Increase Force Size

[JALU3]

At the height of World War II the United States fielded over 92 Divisions of Infantry and over 10 Armored Divisions, and countless number of other units of brigade and battalion sized elements. During the Cold War the size of the army began to decrease where by the end of the cold war leading into the Persian Gulf War the US Army was down to 20 active divisions. Now in the midst of two major operations, while having to sustain forces in two other theaters, the US Army has been able to manage within this relatively brief period of time with only 10 active divisions, and roughly 10 national guard divisions. However, as reported by the present army staff. Thus US Army cannot continue to sustain the current operation tempo unless the reduce deployments to 12 months, where as the average deployment period has ben 15 months.
One solution to this problem that no one has brought up is an increase in the size of our Army. Although there has been an initiative to increase the force size by a little over 35,000 soldiers, that will only be about 1 division worth of individuals, and those are being dispursed amoungst existing divisions meaning that there is no noticable increase in force size.
With a nation of over 300 Million citizens, and with total expenditures on national defense continuing to decrease year after year in relation to the GDP, I don't see why our nation can't afford to increase the size of the army, whether that be by 5,10, or 15 divisions. Furthermore, with increaseed military expenditure those funds will be used to purchase equipment in the private sector, and more soldiers will spend their pay within the private sector as well.
-----
Oh a side topic, how is it that everyone is in a tizzy about GE's reported reduction in profit . . . not a loss . . . but a reduction in profit . . . and in doing so have the company loose over 10% of its total stock value?!?
It didn't post a quarterly loss . . . rather they are not profiting to the toon of a 4.9 Billion Dollars . . . but to a mere 4.36 Billion Dollars . . . that Billion with nine zeroes after the numbers! OMG!
I don't know about you but that still sounds like a positive thing to me.
Related Article:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aCLKAmIILQfc&refer=worldwide

[Trex]

Part of it is that modern forces are incredibly more capable, more lethal, more aware, than their WW2 counterparts. Artillery has far greater range and can in some cases score first-round hits instead of having to fire hundreds of rounds to take out a given target. This means that you can have fewer guns but still do better than before. Air mobility has dramatically improved tactical flexibility. Modern armour breaks down far less often, meaning that you have a bigger slice available for operations. Sensors increase your situational awareness to an extent undreamed of by Patton or Rommel. If you look at pictures of wars c 1900, say the Japanese-Russian war, you will see trenches defended with men literally shoulder-to-shoulder. That was the current standard. We would laugh at that now – there is simply no need.

Another problem is cost. I don’t know the figures for US soldiers, but the cost of the basic kit for a Canadian soldier in WW2 was on the close order of $135, including rifle, clothing, gas mask, etc. You couldn't buy his rifle magazines for that now. A Spitfire could be produced for about £5,000, but a modern fighter aircraft now costs hundreds of millions of dollars. Yes, there has been inflation since then, but not enough to account for it. Our more capable forces cost us an incredibly larger amount of money.

This last trend has been emphasized by the desire on the part of the Western world to substitute equipment for manpower. A drone will not leave grieving relatives if shot down. Even the CIA switched away from agents to satellites and electronic intelligence gathering (which proved a bit of a mistake as photographs do no tell you intentions).

Lastly, in WW2, national survival was on the line and the country was prepared to accept significant greater disruptions to its daily life, economy, etc.

However desirable it may be, it’s not quite as simple as it seems. Pity.

[JALU3]

I have a need to play necromancy, as this subject was on my mind again.

Given the recent political discussions about deployment effects on the overall force of the Army between the two presumtive US Presidential candidates. Why is it that we have not worked to increase the size of the land components of the armed forces . . . and what increase that has happened have been smaller then the force really needed.
Whenever the idea of increasing the size of the army is bantered about the counter of having to call up a draft is brought up. I say this is nonsense as we were able to maintan a 20 division volunteer army in the past, with a smaller national population overall. Therefore, we should be able to raise 5 more divisions to bring us to a force strength of 15 divisions if given enough time.
An overall increase of the size of the military would do a lot to remove the strain to the overall force while maintaining presence in both areas of operation within that one theater, if need be.
I am sure there would be tens of thousands of people who wish to become naturalized citizens if they were required to serve a predetermined length of service (10 years?).
It's not like we don't have the trained personnel to bring up these divisions in short order. There are dozens of units in the Army Reserve and National Guard woes original purpose is to train new units from the bottom, up. Its just a matter of bringing them online in an active sense to accomplish the task.

[Schroeder]

Have you had a look at the financial situation of the US recently? Where do you take the money from to increase the size of the military?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

Have you had a look at the financial situation of the US recently? Where do you take the money from to increase the size of the military?

My words. Even the current level of military spending is only possible by foreign money going into the US. Just image the Chinese would stop cpntinuing to buy (nowadays relatively worthless) treasury bonds! As some critic pointedly remarked - ironically it is the chinese (who opposed the Iraq war) that are financing the war. I think a shift in force compisition would be eneded, to get a higher manpower, away from cost-intensive hightech and electrinics and platforms, towards more basic infantry. But tell that the industrial-military complex - they will run amok.

[JALU3]

Originally Posted by Skybird

My words. Even the current level of military spending is only possible by foreign money going into the US. Just image the Chinese would stop cpntinuing to buy (nowadays relatively worthless) treasury bonds! As some critic pointedly remarked - ironically it is the chinese (who opposed the Iraq war) that are financing the war. I think a shift in force compisition would be eneded, to get a higher manpower, away from cost-intensive hightech and electrinics and platforms, towards more basic infantry. But tell that the industrial-military complex - they will run amok.

Since we have sold our manufacturing base willingly
However, in COIN operations, aren't alot of what creates a successful campaign a lot of the low-tech, highly-intellectual, actions which do not require the high ticket items whcih the military-industrial complex request the army to purchase.
Not that we haven't already passed the most recent aquisition cycle leaving the majority of the force with equipment that is at least half a generation older then what is currently available.
I think a possible problem is that recent visions of the future force envision the entire force to be the 'tip of the spear' without considering that a lot of the force of said spear is the mass behind it.
As for funding of our military, if we spent our GDP more prudently, I am sure as a nation we could finance a larger land-based military without straining the economy.