Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-23-2011, 12:49 AM
 
954 posts, read 1,280,430 times
Reputation: 384

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
Yes, infact the military should be expanded back to 1990 levels...the bush1/clinton cuts to the military have left us vulnerable
Uh, inflation adjusted we spend more on our military today than we did in 1990...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-23-2011, 06:09 AM
 
8,263 posts, read 12,192,775 times
Reputation: 4801
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
My question is, how are the Marines deploying those 100 ton M1 tanks?
Likely same as the Army, they are initially brought into theater one at a time by USAF on C5s and C17s, until USN can start bringing them in bulk.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2011, 06:35 AM
 
Location: Harrisonburg, VA
994 posts, read 1,681,364 times
Reputation: 1208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
No. Military budgets should be cut 50%. And end all wars immediately. Too bad Obama does not have the balls to do either.
Obama is just one man. To think he could cut or end anything to do with the military obtuse. There is a large push for militarization from different sources in the US. Basically speaking...US military gets the rich richer by means of contracts etc etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2011, 06:39 AM
 
8,263 posts, read 12,192,775 times
Reputation: 4801
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
Yes, the Army has light units they can deploy quickly, but not their armor, mechanized infantry, or their artillery. While the Marine Corps can deploy everything they have just as quickly as the Army light units and be far better prepared for combat.
We just discussed above the Marines use the same heavy main battle tanks as the Army does. Those can be deployed one at a time by USAF to an area with a large landing strip. Airborne units can airdrop their artillery, and the supporting armor can be brought in just as quickly as the Marines can.

I read once that the first units in place in Saudi Arabia Iraq invaded Kuwait was the 82nd Airborne division, six days.

Quote:
One more advantage the Marine Corps has over the Army are the forward deployment areas, such as Guam, Okinawa, Diego Garcia, etc. That way they can be quickly supplied should an immediate deployment be required.
The US Army has forward deployment areas as well, and Diego supplies all branches. Either way this seems more an argument for merging the branches than against.

Quote:
No, they cannot. The Army can only deploy light units into combat quickly. They are not able to face sustained combat either. What the Army can deploy within 24 hours is by no means comparable to what the Marines can deploy.
Yes, they can. Before they retired the Sheridan tank the 18th Airborne could have tanks on the ground faster than the Marines as they could airdrop them from C-130s. They can airdrop artillery.


Quote:
Since the Marines have gone with the M1, then they must have C5s or C17s to deploy them. Otherwise it would completely defeat the primary purpose of the Marine Corps, to be first in combat.
They don't, and they only C-130s they fly are refuelers. USMC relies on USAF for heavy lifting, just like the US Army.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2011, 06:54 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,479 posts, read 59,756,720 times
Reputation: 24863
I question why we need the capacity to deploy anywhere. Why in hell are we building bases in these places anyway? Like somebody said the cold war is over. It is past time to cut our military from attacking the Soviet Union to defending our own borders. We cannot afford to continue to be the cops of the world or continue our defacto Imperial nightmare.

We need to shift our military spending to rebuilding our domestic infrastructure. We need better bridges not better bullets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2011, 06:59 AM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,471,329 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by nr5667 View Post
Uh, inflation adjusted we spend more on our military today than we did in 1990...
ok and???

you are talking money..I am talking personell


and inflation adjusted we are spending LESS


bush1's 1990 523 billion dollar(WAR (desert storm)) budget....903 billion in todays dollars.......................our current defense budget.....676 billion

carters 1980 defense budget 303.1 billion....in todays dollars is 834.1 billion dollars
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2011, 07:00 AM
 
443 posts, read 600,288 times
Reputation: 619
The ones who typically cry about cutting the military are the ones who cry about government spending and der tax money. Hypocritical morons.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2011, 07:00 AM
 
8,263 posts, read 12,192,775 times
Reputation: 4801
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel View Post
If anything, Iraq has shown us an even greater need for the Marine Corps. We need forward deployed forces that can take the ground. Once we have done so, then and only then does the Army move in.
When Iraq invaded Kuwait and we rushed to defend Saudi Arabia the only boots on the ground ahead of the US Army were USAF flight operations personnel. The 82nd Airborne was on the ground within six days, and the first armor (one of the Army's mech infantry units) was on the ground by August 20th.

Point being, rapid reaction isn't limited to USMC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2011, 07:02 AM
 
8,263 posts, read 12,192,775 times
Reputation: 4801
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
I question why we need the capacity to deploy anywhere. Why in hell are we building bases in these places anyway? Like somebody said the cold war is over.
I believe we do need the capacity to deploy anywhere, but your second point is certainly a good one as we have a cold war presence in numbers especially in Europe that is expensive and unneeded.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2011, 07:14 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,479 posts, read 59,756,720 times
Reputation: 24863
Why do we need to protect any other country? How does protecting the Saudi Royals from being taken over by the Iranians benefit us? How does protecting Israel from all of Arabia help us? How does protecting the Eurozone from Gadaffy help us. Let the fools fight their own wars.

Last edited by GregW; 09-23-2011 at 07:41 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:06 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top