• 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!

The US Military on the cheap. How would you do it?

Bullseye said:
I'd say given the world situation and the strategic value of a CVBG I'd actually like to see more, maybe 12-13. One of my bosses in the future plans and requirements branch (a two-star admiral) had a "planning requirement" that we worked by: NEVER plan for a fair fight; in other words plan for overwhelming superiority on land, sea, and in the air.
Click to expand...

My worry is, given the development of platforms like the Dong Feng 21, carrier groups become too expensive to use and risk.

Admitting upfront that I am woefully inexperienced in long-term resource planning requirements, I tend to suspect the Navy should spend more time investing in fungible solutions, like smaller carriers and amphibious assault ships, which can be put together into a fleet large enough to handle a near-pear competitor, but who don't represent a single point of failure for the fleet.
 
cpwill said:
To the Defense budget, which is what is under discussion, here? Negligible.
Click to expand...

All immigrants are a net positive, especially undocumented. They're a poor class without a safety net; they must work.
 
cpwill said:
My worry is, given the development of platforms like the Dong Feng 21, carrier groups become too expensive to use and risk.
Click to expand...
That, of course, is a serious concern. Given vegas giants' idea of sortieing battle groups from US mainland and forcing them to cross, for instance, the Pacific Ocean with Chinese ships and subs waiting for them with weapons like that - it's scary as hell.
cpwill said:
Admitting upfront that I am woefully inexperienced in long-term resource planning requirements, I tend to suspect the Navy should spend more time investing in fungible solutions, like smaller carriers and amphibious assault ships, which can be put together into a fleet large enough to handle a near-pear competitor, but who don't represent a single point of failure for the fleet.
Click to expand...
What I've seen recently supports that idea. The Navy seems to be emphasizing an approach of disperse smaller assets operating together over large swaths of the sea. Of course this assumes reliable communications which as we know, or at least suspect the Chinese are working had to disrupt.
 
cpwill said:
I would be very suspicious of this claim, as ECM is only likely to disrupt interceptable signal between the drone and a base station, or, if we are very powerful indeed, an air or space platform. And, just as above, it is possible to design to defeat ECM. Kinetic solutions are, I think, still a necessary component of a modern counter-drone defense.
Click to expand...

No, actually it is not. There are only 2 ways to avoid ECM. Either use some form of communication that is impossible to be interfered with (such as LOS LASER communication - not feasible for drones), or you simply use a super-strong signal to burn through the interference. That's it, there is nothing else.

Now for drones, like any kind of transceiver you need 2 way communications. Now while it is possible to send the signals from a base station that can put out tens or even hundreds of thousands of watts of power, you can't do that from the drone itself. And that is the weakest link in this system.

You just can not "design to defeat ECM", not possible. It was tried in WWII, with chaff in defeating RADAR (the chaff had to be cut to the specific length to work, so the other side started to vary the wavelengths used to get around this).

Now ECM in this case is really of the most stupid-simple type, because you do not have to intercept or fool anything. All you have to do is disrupt the communications between drone and base. And in most cases the drones then will do one of 2 things. Either they will loiter in the area waiting to regain communication, or after a specific amount of time they will simply return to base. That's it. These are not Terminator HKs that will then go off and conduct missions on their own, they do not work that way. The US Military is not going to hand off the death of individuals to autonomous machines, there has to be an actual person behind the console to actually press the button that can end a person's life.

That is why no matter how advanced our air defense systems are, they will always require a human to actually activate them.

And if there is one thing the Russians are good at, it is in compromising out communication capabilities. During the Cold War it was almost impossible for Western European radio signals to penetrate behind the Iron Curtain. And this includes the BBC, Radio Free Europe, Voice of America, Radio, Liberty, Radio Vatican, and others. While in the US a "powerful" transmitter is normally around 50,000 watts. And the famous "Border Blaster" Mexican stations like what Wolfman Jack worked out of worked at 100,000 watts and could cover much of the Southern US.

But along the Iron Curtain, a decades long "Radio War" went on. With the Soviets and Warsaw Pact dedicating over 45 megawatts to jamming, over more than 1,700 transmitters. This continued until 1988, when under Glasnost the jamming was quietly ended.
 
cpwill said:
My worry is, given the development of platforms like the Dong Feng 21, carrier groups become too expensive to use and risk.
Click to expand...

Most of us in the ADA area pretty much dismiss the DF-21D as it is claimed to operate. The idea of finding a carrier from over the horizon with enough accuracy in the first place to launch a ballistic missile at it is laughable. Then add in their crazy claims that they are going to be able to pinpoint the moving carrier to within 10 meters and be able to steer the missile that is falling at over 20,000 km/h and hit it is even more impossible.

What most of us fear is that what most forget is that this missile platform is also their most common medium range nuclear missile platform. Prior to this weird claimed conversion this missile was designed to carry a 500 kt nuclear warhead.

My biggest fear is that they might actually be foolish enough to launch one of these at a carrier, and we may very well react as if it was an actual nuclear missile inbound. Because most people I know who have followed this tend to believe that the only way this system could ever work is if it actually used a nuke and tried to kill via proximity.

Now China has talked up a lot their successful test a few years ago. And in this test, they were able to hit a fixed target in the Gobi desert. That is not a big deal, we have been doing that with our own ICBMs for decades now (most of ours have a CEP of around 10-20 meters). And some studies coming out now are questioning how much damage such a missile actually would do.

In the event of a hit, analysts have often looked at the potential for a hypersonic missile to cause damage with kinetic energy alone. Andrew Davies of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute is skeptical, calculating that the energy of an inert object of a 500 kg RV at an impact velocity of Mach 6 would be comparable to the kinetic and explosive energy of a subsonic Boeing AGM-84 Harpoon, and only a quarter of Russia's supersonic Tactical Missiles Corp./Raduga P-270 Moskit. Raduga's Cold War “carrier-killer,” the Kh-22, is a 12,800-lb. weapon that hits at a speed above Mach 4 with a 2,200-lb.-class, shaped-charge warhead. However, classified studies carried out by McDonnell Douglas in the 1980s also showed that much smaller warheads—for instance, dispenser weapons with long-rod penetrators—would cause enough damage to a warship to put it out of commission, pending major repairs.
Click to expand...

https://aviationweek.com/awin/us-navy-sees-chinese-hgv-part-wider-threat

This is yet another perfect example of a Chinese "Paper Tiger". Unless they are stupid enough to actually tip this thing with a nuclear warhead. Of course if that happens, the war is over and a nuclear war has begun.
 
cpwill said:
:raises eyebrow: Have they now.
Click to expand...

This is hardly "news" anymore, we have known about this since 2018.

The Russian military has been jamming some U.S. military drones operating in the skies over Syria, seriously affecting American military operations, according to four U.S. officials.

The Russians began jamming some smaller U.S. drones several weeks ago, the officials said, after a series of suspected chemical weapons attacks on civilians in rebel-held eastern Ghouta. The Russian military was concerned the U.S. military would retaliate for the attacks and began jamming the GPS systems of drones operating in the area, the officials explained.

Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., reacted to the news of Russian scrambling Tuesday by saying "Russia wants to undermine our interests at every turn."
Click to expand...

Russia has figured out how to jam U.S. drones in Syria, officials say

And Iran has been doing it for longer than that.

There is a big difference between going up against some poorly equipped guerrillas, and a nation.
 
cpwill said:
This is a solid Geopolitical outline, but I think you are giving short-shrift to China's A2AD capability, which provides much more of a balance than you've laid out, especially as they push forward in their island-building campaign.
Click to expand...

Yes but the US has a wealth of experience in taking out Pacific islands held by the enemy. As to air, Beijing in 2015 said it would declare an Air Defense Identification Zone over the South China Sea to protect those islands but it hasn't done it and they've stopped talking about it.

In November 2013 CCP Boyz in Beijing suddenly declared an ADIZ over the East Sea centered on the Senkaku islands of Japan that the Boyz assert are theirs. This was after the US stated the Senkaku are in fact included in its defense treaty with Japan. PLA Air Force said it would respond firmly if the Zone were, in their words, violated. So on the second morning US send two unarmed B-52s through the zone and that's been that since.

The zone has been aerial swiss cheese to the present as US and allied fighters fly through it regularly from US bases to include Japan Air Defense F-15s and S Korean fighters. Sometimes all three fly through it together and they probably sing songs doing it. Beijing's surrender of its 1 day zone is more than cowardice however as PLA AF lacks the capability to cover all of the ADIZ in land based radars. PLAAF still comes up short on aerial refueling capability and in air early warning and control.

All the same however, for almost 20 years CCP Dictator-Tyrants in Beijing have focused on a counter weapon to each US offensive weapon, carriers first and foremost. Chinese have more A2AD missiles than anyone else and keep churning 'em out daily. Beijing is increasing their nuclear weapons deterrent but the Boyz continue to have a no first use policy. That's no first use period.

This is after considerable review by the Boyz of the no first use policy which continues to stand. It was then SecDef James Mattis who convinced the Boyz to continue the no first use. Mattis emphasized everywhere he went that there's no such thing as a "tactical" nuclear weapon. Mattis said in his strongest terms that a nuclear weapon is a nuclear weapon. The Boyz took Mattis very seriously that no one should make that mistake.

The Boyz so called carrier killer has never been tested over the open sea either. The Boyz always have it tested over an inland lake or desert and crash it into the mountain on the other side. If only a carrier were a mountain eh. We know if the Boyz meant business on their "carrier-killer" they'd show it in action or they would at least test it to find out what they need to know absolutely before they considered going ahead to use it. The Boyz are going to have to test the sucker over the open sea or incur the great risk and strong likelihood they will fail miserably trying to use it for real.

While we musn't underestimate our enemy -- and believe me we don't -- neither should be let their phantom weapons present a false cause of alarm or panic. The Chinese in particular have been into deceit and fakery for a very long time. It's also fact each Russia and China have too much border to defend than is possible under any circumstance or scenario.
 
Bullseye said:
That, of course, is a serious concern. Given vegas giants' idea of sortieing battle groups from US mainland and forcing them to cross, for instance, the Pacific Ocean with Chinese ships and subs waiting for them with weapons like that - it's scary as hell.

What I've seen recently supports that idea. The Navy seems to be emphasizing an approach of disperse smaller assets operating together over large swaths of the sea. Of course this assumes reliable communications which as we know, or at least suspect the Chinese are working had to disrupt.
Click to expand...

The PLA Navy can't get off the continental shelf of the mainland nor can it get out of the South China Sea.

In China someone carrying on like that would get locked up for trying to spread hysteria predicated in falsehoods. Being misinformed is no defense in China either.

Good thing we're not in China eh. Still it would be good to hear Americans who have a grasp of reality.
 
Bullseye said:
I'd say given the world situation and the strategic value of a CVBG I'd actually like to see more, maybe 12-13. One of my bosses in the future plans and requirements branch (a two-star admiral) had a "planning requirement" that we worked by: NEVER plan for a fair fight; in other words plan for overwhelming superiority on land, sea, and in the air.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see 5 and change the mission to defend the homeland. We would be safer and save a ton of money
 
Bullseye said:
That, of course, is a serious concern. Given vegas giants' idea of sortieing battle groups from US mainland and forcing them to cross, for instance, the Pacific Ocean with Chinese ships and subs waiting for them with weapons like that - it's scary as hell.
What I've seen recently supports that idea. The Navy seems to be emphasizing an approach of disperse smaller assets operating together over large swaths of the sea. Of course this assumes reliable communications which as we know, or at least suspect the Chinese are working had to disrupt.
Click to expand...

You keep failing to.understand the mission. Defend the homeland. You keep talking about projecting power. This is why we spend more than the next ten countries combined on our military.


It is never enough if the mission is to cover the planet
 
PirateMk1 said:
Ok, a thought exercise for today and however long people are interested.

Pretend that we have to cut our military budget drastically for the foreseeable future. By one quarter, by one half, and by three quarters. In each of these three scenarios, how would you do it? Would there be priority differences between the three different size cuts in budget, or would you maintain similar priorities regardless the size of cut?

As the Iron Chef says "Begin!!!"
Click to expand...

Bring the troops home. Repeal the AUMF. Kill all the neocons and sympathetic democrats.
 
Oozlefinch said:
No, actually it is not. There are only 2 ways to avoid ECM. Either use some form of communication that is impossible to be interfered with (such as LOS LASER communication - not feasible for drones), or you simply use a super-strong signal to burn through the interference. That's it, there is nothing else.
Click to expand...

I like how you say that ECM can't be defeated, and then list two possibilities. Others come to mind:

3. Utilize automatic programing in case of loss of signal to accomplish a mission.

4. Utilize distance.

5. Utilize a portion of the EMS the enemy isn't jamming.

Now for drones, like any kind of transceiver you need 2 way communications.
Click to expand...

For some of them, certainly - but not all. You may want it, and, if you wish to continue to control it while in flight you need it, but that is not how all drone operations work.

All you have to do is disrupt the communications between drone and base. And in most cases the drones then will do one of 2 things. Either they will loiter in the area waiting to regain communication, or after a specific amount of time they will simply return to base. That's it. These are not Terminator HKs that will then go off and conduct missions on their own, they do not work that way. The US Military is not going to hand off the death of individuals to autonomous machines, there has to be an actual person behind the console to actually press the button that can end a person's life.
Click to expand...

As I pointed out to you - drones and cruise missile technology is verging - you are correct that in the era of CT we have wanted a human finger to be the instrument of release of munitions - that may not hold true in a near-peer conflict, especially if the drone is a munition. And when do you count the moment of “handing off”? If I hit fire on a cruise missile, or launch on a drone, both with a mission to detect (say) electronic impulses consistent with an S-300-associated radar (or, for that matter, an ECM emitter) and strike it?

In the pressure of near-peer competition, the niceties are going to go out the window. If we can launch a small, relatively cheap, drone swarm to loiter over an area and hit a given signal, we will. And so will they.

Even ISIS figured this basic tactic out. If they had it, and used it against us (and, they did, despite our ECM; we are lucky they were reliant on COTS builds and rando dudes trying to figure stuff out in a basement), then I rather doubt the Russians or Chinese won’t, especially since this exact tactic already plays such a prominent role in Chinese strategy to suppress Taiwanese air defenses.


That is why no matter how advanced our air defense systems are, they will always require a human to actually activate them.
Click to expand...

Arms races are relentless. Don’t conflate current legal procedures for conducting strikes against CT targets with what we will do against a near-peer threat.

And if there is one thing the Russians are good at, it is in compromising out communication capabilities.
Click to expand...

THAT is definitely true. :-/. They do the insider game very, very, well indeed.

I would add that the Chinese are a real threat here, as well, and point out that we don’t exercise nearly enough in a seriously comms-degraded environment.
Click to expand...
 
Tangmo said:
Yes but the US has a wealth of experience in taking out Pacific islands held by the enemy
Click to expand...

:) Man, we are about as far removed from WWII as they were from the horseback campaigns against the Apache.

The question of taking an island isn't an issue, I don't think - it's getting to the island that's the question.

As to air, Beijing in 2015 said it would declare an Air Defense Identification Zone over the South China Sea to protect those islands but it hasn't done it and they've stopped talking about it. In November 2013 CCP Boyz in Beijing suddenly declared an ADIZ over the East Sea centered on the Senkaku islands of Japan that the Boyz assert are theirs. This was after the US stated the Senkaku are in fact included in its defense treaty with Japan. PLA Air Force said it would respond firmly if the Zone were, in their words, violated. So on the second morning US send two unarmed B-52s through the zone and that's been that since.

The zone has been aerial swiss cheese to the present as US and allied fighters fly through it regularly from US bases to include Japan Air Defense F-15s and S Korean fighters. Sometimes all three fly through it together and they probably sing songs doing it. Beijing's surrender of its 1 day zone is more than cowardice however as PLA AF lacks the capability to cover all of the ADIZ in land based radars. PLAAF still comes up short on aerial refueling capability and in air early warning and control.
Click to expand...

:shrug: I don't disagree. That, however, doesn't really obviate the point that the Chinese A2AD capability is serious and needs to be taken seriously.

All the same however, for almost 20 years CCP Dictator-Tyrants in Beijing have focused on a counter weapon to each US offensive weapon, carriers first and foremost. Chinese have more A2AD missiles than anyone else and keep churning 'em out daily. Beijing is increasing their nuclear weapons deterrent but the Boyz continue to have a no first use policy. That's no first use period.

This is after considerable review by the Boyz of the no first use policy which continues to stand. It was then SecDef James Mattis who convinced the Boyz to continue the no first use. Mattis emphasized everywhere he went that there's no such thing as a "tactical" nuclear weapon. Mattis said in his strongest terms that a nuclear weapon is a nuclear weapon. The Boyz took Mattis very seriously that no one should make that mistake.
Click to expand...

Everyone took Mattis seriously, as they well should have. However, I don’t think we were talking about nuclear weaponry, which is – as CHAOS pointed out – a non-fungible weapon system. You can’t get into a “little bit” of a nuclear exchange any more than you can get a little big pregnant.

The Boyz so called carrier killer has never been tested over the open sea either. The Boyz always have it tested over an inland lake or desert and crash it into the mountain on the other side. If only a carrier were a mountain eh. We know if the Boyz meant business on their "carrier-killer" they'd show it in action or they would at least test it to find out what they need to know absolutely before they considered going ahead to use it.
Click to expand...

:shrug: that or they wish to minimize US collection against it, just as we do much of our testing out in the middle of the desert.

The Boyz are going to have to test the sucker over the open sea or incur the great risk and strong likelihood they will fail miserably trying to use it for real.
Click to expand...

I would like to know what you are basing that assessment of “strong likelihood” on, because I spent three years of my life looking at this problem, and, well, let's just say I'd like to see what you are basing this on.

But, let’s say you’re right. Let’s say half of them fail. Heck, let’s say two-thirds fail. And so, of the dozen cruise missiles sent after a carrier, only 4 of them hit.

We just lost a Carrier. A Carrier. At the cost of a dozen missiles. What’er the odds that the President sends another Carrier in there?

While we musn't underestimate our enemy -- and believe me we don't -- neither should be let their phantom weapons present a false cause of alarm or panic. The Chinese in particular have been into deceit and fakery for a very long time. It's also fact each Russia and China have too much border to defend than is possible under any circumstance or scenario.
Click to expand...

To defend? Depends on how you mean it. From ground based invasion? Absolutely. From full-blown US Carrier Groups operating off their coast….
Sadly, quite possibly, much less so.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Most of us in the ADA area pretty much dismiss the DF-21D as it is claimed to operate. The idea of finding a carrier from over the horizon with enough accuracy in the first place to launch a ballistic missile at it is laughable. Then add in their crazy claims that they are going to be able to pinpoint the moving carrier to within 10 meters and be able to steer the missile that is falling at over 20,000 km/h and hit it is even more impossible.

What most of us fear is that what most forget is that this missile platform is also their most common medium range nuclear missile platform. Prior to this weird claimed conversion this missile was designed to carry a 500 kt nuclear warhead.

My biggest fear is that they might actually be foolish enough to launch one of these at a carrier, and we may very well react as if it was an actual nuclear missile inbound. Because most people I know who have followed this tend to believe that the only way this system could ever work is if it actually used a nuke and tried to kill via proximity.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. The people I know who have worked this have... a different take.



Now China has talked up a lot their successful test a few years ago. And in this test, they were able to hit a fixed target in the Gobi desert. That is not a big deal, we have been doing that with our own ICBMs for decades now (most of ours have a CEP of around 10-20 meters). And some studies coming out now are questioning how much damage such a missile actually would do.

In the event of a hit, analysts have often looked at the potential for a hypersonic missile to cause damage with kinetic energy alone. Andrew Davies of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute is skeptical, calculating that the energy of an inert object of a 500 kg RV at an impact velocity of Mach 6 would be comparable to the kinetic and explosive energy of a subsonic Boeing AGM-84 Harpoon, and only a quarter of Russia's supersonic Tactical Missiles Corp./Raduga P-270 Moskit. Raduga's Cold War “carrier-killer,” the Kh-22, is a 12,800-lb. weapon that hits at a speed above Mach 4 with a 2,200-lb.-class, shaped-charge warhead. However, classified studies carried out by McDonnell Douglas in the 1980s also showed that much smaller warheads—for instance, dispenser weapons with long-rod penetrators—would cause enough damage to a warship to put it out of commission, pending major repairs.
Click to expand...

https://aviationweek.com/awin/us-navy-sees-chinese-hgv-part-wider-threat

This is yet another perfect example of a Chinese "Paper Tiger". Unless they are stupid enough to actually tip this thing with a nuclear warhead. Of course if that happens, the war is over and a nuclear war has begun.
Click to expand...

While I agree wholeheartedly that China boasts about military achievements it hasn't, actually, achieved...

Well, good for Mr Davies. NASIC and MSIC have their own assessments. :)

I'd point out that, even if his estimate is correct, and they merely knocked the carrier out of commission, then they've put a carrier out of commission, and more directly to what is under discussion here, if they are a credible threat to put a carrier out of commission, the President probably isn't going to risk the carrier in the first place.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Ok, a thought exercise for today and however long people are interested.

Pretend that we have to cut our military budget drastically for the foreseeable future. By one quarter, by one half, and by three quarters. In each of these three scenarios, how would you do it? Would there be priority differences between the three different size cuts in budget, or would you maintain similar priorities regardless the size of cut?

As the Iron Chef says "Begin!!!"
Click to expand...

PirateMk1:

1) Take the US Military off a permanent wartime footing.

2) Change the expected missions of the US Military to more modest goals.

3) Reorganise the US Military to end duplication of services and to stop reproducing fighting capacities in different branches wherever possible.

4) Reduce the Navy to about 240 combat ships. Reduce the number of carriers in active service to 9 and the number of carrier/assault ships to 9. Reduce the Submarine force in active service maintaining the number of boomers but reducing the attack submarines in active service.

5) Reduce the USMC to 120,000 and use it as the exclusive arm of military foreign intervention in asymmetrical warfare situations and for conducting amphibious assaults. Put all special operations under Marine control and cut the special operations forces by 2/3s using Marine C&C to operate it. Eliminate all separate SOFs in other branches and all separate SOF commands.

6) Reduce the US Army significantly (1million active and 1.2 million reserves) and focus it on fighting heavily mechanised warfare against tier one and two state actors while the Marines handle the asymmetrical conflicts. The Army should be in charge of the old air-land battle space and nothing more. The new US Army would be configured as 6 Armoired Brigades, 12 Mechanised Brigades, 6 Airborne Brigades, 7 Aero-Weapons Brigades, 7 Artillery Brigades and 7 Support Brigades. Provision for up to four to six mountain/Arctic/light brigades might be considered if a persuasive case can be made.

7) Increase the US Coast Guard by taking some of those personnel downsized in navy cuts and expanding its capacity. Transfer all mine sweeping and mine laying to Coast Guard control. Build more missile armed, rocket torpedo-armed and light auto cannon armed light patrol ships in the 100-200 tonne range. These should be cheap ships and not expensive Cadillac battle wagons.

8) Reduce the US Air Force by scrapping the Strategic Bomber Command and putting more emphasis on missile delivery of nuclear weapons. Maintain the heavy bombers B-1s and B-2s for conventional missions and for delivering nuclear weapons as a secondary role. Progressively retire the B-52 fleet and replace it with a low-cost delivery-truck-style heavy bomber designed to be cheap and to opperate without stealth. Concentrate on maintaining the US Air Force's power with existing forces and greatly reduce new purchases of piloted aircraft. Put some limited investment into developing drone fighters and bombers and drone swarms for air defence.

9) Marry the departments of Strategic Reconnaisance and Mr. Trump's new space command with the strategic Ballistic Missile Comnand to make a space and nuclear Comnand force.

10) Downsize the Pentagon and the civilian contractors, etc. used by the US armed forces. Limit the number of senior officers and thus downsize the bloated command structures.

11) Completely revise the US arms and munitions procurement system to reduce cost dramatically and use draconian state power in the hands of elected officials to break the power of the US arms industry to overcharge the US taxpayers for maintaining the US Armed Forces.

12) pass laws forcing the Congress to fund all military expenditures and wars and a law increasing income tax, corporate tax, capital gains taxes, luxury taxes and any others taxes I missed to fully fund operations if the US finds itself in any military conflict for a specific fiscal year.

13) End the unilateral powers of the US President and administration to embark upon wars of choice without strict Congressional oversight and and prior approval.

14) Forbid the use of Private military and security companies operating on American soil and in all American jurisdictions in a military, policing or surveillance capacity.

15) Although not military institutions, redesign, downsize and limit powers and the freedom of operation of many of the extremely expensive and societally dangerous branches of the US Security and Surveillance State and downsize and limit the powers of the Department of Homeland Security to an information clearing house for intelligence.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
Oozlefinch said:
No, that is the job of some kind of idiot, not a member of the US military.

Sorry, the real military is not like Call of Duty. We are not trained to "charge into deadly situations". We are trained to recognize them before they happen, and to eliminate or reduce the risk as much as possible.

If that is what you think, maybe it is best if you stick to video games.
Click to expand...

I was in the military. I wonder why they wasted all that time teaching me how to attack a machine gun fortification. We were told straight up that some had to die to accomplish certain objectives. A sad part of fighting a battle. Unfortunately taking fortified locations are a part of battles and war. I guess you never heard of the battle of Normandy or Guadalcanal. I can look up thousand of more instances even recently where are soldiers bravely charged into harms way to accomplish their mission. Call of duty is based on real men and women who did charge into very dangerous situations because they were ordered to not because they were stupid. Welcome to reality. Friendly fire and collateral damage are unfortunately a reality of war and being in the military. Nobody wants it to happen but happen it does.
 
cpwill said:
:) Man, we are about as far removed from WWII as they were from the horseback campaigns against the Apache.

The question of taking an island isn't an issue, I don't think - it's getting to the island that's the question.



:shrug: I don't disagree. That, however, doesn't really obviate the point that the Chinese A2AD capability is serious and needs to be taken seriously.



Everyone took Mattis seriously, as they well should have. However, I don’t think we were talking about nuclear weaponry, which is – as CHAOS pointed out – a non-fungible weapon system. You can’t get into a “little bit” of a nuclear exchange any more than you can get a little big pregnant.



:shrug: that or they wish to minimize US collection against it, just as we do much of our testing out in the middle of the desert.



I would like to know what you are basing that assessment of “strong likelihood” on, because I spent three years of my life looking at this problem, and, well, let's just say I'd like to see what you are basing this on.

But, let’s say you’re right. Let’s say half of them fail. Heck, let’s say two-thirds fail. And so, of the dozen cruise missiles sent after a carrier, only 4 of them hit.

We just lost a Carrier. A Carrier. At the cost of a dozen missiles. What’er the odds that the President sends another Carrier in there?



To defend? Depends on how you mean it. From ground based invasion? Absolutely. From full-blown US Carrier Groups operating off their coast….
Sadly, quite possibly, much less so.
Click to expand...

As I said, one should never underestimate the enemy. We don't.

That said, I like how the Russians and the Chinese seem always to come out of your posts with the advantage. If either might not have the clear advantage yet, then they're working at it and applying themselves assiduously. The president meanwhile isn't going to take the risks you present, which leaves the USA in something of a lurch in your posts.

Your posts present you as a concerned American who suggests he's informed. It is nonetheless the case that the other guy always has the advantage against the United States and has the habit of coming out on top often. And that the US would be foolish if not self defeating to try to deal with it.

I find all of that and more interesting to say the least.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
I was in the military. I wonder why they wasted all that time teaching me how to attack a machine gun fortification. We were told straight up that some had to die to accomplish certain objectives. A sad part of fighting a battle. Unfortunately taking fortified locations are a part of battles and war. I guess you never heard of the battle of Normandy or Guadalcanal. I can look up thousand of more instances even recently where are soldiers bravely charged into harms way to accomplish their mission. Call of duty is based on real men and women who did charge into very dangerous situations because they were ordered to not because they were stupid. Welcome to reality. Friendly fire and collateral damage are unfortunately a reality of war and being in the military. Nobody wants it to happen but happen it does.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between "we have no other tactical options than to attack the enemy head on" versus "Charging headlong into the enemy is our primary means of attack".
 
Evilroddy said:
PirateMk1:

1) Take the US Military off a permanent wartime footing.

2) Change the expected missions of the US Military to more modest goals.

3) Reorganise the US Military to end duplication of services and to stop reproducing fighting capacities in different branches wherever possible.

4) Reduce the Navy to about 240 combat ships. Reduce the number of carriers in active service to 9 and the number of carrier/assault ships to 9. Reduce the Submarine force in active service maintaining the number of boomers but reducing the attack submarines in active service.

5) Reduce the USMC to 120,000 and use it as the exclusive arm of military foreign intervention in asymmetrical warfare situations and for conducting amphibious assaults. Put all special operations under Marine control and cut the special operations forces by 2/3s using Marine C&C to operate it. Eliminate all separate SOFs in other branches and all separate SOF commands.

6) Reduce the US Army significantly (1million active and 1.2 million reserves) and focus it on fighting heavily mechanised warfare against tier one and two state actors while the Marines handle the asymmetrical conflicts. The Army should be in charge of the old air-land battle space and nothing more. The new US Army would be configured as 6 Armoired Brigades, 12 Mechanised Brigades, 6 Airborne Brigades, 7 Aero-Weapons Brigades, 7 Artillery Brigades and 7 Support Brigades. Provision for up to four to six mountain/Arctic/light brigades might be considered if a persuasive case can be made.

7) Increase the US Coast Guard by taking some of those personnel downsized in navy cuts and expanding its capacity. Transfer all mine sweeping and mine laying to Coast Guard control. Build more missile armed, rocket torpedo-armed and light auto cannon armed light patrol ships in the 100-200 tonne range. These should be cheap ships and not expensive Cadillac battle wagons.

8) Reduce the US Air Force by scrapping the Strategic Bomber Command and putting more emphasis on missile delivery of nuclear weapons. Maintain the heavy bombers B-1s and B-2s for conventional missions and for delivering nuclear weapons as a secondary role. Progressively retire the B-52 fleet and replace it with a low-cost delivery-truck-style heavy bomber designed to be cheap and to opperate without stealth. Concentrate on maintaining the US Air Force's power with existing forces and greatly reduce new purchases of piloted aircraft. Put some limited investment into developing drone fighters and bombers and drone swarms for air defence.

9) Marry the departments of Strategic Reconnaisance and Mr. Trump's new space command with the strategic Ballistic Missile Comnand to make a space and nuclear Comnand force.

10) Downsize the Pentagon and the civilian contractors, etc. used by the US armed forces. Limit the number of senior officers and thus downsize the bloated command structures.

11) Completely revise the US arms and munitions procurement system to reduce cost dramatically and use draconian state power in the hands of elected officials to break the power of the US arms industry to overcharge the US taxpayers for maintaining the US Armed Forces.

12) pass laws forcing the Congress to fund all military expenditures and wars and a law increasing income tax, corporate tax, capital gains taxes, luxury taxes and any others taxes I missed to fully fund operations if the US finds itself in any military conflict for a specific fiscal year.

13) End the unilateral powers of the US President and administration to embark upon wars of choice without strict Congressional oversight and and prior approval.

14) Forbid the use of Private military and security companies operating on American soil and in all American jurisdictions in a military, policing or surveillance capacity.

15) Although not military institutions, redesign, downsize and limit powers and the freedom of operation of many of the extremely expensive and societally dangerous branches of the US Security and Surveillance State and downsize and limit the powers of the Department of Homeland Security to an information clearing house for intelligence.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

That's a start but I would cut much deeper. It all comes with changing the mission. If we are only defending the US we need far fewer resources
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
I was in the military. I wonder why they wasted all that time teaching me how to attack a machine gun fortification. We were told straight up that some had to die to accomplish certain objectives. A sad part of fighting a battle. Unfortunately taking fortified locations are a part of battles and war. I guess you never heard of the battle of Normandy or Guadalcanal. I can look up thousand of more instances even recently where are soldiers bravely charged into harms way to accomplish their mission. Call of duty is based on real men and women who did charge into very dangerous situations because they were ordered to not because they were stupid. Welcome to reality. Friendly fire and collateral damage are unfortunately a reality of war and being in the military. Nobody wants it to happen but happen it does.
Click to expand...

They didn't teach you to charge head-long into it, though. They taught you to use cover, concealment and maneuver to attack from the most advantageous avenue of approach and reduce as much risk as possible, not necessarily eliminate it.

That being said, there were plenty of times during training that, as a squad leader/platoon sargeant I said, "Yeah, ok, but in a real world scenario we're not going to do it like that". There were a number of times where my platoon leader wanted to attack an objective, mounted, then dismount the rifle squads on the objective. Blew me away how even the greenest 2nd lieutenant could think that was a good idea.
 
Evilroddy said:
PirateMk1:

1) Take the US Military off a permanent wartime footing.

2) Change the expected missions of the US Military to more modest goals.

3) Reorganise the US Military to end duplication of services and to stop reproducing fighting capacities in different branches wherever possible.

4) Reduce the Navy to about 240 combat ships. Reduce the number of carriers in active service to 9 and the number of carrier/assault ships to 9. Reduce the Submarine force in active service maintaining the number of boomers but reducing the attack submarines in active service.

5) Reduce the USMC to 120,000 and use it as the exclusive arm of military foreign intervention in asymmetrical warfare situations and for conducting amphibious assaults. Put all special operations under Marine control and cut the special operations forces by 2/3s using Marine C&C to operate it. Eliminate all separate SOFs in other branches and all separate SOF commands.

6) Reduce the US Army significantly (1million active and 1.2 million reserves) and focus it on fighting heavily mechanised warfare against tier one and two state actors while the Marines handle the asymmetrical conflicts. The Army should be in charge of the old air-land battle space and nothing more. The new US Army would be configured as 6 Armoired Brigades, 12 Mechanised Brigades, 6 Airborne Brigades, 7 Aero-Weapons Brigades, 7 Artillery Brigades and 7 Support Brigades. Provision for up to four to six mountain/Arctic/light brigades might be considered if a persuasive case can be made.

7) Increase the US Coast Guard by taking some of those personnel downsized in navy cuts and expanding its capacity. Transfer all mine sweeping and mine laying to Coast Guard control. Build more missile armed, rocket torpedo-armed and light auto cannon armed light patrol ships in the 100-200 tonne range. These should be cheap ships and not expensive Cadillac battle wagons.

snip for size. See original post for complete quote.

9) Marry the departments of Strategic Reconnaisance and Mr. Trump's new space command with the strategic Ballistic Missile Comnand to make a space and nuclear Comnand force.

10) Downsize the Pentagon and the civilian contractors, etc. used by the US armed forces. Limit the number of senior officers and thus downsize the bloated command structures.

11) Completely revise the US arms and munitions procurement system to reduce cost dramatically and use draconian state power in the hands of elected officials to break the power of the US arms industry to overcharge the US taxpayers for maintaining the US Armed Forces.

12) pass laws forcing the Congress to fund all military expenditures and wars and a law increasing income tax, corporate tax, capital gains taxes, luxury taxes and any others taxes I missed to fully fund operations if the US finds itself in any military conflict for a specific fiscal year.

13) End the unilateral powers of the US President and administration to embark upon wars of choice without strict Congressional oversight and and prior approval.

14) Forbid the use of Private military and security companies operating on American soil and in all American jurisdictions in a military, policing or surveillance capacity.

15) Although not military institutions, redesign, downsize and limit powers and the freedom of operation of many of the extremely expensive and societally dangerous branches of the US Security and Surveillance State and downsize and limit the powers of the Department of Homeland Security to an information clearing house for intelligence.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Interesting I have to ponder some of what you said but an instant reaction to 14 comes to mind where I would do the opposite or actually a modification. As I was a mercenary working for the US in combat conditions I know there is a place for them to augment the military in specific cases. I would limit the case to as needed basis. As for operating on American soil. If they are paid for by our government I would agree with you. If a private entity wants their services on our soil, its none of my concern, if foreign or private entities wish to use them off our soil again none of my concern. I would like to keep the PMC's around for use as partners in reprisal operations. For instance, the drone that was shot down by Iran. We had the British stop the ship. We should have made it clear we are taking it in reprisal and used PCM's who pay us a cut of the take for the privilege of using a letter of mark and reprisal issued by us.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Interesting I have to ponder some of what you said but an instant reaction to 14 comes to mind where I would do the opposite or actually a modification. As I was a mercenary working for the US in combat conditions I know there is a place for them to augment the military in specific cases. I would limit the case to as needed basis. As for operating on American soil. If they are paid for by our government I would agree with you. If a private entity wants their services on our soil, its none of my concern, if foreign or private entities wish to use them off our soil again none of my concern. I would like to keep the PMC's around for use as partners in reprisal operations. For instance, the drone that was shot down by Iran. We had the British stop the ship. We should have made it clear we are taking it in reprisal and used PCM's who pay us a cut of the take for the privilege of using a letter of mark and reprisal issued by us.
Click to expand...

PirateMk1:

Right now PMSCs are operating on American soil and are conducting operations based on skills they learned doing COIN operations against American citizens. The use of the mercenary company TigerSwan against Dakota pipeline protestors comes to mind, but there are plenty more examples from the last 5-10 years. These companies are conducting SigInt, paramilitary, espionage and investigative operations against American citizens without any police powers and with no clear accountability. If an oil company wants guards to protect a storage facility or refinery or contractees to run field kitchens then that is fine by me, but when it is investigating people, tapping into their private communications, infiltrating protest organisations, mapping relationships and interactions, following people around or acting as a private police force without public accountability, that crosses a very big Rubicon with me.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
vegas giants said:
That's a start but I would cut much deeper. It all comes with changing the mission. If we are only defending the US we need far fewer resources
Click to expand...

Vegas Giants:

The problem with downsizing militaries too fast and dumping too many former military on to civil-street all at once is that it produces pools of very skilled, very dangerous and potentially very angry folks who can pose a real and present danger to the Republic and to the the maintenance of peace, order and good governance.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
PirateMk1:

Right now PMSCs are operating on American soil and are conducting operations based on skills they learned doing COIN operations against American citizens. The use of the mercenary company TigerSwan against Dakota pipeline protestors comes to mind, but there are plenty more examples from the last 5-10 years. These companies are conducting SigInt, paramilitary, espionage and investigative operations against American citizens without any police powers and with no clear accountability. If an oil company wants guards to protect a storage facility or refinery or contractees to run field kitchens then that is fine by me, but when it is investigating people, tapping into their private communications, infiltrating protest organisations, mapping relationships and interactions, following people around or acting as a private police force without public accountability, that crosses a very big Rubicon with me.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

So long as they dont have arrest powers any different than you or I and are legally in the same boat, then I would be inclined to disagree. However if they are given special privilege thats another ball game and crosses the Rubicon.
Your description reminds me of the Pinkerton company of yore. They did pretty much the same thing.
What you describe PCM doing on the pipeline is what a typical PI does for divorce cases fraud ect. Note the PI does not have special privilege.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
There's a difference between "we have no other tactical options than to attack the enemy head on" versus "Charging headlong into the enemy is our primary means of attack".
Click to expand...

I know what the difference is. I served in the military. There is a big difference between the payroll clerk and the marine who will hit the beach. As I said nobody wants to charge into harms way but that unfortunately is a job you may be ordered to do when fighting a war. It would be wonderful if the enemy didn't shoot back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom