Should the US military be larger? - Page 2




View Poll Results :US should increase its military force
YES 19 51.35%
NO, it's okay at this level 11 29.73%
US military force should be reduced 7 18.92%
Voters: 37. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
 
October 23rd, 2004  
egoz
 
03USMC is right about the Clinton thing. the only reason we aren't increasing in size is because congress doesn't want to fork over the cash to increase the size of the military. we'd rather rely on the reserves and ng because it's cheaper to maintain than to have a bunch of active duty soldiers and sailors.
October 23rd, 2004  
Red_Army
 
 
The US military should have at least 5 million active troops at all times. There population is 290 million, it's time for people in the US to get off their couches and join the army.
October 24th, 2004  
Sooners1
 
 
This is a tough one to answer right now. As far as I am concerned more Marines would solve everything, but with the politics now, more would not solve anything because of the lack of "get er done" ideas.
--
October 24th, 2004  
Lil Hulk 1988
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 03USMC
And lets quit relying on the NG and stop all of their "I didn't sign up for this bit*hin and moanin so they can go back to drinkin beer in a GP tent on Sarurdays. (not a reflection on all Guardsmen.)
Watch the NG comment, my old unit was just deployed to Iraq and the rest of their support units leave in January. The bad thing is that I agree with you on some NG units, especially the support units.

As for the force requirements, what is the most important? Many people still go in to the military looking for job training, not to be part of a combat unit. We need to make sure that the equipment is plentiful and cutting edge and that the combat arms is fully manned. I know we usually had four or five short in our platoon at all times, which meant that we never had full fire teams and while in Recon, we had some of the same issues. So, in short, another Regiment in the Corps would not hurt, nor another two in the Army, an air assualt and high mobility (Stryker) would not hurt. Remember, for every one combat arms person that we field, there are 3 to 5 support personnel......
October 24th, 2004  
USAFAUX2004
 
 
if they increased the active duty section, maybe the reserve guys wouldn't have to do 2 to 3 tours in Iraq
October 24th, 2004  
egoz
 
it's cheaper to have force multipliers than to keep up a large active duty force. it's like saying north korea will kick americas ass because they have a 5 million troops in the military. numbers mean nothing without proper training and technology to back them up. that isn't to say a US force of 5 million would be useless. but we can be just as effective as a 5 million force army with less than half the troops because we have excellent technology and training to backup everyone of our troops.

but i'm sure if the commanders in iraq needed more troops they could get them. it's not like we don't have enough soldiers in the military.
October 24th, 2004  
USAFAUX2004
 
 
But the supply lines for the US are streched you cant say "oh here lets cut half the guys in Iraq and move them to Korea" just imposible
October 27th, 2004  
USAOwnz
 
More elite units e.g. Special Forces, Rangers, would be better.
October 28th, 2004  
egoz
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by USAOwnz
More elite units e.g. Special Forces, Rangers, would be better.
I'd definetly be for that. But we'd have to wait and see who our next prez is before something like that goes down.
October 28th, 2004  
larsrq
 
I don't think that you need more troops. You need to have them better trained. I think that USA have the best equipment but your soldiers are not the best trained in the world. What I've seen both in the real world and on TV is that your soldiers are very in flexible. If someone doesn't give a order nothing happends. They don't have the ability to take thier own initiative.
You need better training for your troops.

This is what I have seen and observed and I'm sure that you probably gonna say against me.