US Army Chief Sounds Alarm: Military at ‘High Risk’ - Polidicks

[QUOTE]WASHINGTON — Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley sounded the alarm that the US Army is currently in a state of “high risk” when it comes to being ready enough to defend the nation and respond to a large conflict. “On the 'high military risk,' to be clear, we have sufficient capacity and capability and readiness to fight counterinsurgency and counterterrorism,” Milley said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Thursday. “My military risk refers specifically to what I see as emerging threats and potential for great power conflict and I am specifically talking about the time it takes to execute the task ... and the cost in terms of casualties.”[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]The Army’s budget has shrunk in almost every aspect in recent years and the service is having to reduce its size to a total Army of 980,000 soldiers, which include all three components. Yet with the emerging and current threats in Europe, the Middle East and elsewhere, Army leaders believe the force should be as big as 1.2 million soldiers to meet the current Pentagon strategy and guidance.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]The “high risk” assessment for the Army does not take into account what might happen if sequestration is implemented again next year. That would mean lowering the active force from 450,000 troops to 420,000, which could spell disaster in terms of being able to respond to a major world crisis, according to Milley.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/land/army/2016/04/07/army-chief-sounds-alarm-military-high-risk/82763640/[/url]

How prepared should people really be for a massive scale war? If any conflict emerges between the U.S. and another World Power, it results in nuclear apocalypse in any outcome. The purpose of WW2 era massive land/sea armies has been replaced by MAD.

We honestly don't need to spend any more money on war. Defense, maybe, but what is the pentagon's "plan" for defending the US with 1.2 million soldiers that they can't do it in 980000

[QUOTE=daisyjukes;50092813]How prepared should people really be for a massive scale war? If any conflict emerges between the U.S. and another World Power, it results in nuclear apocalypse in any outcome. The purpose of WW2 era massive land/sea armies has been replaced by MAD.[/QUOTE] So long as NATO exists I'd say the percentage chance of massive scale war breaking out between the USA, Russia and/or China is so negligible it might as well not exist. Even the odds of limited intensity conflicts between major powers over things like Chinese water disputes and Russian expansionism are extremely unlikely. War's expensive, ruins your image, ultimately upsets your own people, and to really make any hugely significant gains you would have to go large scale.

[QUOTE=mcgrath618;50092819]We honestly don't need to spend any more money on war. Defense, maybe, but what is the pentagon's "plan" for defending the US with 1.2 million soldiers that they can't do it in 980000[/QUOTE] The pentagon doesn't only defend the US. The reason a lot of European countries can spend so little on their military is because they know that the US will help if they get into a war. Add in SK depending on the US, training + humanitarian aid, and the current situation with ISIS which might require another coalition invasion and I can see why the pentagon wants 1.2 mil. Besides, the Pentagon likes to maintains 2 and a half standing armies after ww2

[QUOTE=daisyjukes;50092813]How prepared should people really be for a massive scale war? If any conflict emerges between the U.S. and another World Power, it results in nuclear apocalypse in any outcome. The purpose of WW2 era massive land/sea armies has been replaced by MAD.[/QUOTE] Except that's the entire point of MAD; no one will use nukes because no one wants to get nuked in return.

[QUOTE=Dr.Critic;50092862]So long as NATO exists I'd say the percentage chance of massive scale war breaking out between the USA, Russia and/or China is so negligible it might as well not exist. Even the odds of limited intensity conflicts between major powers over things like Chinese water disputes and Russian expansionism are extremely unlikely. War's expensive, ruins your image, ultimately upsets your own people, and to really make any hugely significant gains you would have to go large scale.[/QUOTE] But the US [I]is[/I] NATO.

[QUOTE=daisyjukes;50092813]How prepared should people really be for a massive scale war? If any conflict emerges between the U.S. and another World Power, it results in nuclear apocalypse in any outcome. The purpose of WW2 era massive land/sea armies has been replaced by MAD.[/QUOTE] MAD isn't a nuclear doctrine adopted by either the Russian or the US militaries. The prevailing nuclear doctrine is a steady escalation from conventional fighting to tactical nuclear warfare to strategic counter-force nuclear warfare over a period of months until one sides capitulates to some degree. It's all about effective command and control of nuclear forces to present to opportunity for the other side to give up before we reach counter-value nuclear war. This isn't the 1950s.

[QUOTE=daisyjukes;50092813]How prepared should people really be for a massive scale war? If any conflict emerges between the U.S. and another World Power, it results in nuclear apocalypse in any outcome. The purpose of WW2 era massive land/sea armies has been replaced by MAD.[/QUOTE] MAD is not a thing anymore...it's 2016, the Cold War is over.

[QUOTE=mcgrath618;50092819]We honestly don't need to spend any more money on war. Defense, maybe, but what is the pentagon's "plan" for defending the US with 1.2 million soldiers that they can't do it in 980000[/QUOTE] Not only that, but if we genuinely find ourselves in another bru-ha-ha with another nation of our level(so pretty much China or Russia, nobody else with an army of note is likely to do so) it won't take long at all for people to start pouring into recruitment centers. Put this country under a genuine threat and the people will take care of the numbers problem. [editline]8th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=InvaderNouga;50093543]MAD is not a thing anymore...it's 2016, the Cold War is over.[/QUOTE] MAD is still a thing and will remain as such for as long as nuclear weapons exist. The cold war never went anywhere, it just changed a few names on the opfor side.

[QUOTE=TestECull;50093575]Not only that, but if we genuinely find ourselves in another bru-ha-ha with another nation of our level(so pretty much China or Russia, nobody else with an army of note is likely to do so) it won't take long at all for people to start pouring into recruitment centers. Put this country under a genuine threat and the people will take care of the numbers problem. [/QUOTE] I agree, but I think it's heavily dependent on the army's ability to process all those recruits in a timely manner.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;50093543]MAD is not a thing anymore...it's 2016, the Cold War is over.[/QUOTE] Nukes didn't disappear when the Cold War ended. MAD will be in effect until one or more sides of any given conflict of interest lose nuclear capability for whatever reason.

[QUOTE=Matthew0505;50093746]If you're losing a conventional war and the enemy is demanding unconditional surrender, what do you have to lose by dragging them down with you?[/QUOTE] What's left of your country? If you're at the point where they are able to demand unconditional surrender, firing a nuke isn't going to magically "win the war", only encourage them to finish you off instead of accepting a surrender.

Really if it got to the point where the opposing side is asking for an unconditional surrender then the opposing side is probably already conducting anti-materiel ops and it's unlikely all the nuke facilities will be ready to receive orders or even operational. These things are prime targets, after all. I can't realistically see MAD happening unless one side unexpectedly decided to deliver its entire arsenal for no reason at all. It is the fact that no one wants to actually start a nuclear war so elephant in the room type of conventional warfare is still going to happen regardless of nukes. The circular error probable of modern nuclear weapons is fairly small and nobody wants to conduct countervalue ops because it'd get your entire country sanctioned for thousands of years. It's all about counterforce and anti-silo ops.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;50093543]MAD is not a thing anymore...it's 2016, the Cold War is over.[/QUOTE] Until everyone abruptly has installations to disable or destroy airborne nuclear weapons with a 100% success ratio, MAD will always be a thing. Even then, it will remain a thing, just a secondary goal. It won't be "massive land invasion", it will just be "disable installations or sneak in ground-based nuclear weapons."

[QUOTE=Matthew0505;50093935]It's not supposed to make you win, it's to make them lose. They're not supposed to test whether you'll do it if you have fail-deadly with thousands of warheads.[/QUOTE] So basically, "I lost so let's commit crimes against humanity" Sure, sound plan!

[QUOTE=Doom14;50093976]Until everyone abruptly has installations to disable or destroy airborne nuclear weapons with a 100% success ratio, MAD will always be a thing.[/QUOTE] Thankfully one or two nuclear weapons can't destroy the entire continental US. We have some defensive networks in place and the clear loser would still be the one who got cornered and panic fired. The Winner would hopefully recover in a series of decades but the loser would be relegated to low-development country status for maybe hundreds of years if not more.

[QUOTE=Milkdairy;50094001]Thankfully one or two nuclear weapons can't destroy the entire continental US.[/QUOTE] Oh well yeah, I'm more talking about a case of Russia. China still has a lick over 200 and there are a few countries sitting on 100~ or so. I still figure it will be the primary directive in a total-war-esq scenario though because who wants to risk mass aggression if you might get a nuclear slap in the face. [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50093998]So basically, "I lost so let's commit crimes against humanity"[/QUOTE] The concept behind MAD isn't to win. It's to make any potential winner into a horrible post-nuclear husk, deterring them from attempting bullshit in the first place.

Good, let other countries in NATO pick up the slack for once

[QUOTE=daisyjukes;50092813]How prepared should people really be for a massive scale war? If any conflict emerges between the U.S. and another World Power, it results in nuclear apocalypse in any outcome. The purpose of WW2 era massive land/sea armies has been replaced by MAD.[/QUOTE] MAD does not mean conventional war is no longer a thing, it just suggests a full scale nuclear exchange between two nuclear states would not happen because it assures unacceptable losses to both sides (and the entire world for that matter). If the US is invaded conventionally by Russia for example MAD would mean resorting to nuclear weapons would not really be a choice because it would destroy everyone. You still would need conventional armies and weapons to combat conventional armies and weapons. MAD also absolutely depends on the countries in question having secondary strike capabilities. If you can destroy the entire nuclear capability of a country with one strike there is no response and there is no MAD.

[QUOTE=DaMastez;50092983]Except that's the entire point of MAD; no one will use nukes because no one wants to get nuked in return.[/QUOTE] The only way I see MAD occuring is a country nuking its own land to stop an invasion in its tracks.

[QUOTE=SnakeHead;50094168]Good, let other countries in NATO pick up the slack for once[/QUOTE] You can, but how smart is it to depend on other countries for your own defence? Countries much closer and vulnerable to external threats than the US? With defence capabilities and spending of peanuts compared to America. Also NATO is/was a way of America protecting its own interests in Europe after WWII against the Soviets. Stop trying to make it out to be something altruistic that benefits all the member states. [editline]8th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Swilly;50094186]The only way I see MAD occuring is a country nuking its own land to stop an invasion in its tracks.[/QUOTE] That would not be MAD, that would be stupid. Why would you nuking your own country (even if you kill enemy combatants) hurt the enemy on the other side of the world?

[QUOTE=DaMastez;50092983]Except that's the entire point of MAD; no one will use nukes because no one wants to get nuked in return.[/QUOTE] MAD is a deterrent to war in the first place. I don't think it really gives you the insurance that you can start a conventional war against a world power without it escalating into a nuclear war.

it could be argued that MAD is only a deterrent from full nuclear escalation. It's well established that countries are usually a bit touchy when it comes to aggressive action. A limited nuclear strike would only be met with a limited retaliation and so forth until it gradually escalated, but a gradual release of nuclear weapons might server to lower losses significantly over the course of the conflict.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50093998]So basically, "I lost so let's commit crimes against humanity" Sure, sound plan![/QUOTE] That's pretty much human logic in a nutshell. 'If I'm going down you're coming down with me. Fuck it. We all die. MUWAHAHAHA'.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;50093543]MAD is not a thing anymore...it's 2016, the Cold War is over.[/QUOTE] Just in time for the next war.

[QUOTE=Doom14;50093976]Until everyone abruptly has installations to disable or destroy airborne nuclear weapons with a 100% success ratio, MAD will always be a thing. Even then, it will remain a thing, just a secondary goal. It won't be "massive land invasion", it will just be "disable installations or sneak in ground-based nuclear weapons."[/QUOTE] The five nuclear powers have ICBMs and SLBMs with accuracies measured in tens of metres for a reason. They're not designed for vaporising cities in "MAD", they designed to destroy precision hardened targets like enemy ICBMs, radars, control and command centres etc. [QUOTE=Fetret;50094182]MAD does not mean conventional war is no longer a thing, it just suggests a full scale nuclear exchange between two nuclear states would not happen because it assures unacceptable losses to both sides (and the entire world for that matter). If the US is invaded conventionally by Russia for example MAD would mean resorting to nuclear weapons would not really be a choice because it would destroy everyone. You still would need conventional armies and weapons to combat conventional armies and weapons. MAD also absolutely depends on the countries in question having secondary strike capabilities. If you can destroy the entire nuclear capability of a country with one strike there is no response and there is no MAD.[/QUOTE] Both the US and Russia have gone on record and stated they reserve the reight to use nuclear weapons against a conventional attack both in Europe and North America. The US wouldn't even be approaching MAD if they used tactical nuclear weapons against military targets. [QUOTE=Swilly;50094186]The only way I see MAD occuring is a country nuking its own land to stop an invasion in its tracks.[/QUOTE] That has nothing to do with MAD. [QUOTE=Fetret;50094194] That would not be MAD, that would be stupid. Why would you nuking your own country (even if you kill enemy combatants) hurt the enemy on the other side of the world?[/QUOTE] It would be a perfectly valid tactic against an invading army. [QUOTE=Kljunas;50094207]MAD is a deterrent to war in the first place. I don't think it really gives you the insurance that you can start a conventional war against a world power without it escalating into a nuclear war.[/QUOTE] MAD is only a detterent against full-retard counter-value attacks. [QUOTE=Milkdairy;50094218]it could be argued that MAD is only a deterrent from full nuclear escalation. It's well established that countries are usually a bit touchy when it comes to aggressive action. A limited nuclear strike would only be met with a limited retaliation and so forth until it gradually escalated, but a gradual release of nuclear weapons might server to lower losses significantly over the course of the conflict.[/QUOTE] Pretty much this. The key with gradual escalation is it give one side the opportunity to decide the causalities are too high and sue for peace.

[QUOTE=Fetret;50094194]You can, but how smart is it to depend on other countries for your own defence? Countries much closer and vulnerable to external threats than the US? With defence capabilities and spending of peanuts compared to America. Also NATO is/was a way of America protecting its own interests in Europe after WWII against the Soviets. Stop trying to make it out to be something altruistic that benefits all the member states. [/QUOTE] He didn't say the US would drop out and rely solely on allies. He said other countries should pick up the slack, as in get up to the US's standards. Not asking anyone to "protect" us, we surely can do that ourselves.

[QUOTE=Matthew0505;50093935]It's not supposed to make you win, it's to make them lose. They're not supposed to test whether you'll do it if you have fail-deadly with thousands of warheads.[/QUOTE] If your at that point in the war, you probably only have a limited ability to launch an attack like that since the majority of your arsenal will probably be captured. It will very likely not work and you throw away your only way out of the war.

[QUOTE=Fetret;50094194]You can, but how smart is it to depend on other countries for your own defence? [/QUOTE] We can easily defend ourselves. It's the fact that we more or less act as the military for a majority of NATO members which is the problem.