the military
Is our military well-structured and formulated? Are the weapons the soldiers are carrying, the training they get, the planes they fly and the tanks they drive right for the job and capable of helping the US win the wars we fight now?
For all the flak Rumsfeld took I was impressed by his desire to see the big picture and to retool some elements of the US arsenal. I thought the Crusader artillery system was a massively overweight boondoggle, and the space-age new do everything OICW (something like that) an absurdity.
I do wonder about how the US spends a truly astonishing amount of money on some weapons systems. The US is fighting an insurgency using (for the most part) WWI-era weapons with $75,000 JDAMS and $100,000 Javelin anti-tank missiles. I watched a clip on youtube of a bunch of soldiers shooting a Javelin at an insurgent crouching behind a car. The rocket blew the car and insurgent all to pieces, but the taxpayer inside me wondered about a $29 M203 round.
And, it should be noted that all the money being spent on these incredibly complex weapons is not being spent on body armor, salaries, and other things that the troops often clamor for.
Is the US being smart in how it spends its military dollars? What should all the money go to? Are Boeing, Lockheed, and the like--and Congress, eager to support in-district projects--driving weapon procurement more that the needs of the American soldier?
For all the flak Rumsfeld took I was impressed by his desire to see the big picture and to retool some elements of the US arsenal. I thought the Crusader artillery system was a massively overweight boondoggle, and the space-age new do everything OICW (something like that) an absurdity.
I do wonder about how the US spends a truly astonishing amount of money on some weapons systems. The US is fighting an insurgency using (for the most part) WWI-era weapons with $75,000 JDAMS and $100,000 Javelin anti-tank missiles. I watched a clip on youtube of a bunch of soldiers shooting a Javelin at an insurgent crouching behind a car. The rocket blew the car and insurgent all to pieces, but the taxpayer inside me wondered about a $29 M203 round.
And, it should be noted that all the money being spent on these incredibly complex weapons is not being spent on body armor, salaries, and other things that the troops often clamor for.
Is the US being smart in how it spends its military dollars? What should all the money go to? Are Boeing, Lockheed, and the like--and Congress, eager to support in-district projects--driving weapon procurement more that the needs of the American soldier?
0
-
Was that a statement? Or a question[?]
Jeff0 -
No, the U.S. is not being smart with the money it spends.
Soldiers and Marines are being trained to kill, but told to hold back in combat.
DragonSkin body armor is being railroaded out of the system because the makers of Interceptor are bigger campaign contributors.
Rumsfeld, far from being a visionary, was simply a poor student of history who wanted to out-blitzkrieg the master blitzkriegers of yesteryear and failed miserably.
If any Western European military had the budget we did, they'd have conquered the world (again, in the case of England or Germany).
It is only because the men and women in uniform are such exemplary individuals that we as a nation have not fallen underneath the weight of our politicians' corruption and stupidity - and even then there's only so much they can do before the folks in Washington have their way...0 -
My only real fear is. Will the military fire on it's own people?
They did in Kent State. Again in Watts. And others i'm sure.
Look at the Chinese Red Army. They refused to fire on their people.
How far do the politions of this country really belive the army will go?0 -
the military machine is perfect. its some of the clodhoppers in the uniform that are questionable. 0 -
I served 23 years in the US Navy. How many did you, that are so quick to criticize, serve? As a percentage of GDP we do not sped an inordinate amount on defense, and most of what we spend is spent wisely. Some systems that are prototyped/studied do not work out, as is to be expected.
Watching some video on utube hardly qualifies one as a military expert. Note that there are no WWI or WWII weapons being used by the terrorists in Iraq.
If someone wants to seriously study the US Military that is fine, in fact commendable, but to spew vicious accusations without any knowledge of what is going on is juvenile.
I find your comments to be despicable, uninformed, and libelous.
[:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!]
0 -
I'll stand with Old Fool.... 0 -
Opinion of a Navy vet ... I recently read the biography of "Chesty" Puller ... I think he was quite a hero over a VERY long career in combat ... and I think we have people like him serving today. The cause may not be as clear, but I still think what we are doing over there in Iraq and Afganistan is the right things to do (or we will be doing it right here sooner rather than later!).
OK, I do think we could do a better job:
1.) of figuring out how to win the peace and
2.) of getting other nations to help root out terrorism where ever it is found.
I think that it does say something when the American people do put more trus in the word of military leaders than in the government and the polititions. Where are the true STATESMEN?0 -
Frankly I don't care how much the round costs to blow up the enemy. I think that the person that is in the field, and is in jeopardy should be able to use, or call in any weapon. Even a low yield nuc, if that's what they want.
Their A$$ is on the line and anything that makes their job easier or safer is fine with me.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Da-Tank
Look at the Chinese Red Army. They refused to fire on their people.
was that a typo or did you intend to write that ?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Old Fool
Note that there are no WWI or WWII weapons being used by the terrorists in Iraq.
That's a pretty bold statement.
Guess all those Hadjis running around with SKSs and mortars are figments of the imagination.0 -
I served 23 years in the US Navy. How many did you, that are so quick to criticize, serve? As a percentage of GDP we do not sped an inordinate amount on defense, and most of what we spend is spent wisely. Some systems that are prototyped/studied do not work out, as is to be expected.
Watching some video on utube hardly qualifies one as a military expert. Note that there are no WWI or WWII weapons being used by the terrorists in Iraq.
If someone wants to seriously study the US Military that is fine, in fact commendable, but to spew vicious accusations without any knowledge of what is going on is juvenile.
I find your comments to be despicable, uninformed, and libelous.
Sir, you live up to your name. I really don't see the "vicious accusations" you speak of or the despicable comments or the libel or--hey, do you even know what those words mean?
I merely asked if the military is spending its money on the right things, if it's being forced to buy systems it doesn't want, if the emphasis on high-tech in all things is drawing money away from some perhaps more needed systems and programs.
How that is libel or despicable I have absolutely no idea what so ever, and I honestly think that no other reasonable person would either. I was chatting with a career Navy pilot at work the other day. I asked him the same questions and we had a good chat about it. I've discussed such things with other career military people. Nobody has ever said I'm being despicable or vicious or anything other than interested. In fact, every fellow I talked to enjoyed discussing the merits of this system over that system and so forth.
So really, get a grip. Sit down and think about things for a second.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
quote:Originally posted by Old Fool
Note that there are no WWI or WWII weapons being used by the terrorists in Iraq.
That's a pretty bold statement.
Guess all those Hadjis running around with SKSs and mortars are figments of the imagination.
The SKS is not a WWII era weapon, it was introduced well after the war, as for mortars, they have evolved quite a bit.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Da-Tank
My only real fear is. Will the military fire on it's own people?
Yes, aren't you reading GB today? The answer is clear as day today.0 -
Like I said, learn about the subject. The tone of your post was blatently anti-military, saying that the choice of weapons is being done by fools, etc. [:(!] The people making those decisions, as well as the decisions on training know a heck of a lot more than you.[:(!]
An yes, I know the meaning of the words that I use, and far more others than you will ever know.
Your opinion is, at best, uninformed.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Old Fool
The people making those decisions, as well as the decisions on training know a heck of a lot more than you.[:(!]
M16 development... the bradley fighting vehicle... oh yeah, they were all geniuses those people, absolutely unaffected by the buck or politics.0 -
BARKINGDOG
spelling is wrong but do not you know of Talamond square? One lonly man standing in frount of a tank. The tank could not go around him because he'd move as it turned. Yes there was tear gas,rubber bullets,and water hoses. But to my recolection no body was shot out right.
But then again I could be wrong my memory is slowly going kapoot.
The statement still stands I do worry about the military shooting the people they've swore to protect.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Da-Tank
BARKINGDOG
spelling is wrong but do not you know of Talamond square? One lonly man standing in frount of a tank. The tank could not go around him because he'd move as it turned. Yes there was tear gas,rubber bullets,and water hoses. But to my recolection no body was shot out right.
You obviously don't know history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989
Oh yeah, they all were out of line, they had to be shot and killed, how dare they question authority.0 -
quote:Originally posted by thesneakyrussian
quote:Originally posted by Old Fool
The people making those decisions, as well as the decisions on training know a heck of a lot more than you.[:(!]
M16 development... the bradley fighting vehicle... oh yeah, they were all geniuses those people, absolutely unaffected by the buck or politics.
So you've made a bigger contribution than the M-16? What was that? Has anybody heard of it?0 -
quote:Originally posted by cce1302
quote:Originally posted by thesneakyrussian
quote:Originally posted by Old Fool
The people making those decisions, as well as the decisions on training know a heck of a lot more than you.[:(!]
M16 development... the bradley fighting vehicle... oh yeah, they were all geniuses those people, absolutely unaffected by the buck or politics.
So you've made a bigger contribution than the M-16? What was that? Has anybody heard of it?
What has bad government policies has to do with my contribution to the society?0 -
Like I said, learn about the subject. The tone of your post was blatently anti-military, saying that the choice of weapons is being done by fools, etc. The people making those decisions, as well as the decisions on training know a heck of a lot more than you.
An yes, I know the meaning of the words that I use, and far more others than you will ever know.
Your opinion is, at best, uninformed.
Really? I said that the choice of weapons is being done by fools? Can you quote from my posting where I said that? I did write that the Crusader and the OICW were problematic weapons systems.
Now, Old Fool, I really hate to break this to you, and I'm going to go as gentle on you as I can, but it seems like the military agrees with me. In fact, they cancelled both systems.
In fact, Old Fool, you're so very, very mad at me for asking about weapons systems and which the military should be buying, but again, I really hate to break this to you, and I'm going to go as gentle on you as I can, the military does this all the time. Yes, they look at the weapons they have, the weapons they could buy, and they make choices.
Now, I know you hate me for having the temerity to ask such questions, but if you're going to be consistent--well, then I guess you have to call the military anti-military.
Again, you're doing a stupendous job living up to your name. Then again, only a fool argues with a fool, so maybe we're related.0 -
You are a complete, ignorant jerk, end of discussion.[:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!]
Go back to school and try for a GED0 -
George Washington didn't allow queers in his Army. 0 -
The old way was to carpet bomb with bombers.....today we have JDAM's.....the most precise bomb delivery system to date.
They attach these fin thingy's to a dumb bomb and whalla...it's smart. Lands wherever someone points and clicks.......so why must we spend hundreds of millions of dollars dropping smart bombs every year merely for practice?
We know they work. Anyone can point and click. I think it's a big waste. Give the pilot's PS3's to practice with.[:p]
Our military shared the Battle Dress Uniform. Why are they now all out for their own different Battle Dress Uniform? I think they look gay. Definitely can tell someone in the Pentacon came up with the idea.
Our military use to have it's own vehicles to deploy for war. Now they are leasing alot of vehicles.....meaning they rent them....but when they get blown up...they still pay for them.....and they still have to pay for maintenance on them...even tho in the rent/lease agreement GSA was supposed to take care of maintenance....but you know....there is no GSA maintenance in deployed areas.
I worked at a site that deployed equipment to Iraq prior to the war. I asked why we weren't spraying Rhino Lining on the floors of HMMWV's. I even wrote Rhino Linings and they sent me a complete package where the US Air Force had Rhino Linings spray a building with their coating.....they blew it up....the lining held the building together....then they blew up the same building without the lining....the building was gone.
So why not spray the floors of HMMWV's if it will possibly prevent shrapnel from coming thru the floor?
Rhino Linings hasn't supported the Republicon Party...that's why.0 -
You are a complete, ignorant jerk, end of discussion.
Go back to school and try for a GED
Can I sit next to you?0 -
Lots of emotion, here.
Someone said something like ... the M16 was a "contribution".
Not likely.
Doug0 -
Quote: " Guess all those Hadjis running around with SKSs and mortars are figments of the imagination.". A few of Simonov's SKS rifles in the experimental stage in late 1944 but production of the SKS did not really start till after WW 2, in 1946. This weapon was copied from the German MP-44 in 7.62 X 33 "kurz" which also were in limited supply. I doubt many of the old ww 2 SKS's are in use by the ragheads. Same as the old WW 2 mortars. 0 -
The SKS, which Old Fool insists was "not a WWII weapon" was designed during WWII and was field tested (against the Germans) in 1945. Full scale production began a few years later.
The 82 mm mortar that the insurgancy uses is basically the same thing the Russians fielded in 19360 -
I kinda agree that using anti-tank rockets at 75,000 a pop, for blowing up one insurgent is a good way to run the military budget into the ground.
The military needs the equivalent of the RPG - a reusable launcher that fires simple, cheap, anti-personnel rounds. If somali militiamen can blow blackhawk helicopters out of the sky with such crude devices, I'm sure our soldiers could do much better with them.0 -
You need to take a step back and look at the military of the past few decades
.
From the 50's well into the late 80's the military was geared toward one goal. Stopping the Russians at the border of our eastern European Allies.
They geared the hardware (tanks, planes etc) and trained the military to fight on the plains of Europe and that type of terrain. Serious urban warfare training has not been a top priority these past 40+ years. Same with the jungle fighting of Viet Nam in the early years. Look at how long it took the US military to adapt to fighting in that environment.
The US military today has some of the best equipment on the planet. But it was not designed for urban fighting. And all you have to do is look at the first Gulf war. The US wiped out Sadams forces in short order. But the US was fighting it's war on terrain that the soldiers were trained to fight on. By terrain I mean wide open, rolling hills.
The Mideast has been fighting for as long as time can remember. They know how to fight in their own backyard. While we are just learning the rules of their game.0 -
It's all interesting to discuss. When I noted that the insurgents are fighting with WWI and WWII weapons, I meant that much of their arsenal seems to be made up of bolt-action rifles, auto-loading rifles, bazookas (the RPG is a bazooka, albeit much more sophisticated), mines, artillery shells, and mortars. All of this was in use in WWII, and much of it in WWI.
Undoubtably, much of what they're using is more sophisticated. I've read that they're using IR triggers to set off IEDs, which are pretty much jam-proof and don't have a battlefield signature. The explosively formed penetrators out of Iran are pretty cutting edge, and occasionally a Stinger-type missile pops up. That's pretty sophisticated technology, any way you slice it.
My concern is that the US military was too slow to adopt to this type of warfare, and that its slowness is leading to American casualities. The delays in getting body armor and mine-resistant vehicles--two very unsexy, cheap items--to the troops while the US is buying F22 Raptors is, to me, indicative of this problem. The military is buying incredibly expensive 22nd century planes, while nobody out there is capable of challenging the F15 and F16 and F117 we're flying right now. Shouldn't the US wait a bit to bring the next generation of systems into the arsenal and spend a few more dollars on things that would be of immediate use?
And, I do think that in some cases the desires of those in the Congress to keep the money flowing to the constiuents back home plays into this. I find that appalling. If the troops need something, they should get it, regardless of whose district it's made in.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
39 comments