Wow, I tend to keep up on military affairs. But I had no idea that we were building new M1's over the last 20 years. I thought they were only retrofitting the old tanks we had laying around since the end of Desert Storm and the Cold War.
Debate, lets actually discuss content
- Thread starter Necronic
- Start date
- Status
GasBandit
Staff member
When the other side does it, it's being partisan and making hay from nothing. When one's own side does it, it's standing up for (insert the blank, or simply "what you believe").
A number of other military personnel of higher and lower rank: (from your article)
Former U.S. Marine Doug Miller (64), of Hiawatha, Kan.
Retired Maj. Gen. Ed Usher, president and CEO of the Marine Corps Association & Foundation
Ken Trbovich, president and CEO of Ontario Knife Co. (Supplier of bayonets)
Retired USMC Col. Michael Belcher
1. What was factually ignorant about the military using "fewer horses and bayonets"? Factually, subtantially across the board 100% correct.
2. Agreed, the US is having a lot of problems projecting naval power. All of those great naval battles over the past 30 years have...wait, what?
Analogy Time!
What you're suggesting is that in the 10 weeks that we have basic training (I'm not going to debate the length of basic training, it wasn't mentioned in the debate and your hand-waving about it being the problem is just an attempt to scuttle around the crux of the argument you're trying to make), that privates should learn a maneuver that has for the most part been relegated to history, analogous to training secretaries how to use a Dvorak keyboard on the off chance that it may come in handy.
Limited time and limited resources mean you have to be smart with where you're spending it, a fairly conservative economic principle if ever I've heard one. If instead they were taught how to use knives in close quarters, there's no doubt that they'd get more value out of it.
OH LOW AND BEHOLD, Stripes Magazine comes to my rescue:
Also, Naval ship counts throughout history:
Obama's term has seen the first growth in the number of ships since 1988
Hey man, however you have to spin it to feel good about it, you do that. I thought you weren't for either candidate, though, and should really be above this nonsense.
Ships that appear during one administration were ordered one or more administrations ago.
How many new ships have been ordered in the last four years?
A carbine with 6" of steel poking out from under the barrel does not have much reach for thrusting and fighting.
From that article it looks like the Army will teach a new batch of recruits how to fight with a knife, as a side arm.
From that article it looks like the Army will teach a new batch of recruits how to fight with a knife, as a side arm.
Who cares? Does any really, seriously believe that the problem of the US armed forces (no matter which ones) is that they're too small or don't have big enough guns? 'Cause, no offense, but that's almost akin to the faith Orks put in More Dakka.
Updating/modernizing/preparing for new challenges, whatever. I understand that we (the Western world) need armies and especially yours. How much you're willing to spend on it and whatever - your concern. But.... Gah. If there's one thing the US doesn't need, it's "more".
GasBandit
Staff member
I'm still for Gary Johnson. But the "horses and bayonets" bit is what's burning up the internet today, so it's what I'm talking about.
1) Every soldier issued an M-16 is still issued a bayonet for it. If we are using "less bayonets" then it's because we have less soldiers - which is also part of the problem Obama's trying to gloss over.
2) Naval power is the only way to project power. There's only so much a C-130 can lift, and everything else is done by the navy. If you don't have a navy, you can't project power on land, either. Aircraft Carriers and their escorts and tenders, you know, the things Obama was so proud of? Cut. In. Half.
Now wait just a consarned minute. On what grounds do you wave away my assertion that an appropriate way to deal with not having enough time to train would be to increase training time, other than the fact that it completely lets the air out of your side? The "crux" of my argument is that contemporary, modern battles are still being won through the use of bayonets, which I have documented.
I didn't read where a Dvorak keyboard defeated 100 insurgents at once and won 3 battles in the last 10 years. You've stretched your metaphor too far. So long as guns run out of ammunition, and physics still says you can stab harder with a spear than a knife, a bayonet will still be an indispensable piece of military kit.
Looked at the CBO estimates, the Navy's own shipbuilding plans and the Navy's historical ship force levels. You're entitled to your opinions GB, but you're not entitled to your own facts. Nothing has been Cut. In. Half.
No one is talking about increased training time except you. Unless Obama says it has to be Cut. In. Half. which I don't believe he has.
I await with bated breath all of your refutations to facts, figures and publications I've posted.
GasBandit
Staff member
Source: http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org9-4.htm
Number of naval vessels in 1990: 570. Number in 2011: 285. What do those two numbers divide out to become?
Number of naval vessels in 1990: 570. Number in 2011: 285. What do those two numbers divide out to become?
GasBandit
Staff member
I didn't say he cut them. I said we have half what we had in 1990, and that's where a lot of our projection problems come from. I hold Clinton responsible for his part in drawing it down most of the way, and Bush for letting it sit there as well. However, last night Obama said we have less ships and that is OK, indicating he doesn't see the current level as a problem. I do.
I'm just sickened that the argument is about the size of the increase in military spending. As if cutting it is not even a fucking option.
GasBandit
Staff member
I feel the same way about entitlements.
Um. It's not in the same ballpark. Romney and a Republican Congress would absolutely cut entitlements. Neither Romney norBama would decrease military spending by a cent.
Now that would be a mighty fine debate. Is bad reasoning better than no reasoning? Misinformation better than no information?
But the one-eye king has glaucoma.
Zappit
Staff member
Yeah, we're reducing the amount of ships, but do we really need more? Hell, we're getting to the point where we'll have a real combat fleet of drones that could conceivably launch a significant offensive. Our aircraft carriers are our greatest naval strength, and with the advent of cyber warfare, we're seeing it's possible to shut down population centers from half a world away.
War is changing. Slower battleships won't get the job done the next time the world goes to all hell. The military is gradually shifting away from that, and they want to. Romney wants to throw money at them, money they didn't ask for, and tell them to go play. Diplomacy is paramount now, especially given the knack that certain countries have for cyber warfare. The next big war that doesn't involve a Middle Eastern country will be extraordinarily different from any other before. Romney has spent a big portion of his life as the boss, answering to no one and taking what he wants, consequences be damned. We saw how awkward and foolish he was on his overseas trip. He'll be Isreal's buddy, but he'll fuck up everywhere else.
War is changing. Slower battleships won't get the job done the next time the world goes to all hell. The military is gradually shifting away from that, and they want to. Romney wants to throw money at them, money they didn't ask for, and tell them to go play. Diplomacy is paramount now, especially given the knack that certain countries have for cyber warfare. The next big war that doesn't involve a Middle Eastern country will be extraordinarily different from any other before. Romney has spent a big portion of his life as the boss, answering to no one and taking what he wants, consequences be damned. We saw how awkward and foolish he was on his overseas trip. He'll be Isreal's buddy, but he'll fuck up everywhere else.
Dear God I hope I'm not in the middle of this one.
Real power projection has always been and will always be from the sea. Predator drones, hellfire missiles, smart bombs, laser guided munitions, beyond line of sight guns, satellite targeting, aerial bombardment, air superiority... all fine ways of destroying the enemy's forces.
However,
You will always need infantry to root out the final remnants and occupy territory. To get infantry from one continent to another and to deploy them in any significant numbers takes naval vessels. Hell, those vessels are also what transport most of the things I mentioned up above.
However,
You will always need infantry to root out the final remnants and occupy territory. To get infantry from one continent to another and to deploy them in any significant numbers takes naval vessels. Hell, those vessels are also what transport most of the things I mentioned up above.
Holy shit how did I miss this?
http://www.eclectablog.com/2012/10/...ars-slams-obama-for-not-doing-it-in-four.html
http://www.eclectablog.com/2012/10/...ars-slams-obama-for-not-doing-it-in-four.html
Fun fact: battleships haven't been used since the first Iraq War. Missile destroyers have made the battleship obselete, and there are no battleships currently in service in any navy in the world.
Other fun fact: the U.S. has as many aircraft carriers as the rest of the world combined (almost twice as many if you include LHAs).
Other fun fact: the U.S. has as many aircraft carriers as the rest of the world combined (almost twice as many if you include LHAs).
After pointing out his Bullcrap about Obama having 2 years of a Filibuster proof Congress *when it was around 14 nonconsecutive weeks* and then he sprouted the same LIE "the next day or two after with some nonsense about Snowe and Dukakis shoring up the the Senate vote, he just put himself into the Troll Zone. He's trying to the be the Rush Limbaugh of Halforums.
In active service. There are several museum ships that are still operated by their respective navies. These ships aren't actively able to engage in combat but it's entirely possible they could be re-armed in short order if there was ever a situation dire enough to warrant it.
As for obsolesce... this is current true. However, a sudden leap in missile defense technology could conceivably make large cannons necessary again. It's one of the reasons why the US is researching laser and rail/coilgun technology so aggressively in tandem with missile defense: they know it's only a matter of time until missiles become obsolete and whoever makes the breakthrough first is going to have a huge advantage on the world stage.
Also, "number of ships" is a ridiculous yardstick. Comparatively, between 1990 and 2011, the US Navy today can put more troops anywhere in the world faster than ever before. Unless having a warfleet of 10,000 canoes sounds like a good plan to you, this is a better way of measuring naval effectiveness.
I'm no Romney stooge, but is it possible those quotes were taken out of context? He says "we'll balance THE budget" in one, then "hasn't balanced A budget" in the other. Perhaps he was referring to the President's lack of business experience? Or the fact that we've not had a budget passed and approved since before Bush left office?
Cause if those quotes are the same context, damn, he's dumber than even his handlers knew.
- Status