View Poll Results: Which branch and explain?

Voters
64. You may not vote on this poll
  • Army

    19 29.69%
  • Navy

    8 12.50%
  • Airforce

    11 17.19%
  • Marine Corps

    6 9.38%
  • Coast Guard

    0 0%
  • Other

    20 31.25%
Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 133

Thread: Military Branches

  1. #21
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: Military Branches

    Quote Originally Posted by TheGirlNextDoor View Post
    I got into an argument with a co-worker about this topic. He seems to think that the consolidation of branches would make for a smoother deployment when necessary, communication would be virtually seamless, etc... I disagreed and the 'chat' got a little heated. I didn't (and still don't) see the point in consolidation, but thought maybe someone here could clue me into something that maybe I was missing when I was 'talking' to this guy.
    You're absolutely right.

    Joint interaction is good for our military. We need the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps to work together. Doing so prevents interservice rivalry from interfering with the waging of war and achieving victory.

    Having consolidation is a bad idea. The reason why it's a bad idea is because different military branches has different demands on their enlisted and their officers. An example of this is how the Navy fights from ships at sea and not in broad fronts in the middle of the woods, which is what those in the Army and Marine Corps may do. Likewise, the Air Force perform strategic air operations (such as bombings,) air superiority operations, and close air support for the Army and the Marine Corps (when their aviation units or naval aviation units can't), but those same Air Force personnel don't usually fight from tanks.

    This is no offense to any one service branch. Rather, the different service branches operates in different areas of warfare. Those different areas require different kinds of training and different kinds of equipment.

    I would also like to add that ever since the Goldwater-Nicols Act the different service branches have been able to act much better in a cooperative fashion. The major armed conflicts that have proven this are the Gulf War and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There were many soldiers on the ground of the Army that were saved by Air Force officers piloting the Warthog, and the Navy's hospital ships have saved the lives of not just servicemen from many branches but also many civilians as well.

    While I think that there may need to be some better interaction between the service branches, I think it would be utter folly to combine all the branches into one service. It would not clear things up the way your co-worker believes it would. Rather, there would be still be four units that all share the same rank and hierarchy. That's the only thing that would be a de facto difference.

    I would also like to know if the person you spoke with has any actual military experience. I have a few ideas with regards to making the military a better organization for waging war and saving the lives of servicemen, but I haven't served, and probably never will, and so defer most of my opinions on these matters to those who have. I think for those who have risked their lives for this country, such deference has been earned.

  2. #22
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:50 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,268
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Military Branches

    There is no good reason to combine the military branches any more than they already are. At the top, they do have the same leadership. The reality is that any such merger of forces would be cosmetic only and not improve readiness.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  3. #23
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: Military Branches

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    Yes, Im aware... but what I mean is... It should be absorbed by the Navy entirely.
    Same with the Coast Guard.

    Our Military Branch Choices should be Army...or Navy?
    The Coast Guard cannot be absorbed by the Navy because the Posse Comitatus Act prevents the use of the military for law enforcement purposes in domestic territory.

  4. #24
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-23-17 @ 05:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    15,429
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Military Branches

    I think the Air Force never should have been separated from the Army. Now the Army has to rely on a whole different branch to supply air support that is not helicopter related and that branch is disconnected from the culture of the people they are charged with supporting. The Navy and Marine Corps are technically in the same department, and while there are differences between the two, there is a common culture and language shared that makes working with sailors more efficient than working with the Air Force or Army for that matter. With the exception of their special forces, the majority of the air force is too far removed from the culture of combat operations and the sacrifices that entails. Don't get me wrong, they are good at what they are asked to do, i just think they need to be brought a little closer to the reality of what our guys on the ground face.
    "Loyalty only matters when there's a hundred reasons not to be-" Gen. Mattis

  5. #25
    Count Smackula
    rathi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-31-15 @ 10:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,890

    Re: Military Branches

    If you were going to create a unified service for all branches, giving it an entirely new name would make the most sense as you would avoid hurting any delicate feelings. Hypothetically, I would agree that having separate branches is not efficient and a better system based around modern communication technology and logistics could be devised. In reality, the incredible costs of re-organizing the entire military and regaining the institutional knowledge are way more than it is worth.

  6. #26
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-05-17 @ 01:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,336

    Re: Military Branches

    Quote Originally Posted by Andalublue View Post
    I think the US would be better served by consolidating its law-enforcement services. Do you really need Police departments, Sheriffs departments, Marshalls, State Troopers, DEA, ATF, FBI and Lord knows what else?
    Yes. Because I enjoy the idea that the states operate independently of the federal government.
    "I condemn the ideology of White Supremacy and Nazism. They are thugs, criminals, and repugnant, and are against what I believe to be "The American Way" "
    Thus my obligatory condemnation of White supremacy will now be in every post, lest I be accused of supporting it because I didn't mention it specifically every time I post.

  7. #27
    Global Moderator
    Bodhidarma approves bigly
    Andalublue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Granada, España
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 01:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    26,111

    Re: Military Branches

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    Yes. Because I enjoy the idea that the states operate independently of the federal government.
    Then state police and federal police. Surely two police forces is enough for any non-authoritarian nation.
    "The crisis will end when fear changes sides" - Pablo Iglesias Turrión

    "Austerity is used as a cover to reconfigure society and increase inequality and injustice." - Jeremy Corbyn

  8. #28
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Military Branches

    The US forces (and the forces of the first world) should be divided into two departments: Department of Defense and Department of Modernization.

    The Department of Defense will have Naval, Air Force, Marines and Army dedicated to fighting against organized militaries throughout the world, predominantly in the Core. So all of your Naval power projection and combat air power as well as Air Force combat airpower, Marine Corp MEFs, and Army BCTs will fall under this umbrella. Although they fight in an integrated fashion, each remains a separate force to preserve esprit de corps.

    The Department of Modernization will be dedicated to operating in the Gap, between first world and third world countries with developmental problems. All conflicts of the last 50 years have taken place in the Gap. It would have non-BCT Army and non MEF marines for use in counterinsurgency operations. The last 7 years of Iraq and the last 9 years of Afghanistan fall under their purview. In addition to those security elements, the Department of Modernization will have specialists from wide ranging fields as technical manpower. Security force training, economics, infrastructural engineers, agriculture, government, etc. These would be long term (4+ year) assignments. The job of the Department of Modernization will be to help countries integrate into the Core.

  9. #29
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: Military Branches

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    The Department of Modernization will be dedicated to operating in the Gap, between first world and third world countries with developmental problems. All conflicts of the last 50 years have taken place in the Gap. It would have non-BCT Army and non MEF marines for use in counterinsurgency operations. The last 7 years of Iraq and the last 9 years of Afghanistan fall under their purview. In addition to those security elements, the Department of Modernization will have specialists from wide ranging fields as technical manpower. Security force training, economics, infrastructural engineers, agriculture, government, etc. These would be long term (4+ year) assignments. The job of the Department of Modernization will be to help countries integrate into the Core.
    I think that such a force would work better under the Department of State rather than under the Department of Defense. The purpose of the Department of Defense is to wage war on behalf of the United States. I don't think anything should take away from that.

    However, I would say that there needs to be "Peacekeeper" units of our military who are better trained to work with local governments of the areas the U.S. occupies and trained to work in a law enforcement capacity in occupied areas. That way, there'd be less retraining and more preparedness when the U.S. goes from conquerer to occupier in areas it wages war in.

  10. #30
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Military Branches

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    I think that such a force would work better under the Department of State rather than under the Department of Defense. The purpose of the Department of Defense is to wage war on behalf of the United States. I don't think anything should take away from that.
    It is definitely separate from DoD, you are right. I am not sure State has the capacity to operate in a counter-insurgency environment and, given its core diplomatic mission, it may not be suited for the job. I was thinking a new Department...which would work closely with State. State would be the driver for forming the Organization of Democratic States, an organization which would execute modernization missions in the Gap.

    However, I would say that there needs to be "Peacekeeper" units of our military who are better trained to work with local governments of the areas the U.S. occupies and trained to work in a law enforcement capacity in occupied areas. That way, there'd be less retraining and more preparedness when the U.S. goes from conquerer to occupier in areas it wages war in.
    Exactly!

Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •