How James Blunt Prevented WWIII.

British_Rover said:
Ehh I don't know about that. The Marines are supposed to be the tip of the spear. Need a bridgehead or a beachhead? Send in the Marines. Need to take a small to midsized island or hold an airfield? Send in the Marines.

Want to take on an entire Army plus hold the territory you captured? Uhh the Marines can help but you better have the regular Army on hand to set up Supply lines, hold captured territory, perform re-guard duty and back up the Marines with heavy armor and artillery. An Army runs on its supply lines and the Marines just don't have the long term logistical support for that kind of campaign.



What size was Yugoslav army back then? Today the Marines are only about 200,000 active duty, all supposed to be combat ready riflemen, and about 40,000 reserves. They were probably larger back in the 90s though before the cold war cutbacks.
Click to expand...
I agree the Marines lacked in a couple of ways. I don't remember the exact size, but it was a well diciplined army with a couple of hundered thousands troops standing. However, at the end of the cold war, the US armed forces were at its best, and even without the army armored forces, the marines have 400 M1s, wastly superior to the T-72s that dominated the Yugo army at that time. Even without them, they would have superiority in tank killing helicopters, they have their own airplanes (F-18 and Harriers if I'm not mistaken), plus the best weapon of all, the Marine.

I know the USMC is supposed to be the spearhead. The Marines couldn't take the PLA or the Soviet Army of the time. Neither could they have taken the French. But while the Yugoslav army was comparatively strong at the beginning of the 90s, they were technologicly lagging behind, their hardware were simply outdated compared to US inventory.

But the most important point is that it would be possible only if one accepted the numbers casualties that were accepted during WW2. It would take that much, we would be talking about a conventional war against a European army.

But I still think they could have done it.
 
Just for the record, thanks to the economy (among other things), the armed services today are more easily fulfilling their recruiting requirements and are becoming increasingly less likely to accept HS dropouts and those that are medically compromised in some way.
 
The United States military today is in many ways more capable than it has ever been since Clinton era of cut backs. nomix seems to be suggesting degradation but in no way can that assertion be supported. The Marine Corps is as capable as it has ever been. It has over 200,000 active members, aircraft, armor, and ships.
 
jetsetter said:
The United States military today is in many ways more capable than it has ever been since Clinton era of cut backs. nomix seems to be suggesting degradation but in no way can that assertion be supported. The Marine Corps is as capable as it has ever been. It has over 200,000 active members, aircraft, armor, and ships.
Click to expand...

Which is too many. We don't need a military this large all the time.
 
jetsetter said:
The United States military today is in many ways more capable than it has ever been since Clinton era of cut backs.
Click to expand...

Oh boy, have you timed that one wrong. Just been reading "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them", the very chapter actually, where it points out, using pesky facts, that Clinton strengthened the military.

Edit: Very simple question. If Clinton gutted the military, as the unthinking claim, how come it was strong enough to fight a war in Kosovo and still have troops stationed there when it came invading Afghanistan and Iraq less than 18 months into Bushs Presidency?
 
Last edited:
And anyway I'm not so worried about cutbacks when our military expenditure accounts for more than half of the total global military budget. Certainly there's some fat that could be trimmed; especially with the kind of wars we're fighting these days.
 
Just to remind us all that this thread isn't about the degradation of the US armed forces, here is James Blunt singing "No Bravery", the song that he wrote while he was in Kosovo. The footage being shown in the background was shot by James himself as part of a video diary he made while in country.

[video=youtube;qsSB087-W6c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsSB087-W6c[/video]
 
Last edited:
jetsetter said:
The United States military today is in many ways more capable than it has ever been since Clinton era of cut backs. nomix seems to be suggesting degradation but in no way can that assertion be supported. The Marine Corps is as capable as it has ever been. It has over 200,000 active members, aircraft, armor, and ships.
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting anything of the sort, I am suggesting that in a couple of years, after 2001, when the US was not involved in just one, but two major wars in two difficult nations against determined enemies, the US armed forces relaxed their recruitment standards. For the first years of both wars, there were also widespread reports of troops lacking stuff like body armor, armored transport vehicles, and other gear. Combine this with lax recruitment standards and some reports of less than ideal training, at least for periods of said time, correlates to a time in history when the US armed forces, for many reasons but this, got known a little better for friendly fire incidents.
 
argatoga said:
Which is too many. We don't need a military this large all the time.
Click to expand...

Contrary to what you may believe for a country as large and as important as ours the military is actually fairly small. If anything the budget needs to be raised as does the number of active members. Our military and our willingness to use it produces a generally stability the world over. Trade flows unhindered because of our power. A more equal world, a more "multipolar" world, could only be less stable. In addition, the Marine Corps is the last branch you want to cut. They are jacks of all trades and very useful for multiple types of combat. Cut the Army if you must but keep the Corps at its full strength.

nomix said:
I'm not suggesting anything of the sort, I am suggesting that in a couple of years, after 2001, when the US was not involved in just one, but two major wars in two difficult nations against determined enemies, the US armed forces relaxed their recruitment standards. For the first years of both wars, there were also widespread reports of troops lacking stuff like body armor, armored transport vehicles, and other gear. Combine this with lax recruitment standards and some reports of less than ideal training, at least for periods of said time, correlates to a time in history when the US armed forces, for many reasons but this, got known a little better for friendly fire incidents.
Click to expand...

Most incidents of friendly fire have involved aircraft dropping munitions close to soldiers engaged with the enemy. That type of combat is always risky and when combining that with the fact that the US generally has the most air assets in the field it is not surprising that the United States has more incidents of friendly fire.
 
Last edited:
Shooting at russians will have repercussions one way or the other, it's not a smart thing to do. And of course the DPRK has croissants.
 
jetsetter said:
Contrary to what you may believe for a country as large and as important as ours the military is actually fairly small. If anything the budget needs to be raised as does the number of active members. Our military and our willingness to use it produces a generally stability the world over. Trade flows unhindered because of our power. A more equal world, a more "multipolar" world, could only be less stable. In addition, the Marine Corps is the last branch you want to cut. They are jacks of all trades and very useful for multiple types of combat. Cut the Army if you must but keep the Corps at its full strength.
Click to expand...

The vast majority of the U.S. budget goes towards the military. I don't see trade falling apart if we cut it. We can work with China and Europe to secure routes.
 
I still wonder why the US military need so much stuff they'll never properly utilize. All they do with it, and will continue to do unless they decide to be completely stupid (although this Clark seems to fit the bill) and attack an enemy that can shoot back, is to shoot at random muslims in sandy countries far away, you hardly need billion dollar stealthbombers to do that. You can do it with a remote controled drone, then use the savings on, oh I don't know, infrastructure, healthcare, a security organization around airports that employs educated people or cake... One could of course stop shooting random muslims in far away countries ? la Call of Duty and save even more money, but I have low hopes of that happening within the next 50 years.
 
AiR said:
I still wonder why the US military need so much stuff they'll never properly utilize. All they do with it, and will continue to do unless they decide to be completely stupid (although this Clark seems to fit the bill) and attack an enemy that can shoot back, is to shoot at random muslims in sandy countries far away, you hardly need billion dollar stealthbombers to do that. You can do it with a remote controled drone, then use the savings on, oh I don't know, infrastructure, healthcare, a security organization around airports that employs educated people or cake... One could of course stop shooting random muslims in far away countries ? la Call of Duty and save even more money, but I have low hopes of that happening within the next 50 years.
Click to expand...

Sounds like someone doesn't understand the concept of being a premier superpower
 
No I can't. You're free to spend as much money as you like on your military, I fail to see how increasing that spending will increase the quality of life of the average american. One day you might even top the DPRK's 15,7% of GDP, which I'm sure would be worthy of some kind of celebration. After all, look how well they are doing. But you still can't afford to use your precious military to attack anyone that might shoot back. So why even bother? It might be time to stop for a second, look at your selfs, and then directing your attention towards more pressing matters, like say, the economy. The current Federal Reserve plan seems to be printing more money, and blaming China, despite them actually funding your country (and it's military games). Others have tried that game before, simultaneously printing money and directing blame elsewhere before, and it doesnt really work all that well.
 
The vast majority of the U.S. budget goes towards the military. I don't see trade falling apart if we cut it. We can work with China and Europe to secure routes.
Click to expand...

That is actually untrue.

Here is a pie chart to explain:
http://img526.imageshack.**/img526/3646/categorypie073375454.gif

Contrary to what many believe we do not actually spend all that much (as a percentage of GDP and the budget) towards our military.
 
Last edited:
Actually we spend a higher percentage of our GDP on the military than just about everyone else save for Saudi Arabia

source
 
Last edited:
I'd put veteran's benefits and services under national defense.

Putting a large chunk of a nation's GDP towards military isn't a good idea. It played a part in killing the already weak Soviet economy.
 
wooflepoof said:
Actually we spend a higher percentage of our GDP on the military than just about everyone else save for Saudi Arabia

source
Click to expand...

Still not astronomically high. Some seem to forget just how large the GDP of the United States is.

Historically:
http://img210.imageshack.**/img210/6720/defensespendingasaperce.png

It played a part in killing the already weak Soviet economy.
Click to expand...

Soviet spending was at about 13% of GDP, the United States is not even close. I am advocating a rise to about 5.5-6.5%.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top