• 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!

‘Pentagon’s Worst Nightmare’

A-10's aren't tasked with strategic bombing. They are a ground support aircraft. Care to try again?

Not quite. A-10s are close ground support with a tactical specialty in armored vehicle removal. Basically any aircraft can be ground support even a tanker if you're crazy enough to fly low enough to drop fuel and then light it. A-10s inhabit an area of air space that puts them in real danger of many anti-air weapons that other aircraft can avoid and still do their primary job. Care to try again?
 
Carpet bombing is made even more obsolete by precision weapons. A pack of A-10's can destroy more targets with less ordnance because you don't waste so much energy blowing up every random building in a four block area, not to mention that "doesn't mass-murder civilians" aspect.

We don't even need aircraft for this anymore. A single missile sub can destroy a hardened target with a single cruise missile. There really isn't any need for strategic bombers anymore, where I classify strategic to not include B-2s flying precision missions half way across the globe. When was the last time we carpet bombed anything? Vietnam?
 
You guys do realize the biggest single item within the defense budget is personnel no? Benefits are eating the Pentagon alive.
 
You guys do realize the biggest single item within the defense budget is personnel no? Benefits are eating the Pentagon alive.

As I said, we should cut the size of our general armed forces and increase the size of our special forces to compensate.
 
Iraq's army was a joke, because our army is so bad ass. I bet the Iranian army didn't think the Iraqi army was a joke.

No, Iraq's army was a joke independent of the United States and its allies. Furthermore, the Iranian Military post revolution saw a serious decline in leadership due to ideological and religious purges. That said, Iran did more damage to Osirak then the Israelis did.

No other army in the world has the level of experience that we have

The Israelis would disagree with you, as would actual experts.

That was the attitude during the 30's. We lost nearly a half million soldiers, in less than four years because of that attitude.

Considering the technology we use, that's not a good comparison. Large combat operations involving tens of thousands have gone the way of the dinosaurs. A squad of fighter-bombers can decimate large advancing ground forces. You really don't need lots of soldiers these days unless you're planning an occupation, in which you need your head checked.
 
No, Iraq's army was a joke independent of the United States and its allies. Furthermore, the Iranian Military post revolution saw a serious decline in leadership due to ideological and religious purges. That said, Iran did more damage to Osirak then the Israelis did.

Sanctions had far more to do with "Iraq's army was a joke" than anything else. They simply did not have the material to first of all repair their machines but also to use said machines in training since there was no replacement parts.
 
Still, cutting 50% of our military spending will provide approximately $350 billion a year in deficit reduction, without the need to cut benefits to seniors, and still outspend every other country on the planet on military.

Then you simply wish to kick the can down the road, and not fix the problem.

When you refuse to significantly address something that makes 55% of our spending and is a number that grows a percentage almost every year while making a huge deal about something that makes up 1/3rd of that number it shows you don't have any honest desire to fix the financial issue but rather to use and amnipulate the financial problems of this country as a means to push your political agenda of anti-military policy in the guise of fiscal responsability. You are no different than the Republicans who want to cut a sliver of defense spending but look towards entitlements and again simply use our fiscal problems as a tool and a prop to disguise their purely political agenda.
 
A tactical scenario? How about any time you have a target in a city? Or any time you have a small target, like a vehicle or a single building? Or any time you don't want to waste huge numbers of bombs? As for confirmation, ever heard of predator drones?

You can recon strike damage from the air was well as you can on the ground.
 
:doh
Yeah, that's the point. Strategic bombing is useless. Smaller, more accurate ordinance is more effective at least 99 percent of the time.

You don't even know the difference between strategic and tactical strikes, do you?
 
Not quite. A-10s are close ground support with a tactical specialty in armored vehicle removal.

Purdy much what I just said.


Basically any aircraft can be ground support even a tanker if you're crazy enough to fly low enough to drop fuel and then light it.

Tankers don't work that way. It wouldn't be crazy, it would be friggin stupid, esepcially since tankers don't have any defensive armaments. So, no, not any aircraft can be a ground support aircraft, of the same caliber of an A-10.



A-10s inhabit an area of air space that puts them in real danger of many anti-air weapons that other aircraft can avoid and still do their primary job. Care to try again?

That's why they are more heavily armored than fighters, with the ability to operate at lower altitudes. The slower speed of the A-10 gives it an advantage, in that most anti-aircraft weapons in the world are zeroed for aircraft that are flying 3 times faster, which causes a high probabilty of over-shooting the target. The A-10's ability to operate on the deck, at a slow airspeed is what makes it a sutable aircraft for close ground support. F-15's, 18's, etc. fly too high and too fast to properly identify enemy targets on the ground, therefore increaseing the chances of fratricide. Hence the, "close, ground", part of the A-10's primary employment mission.
 
No, Iraq's army was a joke independent of the United States and its allies. Furthermore, the Iranian Military post revolution saw a serious decline in leadership due to ideological and religious purges. That said, Iran did more damage to Osirak then the Israelis did.

8 million troops died during the Iran-Iraq war. The Iraqi army wasn't a joke. Anyone that thinks so has zero understanding of combat opwer and it's employment on the battlefield.



The Israelis would disagree with you, as would actual experts.

10 years ago, maybe. That's a big maybe, since the Israelis have never deployed forces outside the ME.



Considering the technology we use, that's not a good comparison. Large combat operations involving tens of thousands have gone the way of the dinosaurs. A squad of fighter-bombers can decimate large advancing ground forces. You really don't need lots of soldiers these days unless you're planning an occupation, in which you need your head checked.

All the technology on earth isn't going to take away from the fact that you can win a war from the air. The only way to win it, is to put infantry soldiers on the ground.
 
8 million troops died during the Iran-Iraq war. The Iraqi army wasn't a joke. Anyone that thinks so has zero understanding of combat opwer and it's employment on the battlefield.

The Iraqi army was a shell of its former self when we invaded, thanks to the butt kicking they took in the first Gulf War plus bombing missions that eliminated their air defenses, plus the elimination of all WMDs through years of inspections. Not to mention the damage it suffered during said Iran-Iraq war.
 
Link short-term war spending with short-term tax increases to pay for them.
We'll see how many republicans pursue sensless wars.
 
Defense, along with entitlements, need to reduce themselves by at least 1/3rd over the next decade. We do not need war time level spending as the norm for our defense budget. Its not sustainable, nor intelligent, nor fiscally responsible, nor even necessary and would produce an atmosphere and beuracracy of waste as we move farther from the ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will however be a slow trickle in a larger budget if entitlements aren't cut along side with it.

Yes, we should cut foreign & corporate aid entitlements totally, and shut the pentagon down to a maintenance staff.
 
8 million troops died during the Iran-Iraq war. The Iraqi army wasn't a joke. Anyone that thinks so has zero understanding of combat opwer and it's employment on the battlefield.



10 years ago, maybe. That's a big maybe, since the Israelis have never deployed forces outside the ME.





All the technology on earth isn't going to take away from the fact that you can win a war from the air. The only way to win it, is to put infantry soldiers on the ground.

I think inserting assassination squads to take out the top ten leaders is a better solution, more cost effective, less lives lost, less VA medical bills, less VA benefits needed, more humane approach.
 
You don't even know the difference between strategic and tactical strikes, do you?

Yes, I get the difference. Tactical strikes are useful. Strategic strikes are not. Why am I even bothering to argue with you?
 
Then you simply wish to kick the can down the road, and not fix the problem.

How did you come to that conclusion? My proposal reduces deficit spending far further than anything the GOP has proposed, and fixes the problems with SS and Medicare without adding to the deficit or reducing benefits to seniors who are already hard strapped to get by.

When you refuse to significantly address something that makes 55% of our spending and is a number that grows a percentage almost every year while making a huge deal about something that makes up 1/3rd of that number it shows you don't have any honest desire to fix the financial issue but rather to use and amnipulate the financial problems of this country as a means to push your political agenda of anti-military policy in the guise of fiscal responsability. You are no different than the Republicans who want to cut a sliver of defense spending but look towards entitlements and again simply use our fiscal problems as a tool and a prop to disguise their purely political agenda.

You have assumed incorrectly. We need to cut military spending in half because it is the most wasteful big chunk of our deficit spending. That does not mean however that I think we don't need to make SS solvent beyond the 26 years it can remain so. Raising the FICA cap from the current $106,000 to $180,000 makes SS solvent for the long term. without cutting benefits to seniors. The problem with medicare is the same problem with private health insurance, the fact that the we have the most expensive health care system in the world. To fix that problem we will need to upgrade our health care system as the rest of the industrialized world has done.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I get the difference. Tactical strikes are useful. Strategic strikes are not. Why am I even bothering to argue with you?

Ok, then obviously, you don't understand the difference between an area target and a point target.

Obviously, not. If you did, you would understand that carpet bombing has a specific tactical purpose that is different from precision bombing.
 
The Iraqi army was a shell of its former self when we invaded, thanks to the butt kicking they took in the first Gulf War plus bombing missions that eliminated their air defenses, plus the elimination of all WMDs through years of inspections. Not to mention the damage it suffered during said Iran-Iraq war.

Where do you people get this crap from?
 
I think inserting assassination squads to take out the top ten leaders is a better solution, more cost effective, less lives lost, less VA medical bills, less VA benefits needed, more humane approach.

...more illegal and violation of U.S. and international law. Ya'll are all about the law, right?
 
How did you come to that conclusion? My proposal reduces deficit spending far further than anything the GOP has proposed, and fixes the problems with SS and Medicare without adding to the deficit or reducing benefits to seniors who are already hard strapped to get by.



You have assumed incorrectly. We need to cut military spending in half because it is the most wasteful big chunk of our deficit spending. That does not mean however that I think we don't need to make SS solvent beyond the 26 years it can remain so. Raising the FICA cap from the current $106,000 to $180,000 makes SS solvent for the long term. without cutting benefits to seniors. The problem with medicare is the same problem with private health insurance, the fact that the we have the most expensive health care system in the world. To fix that problem we will need to upgrade our health care system as the rest of the industrialized world has done.

I have a better idea: Let's stop giving bennies to people who haven't paid into the system.
 
Our armed forces have been cut in half over the past two decades. If we decrease it by another third, what will be left?

All these cuts will cost lives.

What the HELL are you talking about!?!? Its gone UP!!!! Youre not listening to those propaganda pushers again are ya??? :shock:

defense_spending_since_2001.jpg
 
What the HELL are you talking about!?!? Its gone UP!!!! Youre not listening to those propaganda pushers again are ya??? :shock:

View attachment 67114889

As Cpwill pointed out in an earlier post: You're confusing the budget with combat power. Our military--the actual physical force--is half the size it was in 1990.

Propaganda? No. Reality? Yes.
 
As Cpwill pointed out in an earlier post: You're confusing the budget with combat power. Our military--the actual physical force--is half the size it was in 1990.

Propaganda? No. Reality? Yes.

Ah! Well you can say the same about the Ford plant that makes the Taurus. Thing is you dont need as many people to do the job. And by the way we are talking about money spent in the thread.
 
Ah! Well you can say the same about the Ford plant that makes the Taurus. Thing is you dont need as many people to do the job.

Isn't it better to have too many than not enough? I guess it's all good to you, since it's not your ass on the line, but the guys who are out there want to know that they won't be left with their asses hanging in the wind, because you are more concerned with funding global warming research than keeping their asses alive in the kill zone.



And by the way we are talking about money spent in the thread.

And, not the lives lost, because of the budget cuts?
 
Back
Top Bottom