Does America need a standing army?

[Pericles]

Spoken by someone that knows of what he is talking about. The people that think that a million guns in a million men's hands is a million man army and obviously have not ever been in modern warfare. A well trained army of 100,000 would take them out in a matter of days. Ask the million man Iraqi army dug in in Kuwait what happened to them when a well trained army of 1/5 the size devastated them in days

Which is why it will still be years (if ever) for Iraq and Afghanistan to have capable military forces that can function without US "stiffeners", typically SF A Teams work on the battalion and below level, while brigade and above get the MAAG - Military Assistance and Advisory Group.

 

[Cutlerzzz]

Against my better judgment, I'll dive in here. The OP would be very comfortable with A. T. Mahan's The Influence of Sea Power Upon History (The case for why the US needs a strong Navy and not much of an Army).

Opinion is yes there needs to be a regular Army (with a different focus), an Army Reserve, and disbanding the National Guard in favor of the Militia.

Reason behind my opinion is the following:

Regular Army should be a General Staff, Training, and maintaining full strength Brigade, Division, Corps, and Army headquarters (these also serve as the training cadre for the Militia), and a few full strength units based on threat analysis, and the need to give NCOs and officers actual experience in operating units - this experience is needed to maintain a good training program.

The Militia is intended to be the primary building blocks for the National Army, should one be needed. One of the big problems in a militia structure is the quality of the unit, which determines the training time required to make the unit combat effective. You can draw experienced officers and NCOs into the militia units from former active duty people, you increase the ability of the militia unit, and shorten the training time required on call up. You can relatively quickly build support units if the equipment is on hand. Driving a military truck is not much different than any other truck, medical skills readily transfer to a military application, and the same for engineering and other support tasks. The combat arms skills are critical to military success, and this requires study and training is those operations, and some experience in order for leaders to make sound decisions. Computer simulations are not the same as actually doing it with a unit. Computers are bad at replicating the "friction" of war.

The other factor is the expense of equipping a soldier - in inflation constant 2010 dollars, is cost about $1500 to equip a WWII infantryman. Today's cost is about $15,000 because we want to put night vision, body armor, and communications in the hands of every infantryman in order to maintain absolute superiority over any possible opponent, which saves as many lives of our fellow citizens as possible (competent commanders being the other great life saver). I can train an infantryman in 30 days, but I can't train platoon leaders, company commanders, and battalion commanders that are really good, without a year for a platoon leader, a couple of years for a company commander, and a good four years minimum for a battalion commander. Bad company and battalion commanders caused a good bit of our loss in WWII.

A modern professional is definately more powerful than militia, yes. However, this does not address the issue of how any enemy would reach US soil.

 

[Pericles]

A modern professional is definately more powerful than militia, yes. However, this does not address the issue of how any enemy would reach US soil.

The problem is that you have to see into the future. It takes 8 years to build an aircraft carrier, so today, the Navy needs to know what the threat picture looks like in 2019, the Air Force needs to know what the picture looks like in 2015, and the Army also needs time, because it takes two years to get a tank delivered, and max production was 2 per day with current machinery on hand - it takes much longer to build a factory and equip units.

In 1937 or 1933, who foresaw Pearl Harbor? That is the job of the General Staff, to take the intel picture, and determine possible threats and potential threats for Congressional action as to what level of risk is acceptable.

 

[Cutlerzzz]

The fact that it takes longer to develope a navy than an army kind of refutes your point. They cannot cross the sea without having a superior navy, no matter how strong their army is.

Honestly, the results of Pearl Harbor don't help either. Japan launched a sneak attack, went on the offensive for 6 months, was beat back for the rest of the war, and destroyed entirely without ever coming close to victory.

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

I just don't see how it's possible to have a standing army and not be involved in some sort of conflict. Our country is much bigger than it was in 1776, however, I still think we could do without being in over 100 military bases worldwide. We may not have as much oil, but that's already running out.

 

[Pericles]

The fact that it takes longer to develope a navy than an army kind of refutes your point. They cannot cross the sea without having a superior navy, no matter how strong their army is.

Honestly, the results of Pearl Harbor don't help either. Japan launched a sneak attack, went on the offensive for 6 months, was beat back for the rest of the war, and destroyed entirely without ever coming close to victory.

The Chinese and Russians are building aircraft carriers. What does that tell you?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13692558

http://siberianlight.net/russia-new-aircraft-carriers/

Those are the only other countries in the world that have a military that is working on the ability to project power in excess of a couple hundred miles outside of their borders.

 

[Cutlerzzz]

The Chinese and Russians are building aircraft carriers. What does that tell you?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13692558

http://siberianlight.net/russia-new-aircraft-carriers/

Those are the only other countries in the world that have a military that is working on the ability to project power in excess of a couple hundred miles outside of their borders.

It tells me how far behind they are.

 

[jmdrake]

@jmdrake-I support following the Swiss model as far as non intervention overseas. I think they've shown that by staying out of the world's affairs, they've created less enemies and haven't been attacked the way that we have. But I think there's just one particular area where we disagree. I do not want the United States to become just another average country like Switzerland. I believe in American exceptionalism. I believe that the United States is the greatest country on earth, and I believe that we should remain superior to all other countries both in terms of our military and in terms of our economy. I don't agree with the neo-cons that we should actually "spread our goodness around the world." I think that intervention overseas is counter productive and makes us less safe here at home. But there's no way in the world I'm going to support a policy that would turn the United States into just another average country.

That's the difference between you and me. You're trying to maintain American "exceptionalism". I realize that exceptionalism is already gone. We weren't exceptional because we had a great military. We were exceptional because of our production capacity. That's what won WW II. We had a powerful manufacturing base that was able to build a powerful military when needed. Now that manufacturing base is all but gone. Sure we can still produce great armaments, but we don't even make that much of the steel anymore. The idea that we can hold on to "exceptionalism", without even understanding what that really means, will be the death of this country just like it was the death of the Soviet Union. I mean really. Don't you understand the Chinese could destroy this country at any time economically without even firing a shot? The security challenges we face do not require military strength. They require economic strength. What's going to happen to this country is that we're going to become an oligarch style police state like the former Soviet Union because folks think being like the Swiss is not "cool" enough. And all those troops you want to hold onto so badly are simply going to be used to form the police state to extract the taxes to pay off the international bankers.

 

[jmdrake]

The Chinese and Russians are building aircraft carriers. What does that tell you?

Aircraft carriers are overrated.

http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=6779&IBLOCK_ID=35

 

[Pericles]

It tells me how far behind they are.

Strategically, Russia is like US in that there is no imperative to have a strong navy, as Russia is a land power, and is not dependent on sea lanes to import resources.

At least the US has the excuse of ensuring the shipping of oil imports that can not be disrupted by other navies (if there is a navy capable of interdicting oil shipments).

 

[jmdrake]

Against my better judgment, I'll dive in here. The OP would be very comfortable with A. T. Mahan's The Influence of Sea Power Upon History (The case for why the US needs a strong Navy and not much of an Army).

Opinion is yes there needs to be a regular Army (with a different focus), an Army Reserve, and disbanding the National Guard in favor of the Militia.



Reason behind my opinion is the following:

Regular Army should be a General Staff, Training, and maintaining full strength Brigade, Division, Corps, and Army headquarters (these also serve as the training cadre for the Militia), and a few full strength units based on threat analysis, and the need to give NCOs and officers actual experience in operating units - this experience is needed to maintain a good training program.

The Militia is intended to be the primary building blocks for the National Army, should one be needed. One of the big problems in a militia structure is the quality of the unit, which determines the training time required to make the unit combat effective. You can draw experienced officers and NCOs into the militia units from former active duty people, you increase the ability of the militia unit, and shorten the training time required on call up. You can relatively quickly build support units if the equipment is on hand. Driving a military truck is not much different than any other truck, medical skills readily transfer to a military application, and the same for engineering and other support tasks. The combat arms skills are critical to military success, and this requires study and training is those operations, and some experience in order for leaders to make sound decisions. Computer simulations are not the same as actually doing it with a unit. Computers are bad at replicating the "friction" of war.

The other factor is the expense of equipping a soldier - in inflation constant 2010 dollars, is cost about $1500 to equip a WWII infantryman. Today's cost is about $15,000 because we want to put night vision, body armor, and communications in the hands of every infantryman in order to maintain absolute superiority over any possible opponent, which saves as many lives of our fellow citizens as possible (competent commanders being the other great life saver). I can train an infantryman in 30 days, but I can't train platoon leaders, company commanders, and battalion commanders that are really good, without a year for a platoon leader, a couple of years for a company commander, and a good four years minimum for a battalion commander. Bad company and battalion commanders caused a good bit of our loss in WWII.

That's basically the Swiss model. And it's the founding father's model as well.

 

[jmdrake]

Absolutely Yes!

Our history has proven that militias are not sufficiently effective when the nation is in real danger. National Defense is also the single most important responsibility of government as defined in the Constitution. The so called "national guard' is unconstitutional and should be abolished or made legal by Constitutional amendment. A solid corp of skilled war professionals is essential to our national defense with the ability to react quickly and train other citizens in time of a real emergency.

Bring our troops home... reduce their size... and train like hell in case they are actually needed. Put them on the Canadian border and keep the likes of Anne Murray, Keanu Reeves, Howie Mandel, Seth Rogen and especially Celine Dion north of the border where they belong. And, if we have enough left, put some on the Mexican border as well.

I honestly believe that the notion or eliminating our need for a standing army, able to react quickly and professionally trained in war is naive. It is an unrealistically Utopian view of the world not based in reality. The founders were rightly concerned about a standing army... but the Navy was set as a permanent fixture. A standing army is absolutely necessary... but they do not need to be in bases on Asia, and Europe, and South America... or anywhere else in the world.

Bring them home... train them well... and kick the crap out of anyone who messes with us.

Sounds great...until there's another civil war and the people they kick the crap out of are.....us. Please re-read the Posse Comitatus act.

 

[Pericles]

Aircraft carriers are overrated.

http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=6779&IBLOCK_ID=35

I agree that modern warfare makes them much more vulnerable, but I'd defer to someone who is more has more expertise on sea warfare than I do as to how to do tanker escort.

 

[klamath]

It tells me how far behind they are.

There are a lot of countries that have severely regreted their underestimates of their enemies capabilities. The US is miliniums behind other countries in wanting to be an empire and we damned well won't be the last. Humans display the same tendencies no matter where in the world they live. I don't want my grandchildren dying in routed ragtag disorganized army of miltias all the while some general is scratching his head and saying "I guess I was wrong about America's geographic "maginot line".

The Maginot Line (French: Ligne Maginot, IPA: [liɲ maʒino]), named after French Minister of War André Maginot, was a line of concrete fortifications, tank obstacles, artillery casemates, machine gun posts, and other defences, which France constructed along its borders with Germany and Italy, in light of its experience in World War I, and in the run-up to World War II. Generally the term describes only the defences facing Germany, while the term Alpine Line is used for the Franco-Italian defences.

The French established the fortification to provide time for their army to mobilise in the event of attack, allowing French forces to move into Belgium for a decisive confrontation with German forces. The success of static, defensive combat in World War I was a key influence on French thinking. The fortification system successfully dissuaded a direct attack. However, it was strategically ineffective, as the Germans did indeed invade Belgium, defeated the French army, flanked the Maginot Line, and proceeded relatively unobstructed.[1]

Military experts extolled the Maginot Line as a work of genius, believing it would prevent any further invasions from the east (notably, from Germany). However, the German army in World War II largely bypassed the Maginot Line by invading through the Ardennes forest and via the Low countries, completely sweeping by the Line and conquering France in days. As such, the Maginot Line has come to mean a strategy or object that people put hope into but fails miserably. It is also the best known symbol of the adage that "generals always fight the last war, especially if they have won it

PS. Answer to a previous question. Operation market garden-41,628 airborne troops-67 years ago.

 

[Cutlerzzz]

There are a lot of countries that have severely regreted their underestimates of their enemies capabilities. The US is miliniums behind other countries in wanting to be an empire and we damned well won't be the last. Humans display the same tendencies no matter where in the world they live. I don't want my grandchildren dying in routed ragtag disorganized army of miltias all the while some general is scratching his head and saying "I guess I was wrong about America's geographic "maginot line".

???

The USN is over 10 times larger than the Russian or Chinese Navies. I'm not in any way underestimating them. They really are shit by comparison and will be for decades.

The Maginot Line is nothing like a 6000 mile ocean. France is smaller than the state of Texas and has no geographical boundaries to protect them beyond the Alps. They have no room to retreat to, and are surrounded by Great Powers. France lost because Germany went around the Maginot Line, out manuevered them, and they had nowhere to retreat to. The US has 6,000 miles of water to the West and 3,500 to the East, the Rockies on the West coast and Southern border, and the Appalachians on the East Coast. We have the worlds most armed and third largest population. No country has attacked US soil since the War of 1812. Never since the Revolution has American independence even been threatened.

The comparison holds no water.

 

[klamath]

???

The USN is over 10 times larger than the Russian or Chinese Navies. I'm not in any way underestimating them. They really are shit by comparison and will be for decades.

The Maginot Line is nothing like a 6000 mile ocean. France is smaller than the state of Texas and has no geographical boundaries to protect them beyond the Alps. They have no room to retreat to, and are surrounded by Great Powers. France lost because Germany went around the Maginot Line, out manuevered them, and they had nowhere to retreat to. The US has 6,000 miles of water to the West and 3,500 to the East, the Rockies on the West coast and Southern border, and the Appalachians on the East Coast. We have the worlds most armed and third largest population. No country has attacked US soil since the War of 1812. Never since the Revolution has American independence even been threatened.

The comparison holds no water.

The camparison is not direct strategic and tactical but to the mindset that we are safe and need never worry. If China or russia were threats now I would be advocating a buildup of the american army not a vast reduction.
The bering sea is not 6000 miles across. An airborne operation could secure alaska and the ALCAN highway in days opening a land route for a mass army invasion. Without a number of highly trained mobile American divisions to stop this, this would be an easy operation against poorly trained army guard and militia units.

 

[Cutlerzzz]

The camparison is not direct strategic and tactical but to the mindset that we are safe and need never worry. If China or russia were threats now I would be advocating a buildup of the american army not a vast reduction.
The bering sea is not 6000 miles across. An airborne operation could secure alaska and the ALCAN highway in days opening a land route for a mass army invasion. Without a number of highly trained mobile American divisions to stop this, this would be an easy operation against poorly trained army guard and militia units.

Invading Alaska? LOL! Alaska is largely roadless, it is covered in the highest mountains of the Western Hemisphere, and completely frozen 6 months out of the year. It is also 7,000 miles away from Russia's main population. The largest air borne operation in history involved 5,000 men, and that operation was conducted in uncontested airspace over Iraq in a relatively short, 3 week campaign.

Nobody is taking anything that large via airborne assault, much less a frozen, roadless state larger than Britain, France, and Germany combined. Invading Alaska to get to the United States would also involve invading Canada(and Britain by extension), not that it would get that far. It's not happening.

Nobody is conquering the United States. It has not been attempted since the Revolution because it is impossible. Look at what third world Iraq, with a population of 20 million has done to the richest most powerful country in the world, that has complete domination in almost every category.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I do not want the United States to become just another average country like Switzerland. I believe in American exceptionalism.

I find your definition of "exceptional", strange.

By what metric do you define "exceptional"?

The Swiss have been a free republic for almost 1000 years now. We are approaching 235 and are on the verge of bankruptcy and dissolution.

The Swiss have a higher median income than the US.

The Swiss have a longer life expectancy than the US.

The Swiss have a higher literacy rate than the US.

The Swiss children test higher in educational progress than the US.

The Swiss have retained quite a bit of freedom, more so than the US, although that is certainly subjective.

So, the Swiss live longer, make more money, have children that test better and are just as free, if not more free, than we are.

And that's just a few comparisons.

So, if that's "average" and we are "exceptional", you'll excuse me then for handing back your "exceptionalism" and your carrier battle groups, and your kill drones, and your smart bombs and your missile submarines.

I don't want 'em.

 

[Pericles]

That's basically the Swiss model. And it's the founding father's model as well.

Essentially, but there are some differences to work out.

In the past, Congress could just tell the states which drill manual to use to train the militia, and as it was the same manual and organizational structure laid down in the Militia Act of 1792/95, it worked. (In the War of 1912, the 5th Regt. Maryland Militia was as good as any regular Army unit, and better than 80% of the regular Army). Telling the state militias to use the current set of Army field manuals would not have the same effect today. And Constitutionally, the states have to do the training and appoint officers of their militias.

Thus, either the need to use militia personnel recently from the active Army, or the states to call out the militias on a rotating basis for training, which is disruptive to civil life. So, my idea is to limit militia organizations in scope to battalion size and smaller, to make the training fit into a more reasonable time period of 11 weekends and two weeks per year, unless there is a real need for a higher level of proficiency due to the military situation.

 

[klamath]

Invading Alaska? LOL! Alaska is largely roadless, it is covered in the highest mountains of the Western Hemisphere, and completely frozen 6 months out of the year. It is also 7,000 miles away from Russia's main population. The largest air borne operation in history involved 5,000 men, and that operation was conducted in uncontested airspace over Iraq in a relatively short, 3 week campaign.

Nobody is taking anything that large via airborne assault, much less a frozen, roadless state larger than Britain, France, and Germany combined. Invading Alaska to get to the United States would also involve invading Canada(and Britain by extension), not that it would get that far. It's not happening.

Nobody is conquering the United States. It has not been attempted since the Revolution because it is impossible. Look at what third world Iraq, with a population of 20 million has done to the richest most powerful country in the world, that has complete domination in almost every category.

It isn't even about conquering but a deterent because somebody was tempted by our weakness. Give them no hope of winning and nobody has to die.
Actually I am done arguing with you if your military history is so spotty that you think that the 5000 man airborne over Iraq is the largest airborne operation in history even when I pointed out the real largest operation. You are showing poor grasp of even the geography of alaska. When you throw mountains around maybe you should study Hannibal.

One of his most famous achievements was at the outbreak of the Second Punic War, when he marched an army, which included war elephants, from Iberia over the Pyrenees and the Alps into northern Italy. In his first few years in Italy, he won three dramatic victories — Trebia, Trasimene, and Cannae — and won over several allies of Rome. Hannibal occupied much of Italy for 15 years

And this is why RP will never get elected. Sell this at the next REPUBLICAN rally and see just how many votes RP gets. "Eliminate the American army to zero" That will get him votes.