• 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!

Military Branches

Which branch and explain?

  • Total voters
    49
the only branch I would mess with is the Air force.... they are an entirely redundant branch.

give 'em back to the Army.

leave the Army, Navy, USMC, and USCG guard intact.

integrate training, ranks structures, and bases... save billions, call it a day.
 
Thrilla said:
the only branch I would mess with is the Air force.... they are an entirely redundant branch.

give 'em back to the Army.

leave the Army, Navy, USMC, and USCG guard intact.

integrate training, ranks structures, and bases... save billions, call it a day.
Click to expand...

Redundant?

The Marines are Redundant..... name one thing Marines do that some other branch doesn't cover?
Fold the Marine Corps back into the Navy where it belongs.

Fold the Air Force into the Army.

Have the Army and Navy and Coast Guard.
 
TheGirlNextDoor said:
If we were to consolidate our overall military strength to just one branch, which branch should it be and why?

My apologies for making this a U.S. poll question - feel free to start one that outlines military branches in other countries.
Click to expand...

Canada has a "consolidated" structure. However, it still has units and specialties that are limited to land, sea or air. It still operates pretty closely to the way we do.

There would indeed be some savings and better communications between the branches, however, the different branches would still exists. You cannot have only an army, or only a navy or only an Air Force. How much savings? Don't know for sure. You would still need x number of people to utilize y amount of equipment. Just because some people could move across service branches doesn't mean we would need a lot less people.

We could probably reduce the number of bases under current structure, but it has to be approved by Congress and what Senator/Congressman wants to lose a base in their area? Consolidate bases? Possible maybe. But you could not limit all bases to just the coasts where the Navy could get in and out. If you consolidate too much, you make them vulnerable to a limited number of strikes. There was once a plan to move the Air Force stationed in the US into 5 "Super" bases. Cool right? Less money spent on bases, etc. Oops, then it only takes 5 missiles getting through to totally eliminate our Air Force that was not stationed overseas. Not so cool. What would then happen if that very limited number of bases also contained the majority of our land and sea forces not currently deployed also?

The savings would be elimination of redundant training schools for different specialties and those do not eat into our current budgeting very much in the overall picture. You would also save by reducing the number of "senior" officers, but hell, we could greatly reduce our Officer Corps now.
 
Thrilla said:
the only branch I would mess with is the Air force.... they are an entirely redundant branch.

give 'em back to the Army.

leave the Army, Navy, USMC, and USCG guard intact.

integrate training, ranks structures, and bases... save billions, call it a day.
Click to expand...

Entirely redundant? Please explain this redundancy with the Army?
 
Caine said:
Redundant?

The Marines are Redundant..... name one thing Marines do that some other branch doesn't cover?
Fold the Marine Corps back into the Navy where it belongs.

Fold the Air Force into the Army.

Have the Army and Navy and Coast Guard.
Click to expand...


The USMC is already a part of the Navy and not a separate branch.
 
DVSentinel said:
The USMC is already a part of the Navy and not a separate branch.
Click to expand...

It is still identified as a separate branch of the DOD.

Army, Navy, Air Force, USMC, and Coast Guard (Which I think is now technically a department of Homeland Security not DOD, not really sure how that works)



Why would DOD Forms one completes where one must mark which "Branch" of service they are in have the USMC listed separately?


Because they are a separate "Branch", even if they are still closely related to the Navy, and yes technically a "Department of".


(Just like the Air Force is still closely related to the Army)
 
The Marine Corps since they all ready have a little of everything, the best uniforms and just the best at kicking ***.

Semper FI
 
Cannot do this. The Navy is a mandatory requirement while the Army is not. Cannot combine.
 
Caine said:
Redundant?

The Marines are Redundant..... name one thing Marines do that some other branch doesn't cover?
Fold the Marine Corps back into the Navy where it belongs.

Fold the Air Force into the Army.

Have the Army and Navy and Coast Guard.
Click to expand...

Amphibious assault.
the Marines are a highly mobile, highly aggressive, lightweight assault force....
while there is some mission overlap with other services, the Marine Corps fulfills a vital mission that no one else has the capability or training to perform.
there are lots of things the other services do that the Marine Corps is not equipped or trained to do....but when we all coordinate together, it's a incredibly effective force.

the USA, USN, and USMC all provide the same services the Air force does.( except airborne nuke deterrent and space superiority)

I'm a fan of air power, i'm even a fan of the Air Force for providing that air power( they do a superb job)... but the fact remains, everybody provides air power.. the AF does little , in terms of mission capabilities, that cannot be immediately taken over by the other branches.... that is not the case with the other branches.
 
Caine said:
Redundant?

The Marines are Redundant..... name one thing Marines do that some other branch doesn't cover?
Fold the Marine Corps back into the Navy where it belongs.

Fold the Air Force into the Army.

Have the Army and Navy and Coast Guard.
Click to expand...

Amphibious Assault.
 
TheGirlNextDoor said:
If we were to consolidate our overall military strength to just one branch, which branch should it be and why?

My apologies for making this a U.S. poll question - feel free to start one that outlines military branches in other countries.
Click to expand...

I say army.Mostly because I was in the Army. I do feel that the branches should be consolidated.
 
TheGirlNextDoor said:
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.
Click to expand...
You were right, your coworker is an idiot.


BTW - Coast Guard is DHS, usually, but can be reassigned to Navy at the President's discretion. They used to be DoT with the same possibility of reassignment.
 
Last edited:
Thrilla said:
yes the USAF is redundant... the USN,USMC, and USA all have air capabilities, both fixed and rotor.... in spades.
Click to expand...

What Air Capabilities does the Army Have that aren't helicopters and UAV?
 
Thrilla said:
Amphibious assault.
Click to expand...

mac said:
Amphibious Assault.
Click to expand...

And they can still do that..... as a part of the Navy.

I mean, the Army didn't create a whole new branch just for their Airborne Corps.......The Marines don't need to be an entirely separate branch just because they have some folks who have a special type of battlefield insertion method.
 
Caine said:
And they can still do that..... as a part of the Navy.
Click to expand...

They are part of the Navy.

I mean, the Army didn't create a whole new branch just for their Airborne Corps.......The Marines don't need to be an entirely separate branch just because they have some folks who have a special type of battlefield insertion method.
Click to expand...

They're not an entirely seperate branch.
 
Meh, the Navy is just chauffeur service for the Marines. :mrgreen:

They're all necessary and should not be consolidated.
 
I mean if you were forced to pick one, the Navy would clearly be best. It is the mechanism for force project and its mission and capabilities encompass land, sea, and air battle components.
 
How about fold everything into the U.S. Air Force, because of the quality of USAF bases, the shorter deployments, and their ease of recruiting people? :2razz:

And the Air Force kicks ass when it comes to such things as “shock and awe”.

But I may be biased since I am in the USAF.

Consolidation of all the branches of the armed forces could happen very slowly over time. First start with stationing some Army and Marine units on an Air Force Base and in other places put some Navy units on an Air Force Base. Then when you get enough of a mix, rename the base Joint Base whatever. Also in a combat zone, station all the branches together, and do things like putting Air Force Airmen driving and supporting convoys (amongst other things). Also extend and toughen up the Air Force Basic Training and make it a lot more ground combat oriented.

…And by the way all the above is happening already.
 
If (and in my point of view that is a big IF) there should be a just the one branch, it should be a new branch, for example, the USAAF, the United States of America Armed Forces or something like that. It would not be just or nice for proud branches of the DoD to start fighting under the name of another branch. There is too much history for the Marine Core to now be logged into one branch with the name army. And vice versa.
 
The problem with consolidation, as I see it, is that basically you NEED most of the specializations that the various branches bring to the table.

USA is ground combat, with infantry, armor, artillery, and close air support (choppers and etc.)
USAF is air superiority, heavy bombing/ATG attacks, etc.
USN is naval combat with (due to carriers) the role of supporting ground forces of varying branches if a local airfield is not possible for one reason or another.
USMC is more of an assault force, first wave attackers, or whatever. Although I understand they have their own carriers of sorts, helicopter and V/STOL or such.


As I see it, those areas (and various sub areas) basically require specific mindsets and training, which the various branches support.

If the branches were combined, the current branches would basically just become new aspects of the overall military force, and little would change.

You can't have a fighter pilot Major commanding ground troops, except in a pinch, because he/she is not at all trained for it.

So you would have the "air branch", the "naval branch", the "ground combat (possibly several aspects of that)", etc.

Basically it'd be the same as now except with one overall commander....but then we already have that, to a degree, in the form of the Sec Def and the JCS which reports to him/her.

----------

So in the end really all you'd be doing is renaming ****.

I guarantee you that rivalries between "fields" of military specialization would exist, just as it does now.

And in a way it might be worse....
I mean now the military branches compete for funding, I think. Without competition, corruption would be worse...possibly? I dunno.
 
yeah... I just don't think you can do this, because each branch performs vital military functions within its own specialty.

The Navy isn't the Army, and the Army isnt the Marines, and the Air Force isn't exactly any of the above.

The Navy and Marines are primarily an offensive, power-projecting force.

The Air Force, believe it or not, is primarily a defensive arm, through the capacity to strike or counter-strike any aggressor threatening CONUS. Strategic, where the Navy Air ops are more tactical.



The Army can go either way of course, as can the National Guard though the latter is theoretically more defensive.
 
We may as well be consolidated. With all of the "jointness" going on during operations nowadays. It seems every major op we do requires every service to get a piece of the pie. God forbid any branch be left out of a conflict. They might look weak to.........I don't know who.
 
And obviously it wouldn't be Marine Corps because then none of the other branches could hang :2razz:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom