[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
It’s hard to say. I guess as long as China and Russia exist with their large militaries and airforce we need to technologically keep ahead of them.
[/QUOTE]
Well, if we go to war with China, where are we going to get all of our nifty electronics (including the ones needed for all our fancy airplanes and bombs)?
[QUOTE=Chefguy]
While I’m a pretty accomplished cook, I’m not now nor ever have been a chef.
[/QUOTE]
So you admit to picking a username that completely misrepresents what you do? That drives male IT professionals like myself batshit crazy.
The B-52 could be considered a replacement for the A-10 when equipped with:
**CBU-97/B SFW (Sensor Fused Weapon): ** 415 kg (914 lb) anti-tank cluster bomb, consisting of 10 BLU-108/B in an SUU-66/B dispenser. A BLU-108/B unit carries four independent Skeet anti-tank submunitions. After release from the dispenser, each BLU-108/B descends under a parachute to a pre-set altitude. Then a small rocket sends the BLU-108/B upwards and into a rapid spin, so that the Skeet warheads are released outwards. Each Skeet falls independently, scanning the ground with its IR sensor for the signature of a tank. When a target is detected, the Skeet detonates, firing an EFP (Explosively Formed Penetrator) directly downward, and a ring of fragments outwards (against soft targets in the vicinity). If no target is detected, the Skeet explodes immediately above the ground.
As a theater weapon a single B-52 could attack a battlefield full of tanks.
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan]
Well, if we go to war with China, where are we going to get all of our nifty electronics (including the ones needed for all our fancy airplanes and bombs)?
[/QUOTE]
We wont, china is made for nukes.
And if the rules of engagement dont agree with that , just interdicting their food chain of supply will force them to the bargaining table.
Yet at the moment , even with Taiwan I see no reason that a war between the states and china is even possible to contemplate. If anything you would see china v russia , china v india or china v vietnam and those would be on the order of clashes rather than outright wars.
Given the size of their population and military capabilitys they are concidered a peer opponent and plans are made accordingly and just in case, but at this moment in time they are outclassed and would probably resort to a national version of asymetric warfare.
Declan
[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
I suppose you could argue that the Wright Brothers aircraft was the most successful of all time…
[/QUOTE]
Yes but I wouldn’t fancy attacking a tank division in one 
[QUOTE=Spartydog]
The question has to be asked:
Is our military hell bent on developing weapons for an enemy that doesn’t exist?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, it is, and it’s precisely what it should be doing. The military needs to develop weapons for the next war, not the last one. It’s like Napoleon insisting roads should be tree-lined so his troops could march in the shade 20 years later. Or the Nelson wanting to plant trees so they could be used for ships’ masts 50 or 100 or 200 years later. Military forces are not conjured overnight. Neither are weapons.
[QUOTE=Quartz]
Yes, it is, and it’s precisely what it should be doing. The military needs to develop weapons for the next war, not the last one. It’s like Napoleon insisting roads should be tree-lined so his troops could march in the shade 20 years later. Or the Nelson wanting to plant trees so they could be used for ships’ masts 50 or 100 or 200 years later. Military forces are not conjured overnight. Neither are weapons.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, I get in now! You stockpile weapons to fight an enemy that doesn’t exist, lose a war to an enemy that does exist, then bankrupt your treasury to develop weapons for an enemy that is more sophisticated than the enemy that didn’t exist in the first place. Thinking like that may get me at least to the level of Assistant Secretary of Defense.
If you cant understand why the military should spend any money at all on armored Humvees when they can be out buying Stealth Destroyers for the Navy then you just don’t know the first thing about modern warfare.
The Pentagon motto. “We may be getting the crap kicked out of us but we’ll be ready for you the next time, (but only if you decide to fight with some good stuff, not the cheap junk you’re killing us with now).”
The Military idea has been to Move In, Kick Ass, “Liberate”, Rebuild, Move On.
Occupations, like Iraq, are generally intended to be short lived affairs, or involve generally passive populations, not involve long term supression of Civil War. Thus it is not surprising that the Military was unprepared for it.
Also, War is a battle of Innovation. Each side seeking openings and new tactics to defeat the weapons and tactics of the other side. Thus it is downright foolish to blame anyone for not anticipating and countering every possible threat and new tactic before they are developed.
[QUOTE=Spartydog]
Oh, I get in now! You stockpile weapons to fight an enemy that doesn’t exist, lose a war to an enemy that does exist, then bankrupt your treasury to develop weapons for an enemy that is more sophisticated than the enemy that didn’t exist in the first place. Thinking like that may get me at least to the level of Assistant Secretary of Defense.
If you cant understand why the military should spend any money at all on armored Humvees when they can be out buying Stealth Destroyers for the Navy then you just don’t know the first thing about modern warfare.
The Pentagon motto. “We may be getting the crap kicked out of us but we’ll be ready for you the next time, (but only if you decide to fight with some good stuff, not the cheap junk you’re killing us with now).”
[/QUOTE]
A) We’re not “getting the crap kicked out of us”, and
B) You never know who your next enemy is going to be or when a threat may arise whereby high-tech weaponry may be extremely useful.
[QUOTE=NurseCarmen]
So you admit to picking a username that completely misrepresents what you do? That drives male IT professionals like myself batshit crazy.
[/QUOTE]
Yessssssss. My evil plan is bearing fruit.
[QUOTE=Spartydog]
Oh, I get in now! You stockpile weapons to fight an enemy that doesn’t exist, lose a war to an enemy that does exist
[/quote]
We’re not losing. And part of the point of stockpiling weapons is so that a prospective attacker will see your stockpile and be scared off. Another part is so that if someone does attack, you have something with which to defend yourself. You can’t use weapons you don’t have, and you can’t produce most weapons overnight. And even when you can, overnight may be too late.
Don’t put words into my mouth.
I think it is your ignorance that is abundantly clear.
[QUOTE=Spartydog]
Oh, I get in now! You stockpile weapons to fight an enemy that doesn’t exist, lose a war to an enemy that does exist, then bankrupt your treasury to develop weapons for an enemy that is more sophisticated than the enemy that didn’t exist in the first place. Thinking like that may get me at least to the level of Assistant Secretary of Defense.
If you cant understand why the military should spend any money at all on armored Humvees when they can be out buying Stealth Destroyers for the Navy then you just don’t know the first thing about modern warfare.
The Pentagon motto. “We may be getting the crap kicked out of us but we’ll be ready for you the next time, (but only if you decide to fight with some good stuff, not the cheap junk you’re killing us with now).”
[/QUOTE]
After WWI, the ‘war to end all wars’, it was thought that there was no need to spend huge money on a military any more. The U.S. military stagnated, and by the time WWII broke out, the U.S. was incredibly far behind in technology and manpower. When the Germans were building BF-109’s, the U.S. was still flying biplane fighters. The first American soldiers in WWII were training with wooden sticks because there weren’t enough guns to hand out, and the lack of preparedness of American soldiers, both in training and weaponry, caused them to get their asses kicked early in the war.
At the end of WWII, there was a clamor to disband the military, because there were no enemies left in the world. Within six years, the U.S. went from being the ‘arsenal of democracy’ to having a military so anemic that it could barely field enough soldiers to fight the Korean war.
When the Soviet Union fell, there was a clamor to dramatically shrink the U.S. military again - remember the peace dividend? The result is a military that couldn’t field enough soldiers to fight the Iraq war properly, and today is stretched very thin. How do you think the U.S. military would fare today if a war suddenly flared up in Pakistan, or North Korea, or somewhere else?
The moral: The political situation you see around the world today may bear no resemblance at all to the political situation in 20 years. And it takes decades to build modern weapons systems. If you sit around and wait for threats to emerge, it will be too late to do anything about it.
The U.S. got away with being unprepared for WWI, WWII, and Korea, because the relative simplicity of the weapons and training meant it could ramp up very quickly, in a matter of months or couple of years. Today, it takes much longer to train soldiers, and it takes decades to build the weapons. You simply don’t have the luxury any more of not keeping the military upgraded and sized for future threats.
That’s not to say the U.S. military is doing everything well. It took them several years in Iraq to land upon a proper counterinsurgency strategy. The U.S. intelligence gathering apparatus is clearly in need of an overhaul. There may be too much focus on certain weapons systems over others (one of the few things Rumsfeld did right was to cancel the Crusader, against the wishes of the Army brass - it was clearly a weapon that did not fit the needs of the modern army, but too many generals were stuck in the mindset of the last war, and not the next one).
[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
After WWI, the ‘war to end all wars’, it was thought that there was no need to spend huge money on a military any more. The U.S. military stagnated, and by the time WWII broke out, the U.S. was incredibly far behind in technology and manpower. When the Germans were building BF-109’s, the U.S. was still flying biplane fighters. The first American soldiers in WWII were training with wooden sticks because there weren’t enough guns to hand out, and the lack of preparedness of American soldiers, both in training and weaponry, caused them to get their asses kicked early in the war.
At the end of WWII, there was a clamor to disband the military, because there were no enemies left in the world. Within six years, the U.S. went from being the ‘arsenal of democracy’ to having a military so anemic that it could barely field enough soldiers to fight the Korean war.
When the Soviet Union fell, there was a clamor to dramatically shrink the U.S. military again - remember the peace dividend? The result is a military that couldn’t field enough soldiers to fight the Iraq war properly, and today is stretched very thin. How do you think the U.S. military would fare today if a war suddenly flared up in Pakistan, or North Korea, or somewhere else?
The moral: The political situation you see around the world today may bear no resemblance at all to the political situation in 20 years. And it takes decades to build modern weapons systems. If you sit around and wait for threats to emerge, it will be too late to do anything about it.
The U.S. got away with being unprepared for WWI, WWII, and Korea, because the relative simplicity of the weapons and training meant it could ramp up very quickly, in a matter of months or couple of years. Today, it takes much longer to train soldiers, and it takes decades to build the weapons. You simply don’t have the luxury any more of not keeping the military upgraded and sized for future threats.
That’s not to say the U.S. military is doing everything well. It took them several years in Iraq to land upon a proper counterinsurgency strategy. The U.S. intelligence gathering apparatus is clearly in need of an overhaul. There may be too much focus on certain weapons systems over others (one of the few things Rumsfeld did right was to cancel the Crusader, against the wishes of the Army brass - it was clearly a weapon that did not fit the needs of the modern army, but too many generals were stuck in the mindset of the last war, and not the next one).
[/QUOTE]
I have had several conversations with my Dad whom is a retired Army general, and he would always give Rumsfeld credit for one thing: modernizing our forces and dragging our brass’ thinking into the 21st Century. He said Rumsfeld was a real asshole, in fact, his nickname behind his back was “El Supremo”, but that he got that part right.
Unfortunately despite that he failed to listen to his commanders for the ramp-up to this mission and we are only now gaining ground.
Sure we won the military operations part with ease…everyone expected that.
It was the holding of ground due to a lack of enough boots and the right policies and not planning for insurgent tactics that left us twisting in the wind for awhile.
Petraeus is a competent man. We’re doing much better now, even if by better I mean it was shit before and now it’s only slightly sweeter-smelling shit.
As you point out, another large-scale conflict arises and we aren’t quite up to snuff to handle it. That and our soldiers are worn out, and so are our vehicles.
The costs associated with this war have only begun. Wait until the repair bills come in when it’s mostly over.