Wikipedia
Harlan Ullman, UPI: Is the U.S. military ready for war?
Is the U.S. military ready for war?
After 16 years of conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq, this may seem a silly question. By all accounts, the U.S. military has performed admirably under very difficult conditions fighting an often invisible enemy lacking a navy and air force, unconstrained by Geneva Conventions or limits on using terror and violence against innocent civilians as powerful weapons.
Yet, the four naval mishaps in the Pacific this year surely raise the question that if the Navy cannot avoid groundings and collisions, how ready is it to fight a major war against a peer or a modern military? Similarly, the same question pertains to our ground and air forces. For decades, our forces have operated in situations in which we enjoyed uncontested control of the air, seas, space and electromagnetic spectrum. Further, the United States has been able to bring to bear when needed overwhelming firepower. And our forces have gained huge experience in fighting the post-Sept. 11 wars.
Read more ....
WNU editor: Considering how massive the U.S. military's budget is .... they better be ready for war.
2 comments:
Well it's massive only in relative terms (costs are several times higher in anything the US does. .they do it well, they train very well, but that's why it's more expensive). And they are fighting several wars/incursions at the same time for 16 years and counting. Readiness is not only about budget, but I'd argue willpower to do what's necessary is another thing. Combat fatigue levels must be very high. I don't envy American soldiers. Tough life. Lots of hardship, and criticised by everyone. But never ever bet against a nation's readiness when necessity and pride are calling. They will be ready, independent of budget issues.
One scary thought: Trump often asks, why have nukes if you don't use them. Of course it's mostly rhetoric and aimed for news cycle consumption. BUT... being a Business man he'll look at a potential conflict with north Korea from a financial perspective and a PR perspective .. PR could be nightmare for the US.. (Not so much for him. .he might love to be the president who nuked another country)..from a financial perspective it could make a lot of sense to just nuke the Kims.
"Trump often asks, why have nukes if you don't use them." I don't think that is true. The story came from an unnamed source, quoted on air by Joe Scarborough and a comment that was often repeated but never substantiated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjdL777SdEI
There are issues with Joe's comment that need clarification.
According to the story as laid out by Joe, someone at the advisory meeting told Joe that they had witnessed Trump asking the question '..... why *can't* we use them?'. Big difference between "don't" and "can't".
Trump supposedly asked the question three times but nobody answered? If true the room full of advisors should have been fired. Perhaps if they had answered the question they thought was being asked they may have realized he was asking something like 'We have nukes but need to spend a trillion dollars to up grade them. What's wrong with them that we can't use what we've got without spending a trillion dollars?'
CEOs often ask questions in the vaguest possible way so as push their people to answer without ruling out anything when providing their response.
I don't like Trump but the Morning Show that day seemed to be really scripted right down to the other two guys repeating "three times" and shaking their heads as if they were supporting what their christian preacher had just said about the second coming and Armageddon.
Joe set the stage with his cautionary lead in.
Post a Comment