598
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Here is a likely WW2 scenario the Chinese, North Koreans and Russia decide to invade us. The mobilize and we see them mobilize and our ballistic missile force is all deployed to hide as we near Def-Com 1. They begin deploying and move in on us we respond with our nuclear deterrent as things escalate and then we push the button on our big nukes and no one wins.

    So what is the issue no one will ever go to full scale war with us again all the players that can are also nuclear, that keeps us from going there.
     
  8. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What ? No reach around ?
     
  9. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If they nuke San Francisco, America wins.

    A small tactical nuke on West Hollywood would also be nice. :smile:
     
  10. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are aware that a unit not having X number of people with current certificates as hazardous material handlers makes them "non deployable", right?

    It's a paperwork issue and not reflective of combat effectiveness.
     
  11. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    As in human waste ?
     
  12. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    More like "ammo". If your unit doesn't have enough people with up to date certs as ammo handlers or combat lifesavers or freaking UA's they count as non deployable, even if the people who previously held those certs are a day out of tolerance.
     
  13. Spooky

    Spooky Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2013
    Messages:
    31,814
    Likes Received:
    13,377
    Trophy Points:
    113
    China and NK to not have the transport capability to get over here and Russia would be very hard pressed if they were to try. They also would probably not make it through our subnet. If they did then they would face the problem of landing which would certainly be opposed. The only possible way to pull off an invasion would be a sneak attack through Me I I but the odds of that going undetected are about a million to one.

    Unless they get extremely lucky with a preemptive nuclear strike an invasion of America is almost impossible.
     
  14. AlpinLuke

    AlpinLuke Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2014
    Messages:
    6,559
    Likes Received:
    588
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, it's clear that Obama administration is not interested in keeping the US combat ready and able to project their power quickly and with efficiency without a great preparation.

    Think to the geopolitical strategies that the Administration has showed about Libya [where US made some early steps to step back as soon as Europeans joined the party, leaving to London and Paris to command the operations] and Syria.

    In good substance Obama has changed the military attitude of the United States from potentially offensive to potentially defensive. To take action, now US need time and a long preparation.

    Is this good or bad?

    It depends on what the allies do. The technological level of some allied armies has arises [several EU countries have already got stealth surface and air units], new battle carriers are going to be operative in UK, Germany is finally developing a serious military capability. Italian Navy has improved a lot in the last two decades. France has produced great "toys" for its Army ... and so on.

    But ... is there the political will to use all that hardware? In a real war, I mean.

    Back to Libya and Syria, it's evident that after Libya [when Europeans entered war, may be sure to see US forces with them], now Europeans are reluctant to send their armies to fight [where is the American umbrella?].

    Actually this is not a problem for Americans: US defend their interests, it's correct that the allies develop the military capability to defend their own interests. But if Obama administration think to count on allies also to defend or to endorse the geopolitical interests of US [since he has changed the configuration of US forces from offensive to defensive], well ... the European behavior becomes pivotal.

    Honestly I cannot image US depending on EU armed forces [this would be the greatest historical paradox ever!].
     
  15. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You are aware of course that "Hazmat Certification" only takes about 4 hours, right? And it can be done entirely online, so can be done at any time.

    When I was in PATRIOT, my Battalion was around 85% "HAZMAT Certified". All individuals in the 14 series were certified, as were a great many others from fuel handlers and commo, to mechanics and medical personnel and many others. This is taken care of generally as soon as an individual joins a unit and is taged as being in a position (or possibly to be in a position) where it might be required.

    Nothing magical or secret about this, a lot of people who are in take it simply because they can, and it equals promotion points as "Military Education". The same way many take advantage of enroling themselves in the "Army Substance Abuse Program". Not because they have a problem at all, but for promotion points.

    And it is not a "paperwork issue". If your job has anything to do with handling potentially hazardous materials, you take the class. When I started working at Walmart I had to take a similar class.
     
  16. Mr_Truth

    Mr_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    33,372
    Likes Received:
    36,882
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    World War III is just around the corner.


    BLAME OBAMA!!!!!







    :roflol: :roflol: :roflol:
     
  17. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,625
    Likes Received:
    11,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Is that a misprint?

    The present size of the U.S. Army is 475,000 active and 540,000 Reservists and National Guard, for a total of 1,015,000.

    We possess the most technologically advanced military in the world.

    We possess the infrastructure necessary to quickly increase the size of our military if needed.

    We also possess the experience and infrastructure necessary to exert expeditionary force anywhere in the world, with no other world power coming even close to our capability.

    :salute: :flagus:
     
  18. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And what is the combat readiness of the U.S. Army under the Obama administration ? Of the Army's 33 combat brigades, 20 aren't combat deployable, having a combat readiness rating of C-3 or C-4. When I served a C-2 combat readiness wasn't even exceptable.

    1/2 of the Marine Corps isn't combat deployable.

    When Obama became CnC in 2009, 13% of the navy's ships weren't capable to putting to sea and being able to fight. Today less than 50% of the navy's ships are mission capable.

    The morale of our soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen is at the lowest levels in history even lower than during the 1970's under Jimmy Carter.

    Obama as CnC has the lowest approval rating by our troops than any other CnC in history.

    For seven years we have watched the Officers Corps being purged the military being used for liberal social engineering not for fighting wars and winning on the battlefield.

    http://index.heritage.org/military/2015/chapter/us-power/
     
  19. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,625
    Likes Received:
    11,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You're a vet; I'm a vet. We did what we did, and we're proud of it. It's something not everyone does, and it's something you get to carry with you all your life, and no one can take it away. And so I think I can understand low morale in the military. What the rank and file in the military really want - what makes it all worth it - is when their Commander-in-Chief, the elected president of our country, goes out of his way to show his respect for you. Obama doesn't do this. He gives it lip service in speeches from time to time. And his administration, under his leadership, has turned the military into a social engineering project. Our combat vets - those who have fought on the ground, those who have lost buddies, those who have been wounded - know that a battlefield is no place for a politically correct social engineering experiment. And they know that the administration is willing to sacrifice their lives for this social experimenting. And to make matters worse, the Obama administration has misused our military in the world. He destroyed Libya with it and turned Libya into a jihadist wasteland, and he almost did the same thing to Syria. We are bombing the holy hell out of ISIS, but it was our meddling in Syria that helped ISIS take over in Syria and Iraq. There are an awful lot of active military who fought in Iraq, who have watched this president fritter away everything they fought for. These things lower morale in our military. I agree with you on that.

    But still, I pity the poor pathetic nation that screws with us. This bull has got some huge friggin' horns. :flagus:

    Btw, if half of the Marine Corps is deployable, whoever that enemy is .... is effed. :salute:
     
  20. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And that equipment requires a lot of personnel in order to keep operational.

    A US Army PATRIOT Battalion is roughly 360 people when fully staffed. But out of all of those people, only arounf 50 are actual "fighters". The rest are all support. Compare that to a Marine Corps Infantry Battalion, which will have about the same number of personnel. But out of that all but 100 are actual "fighters", the support number is small and with a large number of "temporary assignments" of Infantry personnel.

    Right now, almost all segments of the US military are suffering from a huge deficiency in personnel. That is why once again the number of contractors is increasing. There are simply not enough active duty personnel available to handle all of the jobs needed. And in the event of an actual need, it will take from 3-12 months to get the Reserves and National Guard activated to deploy overseas.
     
  21. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,625
    Likes Received:
    11,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And yet I remain confident that we can defend our nation and our closest allies if need be. And, we can ramp it up if needed. I love and respect our military, especially the young people who volunteer to serve. But I do not believe we should be the world's policeman. Civil wars in faraway countries are none of our business. We need to just let these people, who are not like us, sort out their own ... uh ... "stuff". Meanwhile, our enemies can eat our bombs.

    And damn .... we have got one hell of a lethal military. Late in 2015, the military reported that they had killed 20,000 ISIS terrorists in Syria and Iraq, and we have increased the pace of our attacks on them since then. We have lost only one KIA, a Special Forces member on a raid. That's 20,000+ to 1.

    None of the leading contenders for POTUS in this year's elections will let up on ISIS. So basically, they're "dead on their feet". It's just a matter of time. Just the other day, we used some badass tech and intel to kill a major ISIS commander in Syria and 12 of his friends. We're killing hundreds of them every week. Last week we killed around 150 Shabaab fighters (aligned with Al Qaeda) in Somalia.

    It's still pretty dang lethal to our enemies.
     
  22. US Conservative

    US Conservative Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 19, 2015
    Messages:
    66,099
    Likes Received:
    68,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Its true our military is damn good at what it does-but as impressive as our military is fighting low intensity, asymmetric conflicts Im more worried about fighting a large, conventional enemy. Thats where our greatest weakness lies-and while we still hold significant advantages-we should not give that advantage up.
     
  23. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,625
    Likes Received:
    11,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Hey there .... I'm not being internet trollish and just looking to argue, OK?

    But what large conventional enemy?

    You mean like if the Russians roll into eastern Europe? If something like that happens, nuclear war would be a possibility. But just for the sake of discussion, let's say (1) the two great powers didn't go nuclear, and (2) the U.S. and Europe had the will to fight for eastern Europe. So we fight them conventionally.

    I believe we would defeat them in the air.

    And when we had the air, their conventional ground forces would turn into sitting ducks. In this day and age conventional forces really just aren't diddly squat unless you can control the air over them. Because if you can't control the air over them, they're dead. Just ask Saddam Hussein ... oh wait ...

    Tanks, artillery, infantry ... if you can see them, they're dead.

    The North Koreans? We've got a division there, air power, and the South Korean Army is no slouch either. My answer to a full-on assault by the North would be to launch from a sub and put an end to it, for good. Know what I mean?

    Anyways, I just don't see us getting into one of those WW2 style wars again in the 21st Century. Of course we need the Army and the Marines but not with that kind of massive WW2 style posture. Times have changed.
     
  24. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If 80% of the targets against ISIS are being deinde to be engage by 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. in the name of liberal political correctness rules of engagement by Barack Obama, Valerie Jarrett and Susan Rice who have no military experience, the same Obama White House who believe that U.S. Marines should be carrying umbrellas instead of rifles. If our Air Force, Marines and Navy pilots were have been allowed to engage those 80% of the targets that were not allowed to engage, wouldn't it mean that 160,000 ISIS would have been killed and there would be no more ISIS today ?


    US military pilots complain hands tied in ‘frustrating’ fight against ISIS
    Excerpts:

    Military Hates White House ‘Micromanagement’ of ISIS War

    The Pentagon brass placed in charge of implementing Obama’s war against ISIS are getting fed up with the short leash the White House put them on.
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-white-house-micromanagement-of-isis-war.html


    White House shouldn't 'micromanage' ISIS fight -> http://thehill.com/policy/defense/2...house-shouldnt-micromanage-fight-against-isis


    Gates and Panetta Blast Obama for Micromanaging Military

    Former Defense Secretaries Robert Gates and Leon Panetta have joined in accusing President Obama and the White House National Security Council staff (NSC) of micromanaging the military to the point of attempting to set up direct lines of communication to combatant commanders.
    "It was micromanagement that drove me crazy," Gates said at the Reagan National Defense Forum at President Ronald Reagan's library in California over the weekend.
    Gates said he had to deal with members of the NSC staff who directly called four-star generals on matters of strategy and tactics. The White House also attempted to make direct contact with Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), Gates said.
    "I told JSOC if they got a call from the White House you tell them to go to hell and call me," Gates said to a round of applause from the audience.
    Gates said the Obama White House too often let politics influence the policy when it came to the Defense Department. -> http://www.military.com/daily-news/...a-blast-obama-for-micromanaging-military.html
     
  25. US Conservative

    US Conservative Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 19, 2015
    Messages:
    66,099
    Likes Received:
    68,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Its true that nukes are a game changer but because most of the worlds major power have them, I think they will be unlikely to be used. That would essentially be a "push".

    Im more concerned about several nation states forming an alliance, for example china and russia, and maybe a middle east power like Iran. Yes, we have allies, but I don't think we have seen the end of major military conflicts like ww2-there just isn't a major conflict likely in the near term future. Im more worried about 20+ years into the future, and they course we are on seems a bit short sighted.
     

Share This Page