CIA Prepping For Possible Cyber Strike Against Russia

lcpiper said:
I don't get that from the clip.

He is correct that our Military has been greatly weakened over the last 15 years because the military has been misused for the last 15 years. The moment the big shots decided to try and use our military to hold the Afghani's and Iraqi's hands and train their cops and play cops ourselves, we were taking a bad road to a bad place. Those things are not what a military is for. These extended missions were a misuse of our forces. The military remodeled itself around what the administrations over those years asked them to do. But in doing so they have lost much of their ability to perform their true primary missions. They no longer have the correct equipment or they no longer know how to properly use it. They have literally forgotten how to fight a serious stand up conventional war.

Switching back isn't free. Training costs money, re-equipping costs money. And I take this as a good sign. It sounds to me like Trump understands and shares this view. It sounds to me like he will bring the boys and girls back home, that we will go back to maintaining our major military bases in a few places in Europe and East Asia and that we will let go of this ridiculous crusade to try and remake the Middle East in our image.

We need to sharpen our sword and our shield and make sure that countries like China and Russia understand that a stand up fight against our military isn't something they can win. We do these things right and we won't have to fight those wars and that is why you do these things. Walk softly and carry a big stick. Win by not having to fight, not by taking the other kid's lunch money.
Click to expand...

Copy; Again the issue is that this contradicts his other statement of wanting to close most of the overseas missions not only in CENTCOM, but EUCOM and PACOM. If this happens there is absolutely no justification for plussing up the Navy and Marines in the way he describes. I could see using those resources for more global reach stuff that the AF does, and cyber - But the issue here is that the /reason/ we need to plus up the navy / marines is due to our strategy in the aforementioned COCOM's. If you shut down those COCOM's mission you have absolutely no justification to do what he is describing.
 
Mchart said:
Copy; Again the issue is that this contradicts his other statement of wanting to close most of the overseas missions not only in CENTCOM, but EUCOM and PACOM. If this happens there is absolutely no justification for plussing up the Navy and Marines in the way he describes. I could see using those resources for more global reach stuff that the AF does, and cyber - But the issue here is that the /reason/ we need to plus up the navy / marines is due to our strategy in the aforementioned COCOM's. If you shut down those COCOM's mission you have absolutely no justification to do what he is describing.
Click to expand...

The 300+ ship Navy has been a long standing staple of the power projection approach. The idea that we can be where we need to be and reach wherever we want to reach by maintaining that strong Navy backed by a capable Air Force.

In the Cold War years when this policy was pretty well developed, we did not have the same global presence we now maintain. We had many bases in Germany and a couple more in Italy and England. There was Korea, Japan, and the Philippines.

Today, much of what had been in Germany is shut down and/or moved elsewhere. We have small Operating Bases in places like Bulgaria and support bases in Quatar and Kuwait, and many other places.

I don't think Trump is just pulling a rabbit out of his hat and making things up. I think he has some Military people who have made recommendations in the past that were not adopted by the current administration and that Trump is dusting off the alternatives and presenting them instead. If it doesn't look right to you, it's not because you don't know what you are talking about, it's because you are missing something that is a key part of the plan so the plan doesn't make sense. You have to look for what's missing to see the logic in the plan.
 
lcpiper said:
The 300+ ship Navy has been a long standing staple of the power projection approach. The idea that we can be where we need to be and reach wherever we want to reach by maintaining that strong Navy backed by a capable Air Force.

In the Cold War years when this policy was pretty well developed, we did not have the same global presence we now maintain. We had many bases in Germany and a couple more in Italy and England. There was Korea, Japan, and the Philippines.

Today, much of what had been in Germany is shut down and/or moved elsewhere. We have small Operating Bases in places like Bulgaria and support bases in Quatar and Kuwait, and many other places.

I don't think Trump is just pulling a rabbit out of his hat and making things up. I think he has some Military people who have made recommendations in the past that were not adopted by the current administration and that Trump is dusting off the alternatives and presenting them instead. If it doesn't look right to you, it's not because you don't know what you are talking about, it's because you are missing something that is a key part of the plan so the plan doesn't make sense. You have to look for what's missing to see the logic in the plan.
Click to expand...

I call issue with your second sentence. You only need to look at each wave of BRAC's through the 90's and 2000's. We do not have the footprint we used to, but we have the same if not more mission that is being accomplished by weapon systems which are more capable. We don't need that 300+ ship Navy because a single destroyer these days could do what 10 destroyers back then could do. Same goes with global strike and the AF.

So again, Trump's military view and his advisors are operating off of some fairly (now) ancient strategies that don't apply to our current environment and again i'll point out to how you justify his spending when he also wants less mission. You simply can't justify it.
 
Mchart said:
I call issue with your second sentence. You only need to look at each wave of BRAC's through the 90's and 2000's. We do not have the footprint we used to, but we have the same if not more mission that is being accomplished by weapon systems which are more capable. We don't need that 300+ ship Navy because a single destroyer these days could do what 10 destroyers back then could do. Same goes with global strike and the AF.

So again, Trump's military view and his advisors are operating off of some fairly (now) ancient strategies that don't apply to our current environment and again i'll point out to how you justify his spending when he also wants less mission. You simply can't justify it.
Click to expand...

Neither could Reagan, but compare the Military budget during his buildup with the costs of any 8 years of the War on Terror and see which we can afford.

defense-spending.jpg


Now I can't swear by this data and it's accuracy, but I am thinking that buying equipment and paying for increased training while minimizing actual conflict usage is preferable to what we have been doing recently. I never had to deploy while I was wearing the pickle suit. I was a civilian before I ever saw a war zone. I would rather more of our young people had my experience in the Army then the one I saw them having when I was in Iraq. I try and remember there are other costs that don't make it into these tables and graphs.

I remember young officers walking around in the early 2000's saying "We'll never fight another conventional war". I thought it was stupid then and I still think it's stupid. Conversely, right now, this is exactly what they are trying to prepare themselves for.

They aren't doing it just for the fun of it, so take it for what it's worth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top