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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ManyMoose who wrote (358338)	4/8/2010 12:19:09 PM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793975

Redundancy isn't necessarily bad, and has its place. Concur. But it also isn't always good. I just don't see the benefit in having another entire service staff and all the other support needed to only add 2 fighting divisions to the force. And I don't see the need for all the duplicative schools and all the staff personnel they require. The USMC is about 205,000 strong right now. You could probably get an equivalent fighting force in the army with about 60,000. Alternatively eliminate the army and transfer them all to the USMC. Significant savings would be result either way. I know the USMC is terrific within 15-20 miles of shore. Once they go deeper they have to have army support. Afghanistan is 600 miles from the ocean.