Iraq aside, how big a military does the US require?

Great Debates
61

What if I do this? It’s a hijack but what the hell?

ElvisL1ves’s argument is not that the US military is too large for its commitments but rather that the industrialized west has too few military assets.

So that’s what I can gather from your posts so far. The next bit is filled with my assumptions on your argument (which I just know you’ll hate.)

The following countries should ramp their militaries up to an equivalent US level based on population. I don’t actually have the current numbers so percentage change will be left to the reader as an exercise



Country		POP	Aircraft	 Ships	     Army (Div)
America		280	  4400		400		 29
Australia	20	  314		29		  2
Canada		32	  503		46		  3
France		60	  943		86		  6
Italy		58	  911		83		  6
UK		60	  943		86		  6

Total			 8014	     729		 53

I’ve not included Japan or Germany due to their constitutions. Regardless we’ve effectively doubled the current American forces. Now I’m curious as to what you proposed we do with them.

62

These numbers look pretty good to me.

For one thing, the Pacific powers of the US, Australia, Canada, the UK and France could use this combined naval and ground force to very effectively contain China, which has been demonstrating its adventurism in the region for some time.

63

How many regiments would a “typical” US division include?

64

Grey, I’m sorry, but I don’t understand your last post at all. Could you please clarify?

65

What it apparently means is that Grey just doesn’t want to, or perhaps can’t, tell us just what he thinks military power is for, or more generally what obligations countries have toward each other in his philosophy. Without a conceptual framework, attempting to fill in numbers is futile.

Have at it, chap. Tell us the why and then we can discuss the how, okay?

66

How about I throw out a why.

NATO countries have to meet materiel obligations. Currently, many of them don’t.

67

There you go Elvis, militaries exits to implement policy by other means.

Sorry for the confusion furt, I was trying to frame what Elvis was discussing. That the allies of the US do not pull their weight. Likely true I thought I’d try to put some numbers to it. Saying there needs to be more but not actually saying how much more doesn’t seem useful. From CDI (PDF) only the UK and France seem roughly on par with the US except in the area of personnel (might not scale linearly) and aircraft.

**clairobscur **, a division is about 10,000 troops and a regiment is roughly 500-700.

Ok, back to “How big a military does the US require?” This is what I can put together so far that the US needs to be able to do.

3-4 divisions in Korea
3-4 Divisions elsewhere (e.g. Balkans)
3 Divisions at home

11 Active divisions, double it for reserves gives 22 which is 75% of the cited 29 divisions.

400 ships but 12 of those are carriers. If 25% of the carriers are in dry dock, that gives you 9 to place in the Med, Atlantic, Pacific, Indian, and Gulf. 5 on station with 4 steaming out to replace them. No issues there. The remaining ships support the carriers so if the carriers stay, so do the support ships.

4400 planes. 1300 are Air National Guard and 600 more are cargo planes to support the troops. Reduce the troops by 25% and that drops cargo planes to 450. The remaining 2000 planes might be divided up between home, Korea, carriers and a second theater (Balkans) that means 500 in each area and likely only 50% are available to fly due to maintenance. If there are twice as many planes in the US as in the regions that’s 100 planes in Korea, in a Balkan situation, and on the carriers. The remaining 200 staying in the US. That seems reasonable.

So I can see 7 Divisions (Active/Reserve) and 150 cargo planes that could be removed. In retrospect that’s not really a lot and given the intangibles like deterrence and ability to act unilaterally they’re likely not seen as excessive.

68

There is currently only ONE full division based in Korea (and one in Japan), and 2+ divisions based in Europe. Do you want to increase it?

Well, I’m sure you could trim some here and there; like I said, Missle subs are not so important anymore. And frankly, the same goes for most of our stealth aircraft. Most places we’d be operating, taking out air defenses isn’t all that hard.

There’s also the issue of the size of units; you could let some of the divisions be only 80% staffed to trim a few thousand troops here and there. I’d rather do that than get rid of those reserve/NG units.

69

Something else to consider when sizing a military: It takes a LONG time to build up a military nowadays if you need it. The development cycle for a new fighter jet can take two decades, as can the development and construction of a new aircraft carrier. Training cycles for new soldiers are longer, and the construction of large logistic facilities is a massive undertaking - the days when ‘Rosie the Riveter’ could knock together a DC-3 are long gone.

So you have to take a longer-term view. And in the lnoger term you can see all kinds of world problems. For example, the rise of Muslim extremism in Europe - France is going to have a majority Muslim population in a generation. Are they still going to be allies? Then there is the growing military strength of China, the gradual return to authoritarianism in Russia, continual problems between India and Pakistan, etc.

We tend to underestimate the pace of change in the world. Five years ago, we couldn’t see a threat on the horizon, and we were arguing about how to spend the ‘peace dividend’. The world looks a hell of a lot different today.

Or look at the turn of the 20th century. The world was relatively peaceful. It was hard to see the storm clouds brewing. But within 50 years we went through two world wars and a major war in Korea, invented atomic weapons, and entered a cold war with the Soviets.

It is wrong to try to judge how big a military should be by taking a snapshot of the world as it is. The prudent way to do it is to look at worst-case scenarios for what the world MIGHT be like over, say, the next generation. And I can see some potentially huge issues - certainly the dark clouds have gathered to much greater extent than they had in 1900.

70

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

71

It would be more accurate to say that the Muslim population in France *might become a majority as soon as 25 years from now.

The reason is the high rate of immigration of Muslims to France, a very low birthrate among the French, but a high birth rate among France’s Muslim population. Of course, lots of things could change - lower rates of immigration, Muslim birth rate drops, etc.

This does not mean France will become an Islamic Republic or anything. But how will the added pressure of a large Muslim population change France’s policies? France is already being increasingly oppositional to the U.S.