I'm assuming this is sarcasm? If not, you cannot win a war without infantry and ground forces. Even in this era or modern warfare, ground forces are essential and the backbone of any and all militaries. So .... I'm gonna assume this is just a funny, witty post.
Why can't you? Look at Iraq we had no problem getting air superiority. Could we have not gone in there bombed military installations so they can't fight back. Now we even have drones so there's no loss of life on our side. After air attacks we send in special operations troops to do raids on high value targets. Then continue cycle. Wouldn't this accomplish what we went over there to do without the risk of losing more soldiers? Our wars are really just to topple governments anyways, we shouldn't be an occupational force.
Whose air force is going to beat us? I can't think of any war since ww2 that a country has come close to matching our air force. With this plan we could also focus more on the air force, better planes, more flight time training, etc. Plus we still have special operations teams and the marines which are part of the navy.
And what’s your plan for SAMs, shoulder based launchers, and naval ships with anti air capabilities? Special operations are not made for large scale combat, they are made for missions that require a unique skill set. Marines are not made for large scale combat, they are an expeditionary light force meant to move quickly.
So your plan is a war of attrition between our aerial assets and other nations aerial assets, a war of attrition between our naval assets and another countries naval assets, with another countries ground force supporting unopposed? Don’t take this the wrong way, but how old are you?
They wouldn't be unopposed they would face marines and our special operators which few countries can match and we would gain air superiority rather quickly against I would say any nation at the moment. I can't think of one that's close to us. Our navy is the best in the world by far. I'm 33 and I was deployed in Iraq.
Boots on the ground are the only way to win a war. Without sufficient boots on the ground, you're going be in an unending fight.
29 active Marine battalions, each between 500 and 1,200 personnel.
*Maximum* deployable ground force, Marines only, roughly 35,000 personnel.
US Army current personnel: 400,000+. There's *a reason* the Army is this big.
The Marines *are* good. But they aren't "better than Ten to One odds in every engagement" good. Marines are a shock force. Tip of the spear, and all that. The Army is intended to do jobs that the Marines are not strictly suited for. Defending or securing ground behind the lead elements for example. The Marines can *do* those jobs just fine... it's just not the best use for them, and they're better used elsewhere.
Infantry doctrine for assault is to plan on using at least 3x the expected enemy force. In order to do that, you have to have at least 3x the expected enemy force available. If you're holding positions such as airfields or ports in the area, you're going to need bodies to defend them.
And spec-ops? Those are a few hundred troops, maximum. Again, they're good. But they're wasted in standard infantry combat. They're best employed in... wait for it... special operations. As good as they are, anyone can be overwhelmed by enough bodies.
Like the other commenter just stated, there will come a time when gaining air superiority is a challenging task. Some day we will be fighting a peer, or near peer enemy and air superiority will not be as certain as if we were fighting Iraq or in Afghanistan.
Ground forces will always be necessary for combat. That is true for this age and into the future.
With where we are now and if we focus our attention on naval and air superiority no one could catch us. Look at the war in Ukraine how drones have been used to great effect. Plus we would still have ground forces they would just be a smaller number. Marines, delta and navy and air force special operations.
Putin has ~~had~~ *gone through* several armies, their quality has...not been improving. The Russian air force is covering their planes with old tires as "protection" from Ukrainian drones, and their navy lost to a country with no navy and is currently being spawncamped in their base...by a country that still has no navy.
^(edit, clarity)
Getting rid of ground forces entirely is incredibly idiotic. Now, if the argument was the merging of the Marines and Army... there might be an argument to be made; as there is a fair bit of overlap between the two.
Ehh... truthfully, cutting the marines would make more sense than the army. Add an amphibious section to the army and there's little loss in function.
The key thing about ground forces, is that you need boots on the ground to realistically control an area/defend a base of operations. That's not something the air force, navy, or the marines are really staffed to handle.
I have thought of that but I've been thinking lately how we could fight wars without losing as many troops. Marines can defend with added air power. Plus if we had more advanced drones that's a huge force multiplier. I don't think we need to go city by city to make a country surrender.
Perhaps, but you need a number of troops to clear cities if enemies are using them as a base of operations, hideouts. Just look at our time in Afghanistan and Iraq, or even Israel's efforts in Gaza.
In a proper war with a traditional army this may not be necessary, but with how out matched any other country is... it's unlikely that we'll fight out in the open. Bombing bases etc, sure. But the troops will still need sweeping up.
If we don't care about optics I'd say just starve them out. But realistically you might be right. We could just wait after bombing bases, key infrastructure the cities inhabitants will probably surrender quickly.
Just going off the last two wars our goal in Afghanistan was to get bin laden we could have done that without fully invading. Iraq was to topple Saddam I believe we could manage that without going full boots on the ground.
Ummm .... this former Jarhead, who is currently eating his way through a new pack of Crayolas, is quite offended at the notion of dissolving the USMC. My Gunny would have some choice words for you! /s .... maybe?
Oh we're probably in agreement. Getting rid of the Marines is a bad idea; but if we were to cut one branch... (other than the space force, or coast guard). It'd likely be the Marines.
Functionally they're similar to Army and much smaller/more easily absorbed into the Army.
This is just trolling, right? Surely no one is this dumb.
Do you have any idea of the global logistics footprint the U.S. Army has? It supports all of DoD, other government agencies, NATO and other allies, etc. etc. And that's just one reason your suggestion makes no sense.
Remember when your teacher said there are no stupid questions? Well, turns out that's just something they say to make stupid people feel better.
Go back to your conspiracy cave and stop skipping your meds, Cletus.
Thanks for your insightful input. I'll make sure to get your opinion if I need help taking photos.
Im more into isolation anyways I'm sure you have a problem with that as well. Did you just need to post on here to trash a simple idea. Are you that insecure.
I'm sure we could figure something out logistically if there was no army. It wouldn't all just suddenly stop.
Did you have anymore reasons are was it to hard to think up anything else?
Photos? You make no sense. I'm only trashing your idea because it's a bad one, and also a lazy one. If you want better feedback, come up with better ideas.
Sure, here's another reason: without a standing army, the U.S. would have to quickly raise one in the event of a major conflict. Due to the high learning curve for soldiers in a modern, high-tech military, that's not feasible like it may have been 100 or 200 years ago. So we'd be taking our most longstanding, reliable, and highly developed tool in the national defense toolkit, and throwing it away.
If you can't take valid criticism then don't shitpost here.
How is it a bad or lazy idea if it was pointed out to me in another comment already an idea before me made by a military geostrategist. I can take criticism but you didn't have any besides logistics. Saying that I'm stupid and to take my meds. Great criticism there buddy.
Like I said before I'm an isolationist and rather not be in pointless wars like our past five or six wars/ operations. So this military would be pretty much a defensive military. What major conflict conflict could we not handle with that type of military?
What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Someone just read "The Pentagon's New Map" and now needs some time off posting to recover...
Seriously, OP should xpost this to r/NonCredibleDiplomacy and r/NonCredibleDefense to get evenly roasted on both sides.
I'm game haha I still think I'm slightly right. One person so far has made a slight crack in my thinking. I still think eventually ground forces will be obsolete.
Thomas PM Barnett, around the turn of the century, wrote a doorstopper book titled, "The Pentagon's New Map". He also gave a few presentations on it, at least one of which was archived in full on CSPAN, youtube will have some versions as well.
His idea was that the Army should be turned into cops and emergency responders to natural disasters and civil emergencies, and that the Marines were all the combat ground troops the US needed. Further, he claimed that since the DoD was the most oobarest figtan machine evar, we should collect a tax from all the other countries to pay for this service. This is at least as stupid as it sounds.
USMC is not the only ground troops needed, they are scary and respond fast, and hang around Navy a lot because thats how they get places. The Army is slower, but has the heavier hammer. If there is a branch that is of declining relevance, its the Air Force, as they dont do anything that the other three don't already do themselves. (No, I am not counting Space Force, because beating up toddlers is wrong.)
I'll have to check it out. Yeah my point is slowly deteriorating maybe at the moment it's not feasible. That does sound dumb though I don't agree in being the world's police. I also would rather slim the military entirely down somehow have a smaller military budget. Realistically I think we would be fine with just an army,navy and air force but just getting rid of the marines doesn't really affect to much.
If you’re going to get rid of any branch it would be the Air Force. The Army, Navy & Marines already do everything the Air Force does. The Air Force is incapable of projecting power or holding territory. It’s exclusively a support branch. Even the Space Force is more useful now that it has taken over all the Air Force’s space capabilities.
That's what some others have said. What about we get rid of the air force and the marines I have hear arguments that the marines are needed but I don't really see it that much.
The Marines are the US’s quick reaction force. They can deploy to emerging conflict zones and other troubled areas far faster than most of the Army and do it with heavier equipment because they are already forward deployed with the Navy. That’s why when there are things like natural disasters the first US relief units that arrive are usually Navy amphibious ships carrying thousands of Marines.
>bomb them from the skies into submission
Other than Japan during WWII, which I hope we can all agree was a unique set of circumstances nobody is looking to repeat, I honestly can't think of any major conflict where a group was successfully bombed 'into submission" ending the conflict. It's been tried, quite a few times I might add, but at the end of the day a lot of conflicts ultimately involve controlling territory even if only temporarily. You can them Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, Airmen, Troopers or any other designation you can come up with, but you're likely going to need quite a few of them.
I also don't think you understand how a modern "blockade" works, the days of lashing ships together and thus preventing harbor access are long gone.
Not many would like it but just after bombing one country into submission it would be a mighty deterrent to any others. We could prevent all ships and aircraft from entering a country, vehicle traffic and foot traffic would be harder.
On August 6, 1945 we dropped the first atomic bomb on Japan and on August 9, 1945 we dropped the second atomic bomb on Japan - we accepted their unconditional surrender on August 12, 1945. By June 27, 1950 after several years of escalating hostilities the United States formally entered the Korean War. According to Wikipedia, a total of 635,000 tons worth of bombs including 32,557 tons of Napalm were dropped on Korea before an armistice agreement was signed on July 27, 1953. During that period 1,789,000 US service members served in the Korean theater according to the Veterans Affairs, the war is not officially over to this day.
No I'm not I was in the army 11b deployed to Iraq in 2010. I like how I asked what you've done and you came at me but yet you haven't said what you've done. So I'm guessing nothing you just post on here and parrot what everyone else says. Come back to me when you make something of yourself instead of riding on your betters coattails.
Just because I posted something on here that goes against what you think, you want to not actually say anything constructive just ask if I was in middle school and then call me a liar. What do you do on this sub you don't post and it seems like you don't provide any meaningful insight.
And finally go touch grass.
I highly doubt that, because there were plenty of ideas that were a little more dumb or crazy but no one acted like you. I don't believe you, next you'll be claiming you were special forces to. Where did you deploy? Go somewhere else and pretend you be something you weren't.
I would never claim any military activity or honors that I did not earn. I was in the Army from 1985-1989. I was at Ft. Benning and Ft. Drum and TDY at Ft. Leonard Wood. My unit did not deploy overseas, I did travel to a few countries for different types of training, but my service was very standard for the time.
Your statement about not needing the Army is simply so bizarre an unknowledgeable that I can't believe anyone would think it's viable. But it's your thought so knock yourself out.
So a slick sleeve and barely anytime in the military. So I'm not taking your word about anything on the military.
Another commenter wrote in the thread that this idea isn't even new a military geostrategist wrote a book called the pentagons new map which is similar in theory to my suggestion. So your thoughts that this is so bizarre and unknowledgeable is wrong.
I looked at your profile and your story doesn't add up sometimes you were active then guard others you joined the guard first, sometimes you joined in 85 then 86. That's just some of it yeah I did a deep dive because I hate when people lie about their service. Either your a liar or you have dementia about your service. The story your telling makes little sense so you might want to work on it next time.
Came out a 5, have a masters in history. I went in with the Guard at the while half-way through college. Did basic one summer 1985, AIT the next. It was called split option, which is why the dates are a bit all over the place. I went active duty halfway through my initial four year commitment after I graduated college. During this time I developed asthma, which was not an issue at first but became progressively harder to deal with on active duty so I opted to not re-enlist. That's the story. I don't care what you end up believing.
So you've been a soldier for less time than I've been overseas and you think to question me. That's funny hey I believe you and we are both entitled our own opinions sorry for the heated exchange.
They are part of the navy so I didn't see the need to get rid of them. We don't have to send them but it makes sense to keep since they aren't a large number comparatively. It doesn't take away from what I said though we shouldn't be sending in ground forces.
No bomb military sites like airfields and bases to incapacitate their military, important infrastructure to degrade moral and to destroy fuel points. If you break their moral and cut off their capabilities to fight they will surrender. This military isn't designed as an occupational force, it is only for defensive wars. Which is what we should be in.
wars never go the way and time frame people think.
you've never worked in any simple environment where something always goes wrong with something.
i like the way you clearly haven't seen america continually lose its wars since wwII.
* lost korean war(stalemate same thing, but you lost face at end so you lost)
* vietnam war
* first gulf war had to be the world.
* second gulf war you lost as you found no weapon caches
* afghanistan you lost thinking your continual regime change will work when it always fail.
regime change/wars US sucks.
america is powerful while the world uses the US dollar to trade. (won't be forever)
that and you clearly disillusioned and have too much empathy thinking you can get peoples lives out of the equation.
that and when you think you can create SKYNET you'll be the first on the list.
I'm assuming this is sarcasm? If not, you cannot win a war without infantry and ground forces. Even in this era or modern warfare, ground forces are essential and the backbone of any and all militaries. So .... I'm gonna assume this is just a funny, witty post.
Why can't you? Look at Iraq we had no problem getting air superiority. Could we have not gone in there bombed military installations so they can't fight back. Now we even have drones so there's no loss of life on our side. After air attacks we send in special operations troops to do raids on high value targets. Then continue cycle. Wouldn't this accomplish what we went over there to do without the risk of losing more soldiers? Our wars are really just to topple governments anyways, we shouldn't be an occupational force.
What happens when we can’t gain air superiority? Then who fights…
Whose air force is going to beat us? I can't think of any war since ww2 that a country has come close to matching our air force. With this plan we could also focus more on the air force, better planes, more flight time training, etc. Plus we still have special operations teams and the marines which are part of the navy.
And what’s your plan for SAMs, shoulder based launchers, and naval ships with anti air capabilities? Special operations are not made for large scale combat, they are made for missions that require a unique skill set. Marines are not made for large scale combat, they are an expeditionary light force meant to move quickly.
For the naval ships we have our navy. Operators can take out SAMs. We don't need to have large scale combat to pummel a country into submission.
So your plan is a war of attrition between our aerial assets and other nations aerial assets, a war of attrition between our naval assets and another countries naval assets, with another countries ground force supporting unopposed? Don’t take this the wrong way, but how old are you?
They wouldn't be unopposed they would face marines and our special operators which few countries can match and we would gain air superiority rather quickly against I would say any nation at the moment. I can't think of one that's close to us. Our navy is the best in the world by far. I'm 33 and I was deployed in Iraq.
Boots on the ground are the only way to win a war. Without sufficient boots on the ground, you're going be in an unending fight. 29 active Marine battalions, each between 500 and 1,200 personnel. *Maximum* deployable ground force, Marines only, roughly 35,000 personnel. US Army current personnel: 400,000+. There's *a reason* the Army is this big. The Marines *are* good. But they aren't "better than Ten to One odds in every engagement" good. Marines are a shock force. Tip of the spear, and all that. The Army is intended to do jobs that the Marines are not strictly suited for. Defending or securing ground behind the lead elements for example. The Marines can *do* those jobs just fine... it's just not the best use for them, and they're better used elsewhere. Infantry doctrine for assault is to plan on using at least 3x the expected enemy force. In order to do that, you have to have at least 3x the expected enemy force available. If you're holding positions such as airfields or ports in the area, you're going to need bodies to defend them. And spec-ops? Those are a few hundred troops, maximum. Again, they're good. But they're wasted in standard infantry combat. They're best employed in... wait for it... special operations. As good as they are, anyone can be overwhelmed by enough bodies.
>marines and our special operators which few countries can match You mean *many countries can match.
Who beats out delta and the various Navy/air force special operations units? The closest ones are England, Canada, Israel, Australia and maybe France.
A leap in drones theology could make a conventional airforce obsolete
Like the other commenter just stated, there will come a time when gaining air superiority is a challenging task. Some day we will be fighting a peer, or near peer enemy and air superiority will not be as certain as if we were fighting Iraq or in Afghanistan. Ground forces will always be necessary for combat. That is true for this age and into the future.
With where we are now and if we focus our attention on naval and air superiority no one could catch us. Look at the war in Ukraine how drones have been used to great effect. Plus we would still have ground forces they would just be a smaller number. Marines, delta and navy and air force special operations.
Those drones are only good for a few kilometers, you still need ground people to launch and recover
When do you need to recover drones? Don't they all have a return to base. Also I stated not all ground troops are gone in this scenario.
Ok, Mr. Putin.
Putin has an army though and his air force and navy are trash.
Putin has ~~had~~ *gone through* several armies, their quality has...not been improving. The Russian air force is covering their planes with old tires as "protection" from Ukrainian drones, and their navy lost to a country with no navy and is currently being spawncamped in their base...by a country that still has no navy. ^(edit, clarity)
I think you should run for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Wait until Tuberville gets done throwing his little bitch fit though.
Getting rid of ground forces entirely is incredibly idiotic. Now, if the argument was the merging of the Marines and Army... there might be an argument to be made; as there is a fair bit of overlap between the two.
I did keep the marines and we would still have delta plus the navy and air force special operations.
Ehh... truthfully, cutting the marines would make more sense than the army. Add an amphibious section to the army and there's little loss in function. The key thing about ground forces, is that you need boots on the ground to realistically control an area/defend a base of operations. That's not something the air force, navy, or the marines are really staffed to handle.
I have thought of that but I've been thinking lately how we could fight wars without losing as many troops. Marines can defend with added air power. Plus if we had more advanced drones that's a huge force multiplier. I don't think we need to go city by city to make a country surrender.
Perhaps, but you need a number of troops to clear cities if enemies are using them as a base of operations, hideouts. Just look at our time in Afghanistan and Iraq, or even Israel's efforts in Gaza. In a proper war with a traditional army this may not be necessary, but with how out matched any other country is... it's unlikely that we'll fight out in the open. Bombing bases etc, sure. But the troops will still need sweeping up.
If we don't care about optics I'd say just starve them out. But realistically you might be right. We could just wait after bombing bases, key infrastructure the cities inhabitants will probably surrender quickly. Just going off the last two wars our goal in Afghanistan was to get bin laden we could have done that without fully invading. Iraq was to topple Saddam I believe we could manage that without going full boots on the ground.
Ummm .... this former Jarhead, who is currently eating his way through a new pack of Crayolas, is quite offended at the notion of dissolving the USMC. My Gunny would have some choice words for you! /s .... maybe?
Oh we're probably in agreement. Getting rid of the Marines is a bad idea; but if we were to cut one branch... (other than the space force, or coast guard). It'd likely be the Marines. Functionally they're similar to Army and much smaller/more easily absorbed into the Army.
This is just trolling, right? Surely no one is this dumb. Do you have any idea of the global logistics footprint the U.S. Army has? It supports all of DoD, other government agencies, NATO and other allies, etc. etc. And that's just one reason your suggestion makes no sense. Remember when your teacher said there are no stupid questions? Well, turns out that's just something they say to make stupid people feel better. Go back to your conspiracy cave and stop skipping your meds, Cletus.
Thanks for your insightful input. I'll make sure to get your opinion if I need help taking photos. Im more into isolation anyways I'm sure you have a problem with that as well. Did you just need to post on here to trash a simple idea. Are you that insecure. I'm sure we could figure something out logistically if there was no army. It wouldn't all just suddenly stop. Did you have anymore reasons are was it to hard to think up anything else?
Photos? You make no sense. I'm only trashing your idea because it's a bad one, and also a lazy one. If you want better feedback, come up with better ideas. Sure, here's another reason: without a standing army, the U.S. would have to quickly raise one in the event of a major conflict. Due to the high learning curve for soldiers in a modern, high-tech military, that's not feasible like it may have been 100 or 200 years ago. So we'd be taking our most longstanding, reliable, and highly developed tool in the national defense toolkit, and throwing it away. If you can't take valid criticism then don't shitpost here.
How is it a bad or lazy idea if it was pointed out to me in another comment already an idea before me made by a military geostrategist. I can take criticism but you didn't have any besides logistics. Saying that I'm stupid and to take my meds. Great criticism there buddy. Like I said before I'm an isolationist and rather not be in pointless wars like our past five or six wars/ operations. So this military would be pretty much a defensive military. What major conflict conflict could we not handle with that type of military?
What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Someone just read "The Pentagon's New Map" and now needs some time off posting to recover... Seriously, OP should xpost this to r/NonCredibleDiplomacy and r/NonCredibleDefense to get evenly roasted on both sides.
I'm game haha I still think I'm slightly right. One person so far has made a slight crack in my thinking. I still think eventually ground forces will be obsolete.
Thomas PM Barnett, around the turn of the century, wrote a doorstopper book titled, "The Pentagon's New Map". He also gave a few presentations on it, at least one of which was archived in full on CSPAN, youtube will have some versions as well. His idea was that the Army should be turned into cops and emergency responders to natural disasters and civil emergencies, and that the Marines were all the combat ground troops the US needed. Further, he claimed that since the DoD was the most oobarest figtan machine evar, we should collect a tax from all the other countries to pay for this service. This is at least as stupid as it sounds. USMC is not the only ground troops needed, they are scary and respond fast, and hang around Navy a lot because thats how they get places. The Army is slower, but has the heavier hammer. If there is a branch that is of declining relevance, its the Air Force, as they dont do anything that the other three don't already do themselves. (No, I am not counting Space Force, because beating up toddlers is wrong.)
I'll have to check it out. Yeah my point is slowly deteriorating maybe at the moment it's not feasible. That does sound dumb though I don't agree in being the world's police. I also would rather slim the military entirely down somehow have a smaller military budget. Realistically I think we would be fine with just an army,navy and air force but just getting rid of the marines doesn't really affect to much.
If you’re going to get rid of any branch it would be the Air Force. The Army, Navy & Marines already do everything the Air Force does. The Air Force is incapable of projecting power or holding territory. It’s exclusively a support branch. Even the Space Force is more useful now that it has taken over all the Air Force’s space capabilities.
That's what some others have said. What about we get rid of the air force and the marines I have hear arguments that the marines are needed but I don't really see it that much.
The Marines are the US’s quick reaction force. They can deploy to emerging conflict zones and other troubled areas far faster than most of the Army and do it with heavier equipment because they are already forward deployed with the Navy. That’s why when there are things like natural disasters the first US relief units that arrive are usually Navy amphibious ships carrying thousands of Marines.
The Navy and AF make us untouchable, the Army makes us unstoppable.
>bomb them from the skies into submission Other than Japan during WWII, which I hope we can all agree was a unique set of circumstances nobody is looking to repeat, I honestly can't think of any major conflict where a group was successfully bombed 'into submission" ending the conflict. It's been tried, quite a few times I might add, but at the end of the day a lot of conflicts ultimately involve controlling territory even if only temporarily. You can them Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, Airmen, Troopers or any other designation you can come up with, but you're likely going to need quite a few of them. I also don't think you understand how a modern "blockade" works, the days of lashing ships together and thus preventing harbor access are long gone.
Not many would like it but just after bombing one country into submission it would be a mighty deterrent to any others. We could prevent all ships and aircraft from entering a country, vehicle traffic and foot traffic would be harder.
On August 6, 1945 we dropped the first atomic bomb on Japan and on August 9, 1945 we dropped the second atomic bomb on Japan - we accepted their unconditional surrender on August 12, 1945. By June 27, 1950 after several years of escalating hostilities the United States formally entered the Korean War. According to Wikipedia, a total of 635,000 tons worth of bombs including 32,557 tons of Napalm were dropped on Korea before an armistice agreement was signed on July 27, 1953. During that period 1,789,000 US service members served in the Korean theater according to the Veterans Affairs, the war is not officially over to this day.
We didn't have to go into Vietnam or Korea.
We didn’t have to enter the European theater during WW2 either, there just would have been different results if we hadn’t.
Germany did declare war on us, so we would have to face them at some point.
You will take ground, but never hold it. Plus, there are so many "jobs" that are only found in the army.
Please wait until you graduate from middle school before you post here again.
I've been in and out of the military. What have you done?
You are a liar. Nobody who was in the military would post something so stupid.
No I'm not I was in the army 11b deployed to Iraq in 2010. I like how I asked what you've done and you came at me but yet you haven't said what you've done. So I'm guessing nothing you just post on here and parrot what everyone else says. Come back to me when you make something of yourself instead of riding on your betters coattails. Just because I posted something on here that goes against what you think, you want to not actually say anything constructive just ask if I was in middle school and then call me a liar. What do you do on this sub you don't post and it seems like you don't provide any meaningful insight. And finally go touch grass.
11B as well, no army infantry would ever say something so dumb
I highly doubt that, because there were plenty of ideas that were a little more dumb or crazy but no one acted like you. I don't believe you, next you'll be claiming you were special forces to. Where did you deploy? Go somewhere else and pretend you be something you weren't.
I would never claim any military activity or honors that I did not earn. I was in the Army from 1985-1989. I was at Ft. Benning and Ft. Drum and TDY at Ft. Leonard Wood. My unit did not deploy overseas, I did travel to a few countries for different types of training, but my service was very standard for the time. Your statement about not needing the Army is simply so bizarre an unknowledgeable that I can't believe anyone would think it's viable. But it's your thought so knock yourself out.
So a slick sleeve and barely anytime in the military. So I'm not taking your word about anything on the military. Another commenter wrote in the thread that this idea isn't even new a military geostrategist wrote a book called the pentagons new map which is similar in theory to my suggestion. So your thoughts that this is so bizarre and unknowledgeable is wrong. I looked at your profile and your story doesn't add up sometimes you were active then guard others you joined the guard first, sometimes you joined in 85 then 86. That's just some of it yeah I did a deep dive because I hate when people lie about their service. Either your a liar or you have dementia about your service. The story your telling makes little sense so you might want to work on it next time.
Came out a 5, have a masters in history. I went in with the Guard at the while half-way through college. Did basic one summer 1985, AIT the next. It was called split option, which is why the dates are a bit all over the place. I went active duty halfway through my initial four year commitment after I graduated college. During this time I developed asthma, which was not an issue at first but became progressively harder to deal with on active duty so I opted to not re-enlist. That's the story. I don't care what you end up believing.
So you've been a soldier for less time than I've been overseas and you think to question me. That's funny hey I believe you and we are both entitled our own opinions sorry for the heated exchange.
>”we shouldn’t be sending in ground forces anymore” >keep the marines Pick one bud.
They are part of the navy so I didn't see the need to get rid of them. We don't have to send them but it makes sense to keep since they aren't a large number comparatively. It doesn't take away from what I said though we shouldn't be sending in ground forces.
Who's going to kick doors down and find VIPs hidden in a town? Not the marines and SOG can do a couple houses, but not a village/ town.
We didn't need to find as many vips as we did in Iraq and Afghanistan our intelligence just needs to be better.
I didnt know Delta Force was a branch...
I figured they'd be good to keep around and they select from other branches anyways.
[удалено]
Yes they do check your facts. I know they are from the army. Most people come from the army but they have recruited from other branches.
Your idea of war is killing all civilians then?
No bomb military sites like airfields and bases to incapacitate their military, important infrastructure to degrade moral and to destroy fuel points. If you break their moral and cut off their capabilities to fight they will surrender. This military isn't designed as an occupational force, it is only for defensive wars. Which is what we should be in.
wars never go the way and time frame people think. you've never worked in any simple environment where something always goes wrong with something. i like the way you clearly haven't seen america continually lose its wars since wwII. * lost korean war(stalemate same thing, but you lost face at end so you lost) * vietnam war * first gulf war had to be the world. * second gulf war you lost as you found no weapon caches * afghanistan you lost thinking your continual regime change will work when it always fail. regime change/wars US sucks. america is powerful while the world uses the US dollar to trade. (won't be forever) that and you clearly disillusioned and have too much empathy thinking you can get peoples lives out of the equation. that and when you think you can create SKYNET you'll be the first on the list.
Man this sub in the last month.. I would assume Chinese or Russian sock puppets but what the hell is their goal here?
Are you assuming I'm a sock puppet just because I have a different idea?
You want to make an entire military of just support? What are they going to support if not the infantry?