Our military is decimated

[aubfaninga 16]

I see the fear of our military not being capable of meeting our needs is spreading like the plague. Anyone care to discuss?

Every comment and article I can find on this subject keeps bringing up how the United States can't fight multiple fronts. Why does this raise that much fear into people?

Do we plan on taking on the world by ourselves?

(I know the Obama rhetoric will enter but let's just try and stay with reality as it stands right now)

IF the worst case scenario started tonight (World War), is it not safe to assume Canada, Mexico, Israel, Australia, South Korea, Great Britain, and France would jump on our side at least to begin with? (I don't know where I stand on Germany and Japan)

I do not know near enough to compare militaries but can someone please try to rank how each force compares to the rest of the world?

How does our Navy stack up? (I have always thought our Navy alone swallows up most Air Forces)

Air Force?

Army?

Marines?

Coast Guard?

If someone can, please extend even into how our Reserves would stack up.

I know it does not usually come up in these discussions but we can even briefly talk about Border Patrol, Homeland Security, Law Enforcement, and other defense measures within our borders.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

I doubt anyone but some high level folks in the Pentagon can answer accurately and I doubt they would be open kimono. But I bet we get an opinion here.

Some high level retired officers have expressed their opinions and they aren't encouraging, I put a lot of stock in them because they are retired and not handcuffed.

[aubfaninga 16]

I doubt anyone but some high level folks in the Pentagon can answer accurately and I doubt they would be open kimono. But I bet we get an opinion here.

"Opinion" is how most Foxbots understand the world. What's the problem?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

OK, I see you don't want a serious discussion, just the usual banter.

So, moving on.

P.S----you missed my last sentence in your quote.

[AURaptor 1,122]

I would say lack of focus and mission would be a big kick in the pants for our troops.

[cooltigger21 0]

Well we've always had the policy of being capable of fighting two wars at once. The world isn't any less dangerous than it was in the days of the cold war. It is probably more dangerous. With a diminished America, the bad guys are more emboldened.

I said it in a different thread but when you are strong, the bad guys will test you. You have the will along with the capability to slap them down, they will be duly chastised and fear and respect you. If you lack strength and will you're asking for trouble. I realize you can't be everywhere at once. Really and truly border security is a part of that. If you won't control your borders then just invite trouble.

[aubfaninga 16]

OK, I see you don't want a serious discussion, just the usual banter.

Lighten up PT. I was responding with a joke based on the only material you originally posted. Then like the editing Ninja you are, you added to your post.

Take a deep breath and relax if someone takes a jab at you or FOX. It's not like joking FOX is talking about your mother or anything.

Here is an easy question to start.

Do we still have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined?

[jared52 4,354]

OK, I see you don't want a serious discussion, just the usual banter.

Lighten up PT. I was responding with a joke based on the only material you originally posted. Then like the editing Ninja you are, you added to your post.

Take a deep breath and relax if someone takes a jab at you or FOX. It's not like joking FOX is talking about your mother or anything.

Here is an easy question to start.

Do we still have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined?

Well they have one less fake one than they did this morning.

[aubfaninga 16]

OK, I see you don't want a serious discussion, just the usual banter.

So, moving on.

P.S----you missed my last sentence in your quote.

See what I mean. You are like a time traveler with your edits.

[aubfaninga 16]

I would say lack of focus and mission would be a big kick in the pants for our troops.

Please explain a little more. Do you mean this like being "rusty"?

[aubfaninga 16]

Well we've always had the policy of being capable of fighting two wars at once. The world isn't any less dangerous than it was in the days of the cold war. It is probably more dangerous. With a diminished America, the bad guys are more emboldened.

I said it in a different thread but when you are strong, the bad guys will test you. You have the will along with the capability to slap them down, they will be duly chastised and fear and respect you. If you lack strength and will you're asking for trouble. I realize you can't be everywhere at once. Really and truly border security is a part of that. If you won't control your borders then just invite trouble.

Which two countries do you feel we could not fight against at one time? (taking into account we would not currently war with most of our strongest allies)

[AUUSN 823]

Our military IS NOT desimated. It is still the greatest fighting force in the world.

This is also an absolute false statement "Well we've always had the policy of being capable of fighting two wars at once."

[cptau 169]

Our military IS NOT desimated. It is still the greatest fighting force in the world.

This is also an absolute false statement "Well we've always had the policy of being capable of fighting two wars at once."

Depends on the type of war. We can fight 2 regional wars against lesser opponents. Vietnam, Iraq, afganistan, are all in that category. Korea was too until the Chinese entered with massive numbers of troops that we were not prepared for back then. We are not setup for a significant land war in Europe at the moment, but no one is.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Apparently at one time our capability to fight two wars simultaneously was either official or unwritten policy/doctrine that is no longer in place. Her are some articles from a Google search.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=fighting+two+wars+policy&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&tbs=&as_filetype=&as_rights=&gws_rd=ssl#hl=en&as_qdr=all&q=capability+to+fight+two+wars

[autigeremt 6,599]

I think our Army needs more active duty personnel. Technology only gets you so far but that's my opinion.

[Strychnine 1,802]

Maintaining a policy of always being able to fight two wars simultaneously is absurd. I would not be surprised if the brass attempted to conjure up such a policy, but reality would always intervene. Any attempt to plan for such would always require massive assumptions. Would we be fighting the equivalent of two Cold War height Soviet Unions? Russia at their best, and China at their best? Two Vietnams? Two Iraqs? What allies do we have, and what are their capabilities? A nation would have to keep its economy and production at levels resembling our height in World War II to even think about achieving that from a solitary policy perspective.

Fortunately for us, the US has invested heavily in the thing that ultimately won the WWII Pacific campaign: the aircraft carrier. In order to invade us, any realistic opponent must first conquer the obstacle of distance. They have to cross one of two large oceans, or build up sufficient forces in a neighboring country (after crossing either ocean) to launch an invasion. In the event that such a threat presents itself, our Navy is certainly capable of preventing basically anyone from traversing those oceans in force (or both, simultaneously). That has been the case for my lifetime at least, and it remains so today. There is not a nation on this planet that can bring the fight to us without incurring heavy losses before even landing military assets. There is also not a nation on this planet that can take the fight anywhere else better than we can.

[cooltigger21 0]

Maintaining a policy of always being able to fight two wars simultaneously is absurd. I would not be surprised if the brass attempted to conjure up such a policy, but reality would always intervene. Any attempt to plan for such would always require massive assumptions. Would we be fighting the equivalent of two Cold War height Soviet Unions? Russia at their best, and China at their best? Two Vietnams? Two Iraqs? What allies do we have, and what are their capabilities? A nation would have to keep its economy and production at levels resembling our height in World War II to even think about achieving that from a solitary policy perspective.

Fortunately for us, the US has invested heavily in the thing that ultimately won the WWII Pacific campaign: the aircraft carrier. In order to invade us, any realistic opponent must first conquer the obstacle of distance. They have to cross one of two large oceans, or build up sufficient forces in a neighboring country (after crossing either ocean) to launch an invasion. In the event that such a threat presents itself, our Navy is certainly capable of preventing basically anyone from traversing those oceans in force (or both, simultaneously). That has been the case for my lifetime at least, and it remains so today. There is not a nation on this planet that can bring the fight to us without incurring heavy losses before even landing military assets. There is also not a nation on this planet that can take the fight anywhere else better than we can.

We'll fall down from internal rot before someone takes us down. It is what happened to Rome and all other major civilizations through history.

[alexava 6,973]

what we have been doing in Iraq is not really war. On the ground it is war and the soldiers are going through the same hell. But we controlled the Iraqi military in less than a week. After that is was a counter insurgency or the referee of a civil war. we didnt have a clear enemy or a logical objective. nothing to advance on or no gains to be made.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Stry....if a policy/doctrine of being able to fight two wars at the same time is absurd, we have had some pretty well known leaders involved I wouldn't describe as "absurd."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_response -----a little history (see two and1/2 war section down the page)

An here is a few more related ones from a Google seach..

[WarTim 3,456]

What our Forces lack most of all is leadership. No CIC.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

What our Forces lack most of all is leadership. No CIC.

What would a "conservative" President be doing differently?

[WarTim 3,456]

What our Forces lack most of all is leadership. No CIC.

What would a "conservative" President be doing differently?

Different than barry? Basically Everything...

[AURaptor 1,122]

Not drawing 'red lines' in the sand, and then wussying out, for one thing.

[alexava 6,973]

What our Forces lack most of all is leadership. No CIC.

What would a "conservative" President be doing differently?

Different than barry? Basically Everything...

needlessly attacking Muslim countries with no terror ties or WMD stockpiles.

[WarTim 3,456]

What our Forces lack most of all is leadership. No CIC.

What would a "conservative" President be doing differently?

Different than barry? Basically Everything...

needlessly attacking Muslim countries with no terror ties or WMD stockpiles.

WHAT? Are you blaming Bush STILL?bwahahahaha