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.

 

The Future of The American Armed Forces?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link   
With the US econmy in tatters and a military that is devouring more and more of the budget just how long can America afford to waste trillions on expensive weapons platforms most of which will never be used in action.

The new super carriers cost staggering amounts of money yet can easily be taken out by highly advanced missile systems. Tanks as well cost millions yet anit armour weapons are now so lethal and effective have they rendered tanks dinosaurs?

With the US conventional offensive capabilities resting on a handfull of carriers and a small number of planes could it not achieve a greater capablity for far less cost. Is it a case that now the weapons systems themselves are so expensive that the US will simply not be able to afford them any more.

Since the eighties the US armed forces have shrunk considerably, now to a point where its forces are overstretched especially the army. If America was to relinquish or loose its Global ambitions could we envision a complete reduction that leaves the US with just local forces to defend its own teritorial waters and defence of its own borders?




posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   
It is a concerning time for the Army, the budget for inventing and developing new weaponry systems will decrease and has decreased over the last couple of years dramatically, the same with maintenance of the already existing systems. But even though America invests much into local forces, it will at the same time keep investing in abroad, in other words, wars. And that's where the money is coming from at the end, so the army has no need to worry at all, if it keeps conflict going abroad, and within the country. So the last is just another way to keep get money.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
With the US econmy in tatters and a military that is devouring more and more of the budget just how long can America afford to waste trillions on expensive weapons platforms most of which will never be used in action.

The new super carriers cost staggering amounts of money yet can easily be taken out by highly advanced missile systems. Tanks as well cost millions yet anit armour weapons are now so lethal and effective have they rendered tanks dinosaurs?

With the US conventional offensive capabilities resting on a handfull of carriers and a small number of planes could it not achieve a greater capablity for far less cost. Is it a case that now the weapons systems themselves are so expensive that the US will simply not be able to afford them any more.

Since the eighties the US armed forces have shrunk considerably, now to a point where its forces are overstretched especially the army. If America was to relinquish or loose its Global ambitions could we envision a complete reduction that leaves the US with just local forces to defend its own teritorial waters and defence of its own borders?


Could you please post factual information regarding your statements? Thanks.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Actually, the majority of US federal government funding is related to healthcare and welfare type programs (about 40%). Defense spending is less then 5% of the GDP.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
What is it you don't undertsand? There are plenty of facts there, trillions spent on weapons, fact, technology costing more and more, fact, US economy in tatters fact, super carriers costing a fortune fact, tanks easily killed by anti armour weapons fact, carriers easily disabled by modern supersonic missiles fact, yes I think there is enough there for you to comment on.

You could even answer the question can America carry on supporting this massive finacial burden. It has affected other nations fact, so what about the US.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
With the US econmy in tatters and a military that is devouring more and more of the budget just how long can America afford to waste trillions on expensive weapons platforms most of which will never be used in action.

Please show me cases where MOST of the weapons platforms will NEVER be used?


The new super carriers cost staggering amounts of money yet can easily be taken out by highly advanced missile systems.

Please provide evidence that this is true.


Tanks as well cost millions

Which tanks are we referring to and how much exactly do they cost?


yet anit armour weapons are now so lethal and effective have they rendered tanks dinosaurs?

Please show me where this is the case and no new tank defenses are not in the works.


With the US conventional offensive capabilities resting on a handfull of carriers and a small number of planes could it not achieve a greater capablity for far less cost.

Please provide the numbers of carriers we have and number of planes we have and how we could acheive greater capability for far less cost.


Is it a case that now the weapons systems themselves are so expensive that the US will simply not be able to afford them any more.

In my opinion, NO. R&D is always expensive but when items go into mass production, costs typically reduce greatly.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
What is it you don't undertsand? There are plenty of facts there

Where? Show me.
You're the OP and you brought up the subject. Provide the facts.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by magicmushroom
 


No carriers have been attacked since WWII, and it has never been proven that you could "easily" get through their defenses and take one out.

The tanks that you say are so easily killed by anti armor weapons are being taken out in areas that they weren't designed to fight, and many were damaged by massive IEDs. In fact a lot of the tanks that were destroyed were destroyed by US forces when they couldn't be recovered easily.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   
I said used in combat not used. Oh I take it you have never heard of ships being attacked and sunk or put out of action. No ship has ever been able to protect itself against attack from sea surface or air, the super carriers are no different. What tank, why does that matter, even military planners are now questioning the future of modern tanks. What do the numbers of of planes or carriers have to do with it. Their primary use is force projection usually to intimidate, most of the weapons sytems in use rarely see action so why spend all the money on them. Perhaps you have not heard of Sunburn or Sizzler which US navy commanders have said they have no none counter measures to such weapons.

And you have still not answered the question can the US continue to pay for its masive armed forces. That was the main point of the subject to dicsuss. If you want to know nuts and bolts then look for yourself. Its quite a simple question, can the US given its current financial situation continue to pay for its over expensive armed forces at the expense of everything else. And forces that in reality it does not even need.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   
For the kind of nations the USA likes to invade , it is definitely an overkill . Should they ever take on a nation like Russia thou , they wouldn't really figure in much of a war for too long either . Russia's model of war isn't Stalingrad , It's Hiroshima .



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by magicmushroom
 


And in the case of ships being attacked, they were SINGLE ships, they weren't entire battle groups. A battle group is made up of many layers with the carrier in the center. You can't say a carrier is easily killed when it's never happened since WWII.

Tanks for the missions they were designed for are wonderful platforms. The reason their future is being debated has NOTHING to do with the fact that they are "easily killed". It has to do with the fact that they were designed to kill other tanks, not fight in cities. Fighting in tight quarters is the way that battles appear to be going, not fighting in wide open areas, like Fulda Gap.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
I said used in combat not used.

Again, how do you know this?


Oh I take it you have never heard of ships being attacked and sunk or put out of action. No ship has ever been able to protect itself against attack from sea surface or air, the super carriers are no different.

Provide statistics that prove this.


What tank, why does that matter, even military planners are now questioning the future of modern tanks.

Please show me where you've read this.


What do the numbers of of planes or carriers have to do with it.

You brought numbers up in the first place.


Their primary use is force projection usually to intimidate, most of the weapons sytems in use rarely see action so why spend all the money on them.

Provide evidence to support this claim.


Perhaps you have not heard of Sunburn or Sizzler which US navy commanders have said they have no none counter measures to such weapons.

Ship Self-Defense System (SSDS)
www.raytheon.com...

And obviously nothing is invulnerable to everything. Based on your logic, since something is not completely invulnerable, we should scrap it. HUH?


And you have still not answered the question can the US continue to pay for its masive armed forces.

make up your mind.
first you say

Since the eighties the US armed forces have shrunk considerably, now to a point where its forces are overstretched especially the army.


and now you say that we have MASSIVE armed forces. So which is it?

And to answer your question-since it's a small part of our overall budget, I don't see any reason why it can't and more importantly shouldn't.


That was the main point of the subject to dicsuss.

But you made a bunch of other points and you didn't back up any of them.


If you want to know nuts and bolts then look for yourself.

You brought up the subject.
You made the claims.
It's your responsibility to back up your claims, not mine. Why would I do your work for you?


Its quite a simple question, can the US given its current financial situation continue to pay for its over expensive armed forces at the expense of everything else. And forces that in reality it does not even need.

1. Show how it's at the expense of EVERYTHING else?
2. Please provide evidence that, in reality, we don't need the "over expensive armed forces".



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Zaphod, Ships are vunerable to attack and the days of a battle groups being able to protect itself are long gone. Nuke tipped missiles are now available and jsut one could severly damage or take out an entire batttle group. The challenges that face such battled gruops of the past is now completely different and we have sen how just what one missile can do to a ship.

Your right of course tanks are designed to take out other tanks yet tank on tank engagements are rare and now most tank commanders find thenselves fighting in built up areas which tanks are not best suited to.

From the point of being esily taken out, the Israeli Merkava got clobbered by Hezbolah using Russian made anti armour weapons. I do not know where the tank lies as the best in the world but agin it shows their vunerablity to relatively cheap anti armour weapons.

for you info

www.cfc.forces.gc.ca...

www.mindef.gov.sg...

But all that aside can the US sustain such forces, with probally the exception of China most armed forces are shrinking/spending less money and rather than combat debating the efficacy of such weapons it is politicians and budgets that usually dictate their demise.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Zaphod, Ships are vunerable to attack and the days of a battle groups being able to protect itself are long gone. Nuke tipped missiles are now available and jsut one could severly damage or take out an entire batttle group.

You could make that argument for absolutely everything.

As example: The days of buildings are gone because nuke tipped missiles are now available and just one could severely damage or take out an entire building.


The challenges that face such battled gruops of the past is now completely different and we have sen how just what one missile can do to a ship.

Where have we seen this?



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Yes if you want my honest answer I would get rid of all the Worlds military, they are not needed and the trillions wasted on weapons and war could be better spent furthering mankind his education and quality of life. Money that could be spent on space exploration and a miriad of other good usues.

Those who support weapons and war need reprogramming, to move away from the savage human.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by magicmushroom
 


As was said, you can make these arguments about ANYTHING out there.

The M1A2, which is arguably the best in the world has been destroyed more by US forces, when they couldn't be recovered without a lot of risk to recovery troops than by enemy action.

When has a carrier battlegroup been attacked since WWII? With the new SM-3 coming online, a theatre ballistic missile is much more vulnerable. And why waste an ICBM on a battle group?



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Yes if you want my honest answer I would get rid of all the Worlds military, they are not needed and the trillions wasted on weapons and war could be better spent furthering mankind his education and quality of life. Money that could be spent on space exploration and a miriad of other good usues.

Those who support weapons and war need reprogramming, to move away from the savage human.


That's a wonderful notion and in an ideal world, I would agree with it 100%. However, the unfortunate reality is that bad people want to hurt us and if we don't/can't defend ourselves, they will hurt us.

The reality is that we, as a society, have not evolved enough to get passed all the intolerance, hatred, jealousy, etc.. we have for others and as long as that is the case, we will need a military.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by magicmushroom
 


I'll tell you what, when every country gets rid of their military, and shows how much they love every human in the world, I'll move away from my "savage human" thinking. Men have been killing each other since the days of the caveman. And we probably will be for a long time to come. People think differently and have different religions. Religion teaches us that people who believe differently are Evil. Until that ends, we will always need people to protect us.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by magicmushroom
 


I'm also curious as to why you haven't answered all the questions I've posted?

thanks.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Err the Falklands comes to mind, I know it was not on the size of a US CBG but it still had all the component parts, Carriers, frigates, destroyers, support ships, subs and auxilery ships yet 2 ships were sunk with Exocets and they were primitive by todays missiles.

Again I ask the question can the US continue to afford its military might.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join