Our current military readiness

I don't agree and again congress did that too

 

I served during the Vietnam War era. Back then the United States was able to fight 2 1/2 major wars at the same time just like how we were able to fight two major wars during WW ll.

In 1969 we had over 500,000 boots on the ground in the RVN (in-country) and at the same time another 100,000 sailors, Marines and airmen in the Vietnam theater of war in the South China Sea or in Thailand and the secret little war that was being fought in Laos.

At the same time on any given day there were over 500,000 American troops forward deployed mostly in Europe, South Korea or at sea. We had a 900 ship Navy with 20 aircraft carriers back in the day.

Since post Vietnam War we have gone from being able to fight 2 1/2 major wars then 2 wars then 1 1/2 wars and by 2000 only able to fight one major war. All of these decreases of combat capability happened when a Democrat was in the White House or when Democrats controlled Congress.

As of today almost 1/2 of the U.S. Navy's amphibious ships can't put to sea. Even if the Navy was able to put every amphibious ship to sea they could only put 2/3 of a Marine division on the beaches, that's two Marine Amphibious Brigades.

Of the U.S. Army's active 31 combat brigades, on January 20th 2017 only three were combat capable. In just ten months under the Trump administration it's up to five Army combat brigades being combat capable and being able to be deployed into combat.

 

You seem to be advocating a true isolationist foreign policy, which is pretty far from where the center left is right now. They were ready to follow Hillary into Syria and The Ukraine.

So you seem to be out on a limb by yourself advocating for US troops to withdraw to our borders and hunker down, unless I'm reading your foreign policy views incorrectly?

 

Of course they do. So do other military industries and support services, but that’s not what you were saying or implied. Did you or did you not imply that the “military industrial complex” drives US policy and puts us into wars for the profit of those industries?

 

Correct. Since you think you’re so smart, please tell me how much of our economy is based upon global trade. What would happen to our economy if the Asian or European economy collapsed due to war? The restriction of trade routes? What would happen to our economy if the Iranians closed off the Straits of Hormuz even though the US doesn’t need a single drop of oil from the Middle East?

 

The centre left would shy away from action and search for global action. Aggressive foreign policy tends to be counter-productive after all. Hillary isn't centre left. She's a hawk.

 

I'm well aware that America's number one export is empty sea containers being sent back to China and other countries.

 

That is a responsibility for the world......not us. They need peace as much as us

 

Yes I did and yes they do

 

That is what I am advocating. We need to stop being the worlds policeman

 

How about we fight no wars unless someone attacks us directly? This concept seems so radical to some but it is how most of the world lives

 

"Global Action." as opposed to "action?"

 

OK well I'm not surprised then if you're not happy with Trump foreign policy, but you sound as if you wouldn't have liked Hillary foreign policy and probably didn't like Obama foreign policy. Your views are extremely marginal and are unlikely to be represented by more than a small group of people on twitter.

 

International law is a jolly decent thing and that will, if followed, enable co-operation that is more successful

 

Yes I'm sure it's quite jolly.

 

Yes I'm sure too. Offer an argument

 

Oh I'm quite certain the military spending will continue. Too many people getting rich for it to stop

 

What argument are you looking for? I'm unclear of the relevence of your comments to this topic?

 

An argument. If you can't derive an argument from my post then say so (i.e. rest your keyboard)

 

You literally said, "Yes I'm sure too. Offer an argument."

So apparently I can't derive an argument from that. Maybe you should start a thread titled, "Argue with me about anything."

 

That's how the French thought after WW l.

Lets not have any maneuver divisions that can go on the offense and fight, lets just have a defensive army that doesn't move and build the Maginot Line to put them in.

Maginot...sounds kinda radical, like something you would see in a Star Wars movie or on Star Trek Next Generation.

 

That's nice. We are not france. We have ten CBG's when Russia has one and china has one. We could cut MORE than half and be very safe

 

That you didn't understand a simple reference to avoid hawkishness, with global co-operation determining appropriate action, is beyond me. Try eating more greens?

 

The U.S.Navy hasn't put a Carrier Battle Group (CBG) to sea in over nine years. The last President to be able to put a CBG too sea was Commander in Chief, G.W. Bush and he was able to put ten CBG at sea when the Chi-Coms were rattling their sabers.

For the past nine years the U.S. Navy has only been able to put Carrier Strike Groups (CSG) to sea and never more that three at a time but usually only two.



USN Carrier Strike Group (CSG)



USN Carrier Battle Group (CBG)

 

We do not need ten of them