# Does America need to maintain the Marines? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 12, 2011, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-america-need-to-maintain-the-marines/567306 "2011-01-12T04:11:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-america-need-to-maintain-the-marines/567306/21 "2011-01-12T14:32:52Z")
The marines haven’t exclusively specialized in “storming the beach” in quite a while - they’re capable of it, but they’re an expeditionary force that’s structured to be a leaner and more mobile unit than the army. They get places faster, require less heavy weapons support, a smaller logistical train, and have more specialized equipment for their role. If you disbanded the marines, that type of functionality would have to be duplicated by the army, and then how much are you saving? Plus there are other things they bring to the table, like a strong espirit de corps and a redundant command structure that provides some security against force crippling issues, especially in regards to post-nuclear forces and possibly cyberwarfare (just taking a guess on that one - if China comes up with some fancy computer-based way to knock out the army command structure, it won’t hurt the Marines as much since they use donkies and handwritten notes in place of computers). ---
**Author:** ![Cluricaun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/bb73d2/32.png) [@Cluricaun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cluricaun)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-america-need-to-maintain-the-marines/567306/22 "2011-01-12T14:32:52Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > The SEALS do not do what the Marines do. They are covert troops meant to get behind enemy lines and collect intelligence and/or disrupt enemy operations. I was responding to the idea that SEALS could do what Marines do. Of course they could, they’re elite troops. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-america-need-to-maintain-the-marines/567306/23 "2011-01-12T14:34:02Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > That’s what they’ll tell you. Well, as I mentioned in my last post, either way that espirit de corps is useful. Even if marines aren’t elite, they’re convinced they are, and men who are convinced they have to uphold the tradition and honor of an elite unit will generally fight harder. That’s a useful reason alone for preserving them. And any sense of rivalry between the army and marines would be a useful motivational tool for that matter. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-america-need-to-maintain-the-marines/567306/24 "2011-01-12T14:38:27Z")
The two branches really do perform separate tasks. Marines are, essentially, light infantry designed to perform the first crazed moments or days of an assault, whether amphibious or not. The Army is designed to aggressively take and hold territory with heavy weapons. Even if you combined them you’d still need differing training regimens and such because the tasks are so different. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-america-need-to-maintain-the-marines/567306/25 "2011-01-12T14:39:20Z")
> [@spifflog](#): > > No offense, but if the Marines and the Army are put shoulder to shoulder, the Marines will look like studs. If someone was coming to save me, I’d want it to be the Marines. I guess that might conceivably be the case if the Army consisted of nothing but non-combat slots and the USMC were all Force Recon. Leaving aside the idea that the average Army 11-B is somehow lacking in courage or training, there are outfits like the 75th Rangers, Special Forces, and 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment who are elite by any standards. It might also surprise the fellows from the 82nd and 101st Airborne to hear that they come up short in studliness. The USMC is a small organization compared to the US Army. Small does not equal elite. The Marines are very good at what they do. One of the things they do is maintain a very effective publicity campaign. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-america-need-to-maintain-the-marines/567306/26 "2011-01-12T14:42:46Z")
> [@spifflog](#): > > That’s what anyone will tell you. > > I’m not a Marine (I’m Navy) but they are the best by a fair amount. _Anyone?_ You know, when I was in the Army we respected the Marines as brother-in-arms, but there was no general attitude that they were “the best.” YMMV, of course, as having been one of those people whose job was to drive the Marines around. ---
**Author:** ![Cluricaun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/bb73d2/32.png) [@Cluricaun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cluricaun)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-america-need-to-maintain-the-marines/567306/27 "2011-01-12T14:45:02Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > _Anyone?_ You know, when I was in the Army we respected the Marines as brother-in-arms, but there was no general attitude that they were “the best.” YMMV, of course, as having been one of those people whose job was to drive the Marines around. Uh oh. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![spifflog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@spifflog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spifflog)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-america-need-to-maintain-the-marines/567306/28 "2011-01-12T14:48:57Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > I guess that might conceivably be the case if the Army consisted of nothing but non-combat slots and the USMC were all Force Recon. Leaving aside the idea that the average Army 11-B is somehow lacking in courage or training, there are outfits like the 75th Rangers, Special Forces, and 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment who are elite by any standards. It might also surprise the fellows from the 82nd and 101st Airborne to hear that they come up short in studliness. The USMC is a small organization compared to the US Army. Small does not equal elite. The Marines are very good at what they do. One of the things they do is maintain a very effective publicity campaign. We’ll agree to disagree then. Are there elite Army units? Sure. But man for man, the average Marine unit is better than the average Army one in my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-america-need-to-maintain-the-marines/567306/29 "2011-01-12T14:49:28Z")
> [@spifflog](#): > > The Army and the Marine Corps, while they have significant mission overlap, are still fundamentally equipped, trained and funded for separate missions. The Army is heavier, somewhat slower and built to stay. The Marine Corps is quicker, lighter and faster. Designed to get in and get out. They don’t have the staying power that the Army has. > > The point you are missing is that we need a certain capability. Say we need a military of 1,000 ground pounders. We can have 100 in the Marines and 900 in the Army. Or 1,000 in the Army, or some other combination. But we still need 1,000. So what are you gaining be having them in one unit? There isn’t much cost savings at all, and you’ll use the unique capabilities I wasn’t missing the point. I understand all that but I was being facetious. ---
**Author:** ![spifflog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@spifflog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spifflog)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-america-need-to-maintain-the-marines/567306/30 "2011-01-12T14:50:01Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > _Anyone?_ You know, when I was in the Army we respected the Marines as brother-in-arms, but there was no general attitude that they were “the best.” YMMV, of course, as having been one of those people whose job was to drive the Marines around. me-ow~! ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-america-need-to-maintain-the-marines/567306/31 "2011-01-12T14:56:03Z")
> [@Cluricaun](#): > > I was responding to the idea that SEALS could do what Marines do. Of course they could, they’re elite troops. Actually no, they can’t. Yes SEALS are elite troops and man-to-man better than any one Marine. But SEALS operate in very small units. IIRC SEALS once were used with regular forces (Panama?) and it did not go well for the SEALS. A SEALS’ job is wholly different from a Marine’s and there just aren’t that many SEALS such that they can storm a beach effectively. Wouldn’t want them to either because they are too valuable to put into such a position. ---
**Author:** ![hansel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6bbea6/32.png) [@hansel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hansel)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-america-need-to-maintain-the-marines/567306/32 "2011-01-12T18:57:03Z")
I’ve actually heard it seriously proposed (some think tank’s paper on a blueprint for American military power in the 21st century) that it’s the _Army_ that should be disbanded, leaving the Marines behind to fulfill the role of “boots on the ground”. The argument was basically that the Army is a 20th century organization built to fight nation-level conflicts that are extremely unlikely to occur in the 21st century because nuclear deterrance has replaced “huge army” deterrance. In the 21st century it’s going to be assymetrical warfare requiring more special forces. Keep the Marines to retain a traditional ground combat organization, but move most money into special forces, drones, and intelligence gathering. ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-america-need-to-maintain-the-marines/567306/33 "2011-01-12T19:19:48Z")
> [@hansel](#): > > I’ve actually heard it seriously proposed (some think tank’s paper on a blueprint for American military power in the 21st century) that it’s the _Army_ that should be disbanded, leaving the Marines behind to fulfill the role of “boots on the ground”. > > The argument was basically that the Army is a 20th century organization built to fight nation-level conflicts that are extremely unlikely to occur in the 21st century because nuclear deterrance has replaced “huge army” deterrance. In the 21st century it’s going to be assymetrical warfare requiring more special forces. Keep the Marines to retain a traditional ground combat organization, but move most money into special forces, drones, and intelligence gathering. Just prior to Saddam invading Kuwait, when Bush Senior was cutting back the military (ending MY career in the USMC), I heard a similar presentation. The specific angle on that one was to turn the Army into a Reserves force ONLY. Their job would be to provide the necessary bodies for a large scale operation, while making the Marines the only active duty boots on the ground forces. The Marines would be available for any quick reaction, but if we decided to occupy someplace we would call up the Army Reserves. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Excellent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f19dbf/32.png) [@Mr.Excellent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Excellent)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-america-need-to-maintain-the-marines/567306/34 "2011-01-12T19:38:57Z")
> [@Algher](#): > > Just prior to Saddam invading Kuwait, when Bush Senior was cutting back the military (ending MY career in the USMC), I heard a similar presentation. > > The specific angle on that one was to turn the Army into a Reserves force ONLY. Their job would be to provide the necessary bodies for a large scale operation, while making the Marines the only active duty boots on the ground forces. The Marines would be available for any quick reaction, but if we decided to occupy someplace we would call up the Army Reserves. That sounds like a pretty horrifyingly bad idea. If there’s one thing military history teaches us - from Rome straight through to the Gulf wars - it’s that _training matters_. You can have all the nice equipment you want, you can have all the warm bodies you might wish - but if your forces aren’t well-trained, they’ll be picked apart by any force that _is_. I don’t mean to rag on the Reserves, but their level of training probably isn’t as high as that of regular Army forces that are practicing or preparing for combat 24/7. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-america-need-to-maintain-the-marines/567306/35 "2011-01-12T19:53:17Z")
> [@Mr.Excellent](#): > > That sounds like a pretty horrifyingly bad idea. If there’s one thing military history teaches us - from Rome straight through to the Gulf wars - it’s that _training matters_. You can have all the nice equipment you want, you can have all the warm bodies you might wish - but if your forces aren’t well-trained, they’ll be picked apart by any force that _is_. I don’t mean to rag on the Reserves, but their level of training probably isn’t as high as that of regular Army forces that are practicing or preparing for combat 24/7. Didn’t Stalin prove that quantity has a quality all of it’s own? (Something like that.) ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-america-need-to-maintain-the-marines/567306/36 "2011-01-12T20:05:13Z")
> [@Mr.Excellent](#): > > That sounds like a pretty horrifyingly bad idea. If there’s one thing military history teaches us - from Rome straight through to the Gulf wars - it’s that _training matters_. You can have all the nice equipment you want, you can have all the warm bodies you might wish - but if your forces aren’t well-trained, they’ll be picked apart by any force that _is_. I don’t mean to rag on the Reserves, but their level of training probably isn’t as high as that of regular Army forces that are practicing or preparing for combat 24/7. Possibly, but history also shows us that when you have a large military sitting around, someone goes looking for a way to use them. The REAL opposition to the current wars started kicking in when Reservists and Guard members started getting killed. We are already heavily using those part-time forces (one weekend a month and two weeks per year!) in Iraq and Afghanistan. See the .pdf below for some quick data: [http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22451.pdf](http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22451.pdf) > [@](#): > > Between September 2001 and November 30, 2007, a total of 254,894 National Guard, 202,113 Reserves, and 1,193,234 Active Component personnel have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan > > Table 3. Reserve and Active Component Forces in Iraq > > Reserve Component 18,137 > National Guard 11,545 > Army National Guard 10,583 > Air National Guard 962 > Reserves 6,592 > Army Reserve 4,222 > Air Force Reserve 676 > Navy Reserve 653 > Marine Reserve 1,041 > > Active Component 137,709 > Army 100,307 > Air Force 11,388 > Navy 3,902 > Marines 22,112 > Source: Data from Department of Defense, Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Legislative > Affairs, January 2, 2008. > > Table 4. Reserve and Active Component Forces in Afghanistan > > Reserve Component 5,667 > National Guard 3,971 > Army National Guard 3,284 > Air National Guard 687 > Reserves 1,696 > Army Reserve 1,369 > Air Force Reserve 205 > Navy Reserve 120 > Marine Reserve 2 > > Active Component 20,945 > Army 15,728 > Air Force 3,828 > Navy 934 > Marines 455 > Source: Data from Department of Defense, Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Legislative > Affairs, January 2, 2008. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-america-need-to-maintain-the-marines/567306/37 "2011-01-12T20:17:28Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > Didn’t Stalin prove that quantity has a quality all of it’s own? (Something like that.) Yes and he was right but that only works IF you have the quantity to spare and are willing to throw them into the grinder. The Soviets did, the Chinese do (and did). They took staggering casualties but they had plenty more warm bodies to throw into the breach and just wore away at their enemy. It worked but was pretty grisly. The US has neither those sorts of numbers nor the willingness to toss troops willy-nilly into the fire. I imagine US troops would mutiny if asked to do the things Chinese troops were or Soviet troops have in the past. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Excellent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f19dbf/32.png) [@Mr.Excellent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Excellent)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-america-need-to-maintain-the-marines/567306/38 "2011-01-12T20:17:28Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > Didn’t Stalin prove that quantity has a quality all of it’s own? (Something like that.) Yup - and that quality is best described as “the capacity to absord astonishing quantities of bullets.” Human-wave tactics are fine if you’re willing to absorb the losses they bring. Stalin was; we aren’t, and aren’t likely to become willing. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Excellent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f19dbf/32.png) [@Mr.Excellent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Excellent)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-america-need-to-maintain-the-marines/567306/39 "2011-01-12T20:18:30Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Yes and he was right but that only works IF you have the quantity to spare and are willing to throw them into the grinder. > > The Soviets did, the Chinese do (and did). > > They took staggering casualties but they had plenty more warm bodies to throw into the breach and just wore away at their enemy. > > It worked but was pretty grisly. The US has neither those sorts of numbers nor the willingness to toss troops willy-nilly into the fire. I imagine US troops would mutiny if asked to do the things Chinese troops were or Soviet troops have in the past. You know, Stalin also had interesting ideas on what to do with people who _just barely_ beat him to the post … ---
**Author:** ![Lasciel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e79b87/32.png) [@Lasciel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lasciel)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-america-need-to-maintain-the-marines/567306/40 "2011-01-12T20:25:49Z")
Marines are generally better and more highly trained than most other main corps. That’s just the way it is. SEALS are individually better, but they’re also designed for small groups, for covert ops, and for quick strikes. Marines work on bigger scales than that, and they’re good at it. Hell, if anything was going to be combined, the Knee Deep Navy ought to be part of the real Navy, and (total conjecture and it’ll be a few hundred years at least) once we get to a point where actual spacefaring fighters get going, the Air Force and the Navy are going to be in some serious discussions about combining forces. Either that, or the Air Force is going to get a lot smaller, and a lot more archaic. More of an honor guard than an actual standing military. (2 SEAL paternal uncles, Marine brother, Air Force brother, Navy dad, and Army maternal grandfather and uncles) Also, they’d all up and shrivel away if they couldn’t talk shit about the other branches, and no one wants that. 😃 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-america-need-to-maintain-the-marines/567306.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-america-need-to-maintain-the-marines/567306.md?page=3)