US Troops overseas: Is this needed anymore?

[Pudding Time]

I didn't have a problem with it. I spent 2 years of my 5 year enlistment overseas. 1 year at a duty station and 1 year deployed.

I miss home

 

[Pudding Time]

If S Korea could hold their own, we wouldn't have been there for the last 50 years. And for every dictator you assassinate, there's another one waiting to come out of the woodwork.

Yeah but it takes time for the dictator to come forward.


And I didn't say South Korea should stand on their own. You must have missed this part:

South Korea can send there own foot soldiers while the US bombs the living shit out of North Korea.

 

[gLing]

We have to keep troops in Korea so we can keep an eye on the Kimchi supply.

 

[dt3]

Yeah but it takes time for the dictator to come forward.


And I didn't say South Korea should stand on their own. You must have missed this part:

Then what do you propose when the enemy isn't in an open field in a uniform? When they take over a city full of innocents? A bombing campaign won't help very much in that situation. Not just in Korea, but anywhere.

Then, you need boots on the ground kicking in doors. That's just how it works.

 

[Pudding Time]

Then what do you propose when the enemy isn't in an open field in a uniform? When they take over a city full of innocents? A bombing campaign won't help very much in that situation. Not just in Korea, but anywhere.

Then, you need boots on the ground kicking in doors. That's just how it works.

That's what SF is for. We (allied forces) have thousands upon thousands of SF troops. More than enough.

 

[dt3]

That's what SF is for. We (allied forces) have thousands upon thousands of SF troops. More than enough.

Thousands of Special Forces could stop, say for example, millions of Chinese? I doubt it.

To say there's no need for basic infantry is to completely ignore military history dating back thousands of years, as well as the threat currently facing our nation.

If you wanted to establish a base in the Middle East, let's say in Iraq for example, you would tie up most of your "Special" Forces simply trying to guard the perimeter of the base.

Unless you're advocating every mission begin in the US and take 12 hours just to get in-country?

 

[debbie t]

Then what do you propose when the enemy isn't in an open field in a uniform? When they take over a city full of innocents? A bombing campaign won't help very much in that situation. Not just in Korea, but anywhere.

Then, you need boots on the ground kicking in doors. That's just how it works.

that was my point ,but not as eloquently put as big daddy

 

[skyblue]

ok.......one sentence..........'THE PEN IS MIGHTIER THAN THE SWORD'

 

[Pudding Time]

Thousands of Special Forces could stop, say for example, millions of Chinese? I doubt it.

LOL! Not even your entire military could stop the chinese!

To say there's no need for basic infantry is to completely ignore military history dating back thousands of years, as well as the threat currently facing our nation.

I'm not ignoring military history. But the fact is, there has been major advancements in military technology, with a main focus on not having to deploy thousands of troops.

If you wanted to establish a base in the Middle East, let's say in Iraq for example, you would tie up most of your "Special" Forces simply trying to guard the perimeter of the base.

If you want to setup a base, fine. But once it's setup, you don't need to keep thousands of infantry troops there to secure it.

Unless you're advocating every mission begin in the US and take 12 hours just to get in-country?

I'm not sure what you mean here.

 

[Peter Parka]

Of course we need troops abroad, I don't want my country open to attacks! I just have a problem with illegal wars against non agressive countries, that is all.

 

[Pudding Time]

Of course we need troops abroad, I don't want my country open to attacks! I just have a problem with illegal wars against non agressive countries, that is all.

How does having troops abroad protect you from homeland attacks, greater than having troops at home?

 

[Peter Parka]

They are in a position to suss out the situation long in advance.

 

[Pudding Time]

They are in a position to suss out the situation long in advance.

You are right, you do need to keep an eye out. That's why I said:

All you need is reconnaissance and missiles.

 

[IntruderLS1]

No offense pudding, but dt3 knows what he's talking about. I'm not sure of your background, but as an armature military historian myself, I can tell you that your views on the special forces and the capabilities of overseas / remote recon are grossly out of proportion.

The U.S. military has a tremendous ability to project force, but it still takes time to move power into a theater. Time that is spent my any would be opponent to fortify and prepare.

Our military seems like magic and by all practical applications, it is. But that is a fairly new development, and one that is fragile.

Having forces overseas helps improve relations in the area, as well as bring stability from nearby aggressors. Recent example; Berlin from '45-'85.

I'm not sure if you were serious in what you said about the U.S. not being able to defeat China in military conflict. I could probably write you a novel on why that's a silly thing to believe.

 

[Pudding Time]

No offense pudding, but dt3 knows what he's talking about. I'm not sure of your background, but as an armature military historian myself, I can tell you that your views on the special forces and the capabilities of overseas / remote recon are grossly out of proportion.

My father is a Commander in the Australian Navy. Uncle is Australian S.A.S. Grandfather fought in Korea. I have grown up in a military family all my life. I currently work for the Australian Department of Defence, albeit an IT position. Still, I have a clearance which allows me to see the majority of military research and collaboration being conducted between our two nations. I also have access to talk with many different military personnel, both Australians and Americans. And even other countries. I have even had the privilege to chat with Admiral Clark (USN).

I'm no slouch when it comes to military knowledge.

The U.S. military has a tremendous ability to project force, but it still takes time to move power into a theater. Time that is spent my any would be opponent to fortify and prepare.

The US can bomb any nation in the world within 8-10 hours, even less with ICBMs. And the US has some pretty big bombs. Not too mention that the US is never alone in the military actions. Australia is always prepared to help when called upon. And we definitely have the ability to reach out and touch the enemy in our theatre. Same goes for the Brits.

Having forces overseas helps improve relations in the area, as well as bring stability from nearby aggressors. Recent example; Berlin from '45-'85.

True. Back in those days people could not travel great distances quickly. Today, you can.

America also needs to start relying on the other nations surrounding the trouble zone to provide security, just like they want the Iraqis to secure their own nation. Of course America will always be there to back those nations up if shit hits the fan.

I'm not sure if you were serious in what you said about the U.S. not being able to defeat China in military conflict. I could probably write you a novel on why that's a silly thing to believe.

There's no way the US could invade China, and there's no way China could invade the US. In a neutral theatre, that war would probably never end.

 

[IntruderLS1]

Really, it's a moot point. If they asked us to leave, we would.

If somebody were to create a way to neutralize air power, (which is by no means out of the question), then we're back to needing ground forces around the globe.

Other than that, it's academic.

 

[gLing]

There's no way the US could invade China, and there's no way China could invade the US. In a neutral theatre, that war would probably never end.

I think if it ever came down to a fight to the death with China then it will be nuclear.

 

[Pudding Time]

Really, it's a moot point. If they asked us to leave, we would.

If somebody were to create a way to neutralize air power, (which is by no means out of the question), then we're back to needing ground forces around the globe.

Other than that, it's academic.

JSF's and the SuperHornett are the most technically advanced fighter-bombers, other than the Euro Fighter. And the US can produces these jets faster than any other country. You could shoot them down, but they'll keep on coming.

The Chinese are only ones who could give the US (+ Allies) any trouble in the air. But then, the Chinese aren't a worry to the US through military means. I'd be more worried about the Chinese through economic means.

 

[Pudding Time]

I think if it ever came down to a fight to the death with China then it will be nuclear.

Yep! It's the reason why superpowers have nukes. No one will invade them.

 

[IntruderLS1]

JSF's and the SuperHornett are the most technically advanced fighter-bombers, other than the Euro Fighter. And the US can produces these jets faster than any other country. You could shoot them down, but they'll keep on coming.

The Chinese are only ones who could give the US (+ Allies) any trouble in the air. But then, the Chinese aren't a worry to the US through military means. I'd be more worried about the Chinese through economic means.

I've worked in a design lab for JSF for the last three years. They aren't that easy to produce. It isn't a P-38 or a B-17.

As it stands today, they cannot be defeated. Tomorrow is an unknown. If somebody developed a way to neutralize our air power, we would require rapid response locally.

Again though... If they asked us to leave, we would. What's the point in arguing over the decisions our host nations make?