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 4 of 14 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 133

Thread: Military Branches

  1. #31
    Advisor Johnny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last Seen
    06-24-11 @ 07:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    571

    Re: Military Branches

    The DoD should NOT control the guard IMHO.

    Each state should maintain it's own militia. Giving control of the guard to the federal government made the states subservient to the government.
    “The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."
    -James Madison

  2. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ft. Campbell, KY
    Last Seen
    12-31-14 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,177

    Re: Military Branches

    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny View Post
    The DoD should NOT control the guard IMHO.

    Each state should maintain it's own militia. Giving control of the guard to the federal government made the states subservient to the government.
    I disagree, the National Guard and its historic militia units have always been subject to Federal service for all practical purposes if not all legal purposes, although that is debatable. State militias for example were called up and served directly under Washington as part of the Continental Army, in fact for the first few years almost the entirety of the Continental Army were state militia units, that act was controversial at the time but was authorized by the Continental Congress. Now of course in that Army the units were still organized and fought as their original militia units, except for those units that were created initially as a Federal army units obviously. However the state governors had no authority over their militia, total authority resided in Washington whose authority was granted by what was then the closest thing we had to a Federal government.

    In modern times the USANG is organized into divisions and brigades as is the rest of the Army, however these divisions and brigades incorporate guard units from across several states, sometimes states no where near each other. If these were broken up into purely state centered units they would lose much of their combat capacity, deployment capacity, and effectiveness. The Guard has been organized along these lines since 1916, and without that kind of organization the American Army during its conflicts from WW1 to the present would be lacking much of its combat power.

    For example during WW1 upwards to 50% of deployed forces were USANG, now if they werent organized along the same lines as the regular Army then commanders in France would have faced a different organizational structure, rank system, equipment, standards, etc etc for each individual state and their Guard. That is a God awful mess. Not to mention that those Guard units would be much smaller from lack of Federal funding.

  3. #33
    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

    I agree that the guard should remain under federal control. In the event we are invaded and actually need the guard for its primary purpose, it is vital that a unified system of command and logistics be in place.

  4. #34
    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
    Then state police and federal police. Surely two police forces is enough for any non-authoritarian nation.
    Well, former confederate states were barred from creating their own State Police agencies during the reconstruction era, as a way to keep states from amassing centralized authority of law.

    You ever hear of South Carolina State Police? Georgia? Etc? No because southern states were not allowed to have it.

    That ban was still in effect in the 1920s when the great state of North Carolina started their State Highway Patrol. Nothing prevented us from having a centralized traffic safety organization. As long as it remained focused on only traffic safety.
    "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.

  5. #35
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,687

    Re: Military Branches

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    The Army because you can't win a war without boots on the ground.
    Sure you can....if we had nuclear weapons at the START of WWII, we wouldn't have needed boots on the ground....
    Just bomb the hell out of them, even with conventional bombs, and then leave. They can clean up the mess themselves...
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  6. #36
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Military Branches

    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny View Post
    The DoD should NOT control the guard IMHO.

    Each state should maintain it's own militia. Giving control of the guard to the federal government made the states subservient to the government.
    Fair enough, except the odd time when the nation is being invaded and the real military needs all the manpower possible.

    Also, there's the time when Ike nationalized the Alabama national guard to stop the guard from keeping black kids out of school.

  7. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Military Branches

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    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.
    Then again, the Coast Guard is already part of the Department of Defense, and part of the Department of the Navy. It has an independent command in peace time, but in times of war, the Coasties take their orders from the Navy.

  8. #38
    Student Civil1z@tion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    12-10-10 @ 02:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    247

    Re: Military Branches

    I voted the navy and here's why.

    If we only have the Navy (and this would probably count the Marine Corp since that is a part of the Navy as well) then we will be perfectly capable of doing what the Department of Defense should be concerned about...defending the US. Canada and Mexico are never going to attack us and for any other nation, the US Navy can keep them at bay. This will have the added benefit of preventing large-scale invasions of other countries. We would still have the capability to do smaller, shorter term deployments (like to say, help with a humanitarian crisis, to secure US citizens, invasions of small countries, or punitive raids on larger ones). We'd still have air power to do air raids and probably completely control the air space of just about anyone who we could encounter as an enemy, and we'd still have good special forces units.

    In essence, if we have all our resources in the Navy, we can do everything we currently do except do a large-scale invasion of another country. That doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. It would force us to look at other options first, not just diplomacy but military strikes below the level of a full invasion.

    Also, consider what happens if we fund the other branches. Choosing the Coast Guard only makes sense if you want the US to be completely isolationist, the Army doesn't have the naval vessels needed to support large scale invasions overseas (no carriers, cruisers, destroyers, larger transports, or logistics vessels) and without the Navy (or in a pinch the Air Force) to take them places they aren't worth that much, especially against a country with a decent navy. The Air Force lacks ground troops and naval vessels meaning it is a) totally dependent on foreign bases (bases that will be harder to keep if there is no promise of US ground troops showing up if they're needed), b) can't engage in any actions more than air strikes. The Marine Corp is similar to the army only more so as they are too selective and small in numbers to do what the army can.

    So the Navy is really the only choice. The US did well (and even intervened in many places) when the navy was the biggest part of the military and barring a conventional WW3 (which could not be fought without the navy anyways) can do anything that is needed to keep the US safe.

  9. #39
    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 Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Then again, the Coast Guard is already part of the Department of Defense, and part of the Department of the Navy. It has an independent command in peace time, but in times of war, the Coasties take their orders from the Navy.
    This is true... But it wasn't my point.

    My point was that the Coast Guard acts as law enforcement, previously under the Department of Transportation and now under the Department of Homeland Security, during peacetime but duringg wartime they can act under the Department of Defense in a military capacity.

    However, the Navy never acts in a law enforcement capacity in domestic territory because of the Posse Comitatus Act.

    So while the Coast Guard can act in both law enforcement and military capacities the Navy acts only in a mililtary capacity domestically.

  10. #40
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,044

    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 should call him an idiot.

    Kennedy's Whiz Kids also thought such fundamental basics in regards to consolidations. They believed that all should wear the same uniforms. All should use the same weapons. All should use the same planes, equipment, and so on. This guy you were arguing with is clueless. The Whiz Kids were proven wrong in their visions.

    Consolidation would weaken the force, by stripping specialities. Because the missions are so broad, one consolidated branch could not sustain the training needed to support this diversity. Marines and soldiers can't be trained to walk patrols and steer ships. Air Force bombers cannot also be trained to dog fight. Transport helicopter pilots cannot be trained to fly attack Apaches and Cobras. The Army's big box mentality could not sustain a Marine mission and vice versa.

    The branches are needed in order to sustain speciality. Without speciality, there is no focus that hones a skill or a mission. It becomes too ragged. "Jack of all trades, but master of none" becomes the reality across the single consolidated branch. It's our specialities that enable us to perform Combined Arms with perfection. It's what makes us the best.

    Army - Big box war focus and occupation.

    Marine Corps - Assault and battle oriented.

    Navy - Sea domain warriors plus.

    Air Force - Whatever they are trying to figure out since 9/11.

    Mixing all of this into one is just plain senseless.
    Last edited by MSgt; 09-04-10 at 07:17 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... 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
  •