|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 11:42 am Post subject: ... |
 |
|
OK. I understand the point about fixed-wing tactical aircraft now.
I'd be fine with giving the Army A-10's and the modified C-130 gunships used in Afghanistan. That kind of tactical stuff.
Again, it would seem that bureaucracy could be eased if you also gave them whatever the modern equivalent of swiftboats are. Tactical watercraft, IOW.
I don't see why you would put air-to-air in the hands of the Army, however. And, if the argument can be made for that, then why not also include ship-to-ship?
What argument for scuttling the Air Force does not equally apply to scuttling the Navy? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ReeseDog
Joined: 05 Apr 2008
Location: Classified
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| The National Guard is to function as a military reserve under the control of state governors in case a president gets too enamored of his own godhood. |
Nice. Never heard it put quite like that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bigfeet
Joined: 29 May 2008
Location: Grrrrr.....
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 1:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
No. In boots on the ground is the least advantageous way for the US to fight a war. Worse than that US soldiers become hostages to the enemy.
The US ought to begin a long process of taking missions that require large numbers of " boots on the ground" out of the play book entirely. |
Perhaps. But how effective has the Air Force been in winning a war on its lonesome? Could not the Navy handle such bombing missions just as effectively? |
The only way to occupy and hold territory is with boots on the ground. Only the Army and Marine Corps can do this. The Navy and Air Force are, in effect, fancy ordinance and play mainly support roles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bigfeet wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
No. In boots on the ground is the least advantageous way for the US to fight a war. Worse than that US soldiers become hostages to the enemy.
The US ought to begin a long process of taking missions that require large numbers of " boots on the ground" out of the play book entirely. |
Perhaps. But how effective has the Air Force been in winning a war on its lonesome? Could not the Navy handle such bombing missions just as effectively? |
The only way to occupy and hold territory is with boots on the ground. Only the Army and Marine Corps can do this. The Navy and Air Force are, in effect, fancy ordinance and play mainly support roles. |
Take all missions where the US would have to occupy and hold territory out of the play book. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bigfeet
Joined: 29 May 2008
Location: Grrrrr.....
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 2:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
Take all missions where the US would have to occupy and hold territory out of the play book. |
Then you won't have much of a playbook left. Name a war the US was in where occupying territory wasn't necessary? The US bombed the Ho Chi Minh Trail dozens of times but it was always repaired in a few days because the US had no troops there to keep the enemy away from their vital supply route. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 3:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bigfeet wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
Take all missions where the US would have to occupy and hold territory out of the play book. |
Then you won't have much of a playbook left. Name a war the US was in where occupying territory wasn't necessary? The US bombed the Ho Chi Minh Trail dozens of times but it was always repaired in a few days because the US had no troops there to keep the enemy away from their vital supply route. |
The US has gotten better at bombing ie( the first gulf war versus the Vietnam war) and it well get better in the future. The US ought to focus on destroying the military and killing the leadership of the enemy and not get caught up in fighting its soldiers.
With the right weapons the US ought to be able to do it.
the right weapons. Invest in them - not the army
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bigfeet wrote: |
| The US bombed the Ho Chi Minh Trail dozens of times but it was always repaired in a few days because... |
because bombing campaigns, no matter how massive (but still short of nuclear), cannot disrupt guerrilla supply routes, staffed by bicycles and human porters, etc. Has little to do with not occupying the region with ground forces. We deployed approx. 500K forces in Vietnam at one point.
If the North had been dependent on supplying the South via trains, trucks, tracks, and highways, or air transport, etc., that war might very well have ended differently.
American air power could and did damage and/or destroy, say, 80%ish of the Ho Chi Minh Trail at any time of its choosing. But the North only needed, say, 5% capacity to supply its people. (Very rough, spontaneous, and very approiximate figures, so please relax and just take the point.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leslie Cheswyck
Joined: 31 May 2003
Location: University of Western Chile
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Is Aerial Warfare Doomed?
Warning: severely dated
... except, (maybe) this part:
| Quote: |
Doughboy Will Win War
The next war, if it comes, will probably be fought very much like previous wars of history. It will be won by the nation that can make the most intelligent and effective use of every available weapon. It will be won by the side that can close the seas to the enemy, and finish the last decisive battle on land with its soldiers on enemy soil. Weapons, whether they are tanks, battleships, airplanes, bombs, poison gas, artillery, or other devices, are only stepping stones toward the goals of winning a war. Every act of war is merely paving the way for the doughboy with a rifle, and a bayonet in his hands. It is the doughboy that in the final analysis brings a beaten military power to the peace conference. |
Gopher wrote:
| Quote: |
| We deployed approx. 500K forces in Vietnam at one point |
Gopher, we never put any of those troops in North Vietnam.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Bigfeet wrote: |
| The US bombed the Ho Chi Minh Trail dozens of times but it was always repaired in a few days because... |
because bombing campaigns, no matter how massive (but still short of nuclear), cannot disrupt guerrilla supply routes, staffed by bicycles and human porters, etc. Has little to do with not occupying the region with ground forces. We deployed approx. 500K forces in Vietnam at one point.
If the North had been dependent on supplying the South via trains, trucks, tracks, and highways, or air transport, etc., that war might very well have ended differently.
American air power could and did damage and/or destroy, say, 80%ish of the Ho Chi Minh Trail at any time of its choosing. But the North only needed, say, 5% capacity to supply its people. (Very rough, spontaneous, and very approiximate figures, so please relax and just take the point.) |
The US ought to focus on killing the leaders of the enemy (all of them) and destroying the military infrastructure.
Leave the enemy w/o any leaders. Leave the enemy without any government.
Kill the king.
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Wed Jun 18, 2008 9:46 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The truth
Boots on the groud
is as outdated as
Sure the US army has done its job the best they can but the army as a weapon of war is outdated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 10:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
The truth
Boots on the groud
is as outdated as
Sure the US army has done its job the best they can but the army as a weapon of war is outdated. |
Really? Isn't the Army the occupation force? Don't boots on the ground hold the territory the air force and the marines have mopped up? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 10:29 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
What argument for scuttling the Air Force does not equally apply to scuttling the Navy? |
The Navy is by nature strategic in scope and while it often serves as support role for the Army, it can hold areas on its own the army cannot (guess where these places are?). But, given that the Navy is strategic in scope, it can easily absorb the air force's strategic functions, even the Strategic Command capabilities (although I'm content to leave Strategic Command as its own branch). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 10:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Joo: Hitler attempted to conquer Britain through air power, including experimental rockets, and it did not work. He needed to invade Britain to win and to get his army there he needed a navy that could have breached British naval defenses. If he could not conquer Britain with the air force that he had, I doubt that no one could win any war based on air power alone. We should have relearned that lesson again and again: in Vietnam, in the Gulf War, and in Clinton's missile strikes against Osama bin Laden.
Kuros: the Marine Corps seizes beachheads and serves as invasion and shock forces (and provides the Navy's nuclear weapons security, ship security, the President's security, and State's embassy security). Air power softens the enemy before any invasion (see the Gulf War, for example). The Army occupies the ground and fights the war. The Navy projects power abroad and, in war and peace, assures the supply lines remain open.
Transferring the Air Force into the Army and the Navy sounds doable. Scuttling the Navy sounds too flippant to even discuss.
Why not take your "Strategic Command," Kuros, give it to the Navy, and give the Navy jurisdiction over Joo's space-based weapons as well? After all, the Navy got space in Star Trek...
| Leslie Cheswyck wrote: |
| Gopher, we never put any of those troops in North Vietnam. |
Eisenhower, JFK, and LBJ worried about provoking the Chinese to intervene, as they did in Korea, thus transforming a Southeast Asian conflict into the Third World War, as you probably already know. The Chinese explained, for example, that massive American ground ops in the North, massive air strikes against the North's irrigation infrastructure, and, of course, any nuclear weapons use would trigger a Chinese ground war.
Thus, no American armies in North Vietnam. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
The truth
Boots on the groud
is as outdated as
Sure the US army has done its job the best they can but the army as a weapon of war is outdated. |
Really? Isn't the Army the occupation force? Don't boots on the ground hold the territory the air force and the marines have mopped up? |
The US needs to change its idea of fighting. Think of it this way. Kill the king and destroy his army. Deprive the enemy of any government whatsoever, leave them leaderless. Give them a society with no government.
The US ought to target leaders directly from the first day of a conflict and with Rods from God close would be good enough.
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:16 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
="Gopher"]
| Quote: |
| Joo: Hitler attempted to conquer Britain through air power, including experimental rockets, and it did not work. He needed to invade Britain to win and to get his army there he needed a navy that could have breached British naval defenses. If he could not conquer Britain with the air force that he had, I doubt that no one could win any war based on air power alone. We should have relearned that lesson again and again: in Vietnam, in the Gulf War, and in Clinton's missile strikes against Osama bin Laden. |
The weapons above are faster more accurate and more importantly far more powerful than anything that has been seen other than atomic weapons.
Please take note of the increase in the effectiveness of airpower from Vietnam to the first gulf war.
US strategy ought to be this :kill the king , destroy his army. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
