Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tekboy who wrote (19686)	2/23/2002 1:14:03 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

traditional programs (large conventional weapons, large forces in being, As you know, Tek, our Military is still based on "Grant takes Richmond". Omaha Beach and Viet Nam are good examples, and the overkill in the Iraq shows it also. Stiner's comment about a shortage of 45 ammo in the 82nd got to me also, when I think of all the other wastage in the Army that could have paid for it. After all the reorganization, we are still too much "Tail" and not enough "Teeth".

To: tekboy who wrote (19686)	2/24/2002 6:36:19 AM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I mean, I can accept that the important threats are cyberwar, biological and chemical weapons, and nukes. And I can accept that our conventional military is less extensive and prepared than before. But--how would redressing the latter problems--which presumably is what most of W's defense budget build-up will go toward--help in dealing with the former ones? If those "new" security threats are the real danger, and not a conventional war against some kind of peer competitor, then wouldn't it make sense to revamp the military substantially, perhaps even at the expense of some of the kinds of traditional programs (large conventional weapons, large forces in being, expensive current readiness) that Stiner wants to see boosted? total US troop strength...1.3 million active and about another million reservists. iraq troop strength...400,000 N korea troop strength...1 million active, 12 million reserves. (700,000 N korean active duty troops, 2,000 tanks and 8,000 artillery pieces have been moved to positions two hours or less drive from our troops on the DMZ.) iran active 525,000...reserve 350,000. (they recently deployed about 280,000 to the afghan border. and that is only 3 of the 60 countries harboring or sponsoring terrorists. TB, the threat of terrorism has two prongs, public and private. the private groups are those without an open, organized, national government sponsorship...examples el qeada, farc, shining path, etc. the public groups are those sponsored by a nation...examples iraq, libya, syria, N korea, etc.. we have 2 choices of battlefields...we can wait to be attacked and defend ourselves here after the attack...or we can identify the source and take the fight to them. presently, we are doing both. we have opened a defensive position across America and we are attacking the terrorists at their home. presently, we cannot field 1/2 of the combat resources we deployed to defend kuwait. that is further exacerbated by the deployment of many units in homeland defense. our combat units are understrength, much equipment has aged out, and the personnel and unit training levels in many cases do not meet our own lowest standards. yet, our deployment schedule is extremely high and funds have been very short...this leaves no time or resources to retrofit and retrain. we can throw money at the equipment and ammo shortage problem and restock the shelves...but training takes a lot of time and our undeployed troop strength is so low...nobody is available for training...ever heard of Catch 22? taking the fight away from our shores has been our preference for a 100 years...we need ships and aircraft to do that...we are short both. Stiner has it right. unclewest