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.

 

Report: Military not ready for US attack

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Report: Military not ready for US attack


www.rawstory.com

The U.S. military isn't ready for a catastrophic attack on the country, and National Guard forces don't have the equipment or training they need for the job, according to a report.

Even fewer Army National Guard units are combat-ready today than were nearly a year ago when the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves determined that 88 percent of the units were not prepared for the fight, the panel says in a new report released Thursday.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 01:33 PM
link   
I have reported on this before at ATS:

Two thirds of Army strategic reserve reporting NOT ready

and

National Guard Stripped of Equipment, America Left Unprotected

Now this new report says the same thing. Are we starting to see a pattern here? Is not one of the FIRST, not last responsibilities of a President to defend the US homeland? Why is this not being done, and instead we have forces all over the world? I urge again the voting public to consider Ron Paul to effect serious change in this regard.

www.rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Are you talking about a large scale conventional attack on the Continental US? In this scenario you're talking about, I suppose it assumes that the Navy and Air Force didn't sink an invasion fleet/shoot down paratroopers enroute? (Not to mention the ICBM, Strategic Bomber, and SLBM nuclear triad as a deterrent.)



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


This is some rather alarming news, if true.

How many soldiers do we have in the US? How many bases? The Air Force alone would destroy anything coming into this country. I would hate to be attacking the US, as much as I may criticize the military's actions. There is no way in hell I'd go up against the US military. That's a suicide mission...

Even if the military is beaten, how about the millions of weapon owners in this country? How many rifles, shotguns, handguns, and knives would an attacked have to go through?

We really should have our soldiers home, including the Navy. Our Coast Guard is pretty much useless for defending against a military invasion. Maybe if we brought our troops home from everywhere in the world, and only patrolled our coast line within a few hundred miles we'd have a lot less warfare to worry about.

Or better yet, we take the GIs who have been fighting so hard in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere to intervene in humanitarian crises like Darfur, China, Kenya, the entire West coast, Ethiopia, Somalia, shall I continue?


(This is not an attack TrueAmerican more of a rant against our foreign policy so please don't take it personal).




[edit on 1/31/2008 by biggie smalls]



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
I suppose it assumes that the Navy and Air Force didn't sink an invasion fleet/shoot down paratroopers enroute? (Not to mention the ICBM, Strategic Bomber, and SLBM nuclear triad as a deterrent.)

raja has a valid point, I think maybe True American is thinking
more on the lines of traditional invasions where they come
from an naval armada or air armada.

You have to realize that we have satellites and submarines
that track any foreign armada that leaves it's home port.
So we would have a sufficient enough time to know in
advance it was coming. With today's smart weapons,
an entire enemy fleet could be crippled if they approached
our coastline. So if my calculations are correct that means we
would need less soldiers to push a button whereas during WW2
it took thousands to do the same thing.

Larger forces are not required anymore
that is unless they made it thru the perimeter defense

Technology makes up the difference



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Well, do you really have to ask why this is happenening? I hope that was rhetorical. The answer is pretty simple, the POTUS' first responsibility is to Multi-National Corporations and protecting the process of Capital Accumulation.

I think protecting America is somewhere in the middle of the list of things to do.

But man, if that is the state of the US defenses, Id hate to think what state my countries defenses are in..



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   
The thing to remember is that there simply is no country that has the sea lift/air lift capacity to present a serious conventional threat to the Continental US, and there are no Latin/South American countries with conventional forces of sufficient strength, that could invade through Mexico.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by biggie smalls

Or better yet, we take the GIs who have been fighting so hard in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere to intervene in humanitarian crises like Darfur, China, Kenya, the entire West coast, Ethiopia, Somalia, shall I continue?


I'm willing to bet that if we sent military forces to help out in Darfur, there will be people on ATS that will find a reason to complain about that, too. (I believe we should have gotten involved in Rwanda).

I read this report and most of it seems to be alarmist media. There will never be "enough". There won't be enough until we have a cop on ever corner and a HAZMAT battalion with every volunteer fire department.

When is "enough is enough, we'll deal with it when it happens". Because after a while, it's just pork barrel politics. More money, more money, more money.

Some people think that the Federal Government should have made the LA NG go to every house and force the residents to evac when Katrina came thru. Right. The ACLU would have had a field day over that one!

And no, it isn't wrong to question the readiness of our Forces. No, it isn't unpatriotic to look at past failures to see where we erred so as not to do it again. It is both wrong and unpatriotic to continually chip away at anything and everything the Government does or doesn't do.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by InSpiteOf
 


Your country contribute 2,500 troops to Afghanistan. Does that mean the whole army is over there? How large is your ground force? Can it protect all of Canada? If not, then I guess it is indeed between the priority list.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
reply to post by InSpiteOf
 


Your country contribute 2,500 troops to Afghanistan. Does that mean the whole army is over there? How large is your ground force? Can it protect all of Canada? If not, then I guess it is indeed between the priority list.



No the whole army is not there. To be honest I cant really find full counts of our troops, but considering Canada's size, I know we do not have the man power to defend our boarders, land or sea...



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Our military, unlike that of just about every other country on the planet, is totally oriented towards power projection (attacking other countries) - there is no real consideration given to the defense of the US. Even after 9-11, it's simply not a major priority.

This is not the fault of the military, but of the civilian government that gives them their orders and signs their budgets.

The publicly offered justification for this is that we're over there getting "them" before "they" get us.

Which is obviously absurd to anyone who isn't drinking the neocon Kool-Aid - the reason so many people hate us and fear us and want to attack us etc. is because we're constantly sticking our noses in other people's business and bombing the crap out of helpless third worlders...


[edit on 1/31/08 by xmotex]



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Actually I think it is good news for you, Americans. This is significant information only in case of a conventional attack. The only force that could launch a conventional attack against US that cannot be retaliated against with WMD-s is US itself.

This report tells you that should there be a revolution... should you decide to rise, then your enemy would be ill equipped to defend himself. Its understandable that the people in power are worried about this.

As I understand, the National Guard is always used only in case of Emergencies like Hurricanes, Riots etc. And they are not ready. Hmm.

Consider this



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 03:02 PM
link   
There is no chance of a revolution happening in the US, as those that would want one are in the very distinct minority(and most are anti 2nd Amendment).



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Perhaps if we built our military to defend the homeland, like most other countries do, rather than building it for global conquests, we'd be more capable of defending the country.

Our military is probably better fit to defend Israel than it is our own country. You know something is wrong when that is the case.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   
We have plenty of firepower in the Continental US for any conventional threat. The majority of the US military isn't deployed right now, and like I've said already, there isn't anyone with the sea/airlift capacity to present a threat, and the logistical chain to support extended ops would be an inpossible task, assuming the Navy and Air Force wasn't able to sink them.

[edit on 31-1-2008 by BlueRaja]



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Say it with me. Conventional war with the US would be suicide for anyone dumb enough to try such a thing.

The USN owns the seas, the air, the outer space....that is americas "defense" deterrance.. not the national gaurd for chirst sakes!



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimonSays
You have to realize that we have satellites and submarines

What about EMP's and Weapons designed for hitting satellites. Both of these have been weaponized and sucessfully tested by forces other than the US. If we were to be invaded, I honestly don't think it would be a boatload of angry people with small arms.
A US invasion would more than likely be a subtle one, put into place by financial and clandestine organizations to subvert the rightful soverignty of the people by controlling the media and financial institutions to insure their empowerment. That couldnt' happen here could it?



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 06:01 PM
link   
China army = 350 million US army around 1 million to 1.5 total.

Only thing protecting US is a nucleur warhead. if not we woulda been taken out a long time ago.

China will crush the US the can lose 3 million men to 1 man of ours and still win.

The US can not defend against 350 million man army no country can. once china decides to take over it will be hard to stop.

period.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 06:37 PM
link   
China's army poses very little threat to the continental US. The People's Liberation Army is one that can only project its power regionally, they simply don't have the capability to move that army to the continental US. They don't have a navy capable of moving anywhere near that amount of troops and equipment, nor do they have a navy capable of getting past the US Navy in a wartime situation. At best they could hope to deploy a few special forces teams before commencing hostilities in a surprise attack, but an actual invasion is beyond their reach.

Even if they could take key airports they don't have an air force capable of moving their army to the US, and they have no way of getting past our air force. Given the large ocean seperating us from the Chinese the USAF or USN could put a stop to a potential Chinese invasion all on their own.

Also, 350 million vs. 1 million is a grossly inaccurate figure. That 350 million is the size that they could potentially create if they drafted every eligable male. Conscripted armies very rarely work very well in an offensive war, most conscripts just don't want to be there.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Well since there isn't a country that could support a large invasion on America I guess we have little to worry about. Now if Europe, China and Russia all ganged up on us at once we might have a good fight, but then that would also mean they would need to get their acts together too, and that is not happening anytime soon.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join