It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Multiple war fronts and the U.S. Military

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 01:53 PM
link   
I'm not advocating war, but why does everyone state the U.S. military is stretched so thin? Check out the number of troops:

www.globalsecurity.org...

This link was provided by urmomma158 in an older post. Thanks!

How many troops to we currently have deployed around the world? 250K total?




posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 02:21 PM
link   
I couldn't get your link to open, but I agree with your point. It is also quite tough to get into an officer program these days - it is literally as long and drawn out process as applying to a top-tier university... Plus, you need to be in decent shape... and already have a "real" degree. I also know that most specializations for Navy, for example, (officer, anyway, I never looked into enlisted) stopped recruiting a few months ago for FY2006. So, if we are so thinly-stretched and in need of warm bodies... why the heck do they make it so difficult to join? Then again, if we really needed to we could accomplish what we're doing with far less troops... it would mean more civilian deaths, though.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 07:52 PM
link   
I couldnt get the link open either so in order to view it I copied the URL and pasted it in the adress bar. That works try it. The numbers are astounding.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 05:28 AM
link   
I never have understood why they want degree qualified Officers, I mean, I myself plan on a military career and I cannot see why they could possibly want me degree qualified. Although I am lucky in that the ADF (Australian Defence Force) only likes you to have a degree instead of making it a requirement



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by undecided2
I'm not advocating war, but why does everyone state the U.S. military is stretched so thin? Check out the number of troops:

www.globalsecurity.org...

This link was provided by urmomma158 in an older post. Thanks!

How many troops to we currently have deployed around the world? 250K total?


Yes, only a part of the troops are deployed somewhere on the world. That still means the troops are overstretched. Don´t forget that a huge chunk of the active personnel is required for domestic uses, and they cannot be sent abroad (this also includes Navy personnel on ships). The next part would be the personnel that you cannot send abroad because it wouldn´t make sense - certain staffs or the whole training and educational personnel for example would fall into this category.

So all in all, only a fraction of that 1.5million personnel CAN be used for deployment somewhere. And even less of those are able for frontline duty. And THEN comes the fact that you cannot have them abroad endlessly... you need to have a rotation so that the troops don´t get morally and emotionally exhausted. There is a reason why many soldiers already serve their 3rd, 4th or 5th tour to one of the hotspots on this world... there simply aren´t more troops available that could be sent there.

[edit on 23/7/2006 by Lonestar24]



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Thanks, Wildcat, for the Computer 101 refresher. It works!



posted by Lonestar24
]


posted by undecided2

I'm not advocating war, but why does everyone state the U.S. military is stretched so thin? Check out the number of troops: How many troops do we currently have deployed around the world? 250K total?


Yes, only a part of the troops are deployed outside the US. the troops are overstretched . . a chunk of personnel is required for domestic uses . . part would be personnel you cannot send abroad . . training and educational personnel for example . . only a fraction of that 1.5million personnel CAN be used for deployment . . even less are able for front line duty . . the fact you cannot have them abroad endlessly . . you need a rotation so the troops dońt have morale and emotional depletion . . many soldiers already serve their 3rd, 4th or 5th tour to one of the hot spots . . there simply are not enough troops available that could be sent . . “ [Edited by Don W]


In War 2, it was said it took 9 men behind the front line to support one man on the front line. With improved transport this may have been cut in half. I would not be surprised to hear that 4 or 5 men in the rear can support one man on the front line. In the 1950s, I served 2 years in a field artillery battalion. It was divided into Headquarters, Service and the three gun batteries, A, B and C. Each battery had its own supply and cooks. I guess the battalion was nearly self-sufficient. I don’t know if that is current doctrine.

The most worrisome concern for me is over the privatization of government in general and the Armed Forces in particular. I know privatizing started in the Air Force in the 1960s when the KP duty the lower 4 hated was replaced by contract food service.

A couple months ago I was on the Dept of Energy website. It said the DoE had 18,000 employees. Later into the site it said the DoE had 112,000 civilians under contract. So, how many employees does the DoE really have? It has become a one-upmanship game with the Dems and GOP which could reduce the number of Federal employees the most. Now I learn we are hiring out - out sourcing - government work and frequently at a higher cost than we were paying Civil Service employees.

Last week a report said the US had hired 20,000 mercenaries from Fiji and other places to serve in Iraq. He said this was the 2nd largest component of the Coalition Forces. I have 2 serious questions.
1) Who is doing the heavy lifting in Iraq?
2) How much is this out-sourcing of war, death and killing costing us?

As to #1, I’m concerned the civilians running the Pentagon have agreed - privately - to let other Coalition Forces to “light” duty in low risk zones while we do the “heavy lifting” in the high risk zones. If this is true, then I believe the taxpayers and the soldiers exposed to danger are entitled to know this is in part a policy of our government.

As to #2, we cannot find the cost of the US part of the War in Iraq, so I’m sure there is no place to go to look fo the cost of mercenaries. Say thank you, Herr Oberfuhrer.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 09:59 AM
link   


posted by wildcat

In order to view it paste the URL in the address bar. That works . . The numbers are astounding. [Edited by Don W]



Yes, it did work. Thanks, W/C.

On China, the largest Armed Force. Purely for internal crowd control. No serious threat to anyone, even Taiwan. When China gets its (humongous) internal problems sorted out, they will deal with Taiwan. I hope by then all the old China Lobby types have died off as I’d hate to see America blow up the world over Taiwan.

India, #3, has the same population problems China faces. Plus, Kashmir. Pakistan and India both lust after Kashmir but I have been to one Kashmiri website which says they want to be free of both. What ever happened to the Four Freedoms? #4 was the right of self-determination. Rodney King, famed Los Angeles gad-about, asked: "Why can't we just get along?"

North Korea. A genuine paper tiger. Reminds me of the old trick the USSR played, by marching the same well dressed soldiers around the corner and by the reviewing stand again, we over-estimate their true strength! Let’s face it, in the NK, the Army is the best fed work force!

Russia. Taking full advantage of the 1991 termination of the Cold War. Unlike the US which is still in the heavy grip of the military industrial Congressional complex. Who is the most free? A Ruskie ($20 billion defense budget) or an American ($455 billion defense budget)? Hmm? America is still looking for worthy enemies! Sweet Jesus.

Pakistan. The military has controlled Pakistan since the United States put them into power after 1947. The purpose of the Pakistan army is to keep them in power and to off-set the ambitions of India towards Kashmir. And not to hunt Osama bin Laden. He is more valuable to the US as a free man than he’d ever be in captivity or worse, if he were killed. The Bush43 team needs OBL for the November 7 election. Hey, it worked in ‘02 and ‘04. Why not in ‘06?

Now for the more peaceful countries. Look at Brazil. Look at Mexico. Compare their armed forces with their populations. Don’t forget Brazil is one of the ABC countries of South America. Argentina, Brazil and Chile. All have signed a nuclear free zone treaty for SA. Despite US urging to the contrary. Who did you say was the greatest force for peace?

See www.globalsecurity.org...



[edit on 7/23/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lonestar24

Originally posted by undecided2
I'm not advocating war, but why does everyone state the U.S. military is stretched so thin? Check out the number of troops:

www.globalsecurity.org...

This link was provided by urmomma158 in an older post. Thanks!

How many troops to we currently have deployed around the world? 250K total?


Yes, only a part of the troops are deployed somewhere on the world. That still means the troops are overstretched. Don´t forget that a huge chunk of the active personnel is required for domestic uses, and they cannot be sent abroad (this also includes Navy personnel on ships). The next part would be the personnel that you cannot send abroad because it wouldn´t make sense - certain staffs or the whole training and educational personnel for example would fall into this category.

So all in all, only a fraction of that 1.5million personnel CAN be used for deployment somewhere. And even less of those are able for frontline duty. And THEN comes the fact that you cannot have them abroad endlessly... you need to have a rotation so that the troops don´t get morally and emotionally exhausted. There is a reason why many soldiers already serve their 3rd, 4th or 5th tour to one of the hotspots on this world... there simply aren´t more troops available that could be sent there.

[edit on 23/7/2006 by Lonestar24]


Dont forget there are more in reserve than active right now. US still has enough forces to make a difference. Good thing about being in reserve in the US is that the government will help pay for your college education. Isnt that a easy way to get free money?



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildcat

Originally posted by Lonestar24

Originally posted by undecided2
I'm not advocating war, but why does everyone state the U.S. military is stretched so thin? Check out the number of troops:

www.globalsecurity.org...

This link was provided by urmomma158 in an older post. Thanks!

How many troops to we currently have deployed around the world? 250K total?


Yes, only a part of the troops are deployed somewhere on the world. That still means the troops are overstretched. Don´t forget that a huge chunk of the active personnel is required for domestic uses, and they cannot be sent abroad (this also includes Navy personnel on ships). The next part would be the personnel that you cannot send abroad because it wouldn´t make sense - certain staffs or the whole training and educational personnel for example would fall into this category.

So all in all, only a fraction of that 1.5million personnel CAN be used for deployment somewhere. And even less of those are able for frontline duty. And THEN comes the fact that you cannot have them abroad endlessly... you need to have a rotation so that the troops don´t get morally and emotionally exhausted. There is a reason why many soldiers already serve their 3rd, 4th or 5th tour to one of the hotspots on this world... there simply aren´t more troops available that could be sent there.

[edit on 23/7/2006 by Lonestar24]


Dont forget there are more in reserve than active right now. US still has enough forces to make a difference. Good thing about being in reserve in the US is that the government will help pay for your college education. Isnt that a easy way to get free money?

Free money? Its not free money if your willing to serve your country over it!


Either way, the US can certainly pull it's cards and fight anywhere in the world, but long drawn out wars and occupations have strains on any economy.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 12:58 PM
link   
The problem is not the size of our army, but reenlistment. Some soldiers won't reenlist for another tour and some are forced into a longer tour. The U.S. actually has about 1.1 million soldiers on U.S. territories, about 900,000 of those are in the U.S. itself. The other 300,000 are deployed around the world. Now, this is just active duty soldiers. I don't know about reserves and I don't know how much reserves we have. I think it is 800,000.

All in all, the U.S. as 1.4 million active duty soldiers, 1.1 in U.S. territories, 900,000 in the U.S., 300,000 deployed around the world and about 150,000 in direct combat. Not bad when you look at it this way, but there is so much more to factor in.

And before you question my numbers, these are directly from the DOD except rounded out.

[edit on 24-7-2006 by MasterRegal]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join