12 ms·

> “I am concerned overall that the Navy is under-equipped in key areas,” the Oklahoma Republican said in a statement. if there was any - any doubt at all - tha

> “I am concerned overall that the Navy is under-equipped in key areas,” the Oklahoma Republican said in a statement. if there was any - any doubt at all - that this machine feeds itself, this hilarious statement should remove all of it

vidanay 7y ago
The only thing the US Navy is under-equipped for is something along the scale of the aliens from Battleship. And just as likely to actually occur.
- leereeves 7y ago
  China is likely to be our major rival (and God forbid, possible adversary) and they're arming quickly.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    I wonder how much of China's arming is as a result of concern of the absurdly oversized US military machine. On the last 60 years, China don't tend to get involved in international conflicts either. Vietnam, Tibet, Korea - that's about it.
    - rayiner 7y ago
      It’s only recently that China had had the economic power to challenge the US in the international stage.
      - azinman2 7y ago
        And it's making such statements with the artificial islands that they're building, the increasing military spending, the stealing of military secrets by hacking subcontractors, demonstrating their anti-sat missiles, etc. And that's just military. With their new one belt, one road initiative, they're trying to split the world into countries that use all Chinese tech w/Chinese standards, trading with china to build infrastructure by Chinese laborers.
        kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
        The US has done more or less the same.
        azinman2 7y ago
        Is this whataboutism? I don't understand your point. The GP said "I wonder how much of China's arming is as a result of concern of the absurdly oversized US military machine."
        kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
        The point is that the populist alarmism over China is the same as 1984 sheeple being told who to hate by BB. The US has a few dozen military bases outside US territory but somehow China making moves to expand its influence over its economic sphere is a matter of grave concern. So much of the anti-China rhetoric is the same as the anti-Japan rhetoric from 30 years ago. It's mostly veiled racism and a search for an enemy to hate to solidify the domestic group identity.
        adventured 7y ago
        > The US has done more or less the same. Far less in fact. The US hasn't done most of those things. Which artificial islands did the US build in eg the Gulf of Mexico to steal all of Mexico's gulf territorial waters? It didn't. Instead, the US has maintained a fair split of the gulf with Mexico, despite being a superpower that could take it all anytime it wants to. The US could take most of the water territory in the Caribbean if it wanted to, any time it wanted to. Where are the vast number of examples of the US getting its military tech directly - via hacking - from cloning it from the USSR, Russia, Britain, Germany and France. Is that where the US got the F22, by stealing it from Russia? Is that where the US got the B2, by stealing it from France? Is that where the US got its 20 year lead in drone tech (eg Global Hawk 25 years ago), by stealing it all from Germany? Or how about the innovations in carrier technology over decades, that was stolen from which country, Spain? Italy? Japan? None of that happened. When did the US send a large army of labor into Africa to extract resources there? It didn't. What the US has done for Africa, is push hundreds of billions of dollars in aid into the continent and save millions of lives with programs like PEPFAR. And its cure (thanks Pharmasset) for Hepatitis C will save millions more over time (see: Egypt).
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    - SkyMarshal 7y ago
      China does not have much of an expansionist history, but the Communist Party does. CCP has only controlled China for 70yrs, during which time China lacked the ability to get involved in international conflicts beyond its own borders. As it becomes a great power it clearly has an agenda of extracting raw materials in Africa, selling manufactured goods across Eurasia and the rest of the world, and linking the supply chain from Africa <-> China <-> Europe more closely. It will likely guard those interests with force once it's able to. Same as the US. Hard to complain when we've been doing it for 50+ yrs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket
      - MockObject 7y ago
        > Hard to complain when we've been doing it for 50+ yrs. Exactly the opposite. If I don't like America doing it, I like even less China doing it.
  - kemiller2002 7y ago
    What is really scary is the question about how prepared they need to be. Seriously, how many parts come from China? Everyone talks about how they "might" have put kill switches in our hardware etc., but it's a really scary thought we might go to war with them and that this is true. IIRC Clinton made the change allowing U.S. contractors to get military parts from foreign nations which means they've had 20+ years to infiltrate our equipment. If all they need to do is flip a switch to disable significant portions of the fleet, that puts the U.S. at a severe (understated) disadvantage. Their sabotage doesn't even have to be something major to cause real problems either.
  - liability 7y ago
    Even if the USN decisively won a war with China, the likely outcome would for all practical intents and purposes still resemble a loss. The cost of war between two nuclear super powers is so high that anybody who suggests trying to win one shouldn't be taken seriously.
    - Mirioron 7y ago
      Just the loss of Chinese production would be an enormous hit to the economy, no need for nuclear weapons even.
    - tomohawk 7y ago
      France was Germany's largest trading partner before the Great War. The cost was immense, but that didn't stop the war. The Nazis had a great alliance with the Communists in the USSR, but that did not stop them from committing suicide by attacking the USSR. Parties like the CCP that have no concern for human rights tend to get the countries they control into trajectories that unavoidably lead to conflict. Even countries that, logically speaking, would be much better as allies, or at least cooperating.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - munificent 7y ago
      Every war since the Industrial Age began is a loss for the world in terms of cost. Spending money to make things that blow up other things you spent money to make, often with people inside, is a clear net negative for humanity. The goal of war today is never to "win" in some sense that we should be happy of. It's just to have less massive destruction than the other guy.
- User23 7y ago
  Nah, the Russians and anyone they’ve shared the tech with could easily sink a carrier or any other surface ship with hypersonic anti-ship missiles[1]. That’s assuming they don’t just ram into another ship on accident. The US Navy is in a very bad place now and the next war that isn’t just picking on some totally helpless country will show it. [1]https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a25684396/zircon-hypersonic-missile/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a25684396...
  - greedo 7y ago
    Easily? Nothing involved would be easy.
    - eloff 7y ago
      Nonetheless, it seems the US Navy is still fighting the last war. Carriers are extremely vulnerable to missiles. I think fast missile boats and land based launchers probably make large warships obsolete. Tough to say for sure since that hasn't happened, but it seems likely to me.
      - adventured 7y ago
        That's a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of carriers today and going forward. They're not primarily for fighting a war with China or Russia. The reason China is building them and looking to add more in the coming years, is for the same reason the US has them. China knows the US could sink a carrier and yet they're building them anyway. Why? It's about global force projection. The point isn't to set them up in front of China or Russia as convenient targets and let them get sunk. You mostly want to use carriers directly against weaker adversaries. A war with China or Russia that involves sinking a US carrier, would be the start of WW3, and millions of people would probably die. Carriers getting sunk is not a primary concern at all in that scenario (it's down the list, with nuclear war jumping to the top).
        zipwitch 7y ago
        You're touching on something unspoken but very present in the modern US military machine. It's great for wrecking anyone who isn't on the short list of China, Russia, the EU, Japan and maybe India. Every other nation could see their infrastructure and military devastated within a month, with little they could do to stop it. (See Libya for one example.) But the American people aren't being sold a military that can act as the international equivalent of mafia leg-breakers. We're told, again and again, that we are paying for a military that is "the best" and that can, if needed, stand up to our global peers and near-peers and win. There's a disconnect between rhetoric and expenditures on the one hand, and demonstrated performance, capabilities, and operational plans on the other hand. That seems like a huge problem to me. At the least, it's a massive fraud being perpetrated on the American public. And at worst, it might lead to a terrible conflict as decision-makers operate with very inaccurate assessments of what our military is really capable of.
- zipwitch 7y ago
  The US Navy is under-equipped for the possibility that a hostile power might mine key harbors or waterways. The existing, decades-old, minesweeping force is in the process of being decommissioned. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/america-getting-rid-their-minesweepers-50552 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/america-getting-rid-their-... The replacements - involving the problematic LCS-class ships - are in even worse shape than the Ford and are currently scheduled to be operational in 2022. https://news.usni.org/2019/01/25/lcs-mission-package-office-focused-on-test-fielding-ioc-dates-continue-to-slip https://news.usni.org/2019/01/25/lcs-mission-package-office-...
- beat 7y ago
  Yes, and this begs the question... what kind of scenarios are we arming for? In a modern world of sophisticated international commerce, disrupting commerce seems much more "war" than clash of military forces. Consider what I think of as a military flashpoint - the Strait of Hormuz. Some 25% of the world's oil flows through there, serving the hungry maw of Asian manufacturing superpowers. It's only 21 miles wide at its narrowest point, and much of that isn't navigable. Really, there's a six mile wide path, filled with slow, lumbering, basically defenseless oil tankers. Any and all of them are vulnerable to the thousands of anti-ship missiles that line the shores on both sides, and a single burning oil tanker could close the strait completely. A supersonic anti-ship missile would take just seconds from launch to destroying a tanker. A shiny new aircraft carrier is supposed to prevent that how, exactly? Moreover, the ease with which Iran or another power (or non-state entity) could close it makes too much saber-rattling vulnerable to mutual assured destruction. Just how long would our Asian allies and not-really-allies tolerate having their oil cut off so the US could pick a fight with Iran, or Saudi Arabia, or whomever?
  - tomohawk 7y ago
    > A shiny new aircraft carrier is supposed to prevent that how, exactly? Prevent? More like deter. The question would be do the Iranians think it would be worth the likely counter attack from a carrier battle group or two in order to shutdown the straits. Better than buying carriers at these prices would be energy independence from the middle east. That's pretty difficult since the east coast of the US is very reliant on middle eastern crude. The refineries there only refine that crude, and there is no way to get the needed fuel there from elsewhere in the US. Additionally, if the economies of the Far East were to crater due to idiocy on the part of Iran, the US and Europe would likely follow.
  - salawat 7y ago
    Just wanted to point out, no one in their right mind should/would try to use a hypersonic missile for a "short-range" attack. The missile needs time to maneuver onto a vector to the target, and to accelerate. Once accelerated, it's not going to be drastically changing it's trajectory on anything resembling a "short" timescale, seeing as hypersonic turning radii are measured in miles. Rocket accelerated gliders this goes for doubly to avoid overshot. It just isn't a practical utilization of the delivery vehicle. Furthermore, the point of carrier's is air superiority, and force projection. That carrier is a mobile slab of sovereign soil from which all sorts of logistics can be dispatched from. It's the difference between "I could get bombed today," and pointing at the spec floating on the horizon, and saying "There's where the bomb that would get dropped on me today is," if that makes any sense.
Shivetya 7y ago
I think his issue is that if they cannot deliver the systems that were paid for on time then it puts the Navy into a bind. The Navy stretched too far with the Ford carrier and issues between contractors lead to components not working well together. Yet this is just the latest is screw ups in the Navy. The problem I have is this so called near balance that has be maintained in budgets between the services. The internal pissing match is what costs us so much as each tries to out do the other, mainly the Navy and Air Force cannot get along. This day and age concentrating so much wealth in such a vulnerable area as surface ships should have given them pause but the Navy has been wedded to the CV for too long because they are BIG and visible. The Air Force's folly is being stuck on manned air craft to the point they practically buried attempts at unmanned combat roles. The Army? If not to staff the bases around the world is simply a large force with little real mission. yet the end question is always the same, we know what US dominance in this area is like, the so called world policeman, is it worth the risk finding out what happens when someone else steps in if the US backs off? How would that look?
- jjeaff 7y ago
  I supposed due to branding and recruitment and legacy issues, this is a non-starter. But I see no need whatsoever to have separately named branches of the US military. It just gives people a reason to split into groups and compete and fight. They already have overlapping capabilities anyway. Seems like we should just get rid of the names and everyone is a part of the "U.S. Military".
  - ethbro 7y ago
    I was thinking about this the other day. The reason to have separate branches of the military (if you can afford it) is to maintain organizational and doctrinal uniqueness. Think about it in evolutionary terms. Any hierarchical organization trends towards uniformity, especially one where promotion is conservative. E.g. most pyramidal organizations. The Marines fundamentally, organizationally, and tactically approach warfare different than the Army. The Army would have been incapable of fighting WWII in the Pacific. It's just not what it's designed to do. By maintaining five combat branches (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard), you maintain five unique approaches to warfare. Consequently, when the situation calls for it, you can apply any of those four unique approaches. Whether or not that's worth the cost of distinct services is debatable, but it's certainly a benefit from the approach.
vkou 7y ago
But the Navy is under-equipped for its mission. There are huge shortages of skilled (and less-skilled) personnel, because nobody in their right mind, in 2019, wants to enlist into active service. There are huge shortages of particular kinds of supplies/replacement parts/training time/maintenance time. Either the mission needs to be scaled down, or the budget needs to be scaled up. Pick one.
- HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago
  Plenty of people, in their right minds, will enlist in the United States military. The issue is getting all the types of people- engineers, designers, etc. on board with designing and building stuff that can kill people and also get them on board with: physical training, and military life. It's not for everyone, I can tell you that.
groby_b 7y ago
The Navy is under-equipped because the Oklahoma Republican operates under the delusion that taxes are unnecessary (Inhofe signed the Norquist pledge) and that in general, private enterprise is _always_ better at things than government enterprise. This is not the military-industrial complex any more - this is the deliberate bleeding dry of government coffers by using the military as a money extraction machine. It's not feeding itself any more, at this point it's pure value extraction until things collapse.
- dreamcompiler 7y ago
  This is also the same Oklahoma Republican who took a snowball onto the senate floor to prove global warming wasn't happening.
- a3n 7y ago
  Ah, so it's the private equity model of weighing down the company with debt to pay PE partners, and then pulling the plug on the company.
  - blaser-waffle 7y ago
    Pump and Dump, DoD Edition

vidanay 7y ago

The only thing the US Navy is under-equipped for is something along the scale of the aliens from Battleship. And just as likely to actually occur.

leereeves 7y ago
China is likely to be our major rival (and God forbid, possible adversary) and they're arming quickly.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  I wonder how much of China's arming is as a result of concern of the absurdly oversized US military machine. On the last 60 years, China don't tend to get involved in international conflicts either. Vietnam, Tibet, Korea - that's about it.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    It’s only recently that China had had the economic power to challenge the US in the international stage.
    - azinman2 7y ago
      And it's making such statements with the artificial islands that they're building, the increasing military spending, the stealing of military secrets by hacking subcontractors, demonstrating their anti-sat missiles, etc. And that's just military. With their new one belt, one road initiative, they're trying to split the world into countries that use all Chinese tech w/Chinese standards, trading with china to build infrastructure by Chinese laborers.
      - kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
        The US has done more or less the same.
        azinman2 7y ago
        Is this whataboutism? I don't understand your point. The GP said "I wonder how much of China's arming is as a result of concern of the absurdly oversized US military machine."
        kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
        The point is that the populist alarmism over China is the same as 1984 sheeple being told who to hate by BB. The US has a few dozen military bases outside US territory but somehow China making moves to expand its influence over its economic sphere is a matter of grave concern. So much of the anti-China rhetoric is the same as the anti-Japan rhetoric from 30 years ago. It's mostly veiled racism and a search for an enemy to hate to solidify the domestic group identity.
        adventured 7y ago
        > The US has done more or less the same. Far less in fact. The US hasn't done most of those things. Which artificial islands did the US build in eg the Gulf of Mexico to steal all of Mexico's gulf territorial waters? It didn't. Instead, the US has maintained a fair split of the gulf with Mexico, despite being a superpower that could take it all anytime it wants to. The US could take most of the water territory in the Caribbean if it wanted to, any time it wanted to. Where are the vast number of examples of the US getting its military tech directly - via hacking - from cloning it from the USSR, Russia, Britain, Germany and France. Is that where the US got the F22, by stealing it from Russia? Is that where the US got the B2, by stealing it from France? Is that where the US got its 20 year lead in drone tech (eg Global Hawk 25 years ago), by stealing it all from Germany? Or how about the innovations in carrier technology over decades, that was stolen from which country, Spain? Italy? Japan? None of that happened. When did the US send a large army of labor into Africa to extract resources there? It didn't. What the US has done for Africa, is push hundreds of billions of dollars in aid into the continent and save millions of lives with programs like PEPFAR. And its cure (thanks Pharmasset) for Hepatitis C will save millions more over time (see: Egypt).
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - SkyMarshal 7y ago
    China does not have much of an expansionist history, but the Communist Party does. CCP has only controlled China for 70yrs, during which time China lacked the ability to get involved in international conflicts beyond its own borders. As it becomes a great power it clearly has an agenda of extracting raw materials in Africa, selling manufactured goods across Eurasia and the rest of the world, and linking the supply chain from Africa <-> China <-> Europe more closely. It will likely guard those interests with force once it's able to. Same as the US. Hard to complain when we've been doing it for 50+ yrs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket
    - MockObject 7y ago
      > Hard to complain when we've been doing it for 50+ yrs. Exactly the opposite. If I don't like America doing it, I like even less China doing it.
- kemiller2002 7y ago
  What is really scary is the question about how prepared they need to be. Seriously, how many parts come from China? Everyone talks about how they "might" have put kill switches in our hardware etc., but it's a really scary thought we might go to war with them and that this is true. IIRC Clinton made the change allowing U.S. contractors to get military parts from foreign nations which means they've had 20+ years to infiltrate our equipment. If all they need to do is flip a switch to disable significant portions of the fleet, that puts the U.S. at a severe (understated) disadvantage. Their sabotage doesn't even have to be something major to cause real problems either.
- liability 7y ago
  Even if the USN decisively won a war with China, the likely outcome would for all practical intents and purposes still resemble a loss. The cost of war between two nuclear super powers is so high that anybody who suggests trying to win one shouldn't be taken seriously.
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    Just the loss of Chinese production would be an enormous hit to the economy, no need for nuclear weapons even.
  - tomohawk 7y ago
    France was Germany's largest trading partner before the Great War. The cost was immense, but that didn't stop the war. The Nazis had a great alliance with the Communists in the USSR, but that did not stop them from committing suicide by attacking the USSR. Parties like the CCP that have no concern for human rights tend to get the countries they control into trajectories that unavoidably lead to conflict. Even countries that, logically speaking, would be much better as allies, or at least cooperating.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - munificent 7y ago
    Every war since the Industrial Age began is a loss for the world in terms of cost. Spending money to make things that blow up other things you spent money to make, often with people inside, is a clear net negative for humanity. The goal of war today is never to "win" in some sense that we should be happy of. It's just to have less massive destruction than the other guy.
User23 7y ago
Nah, the Russians and anyone they’ve shared the tech with could easily sink a carrier or any other surface ship with hypersonic anti-ship missiles[1]. That’s assuming they don’t just ram into another ship on accident. The US Navy is in a very bad place now and the next war that isn’t just picking on some totally helpless country will show it. [1]https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a25684396/zircon-hypersonic-missile/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a25684396...
- greedo 7y ago
  Easily? Nothing involved would be easy.
  - eloff 7y ago
    Nonetheless, it seems the US Navy is still fighting the last war. Carriers are extremely vulnerable to missiles. I think fast missile boats and land based launchers probably make large warships obsolete. Tough to say for sure since that hasn't happened, but it seems likely to me.
    - adventured 7y ago
      That's a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of carriers today and going forward. They're not primarily for fighting a war with China or Russia. The reason China is building them and looking to add more in the coming years, is for the same reason the US has them. China knows the US could sink a carrier and yet they're building them anyway. Why? It's about global force projection. The point isn't to set them up in front of China or Russia as convenient targets and let them get sunk. You mostly want to use carriers directly against weaker adversaries. A war with China or Russia that involves sinking a US carrier, would be the start of WW3, and millions of people would probably die. Carriers getting sunk is not a primary concern at all in that scenario (it's down the list, with nuclear war jumping to the top).
      - zipwitch 7y ago
        You're touching on something unspoken but very present in the modern US military machine. It's great for wrecking anyone who isn't on the short list of China, Russia, the EU, Japan and maybe India. Every other nation could see their infrastructure and military devastated within a month, with little they could do to stop it. (See Libya for one example.) But the American people aren't being sold a military that can act as the international equivalent of mafia leg-breakers. We're told, again and again, that we are paying for a military that is "the best" and that can, if needed, stand up to our global peers and near-peers and win. There's a disconnect between rhetoric and expenditures on the one hand, and demonstrated performance, capabilities, and operational plans on the other hand. That seems like a huge problem to me. At the least, it's a massive fraud being perpetrated on the American public. And at worst, it might lead to a terrible conflict as decision-makers operate with very inaccurate assessments of what our military is really capable of.
zipwitch 7y ago
The US Navy is under-equipped for the possibility that a hostile power might mine key harbors or waterways. The existing, decades-old, minesweeping force is in the process of being decommissioned. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/america-getting-rid-their-minesweepers-50552 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/america-getting-rid-their-... The replacements - involving the problematic LCS-class ships - are in even worse shape than the Ford and are currently scheduled to be operational in 2022. https://news.usni.org/2019/01/25/lcs-mission-package-office-focused-on-test-fielding-ioc-dates-continue-to-slip https://news.usni.org/2019/01/25/lcs-mission-package-office-...
beat 7y ago
Yes, and this begs the question... what kind of scenarios are we arming for? In a modern world of sophisticated international commerce, disrupting commerce seems much more "war" than clash of military forces. Consider what I think of as a military flashpoint - the Strait of Hormuz. Some 25% of the world's oil flows through there, serving the hungry maw of Asian manufacturing superpowers. It's only 21 miles wide at its narrowest point, and much of that isn't navigable. Really, there's a six mile wide path, filled with slow, lumbering, basically defenseless oil tankers. Any and all of them are vulnerable to the thousands of anti-ship missiles that line the shores on both sides, and a single burning oil tanker could close the strait completely. A supersonic anti-ship missile would take just seconds from launch to destroying a tanker. A shiny new aircraft carrier is supposed to prevent that how, exactly? Moreover, the ease with which Iran or another power (or non-state entity) could close it makes too much saber-rattling vulnerable to mutual assured destruction. Just how long would our Asian allies and not-really-allies tolerate having their oil cut off so the US could pick a fight with Iran, or Saudi Arabia, or whomever?
- tomohawk 7y ago
  > A shiny new aircraft carrier is supposed to prevent that how, exactly? Prevent? More like deter. The question would be do the Iranians think it would be worth the likely counter attack from a carrier battle group or two in order to shutdown the straits. Better than buying carriers at these prices would be energy independence from the middle east. That's pretty difficult since the east coast of the US is very reliant on middle eastern crude. The refineries there only refine that crude, and there is no way to get the needed fuel there from elsewhere in the US. Additionally, if the economies of the Far East were to crater due to idiocy on the part of Iran, the US and Europe would likely follow.
- salawat 7y ago
  Just wanted to point out, no one in their right mind should/would try to use a hypersonic missile for a "short-range" attack. The missile needs time to maneuver onto a vector to the target, and to accelerate. Once accelerated, it's not going to be drastically changing it's trajectory on anything resembling a "short" timescale, seeing as hypersonic turning radii are measured in miles. Rocket accelerated gliders this goes for doubly to avoid overshot. It just isn't a practical utilization of the delivery vehicle. Furthermore, the point of carrier's is air superiority, and force projection. That carrier is a mobile slab of sovereign soil from which all sorts of logistics can be dispatched from. It's the difference between "I could get bombed today," and pointing at the spec floating on the horizon, and saying "There's where the bomb that would get dropped on me today is," if that makes any sense.

Shivetya 7y ago

I think his issue is that if they cannot deliver the systems that were paid for on time then it puts the Navy into a bind. The Navy stretched too far with the Ford carrier and issues between contractors lead to components not working well together. Yet this is just the latest is screw ups in the Navy. The problem I have is this so called near balance that has be maintained in budgets between the services. The internal pissing match is what costs us so much as each tries to out do the other, mainly the Navy and Air Force cannot get along. This day and age concentrating so much wealth in such a vulnerable area as surface ships should have given them pause but the Navy has been wedded to the CV for too long because they are BIG and visible. The Air Force's folly is being stuck on manned air craft to the point they practically buried attempts at unmanned combat roles. The Army? If not to staff the bases around the world is simply a large force with little real mission. yet the end question is always the same, we know what US dominance in this area is like, the so called world policeman, is it worth the risk finding out what happens when someone else steps in if the US backs off? How would that look?

jjeaff 7y ago
I supposed due to branding and recruitment and legacy issues, this is a non-starter. But I see no need whatsoever to have separately named branches of the US military. It just gives people a reason to split into groups and compete and fight. They already have overlapping capabilities anyway. Seems like we should just get rid of the names and everyone is a part of the "U.S. Military".
- ethbro 7y ago
  I was thinking about this the other day. The reason to have separate branches of the military (if you can afford it) is to maintain organizational and doctrinal uniqueness. Think about it in evolutionary terms. Any hierarchical organization trends towards uniformity, especially one where promotion is conservative. E.g. most pyramidal organizations. The Marines fundamentally, organizationally, and tactically approach warfare different than the Army. The Army would have been incapable of fighting WWII in the Pacific. It's just not what it's designed to do. By maintaining five combat branches (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard), you maintain five unique approaches to warfare. Consequently, when the situation calls for it, you can apply any of those four unique approaches. Whether or not that's worth the cost of distinct services is debatable, but it's certainly a benefit from the approach.

vkou 7y ago

But the Navy is under-equipped for its mission. There are huge shortages of skilled (and less-skilled) personnel, because nobody in their right mind, in 2019, wants to enlist into active service. There are huge shortages of particular kinds of supplies/replacement parts/training time/maintenance time. Either the mission needs to be scaled down, or the budget needs to be scaled up. Pick one.

HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago
Plenty of people, in their right minds, will enlist in the United States military. The issue is getting all the types of people- engineers, designers, etc. on board with designing and building stuff that can kill people and also get them on board with: physical training, and military life. It's not for everyone, I can tell you that.

groby_b 7y ago

The Navy is under-equipped because the Oklahoma Republican operates under the delusion that taxes are unnecessary (Inhofe signed the Norquist pledge) and that in general, private enterprise is _always_ better at things than government enterprise. This is not the military-industrial complex any more - this is the deliberate bleeding dry of government coffers by using the military as a money extraction machine. It's not feeding itself any more, at this point it's pure value extraction until things collapse.

dreamcompiler 7y ago
This is also the same Oklahoma Republican who took a snowball onto the senate floor to prove global warming wasn't happening.
a3n 7y ago
Ah, so it's the private equity model of weighing down the company with debt to pay PE partners, and then pulling the plug on the company.
- blaser-waffle 7y ago
  Pump and Dump, DoD Edition