Reduction in Military Reduces Navy Size

Does the reduction mean they will now have to use "ordinary rendition" to torture people?

 

This assumes a level of readiness that isn't sustainable. War efforts need to be geared up for, not maintained. The cold war proved this and the two war readiness requirement since, has also proven this.

We can't stay in a readiness state forever, without trashing and completely rearranging our economies. We aren't living in Sparta.

If you live in a free society, you have to expect to get your butt handed to you initially, in a conflict, which is precisely what has happened to the USA historically. The alternative is to require all 17 to 20 year olds, to draft into military service for a few years and rearrange our culture and economy to suit a defensive, possibly isolationist society. Sounds pretty unreasonable to me.

 

of course carriers will have a use into the near future, but my bet twenty years from now its going to be a whole new ball game. Mostly had by drones and flying tankers to refuel them. The real use of stealth technology will be in high flying tankers designed to keep the drones fueled and armed. Yup I said armed, in flight arming is something else thats coming down the pipes.

Anyway I don't thing a 7% drop in US military spending is going to put much of a dent into our ability to randomly abuse the people of the world, which is of course a must in any corporate oligarchy's strategy book.

Sorry had to. Our military has for the most part recently been used to maintain a status quo, Its got some uses but all in all I think it would be just spiffy if we maybe reevaluated our efforts to be the world police. Not that I'd like to see China step up, but still its just ridiculous that we even still resort to blowing each other to hell and back any more.

can't we all just get along

 

Native American Prayer

Oh, Great Spirit
Whose voice I hear in the winds,
And whose breath gives life to all the world,
hear me, I am small and weak,
I need your strength and wisdom.
Let me walk in beauty and make my eyes ever behold
the red and purple sunset.
Make my hands respect the things you have
made and my ears sharp to hear your voice.
Make me wise so that I may understand the things
you have taught my people.
Let me learn the lessons you have
hidden in every leaf and rock.

I seek strength, not to be greater than my brother,
but to fight my greatest enemy - myself.
Make me always ready to come to you
with clean hands and straight eyes.
So when life fades, as the fading sunset,
my Spirit may come to you without shame.


(translated by Lakota Sioux Chief Yellow Lark in 1887)
published in Native American Prayers - by the Episcopal Church.

 

And if we are ever attacked, let us kick their @$$!

 

I don't necessarily think merging the forces is the way to go, and I certainly don't believe in the one-size-fits-all theory of 'standardized equipment' -- or standardized training. Different missions have different requirements, and an Army or Air Force general isn't necessarily the best judge of what the Navy needs -- or vice versa.

When I was in the Navy someone decided it would be a good idea to cross-train USAF pilots, so they could operate off carriers. It was a disaster. Landings carrier-style went against every ounce of training, experience and instinct the pilots had....

The problem was that carrier pilots didn't really 'land' their planes in the same sense that land-based pilots did. Instead, they basically flew their planes into the landing deck under power. And time after time after time we watched Air Force pilots almost reflexively pull up at the last second, in spite of their best intentions. A discouraging number of them splashed.

And by the way, I think the numbers in the Gulf wars should have been reversed: pushing the Iraqis out of Kuwait could have been done with a quarter of the troops used. The full-scale invasion ten years later was where we should have used half a million troops.... not necessarily for the initial invasion, but to keep a lid on and maintain stability afterwards. Instead, the Bush administration tried to do it on the cheap, on the totally unwarranted assumption that the Iraqi populace would greet us as liberators, lining the streets cheering and waving little American flags as we marched into Baghdad.

Which brings up something I've wondered for years, about all those french folks waving their little flags while we marched into Paris. Where the heck did all those flags come from?!?

 

Native American Prayer

I'd give rep pts but says I need spread around

 

High Tech ships cost more to build. Maybe cost more to maintain. But the biggest cost is crew. Not just wages, but benefits, training, feeding, transporting, recreation, ect. and dependent family benefits!
Reducing crew size is a positive benefit of high tech ships.

http://www.wnd.com/2001/01/7837/

 

I disagree. Naturally, there are some specializations needed in equipment and training, but a common uniform (as an example) would save billions. We have to assume the various needs of the specialties would be met and that naval expertise (again as an example) would be used where appropriate.

Cross training isn't a bad idea, but they need to be trained (again) appropriately. Pulling traps is difficult for the best, so USAF drivers would likely have similar difficulties. It would be handy to have a larger pool of trap qualified drivers to pull from, with a down sized, homogenized military.

The latest wars were clearly the most ridiculous set of presidential overstep since Watergate and will likely be recorded this way a hundred years from now. Everyone knew it, the secretary of state stepped down as a result, the military brass and intelligence agencies all knew why we where going and it had absolutely nothing to do with WMD's. Further discussion about this is futile, as there will always be those that think that administration, was up to code and above board, which clearly they weren't. The discredit they've brought to this country's rep has been horrific, both socially and economically.

We supplied all those flags, my friend. It was an act of letting the French save face. This is also why the first troops to march into Paris were free French, not the American 3rd army that did the work. The free French rode in US supplied vehicles, with US supplied uniforms and equipment. It was hoped it would help revive French patriotism, which had taken such a beating during the occupation. The US has always had a special relationship with France, since the revolution and it was a nice gesture on our part. It's a sin we haven't run military operations with this level of forethought since.

The occupation of both southeast Asia and Iraq would have gone much differently if we did precisely what we did in WW II and let civilian and sate department personal, reorganize and rebuild, rather then hope the army could adapt, which they grossly failed at BTW. As a result of these changes in approach, civil war will undoubtedly erupt and it'll be all for naught in a few years, just like southeast Asia.

This is where a unified military can really make a difference. The ACE's, MP's and state department in country staffs, would get expanded in these situations, the branches broken down into specialties and everyone works for the same set of goals, rather then the huge levels of redundancy we have now, plus the tremendous waste of resources. The Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force all have land vehicles, boats, aircraft and artillery. This is the most absurd throw back to 18th century thinking I can imagine. A single air wing that services all the branches without favoritism, a single wet wing that gets forces over water, regardless of uniform color, a single special forces wing that handles the odd and special stuff, etc., etc., etc. A single plan is drawn, likely using all the assets available, no cross talk, branch favoritism or distention. A single US defense force. The aircraft needs could halved, the artillery needs cut by 2/3's, the surface fleet cut to 1/4, just by bring the approach into the 21st century. BTW, the most effective and efficient military in the world is setup this way.

In short, in the next few decades we'll find the world is a very small place, in regard to getting ordnance in place quickly and cheaply. In air recovery of drones is taking place now, so they'll be rearming and fueling with surprising efficiency in 20 years. 300' drone carriers, possibly submersible, will likely turn up soon too. The F-117 was well hidden from the public's eye for 20 years, just imagine how long a submersible drone carrier might rest unnoticed. They just show up on station, seemly out of no where.

We're in an age where machines will have the capacity of the human brain (the next 15 years folks), suggesting completely autonomous delivery systems will be around before I'm dead. You don't need 1,200' floating #2 fuel tanks for this. In a way I wish I was younger to see this unfurl, but I think I'm actual glad I'm too old. This is because you know the crap's going to hit the fan on these devices and a bunch of wrongly targeted people are going to be quite efficiently and remotely destroyed. Hell, SkyNet may actually occur and I don't want to be here for that.

 

Yes, I think you have lost an entire generation of goodwill to the US,
as happened because of the Vietnam War.

Some governments can piddle away hard-earned reputation overnight.
We had a lot of goodwill after the Sydney Olympics, but disgusting
attitudes and behaviour towards asylum-seekers stuffed our reputation.

I disagree, unless you mean very small amounts.
The current challenge by the US Navy is to deliver 250,000 tonnes anywhere
in the world in 7 days, and 1 million tonnes in a month.
Nobody has come close to a realistic solution yet.

They might have the capacity of the human brain in 15 years, but that
doesn't mean they will have anywhere near the intelligence of small children.
AI is way over-hyped and its achievements are not very impressive,
beyond some very simple problems in toy domains.

There are also many examples of dashed hopes that machines will somehow
help maintain stability in economics, the environment, and world politics. This
theme is explored in the interesting but quirky BBC documentary:
"All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Wa..._Loving_Grace_(television_documentary_series)

 

We've turned our navy into meals on wheels, well floats, and still we are hated. I say let's quit helping the ungrateful, who only hate us all the more just because we could help. Screw'em.

 

What's the specific gripe, Hoyt?
Just like any other country, the US should be lauded for its noble achievements, condemned for repulsive actions, and mocked for any hypocrisy.

 

Trimming the fat boys, it's just the thin edge of the wedge in trimming the fat. Unification of the forces-- we overdid it in the 60's and had to step back and take a second look.The biggest mistake was not integrated work but one uniform for all. It killed hundreds of years of pride in one's choice of which force you chose. Today the Canadian Forces are work intergrated but uniform seperated and it seems to function quite well. Our problem is we are judged by our geogrphical size and expected by our neighbours and many parts of the world to do more in all aspects of maintaining world peace. I've said this a thousand times --WE ARE A VERY SMALL NATION POPULATION WISE-- THUS HAVE A VERY SMALL TAX BASE TO SUPPORT SUCH EXPENSES-- EXAMPLE-- THE POPULATION OF CANADA IS LESS THAN THE POPULATION OF CALIFORNIA. We had an aircraft carrier but couldn't afford to keep it, now we have four submarines that the British threw in the dump so we rummaged thru and dragged three home successfully. The fourth caught fire in route almost sunk and had to be transported by other means. Once we got them here lo and behold we now know why the British dumped them. I think one is now semi functional, the rest nothing but a drag on the defence budget and latest word might never see water again. I don't know why as members of the Commonwealth we don't just pool our defence funds and use that buying power for research-development-manufacturing and purchasing for our militaries. What the hell is the purpose of a club that does nothing other than a sports event or a place for the Royal family to visit.(which costs us a fortune every time they show up).The cold hard fact is , The economical perks of a world power status requires a big technically advanced military which in turn more than eats the profits of that associated booming economy. Repitive history has shown this, from the Anchient Roman Empire to the more modern British, Russian, and now the U.S. is facing the same cycle. However just maybe we've advanced enough that Empires have become as someone said like Battleships --obsolete.

 

Talk to the hand, Leo.

 

Hope you enjoyed the holidays Viking North. Welcome back!