Should the US military be larger?

US should increase its military force

  • NO, it's okay at this level

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • US military force should be reduced

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    1

SAINT

Active member
US military is (as reported) drained and stretched from too many deployments overseas.

The main solution to this is (as opposed to recalling the troops home) probably to increase the size of the US war machine.

Should the US military be larger for more effectiveness and greater conventional firepower? :rambo:
 
I dont think 1.3 million troops is too small. We have troops in over 100 countries at any given moment and still have plenty of NG units at home. If we had a military the size of China it would probally cost us a trillion dollars. Thats allot of money, even for America.
 
You need more troops that are deployable for combat at any time any place.
Basically I think the US needs one more Airborne Division.
 
Thats what the marines are for, not that id disagree with another airborne division.
 
I retired in 2001 and watched the reduction and "outsourcing" at the command level. It makes me ill to think my brothers and sisters are fighting without adequate equipment, manpower and support. Be sure I do write to Congressmen/women to let them know how I feel.
 
Like it or not the Clinton Administration emasculated the military with its RIF's and budget cut. Then turned around and deployed more troops (from less resources) than any President since FDR.Usually at the request of the Useless Nations. It was their idea to rely on NG units as more Force Multiplyers than support.
The U.S. Military needs at least one more LID (Air Assault) in the Army, TWO wouldn't hurt. The Marine Corps could use a couple of three more light armored recon Bn's and the Navy needs the vessels to carry the MEU's and provide support. And I'm not talking redesignating exsisting units and calling them new.
The military needs the gear to conduct their missions.
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.)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
03USMC said:
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......
 
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.
 
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
 
USAOwnz said:
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.
 
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. :)
 
Back
Top