PDA

View Full Version : Cutting US Army to pre WW2 levels.



Germanicus
02-24-2014, 09:33 PM
I just saw on Fox News that Obamas defense secretary has recommended cutting the US Army to pre-WW2 levels.

In my opinion the USA has never been closer to being at war. To me the USA has never been closer to having the homeland attacked. Why cut the Army numbers now?

USA has warned Russia not to put military in the Ukraine. It seems strange to me that USA thinks they are in any position to be warning Russia. Russia should be warning the USA.

America seems to think no matter what you do nobody will ever hit you. What nation in all of history has suggested attacking a nation with missiles and expecting there to be no consequences? When the USA suggested a military strike on Syria Americans seemed shocked that Syria said that they would fight back. Why the fuck wouldnt they? You think you can attack a nation with missiles and they will just do nothing? Why would Americans think that? And then when you understood that Syria was serious and that you had no support, you backed off. Afraid of being attacked.

USA has just helped to overthrow the government of the Ukraine. This is serious and could lead to war. Everything is building to war. The Syrian thing is a lot like the Spanish Civil War which was a prelude, lead in, to WW2. We are leading in to WW3 right now.

So why cut your budget? Since you have no problem printing mountains of money for yourselves then why not maintain the military budget with it? Why not increase it? And USA needs troops. If the USA is invaded then you will be overrun in a flash. Your military is small as it is. You need more numbers. Good luck getting people to join though.

With war a possibility in the near future that involved the US 'homeland' is it really a great idea to be cutting the US military? USA has never been more hated by the global community than it is right now. Shouldnt you be strengthening the military at a time like this? There could be boots on your ground before you know it.

Ethereal
02-24-2014, 09:53 PM
The biggest threat to the US is its massive debt and internal corruption, which we libertarians will be addressing in the coming decades. We'll also make sure to encourage free trade between the US and all nations just as Thomas Jefferson instructed, so that bellicose rhetoric like yours continues to fall on deaf ears.

“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.”
--Thomas Jefferson

Max Rockatansky
02-24-2014, 09:54 PM
I just saw on Fox News that Obamas defense secretary has recommended cutting the US Army to pre-WW2 levels.

In my opinion the USA has never been closer to being at war. To me the USA has never been closer to having the homeland attacked. Why cut the Army numbers now?

I doubt we'll be attacked anytime soon, but the isolationists want us to pull back to our own shores under the delusion that all the strife in the world is our fault and it will stop when we put down our guns and disband our military. Fine. It's a common habit of mankind to forget the past.

We may suffer a few terrorist attacks on the homeland, but most likely it will be a bunch of tourists in a foreign land. Americans will bemoan how sad it was that terrorists murdered a hundred American men, women and children abroad, but will also think it wouldn't have happened if those people had stayed home where they belonged.

In 10-20 years, maybe we will face a strong attack. One strong enough to incite us going to war. Like before WWII, we'll have to gear up and draft an entire army from scratch. Like WWII, thousands, if not millions, will die because we failed to heed the words of Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus:


"If you want peace, prepare for war"

Ethereal
02-24-2014, 10:22 PM
I doubt we'll be attacked anytime soon, but the isolationists want us to pull back to our own shores under the delusion that all the strife in the world is our fault and it will stop when we put down our guns and disband our military. Fine. It's a common habit of mankind to forget the past.

A better mouthpiece for the military industrial complex, there could not be.

Why are you so intent on misrepresenting the desire of non-interventionists to promote peace and free trade with the world as a desire to isolate ourselves?

Why are you so intent on ignoring the blowback and instability that US imperialism has wrought throughout the decades?

Do you have some kind of special interest in promoting the military and economic hegemony of the US government, or do you sincerely believe this dishonest and myopic rhetoric you spout about libertarian non-interventionism?


We may suffer a few terrorist attacks on the homeland, but most likely it will be a bunch of tourists in a foreign land. Americans will bemoan how sad it was that terrorists murdered a hundred American men, women and children abroad, but will also think it wouldn't have happened if those people had stayed home where they belonged.

In 10-20 years, maybe we will face a strong attack. One strong enough to incite us going to war. Like before WWII, we'll have to gear up and draft an entire army from scratch. Like WWII, thousands, if not millions, will die because we failed to heed the words of Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus:


"If you want peace, prepare for war"


WWII, the siren call of the imperialist, and ever-present example of "justified" mass slaughter and destruction. Of course, I could never convince you that WWII was a folly, that is like asking a Christian to reject Jesus, but perhaps I could convince you that our foreign policy stance should not be forever held hostage by a war that has been over for decades and shows absolutely no sign of returning given the increasing interdependence of the world's economies via globalization. Or would you have us continue to spend more on our military than the next fourteen largest militaries on the planet until the end of time? or, until we are broke? What kind of a war are you preparing for, anyway? Perhaps if you spent as much effort on promoting peace through free trade, free travel, and setting the example at home, you wouldn't feel so paranoid about some hypothetical mass conflict reminiscent of WWII.

Max Rockatansky
02-25-2014, 06:36 AM
A better mouthpiece for the military industrial complex, there could not be.

That may be the result, but that certainly is not the intention.

The human race tends to be both xenophobic and greedy. This combination often results in war and the destruction of human life but that isn't the intention. The intention is simply for one group of people to maximize control of their area.

You, and others, often complain about "American hegemony" with a complete disregard of the Chinese hegemony, Iran's goals of hegemony, Russian hegemony or fanatical Jihadists. The US dismantling their military and retreating to their own shores won't change any of that. The US doing so will only create a power vacuum which those other nations/groups will gladly fill up.

Gerrard Winstanley
02-25-2014, 06:47 AM
You, and others, often complain about "American hegemony" with a complete disregard of the Chinese hegemony, Iran's goals of hegemony, Russian hegemony or fanatical Jihadists. The US dismantling their military and retreating to their own shores won't change any of that. The US doing so will only create a power vacuum which those other nations/groups will gladly fill up.
China's hegemonic interests don't extend beyond a few outlying gull-nests. Iran's hegemony is over a few Shia-dominated states in the Levant, and is mostly represented by client governments with a degree of popular accountability - I can't blame the people of Iraq for seeking affinities with their brothers across the border. Russia's last war was a defensive one, and the jihadist threat is a problem exacerbated beyond proportion by our failure to understand their methods.

Max Rockatansky
02-25-2014, 06:48 AM
One of the articles on Pentagon plans. Despite the meme of the "military-industrial complex", the biggest hold up is always Congressmen and their desire to keep money flowing into their state. That's civilians and money/election collateral. If there is a conspiracy afoot, it's not the much ballyhooed "military-industrial complex" but the Elected Officials-Constituent complex.

Pentagon plans to shrink US Army to pre-WWII level
By Dan De Luce (AFP) – 11 hours ago

Washington — The Pentagon plans to scale back the US Army by more than an eighth to its lowest level since before World War II, signaling a shift after more than a decade of ground wars.

Saying it was time to "reset" for a new era, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel recommended shrinking American forces from 520,000 active duty troops to between 440,000 and 450,000.

In a speech outlining the proposed defense budget, he said Monday that after Iraq and Afghanistan, US military leaders no longer plan to "conduct long and large stability operations."

If approved by Congress, the Pentagon move would reduce the army to its lowest manning levels since 1940, before the American military dramatically expanded after entering World War II.

The proposed 13 percent reduction in the army would be carried out by 2017, a senior defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told AFP.

The spending plan is the first to "fully reflect" a transition away from a war footing that has been in place for 13 years, Hagel said at a press conference.

The plan comes amid growing fiscal pressures and after years of protracted counter-insurgency campaigns, which saw the army reach a peak of more than 566,000 troops in 2010.

Having withdrawn US forces from Iraq in 2011, President Barack Obama has promised to end America's combat role in Afghanistan by the end of this year.

The proposed cut in manpower along with plans to retire some older aircraft and reform benefits for troops could run into stiff resistance in Congress.

A senior US military officer, speaking on condition of anonymity, acknowledged the political challenge.

"We're going to need some help from our elected representatives to get this budget across the finish line," the officer said.

Several members of the Senate Armed Services Committee immediately expressed reservations about the budget proposal.

Republican Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, who sits on the committee, said the proposals had the "potential to harm America's military readiness."

The Pentagon had previously planned to downsize the ground force to about 490,000.

But Hagel warned that to adapt to future threats "the army must accelerate the pace and increase the scale of its post-war drawdown."

Hagel also said the army national guard and reserves would be cut by five percent.

The smaller force would entail some "added risk" but it would still be able to defeat an adversary in one region while also "supporting" air and naval operations in another, he said.

The Pentagon for years had planned to ensure the army could fight two major wars at the same time but that doctrine has been abandoned.

Even under the planned reductions, the US Army will remain one of the largest in the world and the American military's budget still dwarfs other countries' defense spending.

While the army will see troop numbers drop, the military's elite special operations forces will be increased to 69,700 -- up from 66,000 currently.

- Retiring old aircraft -
The proposed budget also calls for scrapping the Air Force's entire fleet of A-10 "tank killer" aircraft and retiring the storied U-2 spy plane that dates back to the 1950s.

The A-10 enjoys backing from some lawmakers but commanders want to invest in the new hi-tech F-35 fighter jet and the unmanned Global Hawk surveillance drone.

The budget would reduce the US Navy's planned fleet of littoral combat ships, a small vessel designed for coastal waters that faces questions about its reliability.

Instead of 52 LCS ships, the budget calls for building only 32 and requires the navy to study developing similar ships with heavier weapons and tougher defenses.

Venturing into politically sensitive territory, Hagel called for slowing growth in pay and benefits -- which make up nearly half the Pentagon's budget -- and closing more bases in the United States.

Lawmakers have long resisted base closures or any reform of pay, pensions or other benefits.

Military spending doubled after the attacks of September 11, 2001 but has started to decline as lawmakers push to slash government budgets.

Under a bipartisan accord adopted in December to avert automatic spending cuts, the Defense Department will have a $496 billion budget for fiscal year 2015.

But the Pentagon is backing a $26 billion "opportunity" fund that would bolster training and other programs.

Copyright © 2014 AFP. All rights reserved.

Max Rockatansky
02-25-2014, 06:50 AM
China's hegemonic interests don't extend beyond a few outlying gull-nests. Iran's hegemony is over a few Shia-dominated states in the Levant, and is mostly represented by client governments with a degree of popular accountability - I can't blame the people of Iraq for seeking affinities with their brothers across the border. Russia's last war was a defensive one, and the jihadist threat is a problem exacerbated beyond proportion by our failure to understand their methods.

So no other nations have anything to worry about from China regarding the South China Sea?

Iran is already funding efforts in many Sunni nations. Their designs go to the entire Gulf region and extend to all neighboring countries.

Codename Section
02-25-2014, 08:26 AM
The only reason for a military as large as the next seven nations combined is imperialism. We keep pretending we're not empire building but it's very difficult to make real friends with your fist drawn back.

Max Rockatansky
02-25-2014, 09:07 AM
The only reason for a military as large as the next seven nations combined is imperialism. We keep pretending we're not empire building but it's very difficult to make real friends with your fist drawn back.

There is more than one reason. We were already downsizing in 1991 post-USSR (I know because I was a victim of "beating swords into plowshares). There was an expected post-9/11 build up and now we're downsizing again.

Has anyone here ever worked extensively for a volunteer organization? Mods should understand this one. Forum owners even more. One reason the US has such a large military compared to other allies is analogous to to a neighborhood community which has crime problem. In a community meeting, some people propose a Night Watch where people volunteer their time and resources to sit for several hours a night throughout the week all night to spot criminal activity. Most people like the idea but come up with excuses why they can't do it; "I have job", "Who's going to watch my kids and get them off to school in the morning?". So it usually falls so a small group of "gung ho" individuals who jump at the chance to be night watchmen, play with radios and chase kids TPing a house. Now, since this small group is paying for all of their own equipment and dedicating their own time, they'll also propose to do things their way. If the majority of neighborhood members object, they'll be told "Look. We're doing all the work. If you want to help out, come join us. If you don't want to do it our way, then we'll collapse the Neighborhood Watch and you can fend for yourselves. Take your pick". At this point most people would shut up. They do have a choice in this matter and their choice is to take the protection even though they don't always agree with how it is done.

Is the Neighborhood Watch group a dictatorship in this scenario? No. A fiefdom? No. Certainly not an "empire". All the neighbors, as a group, have a choice to ban the NW group, but, out of self-interest and a lack of willingness to do it themselves, the let the wannabe cops do all the work and pay all the bills.

Peter1469
02-25-2014, 09:12 AM
The US didn't become the world night watchman because everyone else was totally disinterested. Both sides got benefits out of the role the US played during the Cold War. After the fall of the Soviet Union many of our allies started to resent our role. But they had diverted so much of their treasure into welfare states that they could no longer field a meaningful military.

That is not our problem. We have no obligation to provide for their defense now that the Cold War is over.

Max Rockatansky
02-25-2014, 09:54 AM
The US didn't become the world night watchman because everyone else was totally disinterested. Both sides got benefits out of the role the US played during the Cold War. After the fall of the Soviet Union many of our allies started to resent our role. But they had diverted so much of their treasure into welfare states that they could no longer field a meaningful military.The neighborhood people in the analogy were very interested. They just weren't as interested in spending their own time and money to make it happen. The US, with the world's largest post-WWII economy was both interested and had the resources to make it happen. This isn't just a matter of political ideology, but, and I think this is the primary reason, one of economic success. The US can't stay the world's largest economy if opposing nations cut off trade routes, resources and trading partners.



That is not our problem. We have no obligation to provide for their defense now that the Cold War is over.Agreed, but we do have an interest in protection of trade routes, resources and our allied trading partners. Most of those trading partners need to up their own military so that we can, proportionally, withdraw and downsize our own. It should be a partnership, not a hand out.

Ransom
02-25-2014, 02:45 PM
The US didn't become the world night watchman because everyone else was totally disinterested. Both sides got benefits out of the role the US played during the Cold War. After the fall of the Soviet Union many of our allies started to resent our role. But they had diverted so much of their treasure into welfare states that they could no longer field a meaningful military.

That is not our problem. We have no obligation to provide for their defense now that the Cold War is over.

Withdraw. Cut funding. You're not going to be targeted anymore. You'll no longer need to field armies or fight on multiple fronts....and those of that opinion have never been proven wrong either. This nation's history replete with examples of how we were prepared for each and every conflict.

Gerrard Winstanley
02-26-2014, 06:35 AM
So no other nations have anything to worry about from China regarding the South China Sea?
Is the South China Sea of overwhelming strategic interest to the United States?

Iran is already funding efforts in many Sunni nations. Their designs go to the entire Gulf region and extend to all neighboring countries.
You're never going to see a pro-Iranian Sunni majority state. That would be like a pro-Nazi Israel at the height of WWII.

Max Rockatansky
02-26-2014, 06:44 AM
Is the South China Sea of overwhelming strategic interest to the United States?

You're never going to see a pro-Iranian Sunni majority state. That would be like a pro-Nazi Israel at the height of WWII.

Define "overwhelming" in this context. Of strategic interest? Yes. Worth launching all the nukes? No.

Agreed on "pro-Iranian Sunni majority state". An Iranian-dominated Sunni majority state is much more likely.

Gerrard Winstanley
02-26-2014, 06:51 AM
Define "overwhelming" in this context. Of strategic interest? Yes. Worth launching all the nukes? No.
Most of the islands are unpopulated.

Agreed on "pro-Iranian Sunni majority state". An Iranian-dominated Sunni majority state is much more likely.
It's inconceivable, especially with Saudi Arabia on the doorstep.

Max Rockatansky
02-26-2014, 07:04 AM
Most wars are over resources. It's not the islands per se, but control of the undersea resources which are at issue....but just like the Europeans in the 1930s who conceded to Germany's lebensraum, letting China take whatever they want as long as it's thousands of miles from us isn't a problem, right?

What would Saudi Arabia do about it? Their military is incompetent. I would no more depend on them to fight than I would the Italians. Why do you think they wanted the US there?

Gerrard Winstanley
02-26-2014, 08:53 AM
Most wars are over resources. It's not the islands per se, but control of the undersea resources which are at issue....but just like the Europeans in the 1930s who conceded to Germany's lebensraum, letting China take whatever they want as long as it's thousands of miles from us isn't a problem, right?
I evoke Godwin.

Max Rockatansky
02-26-2014, 09:00 AM
Close but no Godwin cookie!

Is there any doubt China, like Japan, is expanding its access to resources even at the expense of other nations?

The Sage of Main Street
02-26-2014, 05:39 PM
I just saw on Fox News that Obama's defense secretary has recommended cutting the US Army to pre-WW2 levels.

In my opinion the USA has never been closer to being at war. To me the USA has never been closer to having the homeland attacked. Why cut the Army numbers now?



So why cut your budget? Why not increase it? And USA needs troops. If the USA is invaded then you will be overrun in a flash. Your military is small as it is. You need more numbers. Good luck getting people to join though.

With war a possibility in the near future that involved the US 'homeland' is it really a great idea to be cutting the US military? USA has never been more hated by the global community than it is right now. Shouldn't you be strengthening the military at a time like this? There could be boots on your ground before you know it.

We need enough troops to seize and occupy all Muslim oilfields in a coalition with Russia, China, NATO, and others. Islam must be bankrupted and reduced to the harmlessness of the Amish. We must also force the foreign banks to give up all the wealth previously stolen from us by jihadist OPEC. Any terrorist incidents with whatever the enemy has left will be answered by nuking Mecca.

The Sage of Main Street
02-26-2014, 05:45 PM
Is the South China Sea of overwhelming strategic interest to the United States?

You're never going to see a pro-Iranian Sunni majority state. That would be like a pro-Nazi Israel at the height of WWII.

Actually, Muslicultural England was Israel's biggest enemy until the Zionists finally defeated them just before 1948. There was talk of an alliance with the Nazis, which was no stranger than the Nazis' alliance with the Communists and the later Capitalist alliances with the Communists against the Nazis.

Bob
02-26-2014, 06:00 PM
I just saw on Fox News that Obamas defense secretary has recommended cutting the US Army to pre-WW2 levels.

In my opinion the USA has never been closer to being at war. To me the USA has never been closer to having the homeland attacked. Why cut the Army numbers now?

USA has warned Russia not to put military in the Ukraine. It seems strange to me that USA thinks they are in any position to be warning Russia. Russia should be warning the USA.

America seems to think no matter what you do nobody will ever hit you. What nation in all of history has suggested attacking a nation with missiles and expecting there to be no consequences? When the USA suggested a military strike on Syria Americans seemed shocked that Syria said that they would fight back. Why the fuck wouldnt they? You think you can attack a nation with missiles and they will just do nothing? Why would Americans think that? And then when you understood that Syria was serious and that you had no support, you backed off. Afraid of being attacked.

USA has just helped to overthrow the government of the Ukraine. This is serious and could lead to war. Everything is building to war. The Syrian thing is a lot like the Spanish Civil War which was a prelude, lead in, to WW2. We are leading in to WW3 right now.

So why cut your budget? Since you have no problem printing mountains of money for yourselves then why not maintain the military budget with it? Why not increase it? And USA needs troops. If the USA is invaded then you will be overrun in a flash. Your military is small as it is. You need more numbers. Good luck getting people to join though.

With war a possibility in the near future that involved the US 'homeland' is it really a great idea to be cutting the US military? USA has never been more hated by the global community than it is right now. Shouldnt you be strengthening the military at a time like this? There could be boots on your ground before you know it.

I agree with post number 2 that debt is what we most fear.

I have tried to figure out a reason for Russia to invade Ukraine but so far see no evidence nor a reason. While some in our country may suppose he has a cause of war, I don't actually believe Putin thinks he has one. He might decide should the people ask him to, to recover the Crimea part of the Ukraine. But that is in question too. Putin is more liked by the Russians than Obama is liked by American, believe it or not. The Ukraine needs at least 20 billion dollars to survive as a country so reports claim. But look at the rest of Europe. Europe is falling apart in front of our eyes. Almost all of the countries have used Keynes economics trying to recover. But they are getting worse off. Man if you want to learn about that area, shit can the USA news and watch the German and Russian news. I might not believe the Russians, though so far they have been correct, but I do trust the Germans. They don't want to be dragged down. We watch our country thinking it is all we need worry about but in the real world, Europe can also be our downfall.

Bob
02-26-2014, 06:25 PM
That may be the result, but that certainly is not the intention.

The human race tends to be both xenophobic and greedy. This combination often results in war and the destruction of human life but that isn't the intention. The intention is simply for one group of people to maximize control of their area.

You, and others, often complain about "American hegemony" with a complete disregard of the Chinese hegemony, Iran's goals of hegemony, Russian hegemony or fanatical Jihadists. The US dismantling their military and retreating to their own shores won't change any of that. The US doing so will only create a power vacuum which those other nations/groups will gladly fill up.


Max

I read your comments and not wanting to be a shit stirrer, see the merits of your explanation. I am of the opinion that your detractor must have got you wrong.

My opinion is that currently I have no idea what the ideal size of our military should be. I notice they are kicking the A-10 Warthog to the curb. I stood next to one at the Hayward, CA airshow about the time I got my pilots license in 1980 and marveled at the weapon on it and how it is such a hardened airplane. Some AF General claims the more modern avionics of other aircraft will let them do the same job while the people who favor the A-10 claim it is still vital.

This is not a problem we not in the middle can figure out.

I can ask a former AF officer what he thinks. I will mail him today.

Ravi
02-26-2014, 06:32 PM
I just saw on Fox News that Obamas defense secretary has recommended cutting the US Army to pre-WW2 levels.

In my opinion the USA has never been closer to being at war. To me the USA has never been closer to having the homeland attacked. Why cut the Army numbers now?

USA has warned Russia not to put military in the Ukraine. It seems strange to me that USA thinks they are in any position to be warning Russia. Russia should be warning the USA.

America seems to think no matter what you do nobody will ever hit you. What nation in all of history has suggested attacking a nation with missiles and expecting there to be no consequences? When the USA suggested a military strike on Syria Americans seemed shocked that Syria said that they would fight back. Why the fuck wouldnt they? You think you can attack a nation with missiles and they will just do nothing? Why would Americans think that? And then when you understood that Syria was serious and that you had no support, you backed off. Afraid of being attacked.

USA has just helped to overthrow the government of the Ukraine. This is serious and could lead to war. Everything is building to war. The Syrian thing is a lot like the Spanish Civil War which was a prelude, lead in, to WW2. We are leading in to WW3 right now.

So why cut your budget? Since you have no problem printing mountains of money for yourselves then why not maintain the military budget with it? Why not increase it? And USA needs troops. If the USA is invaded then you will be overrun in a flash. Your military is small as it is. You need more numbers. Good luck getting people to join though.

With war a possibility in the near future that involved the US 'homeland' is it really a great idea to be cutting the US military? USA has never been more hated by the global community than it is right now. Shouldnt you be strengthening the military at a time like this? There could be boots on your ground before you know it.

Don't worry, we'll vaporize you with a nuke long before a ground campaign gets off the ground.

Max Rockatansky
02-26-2014, 06:52 PM
.....I have tried to figure out a reason for Russia to invade Ukraine but so far see no evidence nor a reason. While some in our country may suppose he has a cause of war, I don't actually believe Putin thinks he has one.....

Most wars are over resources; either natural or geographical access. In the case of Russia and the Ukraine, it's both. The Ukraine has long been considered the "bread basket" of Russian. Russia still has the another "black Earth" growing region adjacent to the Ukraine, but it's only about half the size. Losing the Ukraine means Russia loses 2/3s of it's most prime food producing regions.

Another reason is geographic access to the Black Sea. Russia has other ports in the Black Sea, but Ukraine's port of Sevastopol is the equivalent of Norfolk for the United States. If Virginia seceded and told to the US, "Don't worry about it. You have other ports", that would be severely under-simplifying the situation.

A third reason that comes to mind is precedent. If Ukraine splits off easily, how long before other Russian satellites do the same?

There are other reasons I'm sure, but those are three biggies.


http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/europe/ukraine_adm93.jpg

Max Rockatansky
02-26-2014, 07:00 PM
....I read your comments and not wanting to be a shit stirrer, see the merits of your explanation. I am of the opinion that your detractor must have got you wrong......

Thanks, Bob. As a taxpayer, I don't want to have to pay one cent more than absolutely necessary. As a person who's renovated his own home, I see the value in not doing something so cheap that I have to do it again a year or two from now when spending just a little bit more will give me satisfaction for 5-10 years. As a retired veteran, I want our service men and women to have both the training and tools for the task, only be sent into harm's way when necessary and, in this particular discussion, not be pulled back only so that 10 times as many will have to go back 10-20 years from now.

I want to see our military reduced, but I also understand the dangers of creating a power vacuum in many undeveloped parts of the world.

Bob
02-26-2014, 07:01 PM
Most wars are over resources; either natural or geographical access. In the case of Russia and the Ukraine, it's both. The Ukraine has long been considered the "bread basket" of Russian. Russia still has the another "black Earth" growing region adjacent to the Ukraine, but it's only about half the size. Losing the Ukraine means Russia loses 2/3s of it's most prime food producing regions.

Another reason is geographic access to the Black Sea. Russia has other ports in the Black Sea, but Ukraine's port of Sevastopol is the equivalent of Norfolk for the United States. If Virginia seceded and told to the US, "Don't worry about it. You have other ports", that would be severely under-simplifying the situation.

A third reason that comes to mind is precedent. If Ukraine splits off easily, how long before other Russian satellites do the same?

There are other reasons I'm sure, but those are three biggies.


http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/europe/ukraine_adm93.jpg

The only part that might have reason to join Russia would be the Crimea. Kiev is not in that part of the Ukraine. But it is those living in the Crimea where the port you speak of who might clamor to join Russia. Some have been doing just that. But Putin has to understand that it would be an international incident.

Great maps too. Thanks. If you don't know, or others don't, to the east of the river you see on your map is Crimea in general terms.

Bob
02-26-2014, 07:09 PM
Thanks, Bob. As a taxpayer, I don't want to have to pay one cent more than absolutely necessary. As a person who's renovated his own home, I see the value in not doing something so cheap that I have to do it again a year or two from now when spending just a little bit more will give me satisfaction for 5-10 years. As a retired veteran, I want our service men and women to have both the training and tools for the task, only be sent into harm's way when necessary and, in this particular discussion, not be pulled back only so that 10 times as many will have to go back 10-20 years from now.

I want to see our military reduced, but I also understand the dangers of creating a power vacuum in many undeveloped parts of the world.

That all makes sense. I do not agree that pre WW2 we had under 450,000 troops. I believe it was maybe 90-100 troops say in 1939. While by Dec 41, FDR had a chance to add troops, they had nothing to train with. If an army trains using broom sticks for rifles, how can they train much?

I loathe putting so many men into the military and not just for budget reasons. But if they cut much, they will also lop off the leadership who has the experience. Too bad congress has this habit of SNAFU.

Max Rockatansky
02-26-2014, 07:22 PM
That all makes sense. I do not agree that pre WW2 we had under 450,000 troops. I believe it was maybe 90-100 troops say in 1939. While by Dec 41, FDR had a chance to add troops, they had nothing to train with. If an army trains using broom sticks for rifles, how can they train much?

I loathe putting so many men into the military and not just for budget reasons. But if they cut much, they will also lop off the leadership who has the experience. Too bad congress has this habit of SNAFU.

Congress is a SNAFU and has been for far too long!

You are closer than the 450K number:

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/summary.cfm?q=358

The U.S. Army in 1939 ranked 17th in the world in size, consisting of slightly more than 200,000 Regular Army soldiers and slightly less than 200,000 National Guardsmen--all organized in woefully understrength and undertrained formations. The Army possessed only 329 crude light tanks and only a handful of truly modern combat aircraft within a total inventory of just over 1800 planes. It was a force equipped with the leftover weapons, materiel, and doctrine of the last war. It had a grossly overage officer corps, in which advancement was largely a function of seniority. Captains, for example, were usually in their late thirties or early forties. War-related industries were infinitesimal. Congress and the public were united in their staunch opposition to any increased military expenditures or involvements abroad. The mood of the country was distinctly isolationist.

Mister D
02-26-2014, 07:26 PM
Most wars are over resources; either natural or geographical access. In the case of Russia and the Ukraine, it's both. The Ukraine has long been considered the "bread basket" of Russian. Russia still has the another "black Earth" growing region adjacent to the Ukraine, but it's only about half the size. Losing the Ukraine means Russia loses 2/3s of it's most prime food producing regions.

Another reason is geographic access to the Black Sea. Russia has other ports in the Black Sea, but Ukraine's port of Sevastopol is the equivalent of Norfolk for the United States. If Virginia seceded and told to the US, "Don't worry about it. You have other ports", that would be severely under-simplifying the situation.

A third reason that comes to mind is precedent. If Ukraine splits off easily, how long before other Russian satellites do the same?

There are other reasons I'm sure, but those are three biggies.


http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/europe/ukraine_adm93.jpg

I think war is generally more complicated than you make it out to be but I think this is an excellent summation of this particular situation.

Max Rockatansky
02-26-2014, 07:28 PM
The only part that might have reason to join Russia would be the Crimea. Kiev is not in that part of the Ukraine. But it is those living in the Crimea where the port you speak of who might clamor to join Russia. Some have been doing just that. But Putin has to understand that it would be an international incident.

Great maps too. Thanks. If you don't know, or others don't, to the east of the river you see on your map is Crimea in general terms.

Invading Iraq in 2003 created "an international incident".

Sometimes, like Tom Cruise said in "Risky Business", you just gotta say, 'What the fuck, make your move.' What's the downside for Putin? We'd accuse him of being a quasi-dictator? We're doing that now. Russia and US relations are "strained"? Same answer. Actually, not much would change.

Max Rockatansky
02-26-2014, 07:32 PM
I think war is generally more complicated than you make it out to be but I think this is an excellent summation of this particular situation.

You are correct, sir. War is much more complicated and we should never, ever go to war for just one or two reasons.

Not that we'd be going to war with Russia over this. Just mentioning it as a general principle.

Bob
02-26-2014, 07:55 PM
Invading Iraq in 2003 created "an international incident".

Sometimes, like Tom Cruise said in "Risky Business", you just gotta say, 'What the fuck, make your move.' What's the downside for Putin? We'd accuse him of being a quasi-dictator? We're doing that now. Russia and US relations are "strained"? Same answer. Actually, not much would change.

Other than PBS, not that good for a source, but including German TV news, Russian Times, so far the word all matches that the exercises Putin is doing is kind of normal and not part of what is going on in Kiev. The turmoil in Kiev does not exist, but in the Crimea, in a major city, The people are angry over the events of Kiev and word is they might want to quit the Ukraine and return to Russia. But this might change as well in a day or two.

Max Rockatansky
02-26-2014, 07:59 PM
Other than PBS, not that good for a source, but including German TV news, Russian Times, so far the word all matches that the exercises Putin is doing is kind of normal and not part of what is going on in Kiev. The turmoil in Kiev does not exist, but in the Crimea, in a major city, The people are angry over the events of Kiev and word is they might want to quit the Ukraine and return to Russia. But this might change as well in a day or two.

I've love to be a fly on the wall in the Kremlin. Let's hope the CIA is!

Bob
02-27-2014, 12:39 PM
I asked Don, a retired Air Force upper ranking officer to comment on this topic. I sent him links.

I had asked Don what his view is on the cutting the pentagon budget and the Warthog for instance.

Don gave me a great reply via e mail. I got his permission to post his reply and somehow can't locate it again.

Anyway, hopefully Don will repeat what he told me.

The Sage of Main Street
02-27-2014, 01:03 PM
The only part that might have reason to join Russia would be the Crimea. Kiev is not in that part of the Ukraine. But it is those living in the Crimea where the port you speak of who might clamor to join Russia. Some have been doing just that. But Putin has to understand that it would be an international incident.

Great maps too. Thanks. If you don't know, or others don't, to the east of the river you see on your map is Crimea in general terms.

James Michener, in his novel Poland, suggested that the Ukraine should have united with Poland and Lithuania centuries ago, not only against Russia but also to defend itself successfully from other ambitious powers. Belarus and Moldava could also come into play. We should have no sympathy for these small countries that want us to feel sorry for them. Just like workers who won't form labor unions, they wind up losing their freedom by being too individualistic.

The Sage of Main Street
02-27-2014, 01:12 PM
That all makes sense. I do not agree that pre WW2 we had under 450,000 troops. I believe it was maybe 90-100,000 troops say in 1939. While by Dec 41, FDR had a chance to add troops, they had nothing to train with. If an army trains using broomsticks for rifles, how can they train much?

I loathe putting so many men into the military and not just for budget reasons. But if they cut much, they will also lop off the leadership who has the experience.

Draft at age 18 the kind of people who chickened out of fighting the Communists: preppies, college-bound students, and pro athletes. These unpatriotic sissies took over the country. A similar thing happened in Ancient Rome: those with small farms fought for SPQR (The Senate and the Roman People) but had them taken away while they were off at war. The reason the Roman empire lasted for 700 years was that her young patricians did have to fight; it was their fathers who confiscated the property and eliminated the Roman middle class.