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.

 

Military deployment make you feel safe or scared?...

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   
This thread idea was conjured up while playing Call of Duty: Modern Warware II.

In one of the Acts, Russia sends fighter jets over seas to inflitrate the US and drop Russian soldiers in after satellite survellience has been cut. You can see the chaos that unfolds as the US Military deploys small mobilzation units in attempt to stop Russian troops and AA vehicles from destroying everything in sight. The US Military struggles in this scenario initially because it takes time to deploy artilery to counter their fighter jets and paratroopers etc...

Question:

Would you feel safer, in today's world, not specifically with national troops on guard at malls and such, but with military hardware and s.a.m sites and etc.. deployed in and around any/all North American cities?

OR

Is NORAD/StarWars/Costal-Missile-Defense a suffice defense system for you to sleep well at night?


I REALIZE this is a little unrealistic because it would a total suicide mission for any soldiers invading
North America whether the miltiary is involved or not; citizens would take matters into their own hands.




posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by CanadianDream420
 


Yes we as citizens would take the reigns. China was caught stating that the only reason they never invaded, was because though they knew how many active forces we have, they didn't know how many civilians they would be up against. They also sited, that urban warfare, ( also known as CQB ) on our own soil would have been devastating to their troop numbers.
Got to love the 2nd Amendment!



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by CanadianDream420
 
Yes, I feel we would 'welcome' them in a very different way than the French greeted the Nazis rolling in at the beginning stage of WWII.

Most would introduce them to hot lead.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


I like your thought process!
If any opposing forces tried to come in my front door, ....they would go back out through the door they came in....only about 100lbs heavier! ( Lead, mans best invention )
edit on 16-12-2010 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   
while this topic borders on national security threats; i will comment.

i think americas infrastructure is not "set up" to allocate million+ dollar structures from a federal level to a local level. but, if as in mw2 case ; there were deployments and not structured emplacements. if america did have structured emplacements i would have no problem with how society would be from my perception of its changes because of.

troop movement is always scary because of how headless america is. after 9/11 i dont know anyone who openly felt or expressed betrayal because if its occurrence, and the thought of being deployed or having troop deployments because of its eventuality is definitely something i would not feel safe about.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by CanadianDream420
 


Call of Duty is to gaming what Michael Bay/ Jerry Bruckheimer are to film. Not remotely realistic.

National Guard units already take part in defending the country. Active and Reserves could mobilize in less than 24 hours if needed. This doesn't include the 10 Carrier Strike Groups that are active. We normally just keep two to three at a time deployed. The other seven are normally somewhere close to the US mainland. Each one carries 75 combat aircraft.

Langley AFB outside Washington has over 40 F-22s. Naval Air Station Oceana has 17 squadrons of F/A-18s, most are on carriers though. Andrews has a squadron of F-16s. CoD writers do terrible research.
edit on 16/12/10 by MikeboydUS because: Argh



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by CanadianDream420
 


I would feel safer with our troops at home, and any action outside of our country being swift, severe, decisive, and then bring them back home again!

I would feel safer if there were SAM sites scattered about.

I would feel safer if there was more transparency and not so much political correctness. I'm grown, I think I can handle seeing some military hardware near key landmarks and government hubs.

I would feel safer if we still had real journalists out there risking their lives to bring real news, instead of just polished press releases and pretty faces smiling on TV.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   
The one thing to bare in mind, that anything is possible. Some posters on this thread rebuke the possibility of any type of CQB on US soil. The movie Red Dawn, though a film, clearly indicates the " possibility ".
Is it possible?, yes anything is. No one ever thought the WTC would come down, but we all know it did. ( Let's not take this topic to a WTC who done it debate, just using that as an example )



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


Red Dawn is a fictional film, thats not really an example of something possible.

Even the writer of the Red Dawn screenplay had to come up with an elaborate alternate history backstory that allowed the US to plausibly be vulnerable to invasion.

The only current plausible scenario, would require NATO to collapse and the EU, Russia, China, India, and Brazil to form an alliance to invade the US. Even then they would most likely get overextended and bogged down in Alaska, the Intermountain West and the Southern US fighting guerillas.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 


Why?

The vast majority of our military is halfway around the world. The Southern border is entirely porous. The Northern border doesn't have so much as a sign saying please check in somewhere, except in larger cities. There are millions of estimated "undocumented" non-citizens in the country, and there are 100's of millions of weapons on the street. Less than 20% of incoming freight gets thoroughly screened while in port. Almost 0% of private and charter flights from Mexico or the Caribbean are subject to any security screening. Cuba is considered an enemy of the United States and has regular communications with other rogue states such as Venezuela.

Why couldn't a 2 or 5 or 10 year plan be underway to seed the country with militants, and then during a moment of heavy US deployment, spark off violence in many cities across the US, when the responses are well underway and our hand is tipped, why not a massive invasion from several fronts?

I believe Red Dawn is entirely possible, and I believe it is much more likely today, than it was when the movie came out. BRIC is a plausible scenario, but there are others. Maybe just NK, Venezuela, Cuba, and the Middle East conspire? Maybe Al Qaeda reaches out and gets funding and equipment from these areas.

I'm glad someone can sleep so well at night, because I sure can't!



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   
^^ Great post.

I'm glad to see both sides of a "sense of homeland security" unfold so far in this thread...

I used to live back Eastern Canada, my parents still do, 6kms from the LEPREAU NUCLEAR PLANT which powers New York state. Anyways, on 9/11 coming home from high school I looked across penisula and saw fires burning on either side of the plant and I honestly thought it was being attacked.. My dad learned they were burning feilds so they could set up small Silo's. I don't know if their is truth to that still..

but i'd feel better if they WERE there.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Not to mention, if the story ( bare in mind the possibility ) that the alleged hijackers of the 9/11 ( no I'm not taking to that topic, just making a point ), were in fact in America for their " flight training" then why wouldn't the idea of " militants" established in our country not be plausible?
Yes, we know Red Dawn is a fictional film, but its the basis behind it. Simply put, the possibility, thats all I was saying.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Military deployment makes me feel uneasy. In reality it lets you know something is seriously wrong. I feel in my bones that it is a matter of time before we get invaded in the U.S. We have burned a lot of bridges and pissed off a lot of other Nations. We have gained a lot of enemies over the past years. It's unfortunate that the American people are going to suffer for what our corrupt Government has done.
Will i fight? You bet your ass i will. I have a Family to protect the best way i can. I will die for my Family to live just as i would die for any other American or our allies.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


The vast majority of our military is here at home in the continental US.

There are around 50,000 troops in Iraq.
Over 100,000 in Afghanistan.
Close to 30,000 in South Korea.
Around 35,000 in Japan.
Around 50,000 in Germany.
9,000 in the UK.
9,000 in Italy.

Thats roughly 285,000 troops overseas.

You have apparently no idea how large our military is.

We have around 1.5 million active duty forces and another 1.5 million guard and reserve forces.
285,000 out of 3 million isn't squat.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 


Whats your point again? I'm not following?



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 


Whats your point again? I'm not following?


He's saying the US Military has enough troops CONUS to deal with something like this, and you don't have to grab Grampa's shotgun off the mantel.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 


Whats your point again? I'm not following?


He said the vast majority of our military was overseas.

That is a misconception.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 


I've seen those numbers before, but something is drastically missing. If those numbers were real, then why the stop-loss situations? Why call up so many reserves? Why utilize the National Guard? Why the multiple tours when they were promised otherwise? Why the lack of equipment and armor? Why the need to privately finance life-saving battlefield dress? Surely if only 10% of our military is forwardly deployed, then we can afford to adequately outfit those troops?

Nope. I've seen the numbers, but something doesn't add up.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   
No think the guess who said it best..
Dont need your war machines .. Dont need your ghetto scenes ..



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 03:52 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


They don't add up due to rotations. Stop losses and stop moves normally only apply during deployments. So if you have an ETS or PCS 90 days out from a deployment date, you usually get stopped. Soon as you get back though your gone within the time it takes to outprocess.

The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan rotate on deployments. Army 1 year, Marines 6 months, and Air Force 4 months.
The units then get a break in rotation, start field exercises and the cycle then starts all over again. Our units are always going through constant exercises and inspections when not deployed. Some units also never deploy depending on their mission, like most units that deal with nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Strategic bombers (B-52s, B-1s, B-2s) and their support crews usually don't stay gone very long with short missions overseas. We have quite a few of them too, 77 B-52s, 66 B-1s, and and 20 B-2s. Keep in mind how many personnel it takes to fly and support each one.

You have to remember not all units can do the same job either. You can't take Fuelers and make them into MPs. Each unit has a specific type of mission they can perform. 75% of any decent military are support elements that sustain the combat units that make up around 25%. So the vast majority of the military are non combat elements, like cooks, truck drivers, mechanics, supply, etc.

Lastly we keep a large number of forces at sea in Carrier and Expeditionary Strike Groups. Just the Supercarriers carry over 6000 personnel. Currently we have 10 operational. Thats 60,000 personnel just sitting on carriers. Thats not including the other ships in each Strike Group, destroyers, cruisers, submarines, and supply ships. We also have 12 Expeditionary Strike Groups. Each of these carry around 2000 Marines in addition to the ships crews. Each include an Amphibious Assault Ship, Amphibious Tranport Dock, Dock landing Ship, Cruisers, Destroyers, and Submarines. So at any given moment we could have about 150,000 personnel just floating around in the Pacific and the Atlantic.

On the issue of gear, the vast majority of that was fixed years ago. When a unit deploys they get a near unlimited budget. Its up to the unit commanders to request proper gear and equipment. Proper also meaning what they actually need for their mission and not coolkids gear. Just because a transportation unit deploys doesn't mean they get to have highspeed gear like Rangers.
edit on 17/12/10 by MikeboydUS because: !



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join