3 ms·

> Note the J in JSOC, discard the existing branches of the military and build integrated units around desired tactical capabilities. > I guess you'd still have

by zeveb 11y ago

> Note the J in JSOC, discard the existing branches of the military and build integrated units around desired tactical capabilities. > I guess you'd still have room for a Navy doing it that way, but you get the idea. So, you'd have a Navy working with ships, and you'd probably have some sort of infantry carried on ships to project power in emergency situations. You might call these marine infantry Marines. Then you'd have the rest of the military, ground-based. You might call this ground-based military force an Army. The Navy, the Army and the Marines would all have air arms to fulfill their particular needs. The Army would probably be in charge of homeland defense (to include nukes) and the Marines would own expeditionary warfare. It's so crazy it could work!

maxerickson 11y ago
Why not train all the combat forces up to the point where they can operate from ships? Because reasons? Here we are discussing a lack of procurement for a vital role, ostensibly partly because command is not structured in a way where capability is a priority, and you are doubling down on the traditional structure being obviously sensible.
- chrisseaton 11y ago
  > Why not train all the combat forces up to the point where they can operate from ships? Because it's another skill to learn, practice and maintain, and there's limited time and resources. If you take every soldier and give him a two weeks a year training in operating from a ship, then that's two weeks less training in something else, and it's time and space on the ship. Do you also want to train them all in air assault? Does he need to know about submarine insertion techniques? Arctic warfare? Jungle warfare? Mountain warfare? We should probably teach him some middle eastern languages as well, and advanced life support. It'd take years and a huge amount of money and natural resources to give someone a full spectrum of abilities, and they'd have to be a talented person in the first place to keep up with it all. It's not feasible for the majority of conventional forces.

by zeveb 11y ago

maxerickson 11y ago

Why not train all the combat forces up to the point where they can operate from ships? Because reasons? Here we are discussing a lack of procurement for a vital role, ostensibly partly because command is not structured in a way where capability is a priority, and you are doubling down on the traditional structure being obviously sensible.

chrisseaton 11y ago
> Why not train all the combat forces up to the point where they can operate from ships? Because it's another skill to learn, practice and maintain, and there's limited time and resources. If you take every soldier and give him a two weeks a year training in operating from a ship, then that's two weeks less training in something else, and it's time and space on the ship. Do you also want to train them all in air assault? Does he need to know about submarine insertion techniques? Arctic warfare? Jungle warfare? Mountain warfare? We should probably teach him some middle eastern languages as well, and advanced life support. It'd take years and a huge amount of money and natural resources to give someone a full spectrum of abilities, and they'd have to be a talented person in the first place to keep up with it all. It's not feasible for the majority of conventional forces.