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.

 

??American Military??

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 07:02 PM
link   
We are always hearing that our troops are spread thin...people speak of a possible draft in the future, etc., can anyone tell me how many active military we have now and where are they stationed. Or maybe a website that gives this information.

I must be missing something because I dont believe we hear much about the "other troops" that are "out of harms way".....at least for now.



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 02:06 AM
link   
Armed Forces Numbers

www.globalsecurity.org...

www.globalsecurity.org...

As you can see, we are in a whole bunch of unecessary places. What these maps do not show is the areas, like Western Europe, were we still have a few bases we no longer need.

We are spread out in over 120 countries, not good.



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 02:25 AM
link   
It sems to me that 1/3 of our total military is committed world wide where does it mention our peace keeping deployment we are in areas for training and military advisors as well as presently occupying many countries we have been in combat with in the past as peace keepers so wouldnt it be safer to say the totals on the military deployments are slightly under estimated by 50 - 100 thousand are we not recently deploying to do combat sims with countries like around China area with naval battle drills etc.



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 06:55 PM
link   
I don't know where people get the idea that the military is spread so thin. I know I hear it all the time on the news, but I don't get it. Many of you all don't seem to know about the reduction plans in the Navy and Air Force. Right now both branches are in the middle of a reduction of well over 30,000 sailers and airman. Now I can see if you were talking about the army, because departing sailers and airman are getting some serious money offers to re-enlist in the Army. But I read all these posts, about how the president has spread us to thin, not given us the supplies, etc. . We just don't see as much of that in the Navy/ Air Force I guess.



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 08:14 AM
link   
The Army is generally the poor relation in periods of decline. Its the only service that is (despite opinions to the contrary) all about total boots in the sand. I think the Army and Marines probably get to see a lot less of home than you other guys.

The Navy and Air Force...well hey, you dont need so many bods now you got all this hi tech gear coming in (eventually) with the need for fewer uniforms to look after it because you are only getting a fraction of the kit to replace what you got. Your bombs are smarter and your senior officers dumber (sorry...I still say I dont care how many types of weapons you can shoot or how fast you can carry them...you still can't be in two places at once).

In Australia. Our Goverments have been equal opportunity ignorers of all three services, although our navy is currently in the worst shape. One party tried to make it brown water defensive, and the other idiots beleive in hi tech over numbers.....we cover or have international water zones over nearly one sixth of the earths surface and we are trying to watch it with 14 warships, six subs and 15 patrol boats and 13,000 bodies?....give us a break!



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by craigandrew
we cover or have international water zones over nearly one sixth of the earths surface and we are trying to watch it with 14 warships, six subs and 15 patrol boats and 13,000 bodies?....give us a break!


HOLY SH**
even for britain that wouldnt be enough. 15 patrol boats??? these policitions cant see outside thier district.



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 04:07 PM
link   
The overwhelming majority of American military manpower is in the contiguous United States of America. Besides who is going t oattack us? Canada? Mexico? Who can get across the seas? Whoever wants to attack us must wait until the next president reduces the military budget from Bushs increases so we will be much weaker.



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyMan
I don't know where people get the idea that the military is spread so thin. I know I hear it all the time on the news, but I don't get it. Many of you all don't seem to know about the reduction plans in the Navy and Air Force. Right now both branches are in the middle of a reduction of well over 30,000 sailers and airman. Now I can see if you were talking about the army, because departing sailers and airman are getting some serious money offers to re-enlist in the Army. But I read all these posts, about how the president has spread us to thin, not given us the supplies, etc. . We just don't see as much of that in the Navy/ Air Force I guess.



If the reduction plan you speak of is going on now then why did I see a live briefing with a 4 star general saying that there are plans to

1) change inlistment terms to include a 4 year deployment abroad and then 1 year in a state side base as a retention plan

2) as a part of this same retention plan it is I think supposed to include adding 25,000 to 40,000 people to the active ranks by 2007 I cant remember the exact # but it was in that range it is supposed to be incramental over the next 3 years whith the larger number of added troops in 2007



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Was that US General speaking for the Navy and the Air Force?

The Navy and Air Force could still be undergoing cuts while the realisation slips in the army still need more thumbs on guns.

Yes the US Armed Forces are still moving towards a US Centric basing policy but you still deploy globally. You also have to be careful that redeployments home are not seen as a sign of weakness (hey theyre pooling thier manpower cause thier short in Iraq).

In Europe it may not be such a problem, but South East Asia and the Middle east, all with thier own ethnic and imported terrorist problems targeting wobbly or small US allies. Plus NK likes to strut whenever the issue of troop reductions come up. Didnt the US just put a planned redeployment on hold.

True anybody would be nuts to make the mistake that the US re-organisation is a retreat, and the US could probably hammer anyone including NK.....but why create the impression, and would more greiving US service families find any comfort in that thought, when a strong presence in an area could have deterred it in the first place?

Hell....(IMHO) I'd scrap all these whiz bang high cost projects like Raptor JSF UCAV DD-X SDI lasers and put all the money into new fresh teen series fighters, transports,frigates and most important of all personnel...especially boots on the ground for the USArmy and USMC.

Just an allied citizens opinion though



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 05:37 PM
link   
i think the high cost will be worth it in the long run, just think if one raptor could take out 5 migs, i mean that kind of unlikely but it could happen. if you have completly supirior manuvering capabilities and tech then you might not need as many to get the job done.

quality over quantity!

[edit on 18-10-2004 by sturod84]



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by sturod84
i think the high cost will be worth it in the long run, just think if one raptor could take out 5 migs, i mean that kind of unlikely but it could happen. if you have completly supirior manuvering capabilities and tech then you might not need as many to get the job done.

quality over quantity!

[edit on 18-10-2004 by sturod84]

quantity has its own quality.



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 06:18 PM
link   
And in the meantime, all the current projected potential enemies faced have zipp or poor air capabilities defeatable at little risk by new frames of old designs (Eagle, Falcon, Hornet, Harrier II, Tornado, et al) with good aircrew.

Instead they are frustrated by a lack of identifiable legitimate ground targets covered by semi people freindly ROEs while US Ground Pounders get ground pounded. Thats not to say they are stuffed, but they would like to see more freindly faces I would think, that were ...more useful in an urban ground fight perhaps?

A hi tech fighter orbiting overhead unable to drop its load, wouldnt be much good to me at the instant I am engaged, or too scary to the Madhist shooting back from 10m away in a suburban street.

I felt the same way a Reservist on Ex scrounging kit we should have had. I could only guess actual combat feels a 1000x worse.



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by craigandrew
Was that US General speaking for the Navy and the Air Force?

Just an allied citizens opinion though




It was one of the generals in the white house from the _______?
sorry brain fart .........ooooooohhhhhhh yea the joint chiefs in the white house at the all to famous podium that we have all seen way to much where anouncements of screw ups made by the goverment with Iraq the general was speaking as the like overall the branches of the military as a joint chief

[edit on 18/10/2004 by drbryankkruta]



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by drbryankkruta

Originally posted by NavyMan
I don't know where people get the idea that the military is spread so thin. I know I hear it all the time on the news, but I don't get it. Many of you all don't seem to know about the reduction plans in the Navy and Air Force. Right now both branches are in the middle of a reduction of well over 30,000 sailers and airman. Now I can see if you were talking about the army, because departing sailers and airman are getting some serious money offers to re-enlist in the Army. But I read all these posts, about how the president has spread us to thin, not given us the supplies, etc. . We just don't see as much of that in the Navy/ Air Force I guess.



If the reduction plan you speak of is going on now then why did I see a live briefing with a 4 star general saying that there are plans to

1) change inlistment terms to include a 4 year deployment abroad and then 1 year in a state side base as a retention plan

2) as a part of this same retention plan it is I think supposed to include adding 25,000 to 40,000 people to the active ranks by 2007 I cant remember the exact # but it was in that range it is supposed to be incramental over the next 3 years whith the larger number of added troops in 2007




I am a retired soldier. We have been down sizing for some time now. Off and on for over 30 years. Why? Several reasons, cost, politics, needs for current world situations. The most influential factor being politics. We do have over 2 million soldiers (Army, Marines, National Guard, and Reservist). Problem is most of them are support folks. Not fighting men! Wars are won with combat soldiers not support folks. It takes about 19 noncombat types to support a combat unit (21 to 30) fighting men. So with 2 major deployments (combat areas) and several occupation areas (South Korea, Japan, Germany, Panama) and prepositioned forces (Panama, Guam, Japan, Germany, Italy, Hawaii, Alaska, few secret deployments) all of our Embassy's (Guarded by US Marines) and many units on secret missions (not to mention continuious training exercises) that uses up those forces.

Being retired I stay in touch with many of which I served. Units are understrength, that is why many active duty are in a STOP Loss program (meaning they are held past their service obigation date because the unit would not be able to meet it's combat role without them).

So we need more military. We cannot meet another conflict in the existing war situation. At least not a conventional one. Maybe nuclear!



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by drbryankkruta

Originally posted by NavyMan
I don't know where people get the idea that the military is spread so thin. I know I hear it all the time on the news, but I don't get it. Many of you all don't seem to know about the reduction plans in the Navy and Air Force. Right now both branches are in the middle of a reduction of well over 30,000 sailers and airman. Now I can see if you were talking about the army, because departing sailers and airman are getting some serious money offers to re-enlist in the Army. But I read all these posts, about how the president has spread us to thin, not given us the supplies, etc. . We just don't see as much of that in the Navy/ Air Force I guess.



If the reduction plan you speak of is going on now then why did I see a live briefing with a 4 star general saying that there are plans to

1) change inlistment terms to include a 4 year deployment abroad and then 1 year in a state side base as a retention plan

2) as a part of this same retention plan it is I think supposed to include adding 25,000 to 40,000 people to the active ranks by 2007 I cant remember the exact # but it was in that range it is supposed to be incramental over the next 3 years whith the larger number of added troops in 2007




I am a retired soldier. We have been down sizing for some time now. Off and on for over 30 years. Why? Several reasons, cost, politics, needs for current world situations. The most influential factor being politics. We do have over 2 million soldiers (Army, Marines, National Guard, and Reservist). Problem is most of them are support folks. Not fighting men! Wars are won with combat soldiers not support folks. It takes about 19 noncombat types to support a combat unit (21 to 30) fighting men. So with 2 major deployments (combat areas) and several occupation areas (South Korea, Japan, Germany, Panama) and prepositioned forces (Panama, Guam, Japan, Germany, Italy, Hawaii, Alaska, few secret deployments) all of our Embassy's (Guarded by US Marines) and many units on secret missions (not to mention continuious training exercises) that uses up those forces.

Being retired I stay in touch with many of which I served. Units are understrength, that is why many active duty are in a STOP Loss program (meaning they are held past their service obigation date because the unit would not be able to meet it's combat role without them).

So we need more military. We cannot meet another conflict in the existing war situation. At least not a conventional one. Maybe nuclear!



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Topturner


from my listening of the general that was his point he said alot of people are about to retired or are not reinlisting after there first hitch he explanation fo the build up between 2004 and 2007 was to replace those people and to try to increase retention of active personel til such a point as the first 2 groups of added replacements could go through boot and ait ...etc and be in line for a point of time that they will be familular with there jobs before their elders to who would train them retire they are also saying this plan will counter act the cuts from 1980 to 1999 and in fact make the military 10,000 men and women stronger than before the cuts .....his rationale was that post cold and veitnam war complacency and budget cutting would not work in the battle feild of today stating that also they will be retiring 3 differnt types of choppers to be replaced by the newest combat and evac models avail and that a refit of current dependable vehicle like the awacs and a couple of transport and fueler planes now 30 years old but in excellent condition he said also that the abrahms was to be refitted with newer surveillence gear more apt to work in the battle zones that they have drawn a greater role in ...in the last 4 years this will cut the maint cost of all vehicles emensley and also operational costs as well there by providing extra funding for new PPE gear including a pending already active order for body armor that is top of the line and is @ a per unit cost of 4600.00 plus just for upper body and head coverage alone the are planning to inergreate an additional 100,000 plus new close quarter combat fire arms and armor as well although he couldnt place any other detail than that now to me that looks like some big plans toi boost the power of the US military as a whole wouldnt you say



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by verfed
The overwhelming majority of American military manpower is in the contiguous United States of America. Besides who is going t oattack us? Canada? Mexico? Who can get across the seas? Whoever wants to attack us must wait until the next president reduces the military budget from Bushs increases so we will be much weaker.


Bush invaded Iraq with Clinton's Military, he can't take any credit for it. And seeing as he took an enourmous surplus and turned it into a huge debt, it's gonna be hard for WHOEVER is the next preseident to increase it. All of which could have been avoided or at least greatly reduced.



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Bush invaded Iraq with Clinton's Military, he can't take any credit for it. And seeing as he took an enourmous surplus and turned it into a huge debt, it's gonna be hard for WHOEVER is the next preseident to increase it. All of which could have been avoided or at least greatly reduced.

a portion of money has already been spent and some has been passed in legislation and from the joint chief general the ability to raise the extra funds has already been worked out all it needs is Bush's or the new Presidents hancock oooohhhh and dont forget some money is coming from the fact that training has been reduced by the 4 year deploy and 1 year home duty cycles reducing the turn over of recruits and the new soldiers will be coming into a differnt pay scale that will be greatly slowed another words you start out at a good rate but when cost of living changes again dont expect pay to change to if it does dont expect it to balance the change of cost of living cause it will be lower also smokers here is your little conttribution your fixing to carry alot of the burden of the needed money ooohhh lets dont forget beer and alcohol and that things setting in the driveway get ready guys in my home town I saw 2.02 per gallon for cheap gas but that is due to hurricans and cut production but 2.02 will drop back down just in time to go to 2.15 PER GALLON TO COVER THE COSTS OF THIS WAR AND NEW MILITARY STARTING AFTER THE ELECTION AND IF IT DONT MAKE IT TO 2.15 iLL BE SUPRISED



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Understand Top.

Oz has dropped from 70,000 to under 50,000 ADF personnel in 15 years. We have about half that number of Reservists.

RAN 13200
Army 25000 (??)
RAAF the rest.

We unfortunately followed your model. The old made in USA is best syndrome.

In 1999 We initially deployed something like 8,000 ADF personnel to East Timor and it took the efforts of the entire ADF to do it. Freinds of mine in my old Reserve unit back in Perth told me everyone was being strip mined of kit and supplies to give to the forces deploying.

We moved to Brisbane and when I was cab driving met a group of Regulars going home to Perth on leave who had been in my old unit. The Army had called for 400 volunteers from the Reserves and supposedly got 4000 to pick from to fill our 6 RAR and its support units. These guys told me they were some of the 40 blokes from my old outfit.

They said that a lot of NCOs had volunteered too (including guys I had known when we were recruits) and they had been knocked back because HQ did not want to disrupt training any more than it already had been.

Our East Timor deployment dropped to 1500 then 500 and I think now we only have a 100 on training and observer duty with the UN.

Last year we sent nearly 3000 troops to the Solomon Island to assist the multinational police and administration group restore order. Most are home now.

We also have small deployments in Bouganville, for the UN elsewhere and we have had between 1000 to 2000 ADF personnel involved in the war in Iraq, the Gulf (not presently in ) Afghanistan and elsewhere. Plus yes exercises overseas.....RIMPAC in Hawaii and up in Alaska.

Wev'e been busy boys.

Meanwhile, they cut the Regular Armys recruit course from three to two months after something like twenty-thirty years. Tried to make Reserve Training a seven week block ( can you say "mass resignation")

We have scrapped our only three DDGs, are about to scrap two FFGs a decade early and are waiting 10-15 years to get three new DDGs to replace the other four FFGs. We cant even accept the offer of ex USN DD/CGs because we dont have the manpower. The RAN can't even convincingly counter arguments that they are so over stretched they can't step up recruitment and training even if they could attract it.

My own personal opinion is that we let our own government run down things to the point where we have insufficent manpower, units and infrastructure (lots of former bases turned into housing estates) to step up our training and manning programes.

We have been dug into a big hole.

The only bright spot is that somehow our men and women still achieve miracles despite it all.



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 01:12 AM
link   


originally posted by craiganddrew

We unfortunately followed your model. The old made in USA is best syndrome.

My own personal opinion is that we let our own government run down things to the point where we have insufficent manpower, units and infrastructure (lots of former bases turned into housing estates) to step up our training and manning programes.

We have been dug into a big hole.


I agree with you views about the run down thing and as to the US is best policy .....man I dont even follow that policy and Im a American ....and thats my right I do whats best for the masses not the pocket books of fat cats on Pennsylvania Ave if you know what I mean it sad that the fatcats have dug us into a whole but to drag others into the hole with us is just horrid

[edit on 20/10/2004 by drbryankkruta]

[edit on 20/10/2004 by drbryankkruta]

[edit on 20/10/2004 by drbryankkruta]




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join