Posted on Apr 25, 2019
Opinion | The U.S. Military: Like the French at Agincourt?
621
7
3
3
3
0
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
"...a Congress ruled by a non-parochial and bipartisan spirit, and a serious president capable of long-term thinking..."
Talk about fantasy land. Geez. The people who elect those officials think that the best Mexican restaurant in America is Taco Bell.
Anyhow, I don't know about get ridding of carriers - most wars are of the type in which there is little hope for an enemy of destroying or crippling a US carrier. If I were the leader of a near-peer adversary, I would strongly consider to use of nuclear weapons against blue-water naval targets. There is little direct danger to large population centers, and if you miss, you don't really miss. That makes me think that in a Big War, the surface fleet will take heavy casualties.
But, in terms of how to structure a force for fighting on a battlefield (air, sea, and land) that involves long range, precision weapons with enhanced effects, dispersal is of obvious importance. So, small units need to be capable of much more.
A final thought: Our best-armed adversaries have corrupt governments rather than ideologically-driven populations of die-hard fanatics. So, if I were a senior defense official, I would be (quietly) pushing for developing capabilities for destroying an enemy's "national command authority" equivalent. It makes both humanitarian and military sense. I really don't give a damn about whether it's considered rude.
Talk about fantasy land. Geez. The people who elect those officials think that the best Mexican restaurant in America is Taco Bell.
Anyhow, I don't know about get ridding of carriers - most wars are of the type in which there is little hope for an enemy of destroying or crippling a US carrier. If I were the leader of a near-peer adversary, I would strongly consider to use of nuclear weapons against blue-water naval targets. There is little direct danger to large population centers, and if you miss, you don't really miss. That makes me think that in a Big War, the surface fleet will take heavy casualties.
But, in terms of how to structure a force for fighting on a battlefield (air, sea, and land) that involves long range, precision weapons with enhanced effects, dispersal is of obvious importance. So, small units need to be capable of much more.
A final thought: Our best-armed adversaries have corrupt governments rather than ideologically-driven populations of die-hard fanatics. So, if I were a senior defense official, I would be (quietly) pushing for developing capabilities for destroying an enemy's "national command authority" equivalent. It makes both humanitarian and military sense. I really don't give a damn about whether it's considered rude.
(2)
(0)
Not meaning to be snarky -- but if we pull all the carriers, what are we going to use to project power?
(1)
(0)
Read This Next