Do we need all of our military

[nathanbforrest45]

Do we need to maintain an Army, Navy, Air Force or Coast Guard? Some posters here seem to think all military operations are carried out by the Marine Corp. If true, why are we spending billions on the other branches?

[donttread]

We only need half , if that, if we'd quit playing world police. But that would expose our house of cards economy

[Peter1469]

I am in favor of maintaining an 11 carrier battle group Navy. That is the true source of US power.

The Army is downsizing to a good level, I think, so long as force structure remains solid. The air force needs to be limited to strategic - air superiority and nuclear. Give CAS to the army (the marines already have it).

[Reason10]

Do we need to maintain an Army, Navy, Air Force or Coast Guard? Some posters here seem to think all military operations are carried out by the Marine Corp. If true, why are we spending billions on the other branches?

How are the Marines going to get to the fighting if there is no Navy to transport them? Oh, and by the way our NAVY aircraft carriers also contain enough planes with nuclear weapons to deliver species-ending firepower to the enemy, which kinda prevents the world from ever using those weapons.
Speaking of those planes, they come from the Air Force. You kinda need planes to drop bombs on the bad guys.

Truthfully, the military budget (WHICH IS A TOTAL FRACTION OF THE WHOLE FEDERAL BUDGET AND IS A TOTAL FRACTION OF THE WELFARE STATE) is the best value we get from Washington. Those soldiers and their state of the art machinery make this place safe so uneducated liberals can bitch and whine about too much military. Nobody will DARE attack you as long as there are four branches of the military protecting you.

I think you owe them a lot more respect. Without them, you're just another infidel casualty.

[Private Pickle]

Do we need to maintain an Army, Navy, Air Force or Coast Guard? Some posters here seem to think all military operations are carried out by the Marine Corp. If true, why are we spending billions on the other branches?

Well despite some of the Marine worship here the Army, by far our largest and most high-speed is all we really need. ;)

Oh and the Navy, Coast Guard, Air Force and Marines.

[Peter1469]

Go Army. :smiley:

[southwest88]

We only need half , if that, if we'd quit playing world police. But that would expose our house of cards economy

It depends on what we want our military to do. Coast Guard is a given, we need to monitor/control/enforce who gets into the US & territories (& fishing limits, commerce, oil & minerals, etc.) The overseas & foreign policy - yah, rationally we should decide policy & then build the forces necessary to execute.

Past distortions (Prex. Eisenhower letting CIA & Dept. State off the leash, rattling the nuclear sabre, deposing Mossadegh & re-imposing the Shah of Iran, backing the Far Rightists in C. & S. Americas, etc.) are still with us - complicating our discussions & policy in the World. Given all that, I think we tend to take existing & near-term US military forces & make policy ad hoc, as best we can.

The other unfortunate effect on policy - our military is the only tool for direct involvement off shore - witness our relief efforts in Haiti after the earthquake, the anti-Ebola logistics/train/build campaign in W. Africa. Dept. State & all other agencies have next to no field ops, no budget, no personnel (TMK) who could even begin to set up relief efforts nor any other sustained effort. Military officers I believe now direct all US intel agencies, from organic military, CIA, NRO, the intel czar, NSA - everything except maybe Dept. State's own organic intel. As the military is interested in targeting (actionable) intel - that means CIA (meant as an outside study/intel group to the Executive branch) has no real reason for being.

CIA had issues in the past anyway - see Prex. Eisenhower & the Dulles bros. above. But with military or ex-military @ all the alphabet-soup helms, the Opp Forces are always going to be 10' tall. (See the Tiger Team evaluations of CIA estimates of Soviet capabilities back in the Cold War days, especially in the 1970s, -80s.)

[gamewell45]

It depends on what we want our military to do. Coast Guard is a given, we need to monitor/control/enforce who gets into the US & territories (& fishing limits, commerce, oil & minerals, etc.) The overseas & foreign policy - yah, rationally we should decide policy & then build the forces necessary to execute.

Past distortions (Prex. Eisenhower letting CIA & Dept. State off the leash, rattling the nuclear sabre, deposing Mossadegh & re-imposing the Shah of Iran, backing the Far Rightists in C. & S. Americas, etc.) are still with us - complicating our discussions & policy in the World. Given all that, I think we tend to take existing & near-term US military forces & make policy ad hoc, as best we can.

The other unfortunate effect on policy - our military is the only tool for direct involvement off shore - witness our relief efforts in Haiti after the earthquake, the anti-Ebola logistics/train/build campaign in W. Africa. Dept. State & all other agencies have next to no field ops, no budget, no personnel (TMK) who could even begin to set up relief efforts nor any other sustained effort. Military officers I believe now direct all US intel agencies, from organic military, CIA, NRO, the intel czar, NSA - everything except maybe Dept. State's own organic intel. As the military is interested in targeting (actionable) intel - that means CIA (meant as an outside study/intel group to the Executive branch) has no real reason for being.

CIA had issues in the past anyway - see Prex. Eisenhower & the Dulles bros. above. But with military or ex-military @ all the alphabet-soup helms, the Opp Forces are always going to be 10' tall. (See the Tiger Team evaluations of CIA estimates of Soviet capabilities back in the Cold War days, especially in the 1970s, -80s.)

Isn't the Coast Guard actually part of the Department of Transportation and not the military? At least that's what I always was led to believe.

[Peter1469]

Isn't the Coast Guard actually part of the Department of Transportation and not the military? At least that's what I always was led to believe.

It was. Now it is part of the Department of Homeland Security for peace time operations. For war it is part of the Department of Defense.

[gamewell45]

It was. Now it is part of the Department of Homeland Security for peace time operations. For war it is part of the Department of Defense.

Cool. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[nathanbforrest45]

The Coast Guard was actually part of the Treasury. Its original job was to stop smugglers from bringing in goods without paying import duties and therefore depriving money from the treasury, one of the very few original sources of revenue for the government.

[Captain Obvious]

The Coast Guard was actually part of the Treasury. Its original job was to stop smugglers from bringing in goods without paying import duties and therefore depriving money from the treasury, one of the very few original sources of revenue for the government.

The IRS used to be under Treasury too before it became surveillance.