It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


US Military needs to be bigger!

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 11:38 AM
Are you in the military, and have you ever been to war?

I'm just curious.

posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 11:46 AM

it will either be mandatory service or draft I don't have a problem with that but why do so many people?

Personally, I support civil service, which is why I'll be applying for service in the Peace Corps shortly. Being an Anthropology major, I have more of a desire to be part of a healing factor.

Of course the number one deterence to the concept of a draft is death. You are not offered the choice to "fire or be fired upon," it's mandatory, regardless of your beliefs. Some people are willing to accept this and fight for our freedom without being hesitant...others would rather say "Alright, if you want me to pick from x,y and z as options of service, I choose x because that, to me, is something worth dying for."

It's a conflict of interests that cannot be resolved by threatening a man with a prison term for the choice to not participate...these issues are the heartstings of American freedom and choice, even you choose not to be a defender of those virtues.

posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 11:57 AM

it will either be mandatory service or draft I don't have a problem with that but why do so many people?

Because people don't like being told they HAVE to do things.

posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 12:13 PM
I volunteered for the US Army during the cold war. It turned out well for me - even though I went to the Gulf War. I believe no one in our country should be forced to go fight. No one in their right mind would want someone around on the battlefield who was not committed to being there. And it also kind of flies in the face of this whole 'freedom' thing.

The only way I'd change my mind on that is if the United States was being invaded. Beyond that there is no need with the correct foreign policy at work.

posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 01:03 PM
You need to look around that area.Pakistan and India are becoming a possible problem that could require intervention by UN peacekeepers of which the states is the strongest.They need to be in Korea to cut off any forces that move towards Americas Eastern coast from that area.Japan needs support so that America can control Any approaches to it`s west coast.If America concerntrates all its ground forces on the main land the navy will be unable to cope on its own.

posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 01:32 PM
I'm with EastCoastKid on this one, the Army better without a draft. Ask yourself who you would want to share a foxhole with, trust your life to: a proffesional that joined of his own free will or someone who was forced in and is appathetic or didnt have the dedication to learn to do his job well.

posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 01:37 PM
Also, what makes you all so certain that S. Korea cant defend itself? What, our presence means they are weak?

While I havnt been there (and hope I never have to), I know many people who have, and from what most of them say, the south has some of the hardest soldiers they have ever seen. With our support (weapons and supplies) they would be able to fend them off for a while.

posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 01:44 PM
Yeah, the ROC soldiers are pretty hard-core. They're treated like hell to boot. (which gives them that edge)

S. Korea would be fine with our back-up. And much happier and friendly towards the US if we left them to themselves. (For ex., S. Korea has wanted to persue their Sunshine policy w/the North. Bush doesn't want that to happen. The S. Koreans are pissed and want us off the peninsula. That's not good for relations.)

As I said before, anyone who thinks we've got to remain to defend the South is stuck hopelessly in a cold war mindset and doesn't really understand the situation or our other asset placements in the region.

posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 03:10 PM
south Korea will get crushed by the north if we leave they don't have the numbers and don't have as much equipment and tanks as the north dose if we leave and they get invaded they will regret us leaving them then we will have to go in and dame them from the north again!

posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 03:20 PM
Its not just to help keep the north away from the south but it`s basic military strategy that you spread your forces outwards.Look at the basic formation of the navy fleet.Within the centre core you have a central command base (aircraft carrier group) the you have an outer ring of defence.the same for military bases.The US is central command then the defences are spred out.Anybody with any basic ,military training understands this.Soth Korea is important not just to prevent the north from becoming more powerful but to also because it is in a strategic position.Like Gibraltor do you think Britain has held onto that bit of land because we like Paella and the monkeys.Japan and Korea are both important for that reason same as Germany when the cold war was at its height.And just because there is no reason that you can see today to stay in these countries dosn`t mean your millitary advisors can`t see a reason in the future.
if you want to know how draft soliders fight l suggest you look at the history of Vietnam.Athought you messed up big time a lot of draft men fought bravely and have the medals to prove it.Not all regular soilders do so well, iv`e seen plenty SH** themselves in combat.

posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 03:49 PM
weirdo, you are right, of course, about the valor of many draft soldiers durring the war in Veitnam. Many proved themselves time and again, and paid the ultimate price.

However you cannot underestimate how quickly rounds flying overhead will turn the worst soldier into a hardend mashine.

What I have observed is that the soldiers who actualy want to be there are the ones who pay attention durring training, the ones who will remember how to treat your sucking chest wound or load a radio. Even with nearly all American soldiers volunteers, many of them still have a poor attitude toward the military, and it shows durring their training. I have observed this even in soldiers who knew for sure they would soon be in a combat zone.

While I have no doubt that many draft soldiers would make fine soldiers, many of them would not.

posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 06:52 PM
military should be big , all of you guys who think it shouldnt you must not be thinking straight you must have forgot about the rogue states like nkr, iran , and syria. oh you guys who want to cut down the military must have forgot about china. What if china goes for taiwan one day what are we going to do with a small military with tech that is almost out of date dont you guys know china is getting stronger every year preparing for war against tawain pretty soon they would be at our level. I believe the u.s. should continue enhance its military, we are going to need all the enhancements and man power we can get. So when the day comes with china challeging the u.s. we would blow them and and anyone else challenging our power. THose of you who think the cold war is over you guys think wrong a new one is has started and that one is between china and u.s. . ITs you anti war peacnik people who make it harder for our guys in the military to fight you guys have our leaders cut them out , and when they are sent to battle they're sent with mediocre supplies and equipment with out of date tech causing them to come home to family members in body bags. So dont cut or dumb down the military , think about the soldiers you send to battle.

posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 07:15 PM
you kow we where trying to show how if it was smaller it would be better trained and equiped and would prove to be more effective in combat.

posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 07:20 PM
blacman2k6, you are really telling me I need to think more about the soldiers we send into combat!

dude, check out my avatar..........thats me

posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 07:57 PM
Right, let's just have every American, regardless or age, sex, or number of limbs pick up an M-16 and go to the Middle East, would that be a large enough army for you warmongers? Or would you like to start kidnaping people from other countries and forcing them into your army too?

The reason that more troops are needed in Iraq is because of poor planning on the part of the Bush Administration, and Bush's total lack of basic diplomatic skills.

Now I agree with the French, Germans and Chinese that the war in Iraq was a terrible idea in the first place, but if Bush and his cronies had listened to the experts in the first place, America wouldn't be in this mess.

As for having a 16,000,000 person standing army, what planet are you from? You think the American's debt is out of control now, try just feeding and paying 16 million people, let alone arming them or deploying them anywhere.

America was such a powerhouse in WWII because FDR nationalized the entire American economy. The United States was a Socialist nation with a command economy for the duration of the war! It's insane to think that something like that could be passed in America today, and even if it could it wouldn't help you win the war.

Merge the CIA, NSA, and FBI that would be real progress. Hire more spies and get some insiders that would help too, but this war isn't one that America can spend or muscle their way out of. Time to drop the macho mentality, stop trying to beat em with testosterone and use your damn brains.

Even more than more spies, more than more intel, and far more than more men with guns the United States needs to win the hearts and minds of the general population in the Middle East. Stop the source of new terrorists, get the people on your side, and you win the war. No nukes, dasycutters or MOABS required.

May Peace Travel With You

posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 09:06 PM
The military needs to bigger at least 3 million troops plus reserves that is not to much to feed supply and train we need to have a ready force back at home the way we are now if china attacks Taiwan what are we going to do but if you have 3M troops you can have a force that's at home and ready for deployment. So we can still keep our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan without pulling them out prematurely.

posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 09:09 PM
you want 3m troops ?
have you any idea how poor the training would be?
hell do u even have that much ammo?
as much as i like your idea of russian stratagy of more is better , its not gona do the same job as a well trained army.

posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 10:48 PM
Its like what I said before. Whats more effective the large group of soldiers who rush down a street or the small group of soldiers that ambushes them.

posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 01:14 AM
You are not understanding what I am trying to tell you im not saying send all 3million at war all at once im saying keep 500-700 back home or just incase of a surprise attack somewhere in the world so you don't have to pull your current troops out of places where they are needed.

posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 02:39 AM
hmm... granted i agree we need a bigger army, im not agreeing with the figures tossed up on this board... 3 million? comon now...thats just stupid..... i agree that a smaller army all trained to DO THEIR JOB wisely... is far better then a 3 million strong army......

the last time that i can recall where we had to use sheer numbers, was when we had to fight against germans superior tanks..... so we outflanked em.....

new topics

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in