U.S. Army Prepares for Large-Scale Global Combat as New Chief of Staff Takes Command

"The Army Chief of Staff said the army must bolster its presence around the world. It's not just a show of power, but rather a quicker response to ever-changing global events. These range from boots on the ground to crews working behind computers to counter cyber attacks—and everything in between."

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us...-of-staff-takes-command/ar-AAHCvIS?li=BBnb7Kz


WTF, doesn't anybody study history anymore as this worked out so well for Rome two thousand plus years ago... IFwe're attacked then unleash holy hell on the attacker(s) otherwise play nice with the other children..

 

What if we're not attacked? What if its only our allies or our interests which are attacked?

 

What, they don't have their own armies and defense agreements? Why is it our boys and girls getting killed for BS reasons?

Matter of fact, lets secure our borders, clean up our cities AND take care of this country first before we spend trillions elsewhere.

 

Because the United States is NOT defendable within its own borders. I've explained this more than once.

And most of our allies do have their own defense agreements.

With us.

With great power comes great responsibility. Whether sought out or not.

 

That's true, but a country can certainly over-do it and become bankrupt and over-extended. Which seems to be the course we're on.

 

I'm not sure the USA would be ready. The USA is loosing their war since the 20 last years from one point :
Financial point of view.
The amount of money invested in this money is largely superior to the interest won. Afghanistan and Iraq contributed to put the US in a very poor financial point of view and the USA are wearing out because of those conflicts, becoming overall more vulnerable.

 

No nation ever makes a profit from a war. Or even breaks even.

 

We profited enormously from WW2. Everyone else was a bombed out mess, except us. That created a post-war boom that lasted for years.

 

ROME circa 50AD

 

History seems cyclical, doesn't it? I think we had our moment in the sun, and I think it's downhill from here on. We didn't listen to Ike when he warned us about the military-industrial complex, and now it seems like it's too late. The defense companies have both political parties by the short hairs.

 

Yes. But I'm saying the U.S. government and economy did not profit directly rom WW2. We profited because the U.S. was the only major power left standing.

 

You have actual evidence to support that belief?

 

You don't know about Eisenhower's speech?

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist."

 

There's a contradiction there.

 

Do you know ALL of the Eisenhower speech?

 

I've read it before. Is there another part you want to talk about?

 

Actually I'm probably thinking of a different Eisenhower speech where he defended the U.S. maintaining a large standing military because future wars would be "come as you are" with no time to mobilize.

But you also have to consider the context of Eisenhower's speech. If I recall the numbers when Eisenhower was president, defense spending was about 50% of the U.S. federal budget. It's only about 25% today. And of the defense budget in 1961, (Ike's last budget year) weapons spending was 44% of the defense budget. IIRC weapons spending is only around 30% of the defense budget these days.

 

I don't say the aim is to make profit or to break even. Let's state just some facts :
In 2000 : The debt of the USA were around half the GDP, today it's more than 100 % of the GDP. Many other countries knew such evolution.
The USA spend huge amount money in Afghanistan and Iraq with poor results. Iraq is a terrorist paradize and Afghanistan is not yet pacified.
That debt put the USA in danger. It's not impossible that there would be in the next years an economic crisis that would make the 2008 one seems like a joke.
It's important to notice that the USSR fell down after they went in Afghanistan.
Until the 80's the USA were managing to reduce the debt they got from mostly WW2.
We could argue that the US knew a worse debt, it's true. In 1946, the debt of the USA was at 118 % of the GDP. But there is a major difference, the debt was only rising between 1940 and 1946 for obvious reasons. Since the 80's, the ratio of debt/GDP is getting worse and worse.
Keep in mind that the USSR didn't fell after an invasion, but because of economical reasons mainly, keep in mind too that happened aswell a few years after they went involved in Afghanistan. Economic crisis burried more nations than invasions.

The USA and not only the USA are falling apart for economical reasons. All the evolution of the american economics since the 80's is a disaster. I'm not even sure that in one century people would fully understand that economical dawnfall. The poor gestion of its own ressources, including in war is part of the reason of this dawnfall.

 

Yes please learn from history

Bullies never win

 

Are you forgetting treaties like ANZUS?

 

How can you say that? Almost everyone in the U.S. who wants a job has one and most of them are making pretty decent money. Most people that are suffering economically are due to their own devices.

 

The EU can defend itself, Japan could be a full nuclear power in a decade and defend themselves that way, India is strong enough and well other nations if they have valuable assets we need then fine protect them and with what we can along these nations helping themselves including giving them nuclear weapons.

I for one am tired of nukes being such a bad thing they keep the peace even China would fear angering a nuclear Japan armed with say 80 missiles and other forms of deployable weapons nations who have them avoid war with nations with them even if they hate each other. China would be far less cocky if South Korea, Japan and other nations friendly with us were nuclear and we could move our commitments back if they were to support in the UN.

But we do need better cyber security and other measures to and to also be clear we will consider using nuclear ordinance and to prove it you know the next terrorist base in a remote location, why not deploy a tactical nuke on it, to show we deem them a tool in our toolbox. And warn China and Russia we did use them before that and have a new policy of using them and their being so armed might prevent use of these in war on MAD terms but we have them.

On the plus side we could downsize the army and other forces a good deal as we shift to a nuclear focused defensive posture globally.

 

But the crooks and politicians who create these unnecessary wars clean up and laugh all the way to the bank.

 

Do you have actual evidence of this?