<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/platform.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d9924031\x26blogName\x3dApathy+Curve\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLUE\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttps://apathycurve.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://apathycurve.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d-8459845989649682690', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe", messageHandlersFilter: gapi.iframes.CROSS_ORIGIN_IFRAMES_FILTER, messageHandlers: { 'blogger-ping': function() {} } }); } }); </script>

Monday, July 28, 2008

Military Focus

This article talks about the current focus for military operations. It looks well written but I'm not very up to date on the details. For that reason I would love to here opinions in reference to the article.

Thanks

posted by Churt(Elfkind) at 08:28

1 Comments:

Blogger davis14633 said...

I believe the general gist of the article to be true, but you cannot ignore China. They do not have a tendency to act as an aggresor nation (not since the 1100's) and most of the military they do have is geared toward defense. If you watch any Chinese films, you can see that they are still very xenophobic and what they really want is no intrusion from foreign power in their domestic policy. (remember the boxer rebellion and the 1800's when they tried to force out foreigners). My belief, as the article believed, we need smaller naval ships that are less expensive and more of them. I'm thinking along the size of the large Coast Guard sized ships. Fast and usable in just about any weather, plus we do have the technology to make them more powerful than any WWII battleship. Give it basic weapons, some cannons, and over the horizon stike capabilities and you have our future navy.
I think we will still need carriers, but more along the line of the IWO class. Smaller, yet can still carry enough fighters to project a sufficient amount of force without having to establish a land base.
On land units, I think we need to make our units into fast, light battalions, a little smaller than a MUE (Marine expeditionary unit). Probably two companies of light armor infantry, some mortars and artillery, with some new style of armored heavy weapons(tank) that is lighter and more manuverable in an urban setting. It would have about three to five thousand combat personnel and then support units. More units would be reservists so that they could be called up and bolster active units quickly. I say you will still need something like the tank, but I believe with the weapons of today, you can easily outfit a lighter vehicle that can take out just about any armor out there today.
I don't believe we give up on developing new weapons and technology, but I do think we don't need the big, shiney weapons of the cold war era either. Scrap many of the new projects and work on building a cost efficient fighter and ship that can take alot of use and abuse.

06:06  

Post a Comment

<< Home