• 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’

apdst said:
Purdy much what I just said.
Click to expand...

If you can't read sure. :)

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.
Click to expand...

Tankers can drop their fuel in an emergency. And it would be crazy to actually use a tanker like that. That said, it does have the capacity to be ground support and defensive weapons are irrelevant here.

So, no, not any aircraft can be a ground support aircraft, of the same caliber of an A-10.
Click to expand...

Did I say any aircraft can be of the same caliber of close ground support as A-10? No. I did not. Read more carefully. I said that basically any aircraft can be ground support. There's a difference between close ground support and merely ground support. I suggest you learn it.

Don't attempt to lecture me on A-10s. I know how they work. You need in the future to differentiate close ground support with mere ground support. You appear to understand it now, do so in the future.

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.
Click to expand...

Actually yes, Iraq's army was a joke. Iran had a seriously subpar military after sanctions and military purges. Reliance upon unarmed human waves drastically increased casualties in the war. Sending unarmed boys against machine gun nests and mine fields will increases total dead. It does not mean Iraq's military was good. By your measure, sending civil war soldiers against WWI machine guns means that the army with machine guns is good in today's battlefield. No, it's not. Iraq's army was a joke as evident by its crushing defeat in Desert Storm. 3 years later Iraq was pulverized. Anyone who thinks Iraq's military wasn't a joke has zero understanding of combat power 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.
Click to expand...

Which is irrelevant to the discussion. Israel has dealt with asymmetrical warfare on a large scale for far longer then the US has.

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.
Click to expand...

Wrong again. You can "win" a war from a desk in the sense of reducing your enemy's capacity to fight to rubble. What you cannot do is take and hold territory. Well, at the moment that is. A robot army controlled remotely could in theory achieve an occupation.
 
the other cost of war, today: 31 Americans Killed in Afghanistan

A military helicopter crashed in eastern Afghanistan, killing 31 U.S. special operation troops and seven Afghan commandos, the country's president said Saturday. An American official said it was apparently shot down, in the deadliest single incident for American forces in the decade-long war.

The Taliban claimed they downed the helicopter with rocket fire while it was taking part in a raid on a house where insurgents were gathered in the province of Wardak late Friday. It said wreckage of the craft was strewn at the scene.

NATO confirmed the overnight crash took place and that there "was enemy activity in the area." But it said it was still investigating the cause and conducting a recovery operation at the site. It did not release details or casualty figures.

"We are in the process of accessing the facts," said U.S. Air Force Capt. Justin Brockhoff, a NATO spokesman.

But a senior U.S. administration official in Washington said it was apparently shot down. by insurgents. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the crash is still being investigated.

The toll would surpass the worst single day loss of life for the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan since the war began in 2001 - the June 28, 2005 downing of a military helicopter in eastern Kunar province. In that incident, 16 Navy SEALs and Army special operations troops were killed when their craft was shot down while on a mission to rescue four SEALs under attack by the Taliban. Three of the SEALs being rescued were also killed and the fourth wounded. It was the highest one-day death toll for the Navy Special Warfare personnel since World War II.
Click to expand...

pray
 
obvious Child said:
If you can't read sure. :)
Click to expand...

I'm already sure. That's why I said it. ;)



Tankers can drop their fuel in an emergency. And it would be crazy to actually use a tanker like that. That said, it does have the capacity to be ground support and defensive weapons are irrelevant here.
Click to expand...

An refueling aircraft, in know way, can be a ground support aircraft. You've been watching too much TV. That's Hollyweird, nor reality.



Did I say any aircraft can be of the same caliber of close ground support as A-10? No. I did not. Read more carefully. I said that basically any aircraft can be ground support. There's a difference between close ground support and merely ground support. I suggest you learn it.

Don't attempt to lecture me on A-10s. I know how they work. You need in the future to differentiate close ground support with mere ground support. You appear to understand it now, do so in the future.
Click to expand...

Maybe you need to go back and read my posts, because you seem to be seriously hung up on the difference between close ground support and ground support. But, what you actually should be saying is, close air support and close air support is what I've been talking about all along and somehow you spun off into this tangent about refueling aircraft can be close air support aircraft.




Actually yes, Iraq's army was a joke. Iran had a seriously subpar military after sanctions and military purges. Reliance upon unarmed human waves drastically increased casualties in the war. Sending unarmed boys against machine gun nests and mine fields will increases total dead. It does not mean Iraq's military was good. By your measure, sending civil war soldiers against WWI machine guns means that the army with machine guns is good in today's battlefield. No, it's not. Iraq's army was a joke as evident by its crushing defeat in Desert Storm. 3 years later Iraq was pulverized. Anyone who thinks Iraq's military wasn't a joke has zero understanding of combat power and it's employment on the battlefield.
Click to expand...

The Iraqi army had the potential to be a dangerous force. The reason they broke so quickly, is because we destroyed their command and control structure and their communications. Leadership and communications are two elements of combat power and without them, an army can't function. Had we not done that, Desert Storm would have turned into a slug fest.

It boils down to, "combat power and it's employment on the battlefield".


Which is irrelevant to the discussion. Israel has dealt with asymmetrical warfare on a large scale for far longer then the US has.
Click to expand...

Actually, Israel hasn't dealt with as much asymmetrical combat as the U.S. has. But, don't let reality get in the way of your spin.



Wrong again. You can "win" a war from a desk in the sense of reducing your enemy's capacity to fight to rubble. What you cannot do is take and hold territory. Well, at the moment that is. A robot army controlled remotely could in theory achieve an occupation.
Click to expand...

You can't win a war from any place but the ground, with infantry units. No tactical treatise exists that suggests otherwise, nor will there ever be one that does.
 
apdst said:
An refueling aircraft, in know way, can be a ground support aircraft. You've been watching too much TV. That's Hollyweird, nor reality.
Click to expand...

I'm merely discussing the technical capabilities of a refueling to drop fuel. Basically it turns into a airborne flame thrower. Crazy? Absolutely. But I've said that three times which suggests you do not have good English comprehension skills.

Maybe you need to go back and read my posts, because you seem to be seriously hung up on the difference between close ground support and ground support.
Click to expand...

Hardly, as usual, I'm pointing out where you went wrong.

But, what you actually should be saying is, close air support and close air support is what I've been talking about all along and somehow you spun off into this tangent about refueling aircraft can be close air support aircraft.
Click to expand...

Hardly, only recently did you make a distinction between the two.

The Iraqi army had the potential to be a dangerous force.
Click to expand...

So did the Zulus in the 1800s. Tell that to the British. :roll:

The reason they broke so quickly, is because we destroyed their command and control structure and their communications. Leadership and communications are two elements of combat power and without them, an army can't function. Had we not done that, Desert Storm would have turned into a slug fest.
Click to expand...

Not entirely. The Iraqi military was poorly trained, poor disciplined, was using inferior weapons and used tactics that did not take into the effect modern precision weapons. The idiots dug tanks in without realizing it made them exceptionally easy to pick off from the air. And they learned the second time around. The Republican Guard rather then making a stand like they did in 1991, melted away in 2003 into the cities where they could harness their tactical advantages at the same time minimizing their opponents. Essentially they went into Desert Storm completely unprepared militarily, tactically and strategically. While it is absolutely true that the communication and command structure was poorly designed to actually fight a war as opposed to prevent a coup, NATO was basically fighting a vastly inferior enemy. Iraq's military was a joke coming out of the Iran-Iraq war. The fact they had to resort to chemical weapons to stop advancing unarmed children should tell you something.

It boils down to, "combat power and it's employment on the battlefield".
Click to expand...

Fix your grammar. Periods go inside the quotation. And it's more then combat power.

Actually, Israel hasn't dealt with as much asymmetrical combat as the U.S. has. But, don't let reality get in the way of your spin.
Click to expand...

Oh man. Tasha would rip you a new one on that comment. Apparently occupation of Lebanon for decades just doesn't count. Not to mention DOUBLE Palestinian uprisings. And apparently taking East Jerusalem doesn't count either. :lamo

You can't win a war from any place but the ground, with infantry units. No tactical treatise exists that suggests otherwise, nor will there ever be one that does.
Click to expand...

Kosovo suggests otherwise. But that depends on how you define "winning."
 
obvious Child said:
I'm merely discussing the technical capabilities of a refueling to drop fuel. Basically it turns into a airborne flame thrower. Crazy? Absolutely. But I've said that three times which suggests you do not have good English comprehension skills.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. A tanker can't jettison fuel that way, plus their no way to ignite the fuel stream. :lamo





Hardly, as usual, I'm pointing out where you went wrong.
Click to expand...

Like your claim that a KC-130 can be used as a flying flame thrower? :lamo



Hardly, only recently did you make a distinction between the two.
Click to expand...

I mistakenly assumed that already knew the difference.



So did the Zulus in the 1800s. Tell that to the British. :roll:
Click to expand...

The Zulus had repeating rifles and artillery? No? Didn't think so.



Not entirely. The Iraqi military was poorly trained, poor disciplined, was using inferior weapons and used tactics that did not take into the effect modern precision weapons. The idiots dug tanks in without realizing it made them exceptionally easy to pick off from the air. And they learned the second time around. The Republican Guard rather then making a stand like they did in 1991, melted away in 2003 into the cities where they could harness their tactical advantages at the same time minimizing their opponents. Essentially they went into Desert Storm completely unprepared militarily, tactically and strategically. While it is absolutely true that the communication and command structure was poorly designed to actually fight a war as opposed to prevent a coup, NATO was basically fighting a vastly inferior enemy. Iraq's military was a joke coming out of the Iran-Iraq war. The fact they had to resort to chemical weapons to stop advancing unarmed children should tell you something.
Click to expand...

Of course they dug in their tanks. That what an army does when building a defensive line.

It's called a, "defilade", and is common practice for protecting armored vehicles from direct fire.

Hull-down - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The only problem the Iraqis had, was our air supremacy.


Fix your grammar. Periods go inside the quotation. And it's more then combat power.
Click to expand...

My grammer? :lamo You don't even understand what combat power is, or how it relates to warfare.





Oh man. Tasha would rip you a new one on that comment. Apparently occupation of Lebanon for decades just doesn't count. Not to mention DOUBLE Palestinian uprisings. And apparently taking East Jerusalem doesn't count either. :lamo
Click to expand...

How many Israeli troops served in Vietnam? Korea? The PTO? None, right?



Kosovo suggests otherwise. But that depends on how you define "winning."
Click to expand...

Yeah, Kosovo proves that you can win a war from the air. We allowed the entire Serbian Army to march home, intact and under arms. Nothing was accomplished in Kosovo.
 
apdst said:
No it doesn't. A tanker can't jettison fuel that way, plus their no way to ignite the fuel stream. :lamo
Click to expand...

Apparently you never heard of a emergency dumping. Furthermore, they don't need to light it themselves. The ground support troops they are supporting can do that.

By the way, due to your inability to comprehend English at an adult level, I'm going to say that this is for the fourth time, crazy.

Like your claim that a KC-130 can be used as a flying flame thrower? :lamo
Click to expand...

Not in a sensible way. Oh wait, did I say it was a reasonable tactic or are you still unable to read properly? There seems to be a theme here. The more blindly partisan you are, the less you comprehend English.

The Zulus had repeating rifles and artillery? No? Didn't think so.
Click to expand...

They also wiped out the British. Or are you unaware of that? Just as you are unaware of so many things?

Of course they dug in their tanks. That what an army does when building a defensive line.
Click to expand...

Which is utterly retarded when your enemy has airborne dedicated tank killers.

The only problem the Iraqis had, was our air supremacy.
Click to expand...

Hence why they went into Desert Storm completely unprepared.

You are still wrong about Iraq's military not being a joke.

My grammer? :lamo You don't even understand what combat power is, or how it relates to warfare.
Click to expand...

See above. I pointed out several items before you did. Seriously, why do I have to constantly correct your screw ups?

How many Israeli troops served in Vietnam? Korea? The PTO? None, right?
Click to expand...

Korea was hardly an asymmetrical fight. The fact that you are bringing that up suggests you don't understand. Furthermore, Vietnam was both a conventional and unconventional war.

You do know what asymmetrical warfare is no? Honestly, with you, I assume you don't considering your history.

Yeah, Kosovo proves that you can win a war from the air. We allowed the entire Serbian Army to march home, intact and under arms. Nothing was accomplished in Kosovo.
Click to expand...

O'rly? Serbia's infrastructure was ruined. Bridges, power plants, military bases, roads, sewage, the list goes on and on. Its military was highly demoralized. In terms of actual operations, it couldn't move a tank once the KLA was serving as spotters for NATO aircraft. Sure, the early part of the conflict Serbs took relatively few losses, but that changed once the KLA got them to actually fight out in the open. The entire Serbian army was not intact nor under arms. War is hardly about just military assets being destroyed. What good is an army if you do not have the capacity to support it for any real length of time?
 
Glad to see there is increased pressure for President Obama to adhere to our agreement with Iraq to have US troops out by the end of the year.

93 Lawmakers Urge President Obama To Stick To Iraq Withdrawal Deadline

"WASHINGTON -- As the United States and Iraq debate whether to keep American forces involved in the war beyond the end of the year, 93 members of Congress have signed a letter to President Obama urging him to stick by the planned withdrawal date.
The letter was spearheaded by Reps. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and Water Jones (R-N.C.), two of the leading voices pushing for a more rapid withdrawal in Afghanistan as well.
"We are deeply concerned to learn that your Administration is considering plans to keep potentially thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the end of this year," the lawmakers wrote. "Extending our presence in Iraq is counterproductive -- the Iraqi people do not support our continued occupation. Remaining in Iraq would only further strengthen the perception that we are an occupying force with no intention of leaving Iraq."

93 Lawmakers Urge President Obama To Stick To Iraq Withdrawal Deadline
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

George Washington got into a similar argument. He argued that the enemy ought to be considered when deciding just how much to spend on preparations for war. He won the argument.
 
SheWolf said:
"Analysts believe the defense cuts for
the short term will be modest, and that cuts over the next decade or so may
sound nasty, but they will be determined by the next president and consequently
may never be enacted."

Why am I not surprised? I bet when a republican is elected, they'll beef the spending back up... :roll:
Click to expand...

Let us hope so.
 
obvious Child said:
Apparently you never heard of a emergency dumping. Furthermore, they don't need to light it themselves. The ground support troops they are supporting can do that.
Click to expand...

not to get too deep into this debate - but speaking as a ground troop and a weaponeer, this is the kind of thing that could happen in a movie, and never in real life.
 
Misterveritis said:
George Washington got into a similar argument. He argued that the enemy ought to be considered when deciding just how much to spend on preparations for war. He won the argument.
Click to expand...

the best time to win a war is years before it starts.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Not if we pull our ass out of the Middle East.
Click to expand...
Do you agree with me that we ought to drill here, drill now? And do you also agree that the best form of power for all of our large scale fixed facility needs is nuclear power? Do you disagree with the one term Marxist president Obama on his scheme to destroy the coal industry?

Those things are crucial if we are to reduce out dependence on oil from the Middle East.
 
SheWolf said:
when that war comes, then we spend money like we are in a war... simple as that
Click to expand...
When we do that we fight the war in a "come as your are" fashion. That will cost American blood, American limbs, and American lives.

It is a far better thing to be prepared to fight the wars we must in the way we prefer to.
 
AdamT said:
Our military spending is greater than the rest of the world's military spending combined. It's absurd.
Click to expand...
We could save vast amounts of money by returning to a draft. Two-thirds of the cost of our military is the cost of people.

I prefer a highly compensated, professional, well trained, well armed, well equipped military that can win to one done cheaply in treasure but costly in lives.
 
Proud South Korean said:
I'm in favor of defense cuts by decreasing it to its 2/3 size.
. . .
If the defense budget is fully reformed, it would be like cutting the budget to 1/2 of its size while still maitaining every troop, every piece of equipment, everything but those civilian bureaucrats . . .
Click to expand...
Given that two-thirds of the cost of the military is the cost of its personnel how is this possible?
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
Iraq's army was a joke,
Click to expand...
Only compared to ours. Iraq fought Iran to a standstill. We defeated Iraq swiftly with few dead.
AdamT said:
and even then it took us five years to effectively secure the country.
Click to expand...
Counter-insurgency, counter-terrorism is always slow, no matter where one does it.
AdamT said:
Afghanistan's army is practically in the stone age and we're not exactly putting the fear of God into them.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you are unaware that the Afghani Army is an ally. Or maybe you meant the tribes, the Taliban, and Al Qaeda.
AdamT said:
Our army was built to fight the Cold War -- not the spot conflicts we're facing. If something really bad crops up there is always the option of instituting a draft.
Click to expand...
How much do you know about America's military? Your comments are indicators that your knowledge is shallow. That is not bad, in itself. Your opinion, as opinion, is no less valid.
 
Serenity said:
Afganistan - October 7th 2001 - August 3rd 2011.

9 years, 9 months 28 days.
still there.
hardly an ass kicking.
Click to expand...
The Taliban and Al Qaeda were defeated in a few months.
We are there to keep the Taliban and Al Qaeda from returning. We do not need to win. We need to prevent the Taliban and Al Qaeda from winning.
 
atrasicarius said:
Who exactly do you think we're going to be fighting?
Click to expand...
There are some interesting studies that take place every year or so. The last one I am familiar with described potential crises the nation would need to be prepared to deal with and to prevail in the 2020 time frame.

Today I would suggest that Islamofascism will be with us for the foreseeable future. We have seen a rise of organized crime that is heavily armed and already controls portions of the United States near the US-Mexican border. The Chinese have been developing the philosophical underpinnings of their eventual victory over the US in the Pacific.

Plato said that only the dead have seen and end to war. I believe that history will continue to prove him right.
 
Some of the conservatives on this thread make a good pint of preparedness. We need to keep some oversee bases open, especially in the middle east. We can reduce spending by reducing some of the projects we have going on. The decision to go with the F-35 or F-22 should have been made a long time ago. There is no reason to have both. Yes the F-35 is a better air/ground but the difference is not large enough to have both. We can cut back on personnel, most personnel don't see the front line. We do not need to have the large navy and air force that we have. We should be ready to increase it size but to have it right now is not necessary.

Technology is reducing cost through UAV and multipurpose tech like the F-22. Our military contacts are not efficient either; requirements and technology changes and a contract 20 years ago will need constant updating and more money. The faster companies are able to create an efficient tool the more they should be rewarded. Right now its the other way around where the longer it takes to create a tool the more money they request and receive due to contracts which can be open ended.

If we want to have a military budget this big and keep increasing it we need to raise taxes. Reforming mandatory spending won't be enough.
 
Proud South Korean said:
Agreed. The war of this age is the unconventional/irregular/asymmetrical warfare. Most of what you stated are useless in that kind of combat.
All the US needs aside from the weaponry for unconventional warfare are nukes. A few will keep countries like Russia and China in check.
Click to expand...
Have you spoken with Russia and China about your ideas? Both are modernizing their forces. The Chinese are intent upon defeating us to control the nations of the Pacific.
 
atrasicarius said:
I think he meant us nuking NKorea. Our nukes usually work pretty well.
Click to expand...
Maybe they do. Maybe they don't. We used to test them with underground bursts. We stopped in the name of the greater good. We have no real clue as to whether or not our weapons will work.

So if we want to have a threat worth considering we need to resume testing our nuclear weapons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom