Does American military need "rebuilding"?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by PracticalMac, Jul 27, 2017.

Tags:
  1. PracticalMac macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #1
    Just a comment our (cough) illustrious Senator Cruz said:
    Quote
    We are by far the most powerful military with the latest war technology in world, so what is crumbling?

    Fact F-35 is buitl in Ft Worth, TX, plus 3 major military bases, is a hint.
     
  2. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #2
    Beware The Military Industrial Cpmplex.

    -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
     
  3. DrewDaHilp1, Jul 27, 2017
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2017

    DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #3
    Equipment that's been in constant use since 2001 needs replacing. Weapon systems designed in the 50's-70's needs replacement to account for a near peer enemy.
     
  4. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #4
    It depends on how you look at the tasks, and the capabilities, we ask our military to perform. And I think there is a tremendous lack of understanding, among the broader US electorate and people, of what our military does, and what we hope to accomplish.

    There is an unspoken, but fundamental, conflict inherent in the Trumpist doctrine of "AMERICA FIRST", with the simultaneous call for a massive expansion of US military hardware.

    If all that America's military was required to do was to provide physical military protection for the US homeland, then we don't need ten or a dozen nuclear aircraft carrier battle groups. One would be too many. You could do the job admirably well with a handful of attack submarines and ground based aircraft. No Chinese invasion fleet could get within thousands of miles of our shores.

    Why do we "need" systems like the F-35 and the Ford-class aircraft carrier? Because it gives us the option of bringing overwhelming military force to bear in places like the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea. The Horn of Africa and the Strait of Hormuz.

    And, at some point, we need to ask ourselves why it is important that we be able to do that. I'm not saying we shouldn't. But we really need to start out by asking ourselves why it is so important, and why it is the US taxpayer's job, to maintain freedom of navigation in the Shatt al-Arab and Scarborough Shoal.
     
  5. kobalap macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2009
    #5
    And all that can't be done when you are outspending the 7 next biggest militaries in the world combined?
    --- Post Merged, Jul 27, 2017 ---
    This is all a very verbose way of saying that it's all a bunch of bullshiite.

    For all our ability to project military power oversees, we still have had our butts handed to us in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Why? Because politicians send the finest of Americans off to war with no particular objective. Heck, in some cases, we send them off to war when we don't even have the moral high ground.

    We have a gigantic military, not because the needs of defense of the homeland dictates it but because the defense industry dictates it.
     
  6. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #6
    Well, that's one way of looking at it.

    The other way of looking at it is this: The United States is a key part of, and occupies the leading role, in an international community of nations.

    That's the choice US citizens need to make. Do we want to continue to be the leading nation on earth, committed to principles such as democracy, free-enterprise, freedom of speech and religion? Or do we want to retreat into our own hemisphere? A larger and marginally richer version of Brazil or Mexico.

    Because, if it is the latter, then we certainly don't need the F-35 and a dozen nuclear aircraft carriers.
     
  7. kobalap macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2009
    #7
    Me thinks you hit that kool air too hard.

    A politician saying that the United States is committed to principles such as democracy, free enterprise, freedom of speech and religion is one thing. It actually being true is another.

    Reality check - the United States only cares about democracy if the democratically elected government is friendly to the United States. Exhibit 1, Iran.

    Reality check - freedom of speech and religion is only welcome if you are saying the right things and are worshipping the right way. If freedom of speech was indeed valued, the white house would not be so quick to threaten and condemn the press (daily) for reporting things that are factually true. If religious freedom was indeed valued, the religious right (domestic extremists/fundamentalists) would be the first to defend American muslims.

    There is absolutely no currency in playing a "leading role" as it relates to international matters. Playing a leading role means that you wind up shouldering the burden of protecting countries that should be protecting themselves (you hear me European countries?). Many of which have universal healthcare, free advanced education, liberal social programs for the old, sick, needy. Things that we do not have in the United States.

    So, um, my suggestion is to quit sipping on the kool aid.
     
  8. sorcery macrumors regular

    sorcery

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2016
    Location:
    Ring of Fire
    #9
    Protecting themselves from what exactly? Ze Russians?
    Fully agree with much of your post.
     
  9. steve knight macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #10
    yes got to be ready for war anywhere and always I agree :eek:
     
  10. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #11
    Can we afford it or will we go bust?
     
  11. darksithpro macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    #12
    @jkcerda might not agree with me. But at the end of WW2, the US and the USSR took in the best German scientists of the time. The German scientists under Hitler where the leaders in jet propulsion and rocket technology. For a nation to stay the ultimate super power in the world, it needs to be the most technologically advanced and have the most formidable military in existence. This means pumping billions into the Military Industrial Complex, including black projects. This is also why the USD is the defacto currency in terms of petrol currency. While it might seem wasted to some, it's actually quite useful with the rise of China and Russia. Look at their human rights abuses and bullying these days. We need to keep the status quo, to keep them in check and also help our allies, by working closely with them to keep our adversaries in check.
     
  12. kobalap, Jul 27, 2017
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2017

    kobalap macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2009
    #13
    Boogie man du jour.
    --- Post Merged, Jul 27, 2017 ---
    First of all, if you are going to pull stuff out of your butt like "ultimate super power", you should have the courtesy to define what the heck an ultimate super power is. And to describe why any country should be willing to spend an ungodly amount of it's citizen's treasure to be an ultimate super power.

    You add China and Russia together, they have been in just a fraction of conflicts than that of the United States. Yet today, each are the dominant player in their region as it relates to geopolitics. Russia has annexed parts of the Ukraine, has western European countries pooing in their pants and even has the current U.S. president cowtowing at every whim.

    In other parts of the world, the U.S. can't even contain China's pet dog North Korea. Let alone challenge China for influence in the Asia.

    That's after 8 years of war in Iraq. After 16 years of war in Afghanistan. After the Gulf War. After Vietnam. After the Korean war. Not even counting the dozens of smaller scale military action that the US volunteers for. And in all of those conflicts through all of those decades, the US has been spending exponentially more on its military than the Russians and Chinese. Combined.

    Just remember where the status quo has left us. $19 trillion in debt, social security and medicare are both on a path of collapse and we are still struggling to provide basic, affordable healthcare to lower middle class families. Not the poor. The lower middle class.

    Yet year after year, companies like Lockheed Martin and Boeing are flush with profit from their military contracts.
     
  13. sorcery macrumors regular

    sorcery

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2016
    Location:
    Ring of Fire
    #14
    Don't fully understand why Russians have been boogie men since 1945. World domination went out with Trotsky. From Stalin to Putin they wanted to be left alone, with their vassal states. Any foreign ventures they have operated have had a reason behind them. Pretty girls but wouldn't want to live there...
    Extreme inequality has never worked out well for the mega-rich. Perhaps they will escape the guillotine this time.
     
  14. kobalap macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2009
    #15
    Remember when the communist North Vietnamese were the boogie men? I don't exactly know why they were considered so evil (Ho Chi Minh tried incredibly hard to get support from the United States long before even the war with the French). They just wanted to rule their own country.

    The Vietnam war was great for defense contractors though.
     
  15. sorcery macrumors regular

    sorcery

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2016
    Location:
    Ring of Fire
    #16
    Yup, Uncle Ho was nationalist before he got labelled communist. And Castro tried to see Ike before seeking communist assistance to avoid starvation, caused by sanctions. Never piss off the USA Robber Barons...
     
  16. Stefan johansson macrumors 65816

    Stefan johansson

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2017
    Location:
    Sweden
    #17
    The greatest and most modern military in the world,huh? The most expensive,yes,but a navy that still use battleships and wooden frigates is not really what I call "up to date". And when it comes to the F35,it's just a supersonic version of the hawker Harrier,a more than 40 years old British design. Yes,the F35 might be powerful,but it needs a busload of special educated people to keep it flying. Fighter planes for air defence should be possible to keep operative with "crash course" trained conscripts,and the planes should be able to use short runways,like highways and country roads. Some Americans will probably say "no supersonic jet ever used a road as a runway,especially not one maintained and refuelled by conscripts". Well,I seen it happen....more than once. The following planes are all adapted to this concept:
    SAAB 35 (outdated,obsolete,Mach 2 fighter)
    SAAB 32 (obsolete,Mach 1 bomber,fighter and electronic warfare)
    SAAB 37 (obsolete,outdated Mach 2 multi role airframe)
    SAAB 39 (operative,several versions,multitasking plane,Mach 2+,used by various air forces)
    And,all these take off and land on 500 meter runways,withouth catapults,stopping wires,tail hooks or similar,and as I said,the ground crew are conscripts,with a short basic training. I even seen an engine replacement on a 39,done in a field in less than two hours,it could have been performed faster,if it had not been for the very curious cows that also was in the same field.
     
  17. Zenithal Suspended

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
  18. daflake macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    #19
    It would be nice if we had a way to get credit for SAVING money rather than burning it just to keep our budgets. It is ridiculous that we have to spend money or be threatened with losing our budget the next fiscal year. I can assure you that many areas would spend less if we could get money and not have to fight for it when really needed.
     
  19. A.Goldberg macrumors 68000

    A.Goldberg

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Location:
    Boston
    #20
    I think having a top notch military is important, but I think the real question is are we actually investing in the appropriate technologies? Do we need more and more sophisticated aircraft and naval ships? It seems he goal is to be prepared for WWIII, when in reality most recent wars have been guerrilla wars with armies that don't have any sophisticated military technology. I think the bigger threat to the US in the future is probably cyber warfare than an invasion by sea and air.
     
  20. Stefan johansson macrumors 65816

    Stefan johansson

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2017
    Location:
    Sweden
    #21
    Last time USA had to defend its homeland against invaders,was when a young George Patton used a Ford model T with a machine gun against pancho villas bandits. Of course,all nations need defence forces,but obviously,the American military is among the most offensive military in the world. Fighting "self defence" wars in Korea,Vietnam,Grenada and Afghanistan is not what homeland defence is about.
     
  21. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #22
    So...maybe. I say this allowing the fact that (a) our Military budget dwarfs all other countries, and (b) that we have perhaps the most competent Military in the world, rank-and-file. Yet, situations change. The US is in a unique position to be Global policeman...and that will be largely maritime in the now and near-future. Being a counterbalance to china in the eastern seas and rallying other indochinese Countries around our presence there. So no new tanks, probably no new jets either...but ships and subs - yeah, probably. Hell, for now (Climate change) the US guards the shipping lanes that make International Commerce possible...(ha! saw zenithals' post).
     
  22. Stefan johansson macrumors 65816

    Stefan johansson

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2017
    Location:
    Sweden
    #23
    Soo,Americans guard shipping routes,yes,but that's also causing some comic situations,especially when an American task force off the Somali coast line decided that a "mysterious" vessel was Somali pirates. The vessel was not even African,it was a minesweeper/patrol ship from his majesty's Swedish navy,armed with two according to the Americans extremely evil .50 machine guns. Fortunately the situation was solved,when the swedes called for backup from Tanzanian bombers,it's probably the only time since the revolution war that American warships "surrendered". Soo,if US navy want to be police,it's ok,but next time,don't try to attack allied warships with mighty friends. Firing warning shots at an allied vessel participating in the same mission as the task force was more than a light blunder,it's a clear proof of the American "shoot first,investigate later" tactics.
    If the US task force had answered one simple radio call,they would have known,and as all of it happened in bright daylight,it's even more difficult to understand,as a Swedish flag is very easy to identify. It's not lack of equipment that cripples US forces,it's a total lack of proper tactics,proper education and proper manners.
    Training programs are cheaper and more effective than super weapons used by rednecks and crazy cowboys.
     
  23. Chew Toy McCoy macrumors regular

    Chew Toy McCoy

    Joined:
    May 13, 2016
  24. DearthnVader macrumors 6502

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #25
    The military budget is already over bloated, but when you are the world's police force, that's what happens.

    It won't change, not until we can't borrow money at reasonable interest rates, so we all might as well buy some defense contractor stock and enjoy the ride.
     

Share This Page