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

It was the New Left in Congress who just weren't drawing down after the Vietnam War but dismantling the military because the liberals no longer wanted to continue fighting the Cold War and basically surrendered.

It was during this period that the Soviets increased their military presence in the Eastern block countries to 130 divisions and for the first time produced a blue water navy that could operate in any of the worlds oceans and defeat the U.S. Navy at sea. By the late 1970's the United States had a hollow military force.

It would take a real CnC to fix the damage that the anti military liberals inflicted on our military and that CNC was Ronald Reagan.

 

It was a typo.

I meant to post 100 miles and it is actually 110 Miles between Taiwan and China separated by the The Taiwan Strait or Formosa Strait.

This is why I posted that the USN. Ticonderoga Class Cruisers that carry the SM-3 AA/ABM/ASAT would do better if there was more distance.

Sorry for the mistake.

AA

 

The Chinese Army is about 2.3 million with an additional half a million Reserves. They have not fought a war since the Korean War, and they lost an estimated 114,000 troops KIA in that war to our 33,600. And, we would defeat them in the air, and then their gigantic army would be toast. Our biggest challenge would be in keeping our jets refueled and re-armed so they could continue the turkey shoot.

The Russian Army is around 275,000. (Much smaller than ours)

The North Korean Army is 1.8 million (including Reserves) They are opposed by the South Korean army that only numbers 630,000 active, but has just under 3 million Reserves. The South Koreans are known for their discipline and toughness. Not to mention the 28,000 U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines assigned to USFK. And we always have the nuclear option which could stop them overnight.

The Iranian Army is around 350,000. This is the same army that couldn't do any better against Saddam Hussein's army than a stalemate over 8 years. We rolled over Saddam's army in weeks. I'm not impressed by the Iranian army.

In a fight with any of these armies, the question is not "can we win?" The question is "do we want to win?"

Look, I believe our defense is a primary constitutional responsibility of the federal government. I am not opposed to keeping our military properly funded and in a high state of readiness. But if I were the POTUS, and if I couldn't get all the funding I wanted, I would turn to the Joint Chiefs, and I would tell them that we may not like contraction of the military, but when it happens, I want them to reduce size in a way that keeps the remaining forces just as trained and just as supported as ever. I would want them to be even more elite, more nimble, and even more lethal than ever to our enemies.

Quite honestly, if I'm Russia or China, I really don't want to provoke a war with the United States.

We are losing in Afghanistan. This is a choice this administration is making. This doesn't have to do with our capability, however. This is strictly a matter of will. This is not wanting to win.

Agree. This administration is going to turn Afghanistan over to the taliban by choice. All Obama cares about is that he ended our combat mission there. He wants that to be his legacy, even if we lose Afghanistan.

 

This was a POLITICAL DECISION as the initial plans never called for NATION BUILDING.

We were not supposed to be doing any Nation Building as we looked at the History of conflicts in Afghanistan back over 1000 years and no invading army had ever been able to unite the Warlords and hold territory for any length of time.

Knowing this the plan was for a small number of Special Forces, Special Teams and CIA Teams to be on the ground painting targets and it worked very well.

It was only after the debacle of informing the Pakistani Military that allowed Bin Laden to slip out of Tora Bora and over the boarder that the IDIOTS in DC to go NATION BUILDING.

Then DC decided that the war in Afghanistan was far too remote for proper world media coverage to detail U.S. Military Superiority and that was when it was decided to invade Iraq.

Then we began pulling forces out of Afghanistan while they were attempting to go Nation Building and bring them into Iraq which made our Ground Forces in Afghanistan.....which NEVER should have been there in the first place to become vulnerable...and of course the SURGE was required.

But none of this was the original plan.

We were supposed to...and we did....wipe out the vast number of the Enemy using Air Power with small numbers of Special Forces, Special Teams and CIA Teams and this worked very well.

The worse part about DC's decision to send in large numbers of ground forces into Afghanistan was....WE HAD DECIDED RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING THAT TO DO THIS WOULD BE A MISTAKE!!!

But the Politician's over ruled the original plan.

AA

 

It was a typo...I meant to type 100 miles and it is actually 110 miles and this is why the SM-3's would have a difficult time as they would work better at a greater distance.

AA

 

If you read articles specific to the U.S. Navy and Carrier Protection they are developing several new ABM and Anti-Cruise Missile Systems but as several articles state it seem's the USN. is waiting on the FEL or Free Electron Laser System development as they state they do not want to waste a few Billion on development of such Anti-Missile Systems when in a short time the FEL will be their go to system.

I think that is a mistake and they need an Anti-Cruise Missile System NOW....and from what I have read they could have one developed quickly using existing tech. but they seem to be waiting for the FEL.

AA

 

But Mother Russia has 10 million well fit young men of military age who are itching to pick up an AK and fight for Mother Russia.

America doesn't. 80% of the millennials say they would refuse to serve in combat in the American military today. While 3/4 of the young adults of military age in America would be rejected for military service because America has become a nation of Pillsbury Doughboys.

 

In any event that we as a Nation were threatened....there would be no shortage of volunteers.

But in the era of Modern Warfare.....large numbers of troops are not necessary unless you intend to hold ground.

Invading the U.S. would be impossible for any nation.

And as we have no intention of invading Russia or China I think it's safe to say we will be fine.

The ONLY scenario that might create a problem would be North Korea invading South Korea.

But in such a case it's safe to say the GLOVES WOULD COME OFF.

50 Divisions don't mean much when we can fly over them with total Air Supremacy and wipe them out at will.

AA

 

''dismantling the military"






and as usual, not one single word of truth in these right wing lies




laughably pathetic

 

I don't believe that. One need only to look at what happened after 9/11/2001. Tens of thousands of young people joined up. My son was 16 at the time. He and a number of his friends all joined the Marines when they got out of high school and fought.

We may have our problems in this country, but if our country is ever threatened, our young people will step up just like they always have. My only regret is that I was too old on 9/11.

As a "war parent" I have personally witnessed the incredible toughness and patriotism of those who stood for us. They are, and always will be, my heroes.

 

House bill seeks to end downsizing of Army, Marine Corps

 

That enlistment surge only lasted for a couple of years. Then for the first time in America's history we saw enlistment bonus being offered and big reenlistment bonuses.

Here's what caught my eyes a few months ago.

 

You have to read between the lines.


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Army's top general says military forces on the ground face a high level of risk...IF...IF...IF..... the United States gets into a large-scale conflict against a power such as Russia or China.

The probability or chances that the U.S. would get into a large scale war with Russia or China are small in the extreme.

The U.S. could completely collapse the entire Chinese Economy in a week by simply refusing to allow any Chinese Exported Goods into the U.S.

Russia does not want to get involved in any war with anyone right now as they can't even afford to continue running Military operations out of Syria as Putin is pulling all Russian forces out.....never mind the complete INSANITY of Russia getting involved in a war with the U.S.

North Korea is really the only real threat.

AA

 

That would be a disaster.

Millions and millions of empty sea containers stacking up and flooding our ports and harbors with no chi-com (COSCO) container ships being loaded with empty sea containers so they can be shipped back to China to be filled with cheap stuff and shipped back to America to keep the shelves at Walmart full.

 

Yeah, but only about 13% of all Americans have ever served in the military. There are those who protect. There are a greater number who are the protected. It has always been that way.

There is just no doubt in my mind that, if we are ever truly threatened, our young people will step up. I've seen them do it. I've seen their incredible bravery and determination.

 

I can't believe democrats wanted to make Wesley Clark POTUS for a time.

Dark Secret Place is a fascinating show. I listen to its podcast, and he will give coordinates on google maps so you can actually see sat images of everything from "secret" (not classified) military outposts, to 3rd world terrorist hot spots where our special forces are operating, to the sites of former battles where you can see the terrain, etc as he's talking about it.

His episode on the Cuban missile crisis, described in the context of the time period was something else.

 

To me this is one of the fascinating contradictions of the left-every time the decide to lose for politics they make the world more dangerous-by emboldening our enemies and geopolitical adversaries. "Bad guys" have a field day, people are killed, weapons are distributed, etc.

They say they want peace but they make things worse-and then we get strong leaders from time to time who actually have the balls to lead, to commit, and basically let the world know the cat's no longer away.

Si vis pacem para bellum has proven itself to be part of human nature. But the left is big on pretending human nature does not exist.

 

I understand what you are getting at-but my point is that the world is filled with bad actors, influential leaders acting irrationally, misreading others, etc. Military history is filled with the same-people don't always act in the "smart" manner-so we should be planning accordingly.

We should not give up ANY of our hard won strategic advantages, and we are doing that right now. Its even worse to do that while the rest of the world, from terrorists to our major geopolitical adversaries do the opposite.

These advantages take decades to build, but can take much less to lose. The US is probably leading the world in learning to fight 4th generation wars, but I think historically we are in a transition phase-and a major conflict is becoming more-not less likely.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth-generation_warfare

 

I think part of the problem is the disconnect between those who realize this war on terror is going to last decades if not centuries-often with no clearly discernable victories-while others think we can punch a few Osama's in the nose and capture a city and call it a win.

 

China would be the big loser if this occurred.

We can always find other suppliers but China cannot find a Market like the U.S.

Their Economy would collapse quickly.

This is one of the reasons why China want's no part in some war with the U.S.

Never mind the U.S. Military's superiority the economic effect on China would be catastrophic.

AA

 

Again, I understand your point but you are missing mine-those "IF's" are what our military brass worries about-because the history of armed conflict shows they do happen.

 

The ONLY way to get a handle on this is to get the Sunni Nations in line to root out Terrorist Cells in their own nations.

AA

 

It's all about Economics now days.

China has too much to lose attempting to war with the U.S.

We would have absolutely no reason to invade China so any war would most likely occur on a limited basis in the Asian Pacific Rim area.

The Chinese have very little in the way of force projection.

We however do.

AA

 

That all depends which generation you are looking at. My generation, the Vietnam War generation, 40% of us males who were of military age (1965-1973) served. Roughly 10 million including those who served in the reserves and Guard. Only about 2.5 million actually served "in-country" in the Vietnam War. There were years when there were just as many American soldiers serving in Germany as there was in the RVN.

WW ll "Greatest Generation", 80% of the males of military age served.

 

Maybe, but in many of those places they can't even get each nation in line. So we have to allow for the possibility that it wont happen.

- - - Updated - - -

China is building up its force projection capabilities as you read this, as well as finding new ways to counter our own.