Mitt wants to know why we can't have a sweet military like in 1916

[BigLouie]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

Obama's point was a red herring statement designed to move this from the real issue... the adverse impact of declining number of troops and the military war machine while attempting to address current strategic problems.

Obama missed the point, Romney was on point.

Obama talked about there being carriers and submarines in an attempt to explain the decreased number of ships. What he failed to address is the fact that we have less carriers and submarines than before.

You seem to miss the point that this will not change even if Willard is elected. Right now the US or rather the Congress is building tanks the Army does not need nor want. They are building up is storage lots. In today's war we are not going to fight great navel battles such as you saw in WWII nor are you going to fight large land battles like Patton charging across France. You are going to fight the type of wars that you see in Iraq and Afghanistan which required different type of Army's and Navy's. The type of armed services that won World War II would not be suitable to win today's conflicts.

[JD Barleycorn]

You want to see a 1916 US military? Wait until sequestration that was put together by the White House. 1 trillion dollars and then see what our military looks like. Back to wooden tanks just like in the 1930s.

When Wilson decided to go to war, before he told the public, he appointed General Pershing to build up the military. Pershing said he needed a year to go from 116,000 to over 2,000,000. We don't have two weeks nowadays to waste on build ups.

[herfacechair]

BigLouie: You seem to forget the fact that the US did not become a true world power until after the end of World War II. After World War I the country was still an isolationist country. Most of the population did not want us involved in other countries issues.

Whether we were a true world power or not is besides the point in this argument, as well as the exchange between Obama and Romney. Romney's point was that Obama was leaving this country in a vulnerable position when it comes to dealing with international threats. He used the number of ships that we have as an example.

Romney pointed out a lesson that we kept forgetting throughout history. After every major war, we've scaled down the US military to dangerously low levels. We made that mistake the first time after the Revolutionary War. This neglect of the US military, with regards to dealing with pending threats vice scaling back, had left us in a weak position before.

One example, the Chileans threatening to sink all of our ships in the Pacific sometime after the Civil War... when we attempted to tip the balance in a regional conflict. We scaled down, where areas the Chileans developed their Navy to incorporate the "iron" concept. Had it came to blows, the Chileans would've given us a humiliating defeat.

This later point also destroys your other misconception about our history. We were NOT isolationists prior to World War II. If we were, we wouldn't have gotten involved with a war against the Spaniards, a war that gained us the Philippines, Cuba and Puerto Rico. Going further back in time, we had Americans screaming, "Millions for defense, not a penny for tribute!" This was shortly before we engaged in our first war on terrorism.

Throughout our history, we've put boots on the ground, to include hostile military action, to enforce our interests. We didn't just start doing this after World War II.

BigLouie: Plus our weapons had nothing to do with stopping Japan's push.

This is part of what I alluded to in my last posts. Many of the torpedoes that the Navy fired at Japanese warships bounced off their hulls. Why did we get many duds in our inventory than what we normally would've had? Part of the reason was that the War Department had an opportunity to spend more money, than what it actually spent, to get better quality torpedoes. The government chose to cut corners instead.

Then we have the issue of many of our troops being armed with weapons intended for World War I, when the Axis powers were fielding "modernized" weapons.

The Japanese rolled right over us in the Pacific Theater before we got our acts together, stopped them, then pushed them back.

This was a symptom of the willful disregard for the military that the government engages in during a post war drawdown.

BigLouie: As an isolationist country we did not get involved as we would have now.

Wrong again. Many Americans were joining the militaries of the allied combatant countries. For those that didn't join, many were willing to provide logistics for the side fighting with the United Kingdom. This is logistics in the form of clothing to food to other items that the favored side (UK et al) needed.

In another instance, we sent material aid to Greenland months before Pearl Harbor got bombed.

There was a push for us to enter World War II before we actually entered it. When people realized the danger, we didn't have any problems getting involved with the war.

Remember, we've put boots on the ground in foreign territories starting in the 19th Century. We didn't start doing this after World War II.

BigLouie: It was only after the bombing of Pearl Harbor that we had no choice.

We were involved with the war efforts before we officially declared war for World War II.

BigLouie: Your take on the situation is totally wrong.

Wrong. My point is dead accurate, and addresses the topic that's being argued on this thread, and that was debated during the last presidential debate. The point that Romney advanced, which both you and Obama try to dodge, is the danger that we face when we recklessly reduce the forces against actual and potential military threats that we face.

Whether we were isolationist or not, what our status was before or after World War II, has absolutely nothing to do with that point. The cold hard reality here is that your take on the situation is completely wrong.

[herfacechair]

BigLouie: You seem to miss the point

You need to actually address the argument, instead of making strawmen arguments and advancing red herring statements, before you wrongly accuse others of "missing the point." Again, I've been on point with every post I've made on this thread. The point remains, recklessly shrinking the military, against actual and pending threats, endangers our security in the long run.

BigLouie: that this will not change even if Willard is elected.

Not true. With the Chinese building their military in order to assert their "claim" to the disputed islands to their south and to their east, with China insisting that the entire area is Chinese territory, you're going to see a start to an increase in the number of ships that we're ultimately going to have in our inventory.

Traditionally, conservatives have build the military, or slowed down it's reduction, compared to what the democrats were willing to do, and have done.

BigLouie: Right now the US or rather the Congress is building tanks the Army does not need nor want. They are building up is storage lots.

I don't know which Army you're talking about. Stateside, many units are hurting for updated vehicles. This runs from humvees, to strykers, to tanks.

If we have a shift in leadership, expect our upper brass to change their tune and to argue for something they know the new leadership would be willing to provide.

BigLouie: In today's war we are not going to fight great navel battles such as you saw in WWII nor are you going to fight large land battles like Patton charging across France. You are going to fight the type of wars that you see in Iraq and Afghanistan which required different type of Army's and Navy's. The type of armed services that won World War II would not be suitable to win today's conflicts.

Again, I refer you to China's gradual military buildup. When they talk about preserving their territorial integrity, they're talking about China as they see it, not China as we see it. Their China extends well into the South China Sea, and includes islands that are also claimed by other Southeast Asian countries. These claims also include islands that the United States, via treaty, recognize as belonging to Japan.

China has already declared that they will include military action, if needed, to force Taiwan to integrate into China. Their leaders have told their Soldiers to be prepared to fight, this on the heals of the other Asian countries insisting on their ownership of the same islands that the Chinese claim.

It doesn't stop there. The Russians are doing joint military exercises with the Chinese. These joint exercises focus on two main objectives... the Russian navy repelling any western attempt to interfere with the Chinese from the sea, and the Chinese conquering a disputed land, or Taiwan.

We're talking about a major force on force offensive, the type that you saw during World War II, should crap hit the fan in that region.

History has proven over and over again that you can't assume that wars, in the future, will only go a specific way. What we did in Iraq and Afghanistan is one aspect of warfare. Not every single war in the future is going to fall into that pattern. In fact, that's trap that the military constantly fall into... training to fight yesterday's wars.

During the Cold War, we trained expecting another WWII, Korea, and another Vietnam... with the NATO and the Warsaw Pack being the major combatants. That changed after the Persian Gulf War. After the Persian Gulf War, we still trained as if expecting another Vietnam, as well as expecting another Persian Gulf War.

Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Enduring Freedom, are both different from the Persian Gulf War.

This is why forces have to train for full spectrum warfare, NOT for a repeat of what you lay out above. Full spectrum warfare runs from "winning hearts and minds" to special operations to conventional warfare to full scale "World War III" type wars to include reacting to thermonuclear war.

This brings us back to Romney calling Obama out on the reduction of ships in our Navy. The more we're cut, in manpower, in resources, in equipment, etc, the more our ability to carry out full spectrum warfare gets degraded.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by BigLouie

You seem to miss the point that this will not change even if Willard is elected. Right now the US or rather the Congress is building tanks the Army does not need nor want. They are building up is storage lots. In today's war we are not going to fight great navel battles such as you saw in WWII nor are you going to fight large land battles like Patton charging across France. You are going to fight the type of wars that you see in Iraq and Afghanistan which required different type of Army's and Navy's. The type of armed services that won World War II would not be suitable to win today's conflicts.

You're missing the point, BigLouse. The U.S. Navy is not asking for a complement of ships to match its WWII strength of nearly 7,000 ships. It's asking for enough ships to meet the Op-Tempo currently demanded by the Odumbo administration: 300 vessels -- a total it currently doesn't have. BTW, BigLouse, Russia still has 6,000 tanks, the Chinese have nearly as many and Iran has about 2,500. So your prognostication that there will be no more big tank battles is probably premature.

[CuteOldGuy]

Hey, HFC! Long time no read. Welcome back! Don't expect Big Louse to understand anything you said.

[JD Barleycorn]

I do have to make a couple of corrections; after World War II we had 1600 "capital" ships which is every submarine, destroyer escort, and fleet tug. This doesn't count landing craft of which we had hundreds if not thousands. So I think the 7,000 number is a bit misleading unless you can cite me the source.

I have said many times (pay attention Louise) that money spent on a fleet prior to World War II would have prevented World War II and saved millions of lives. In the Pacific the US had 4 aircraft carriers and the Japanese had six and were building more. If the US had spent the money, and it would have been hundreds of millions, to build a ten aircraft carrier fleet then the Japanese would have known they couldn't compete. Even if they wanted to they would have telegraphed their intentions trying to match our fleet. Imagine the money saved from not having to build a 16 aircraft carrier, 60 jeep carrier, 8 battleship fleet and the lives saved. Save a penny on the military and it will cost lives later on. Think about Congress not providing money to upgrade the armor on Humvees before 2003 and how much misery would have been avoided.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I do have to make a couple of corrections; after World War II we had 1600 "capital" ships which is every submarine, destroyer escort, and fleet tug. This doesn't count landing craft of which we had hundreds if not thousands. So I think the 7,000 number is a bit misleading unless you can cite me the source.

"At its peak, the U.S. Navy was operating 6,768 ships on V-J Day in August 1945."
CARRIERS, FLEET. . . . . 28
CARRIERS, ESCORT. . . .71
CRUISERS. . . . . . . . . . 72
DESTROYERS. . . . . . . 377
FRIGATES. . . . . .. . . . 361
SUBMARINES. . . . . . . .232
MINE WARFARE. . . . . . 586
PATROL. . . . . . . . . . .1204
AMPHIBIOUS. . . . .. . . 2547
AUXILIARY. . . . . . . . .1267
SURFACE WARSHIPS. . .833
TOTAL ACTIVE. . . . . .6768


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy

[LexusLover]

[icuminpeace]

I'm actually looking forward for sequestration. Let the government bureaucrats figure out how to do more with less, just like everyone else in the real world. They need to stop living in la la land where the credit card always has funds.