Should Iran Be Allowed To Enrich Uranium? ...POLL...

[Happy Times]

Originally Posted by Hitman

Emmmm.....I think that the US have the resources to start & probably win (Unlike Germany, who failed two times in the attempt) a 3rd world war all by themselves if needed. You are basically looking at the current status of the US presidential marines. But the marines are NOT the US army (Common misconception) but instead a single elite corps of the army under presidential control. Exactly that presidential control is what made them grow in peacetime to monster proportions, because the US president is way much more free to allocate the marines and set them in engagement than what he can do with the army. The real US army is today a sleeping giant, who wakes up only in important wars. I have often heard saying (Original from Napoleon) "Do not wake up China, let them sleep or the world will be shaken", but I say: Let the US Army sleep in peace...if it wakes up you will see the most terrible destruction machine ever created, backed up by the most powerful industrial nation in the world.

Believe me, the USA in a real "state of war" situation would raise in 24 hours the most terrible army the world has ever seen. A different matter is if the americans will be willing to do so, but do not think they are not capable of it :|\

Are you serious??? In 24h!! If you exclude nukes, they havent got the power to fight everyone.. And no , im not speaking only about the Marines. And i wouldnt call Marines monster in size.. And i think they have waken up every thing they have for Iraq, Army reserves and National Guard. Do they have some secret troops we dont know about? All services combined (and reserves) they have max little over 2.000000 men. Offcourse they have big potential but so does EU, in theory. Reality is that they would have to start conscriptions to get the extra men. And public opinion doesnt support that. US is such a mix cultures and ideas that the unity isnt there. It isnt as homogenous society as it was in ww2. Even then they needed Pearl Harbor to sell the war to the people. Thinking back to New Orleans, they could even have a nother civil war someday. They are going to have serious difficulties with their economy, everyone knows it. http://nationalpriorities.org/index....per&Itemid=182 Many countries are going to institute back concription. It must be a handicap for a country of size and interests like Britain to have less men trained for war than Finland. It limits your politics for sure. When the conflict comes you need to start building it up again, and it doesnt happen in 24h.

[August]

I don't consider a few months of conscript training to be "trained for war". That might have worked pre-WW2 but the weapons, equipment and tactics used these days are far more complicated.

[Hitman]

Are you serious??? In 24h!! If you exclude nukes, they havent got the power to fight everyone.. And no , im not speaking only about the Marines. And i wouldnt call Marines monster in size.. And i think they have waken up every thing they have for Iraq, Army reserves and National Guard. Do they have some secret troops we dont know about? All services combined (and reserves) they have max little over 2.000000 men. Offcourse they have big potential but so does EU, in theory. Reality is that they would have to start conscriptions to get the extra men. And public opinion doesnt support that. US is such a mix cultures and ideas that the unity isnt there. It isnt as homogenous society as it was in ww2. Even then they needed Pearl Harbor to sell the war to the people. Thinking back to New Orleans, they could even have a nother civil war someday. They are going to have serious difficulties with their economy, everyone knows it. http://nationalpriorities.org/index....per&Itemid=182 Many countries are going to institute back concription. It must be a handicap for a country of size and interests like Britain to have less men trained for war than Finland. It limits your politics for sure. When the conflict comes you need to start building it up again, and it doesnt happen in 24h.

Yes logically I was speaking in figurative terms, it's obvious that in 24 hours they would do nothing essential

But the point of the example is that like in WW2 US started with a relative small army and then by 1945 they had a massive army that could crush almost any other in the world.

True modern warfare needs a special training and true the US public opinion would not see with good eyes to engage in a war for futile reasons, but if and when the US decides to commit 100% to a war, I would certainly not want to be in his enemy's skin :hmm:

[Happy Times]

Originally Posted by August

I don't consider a few months of conscript training to be "trained for war". That might have worked pre-WW2 but the weapons, equipment and tactics used these days are far more complicated.

Well lets think were the professionals come, in US and UK they are mostly from lower a socio- economic backround that is less educated. In exsample Finland everybody has to serve. They are tested and trained were they are best suited. I was in a recon unit as a FO and i have all the skills and condition to do that job well. I like to hunt and go running and backpacking. My service buddys had a backround in orienteering, skiing, biathlon and crosscountry running in national level. My friend was in ELINT/ECM, he is studying a related area in university. Other one studying logistics served in artillery logistics. The later civilian career also effects were you are placed. And you have to attend training during reserve. Finns in Bosnia and Kosovo have been just as good or better in excercises as the professional armys. ,most of the Finns there are reservists or straight out of conscript service. My friend there told that an US officer had wondered how it was possible that finnish troops can master so many skills that were not part of their official job there.

[August]

Originally Posted by Happy Times

Well lets think were the professionals come, in US and UK they are mostly from lower a socio- economic backround that is less educated.

That's not at all true HT:

The U.S. military is not a "poor man's force." The data shows the force is more educated than the population at large. More servicemembers have some college than the typical 18- to 24-year-olds. On the socioeconomic side, the military is strongly middle class.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/

As for conscript armies. We tried it for many years and found an all volunteer force is far more motivated and prepared for combat than an army made up primarily of conscripts.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Hitman

You are basically looking at the current status of the US presidential marines. But the marines are NOT the US army (Common misconception) but instead a single elite corps of the army under presidential control.

Actually the USMC is an elite unit of the US Navy not the US Army.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Hitman

The real US army is today a sleeping giant, who wakes up only in important wars. I have often heard saying (Original from Napoleon) "Do not wake up China, let them sleep or the world will be shaken", but I say: Let the US Army sleep in peace...if it wakes up you will see the most terrible destruction machine ever created, backed up by the most powerful industrial nation in the world.

As for US military manpower reserves, heres how it works if im not mistaken, from top of the barrel to the bottom of the barrel:

-Active duty

-Active Reserves (weekend warrior aka "citizen soldier" )

- National guard (same as above really, both maintain some sort of training program so their people keep up to date.)

- Individual Ready Reserve (aka IRR, or Inactive reserve. These are the guys who did their active duty commitment, but are subject to being oncall for 4 years after their discharge from active, they are for all intents and purposes, veterans who show up once a year for a physical, and see how much weight they've gained. No training program is kept here, theyre OUT, and DISCHARGED, but yet on call, go figure.)

- Draft. Once you tap in to the IRR the only other place to go to get warm bodies is the general populace.

The U.S. military is not a "poor man's force." The data shows the force is more educated than the population at large. More servicemembers have some college than the typical 18- to 24-year-olds. On the socioeconomic side, the military is strongly middle class.

This is becoming questionable as their letting in the "dull lightbulbs" these days: http://www.slate.com/id/2133908/

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Actually the USMC is an elite unit of the US Navy not the US Army.

Not quite accurate. They are a branch of the military that is in the department of the US Navy, however they are not the US Navy, nor are they in the US Navy.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Not quite accurate. They are a branch of the military that is in the department of the US Navy, however they are not the US Navy, nor are they in the US Navy.

Yes technically they are a separate branch but they report to the SECNAV. My point was they are not part of the US Army.

[Ducimus]

Thats true.

Anyway ive had a couple buddies who were in the USMC, and they were always quick to point out two things to me:

USMC means "YoU Signed a Mother***ing Contract"

and

USMC is NOT the navy. It was always amusing to make navy references and see how huffy they got

[August]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

TUSMC is NOT the navy. It was always amusing to make navy references and see how huffy they got

They have admirals in their chain of command and their budget is controlled by the Navy department. They are therefore pw0ned by the Navy regardless of what they claim.

[TLAM Strike]

I aways like telling Jarheads that their paycheck says 'Department of the Navy' on it.

EDIT: I just noticed I broke 4,000 post not that long ago, SWEET!!

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

I aways like telling Jarheads that their paycheck says 'Department of the Navy' on it.

I really think they HATE that. I heard some rumor awhile aback taht some of their brass was trying, or at least someone suggested the idea of making a formalized seperation from the department of the navy. Pure rumor i think.

Originally Posted by Hitman

Emmmm.....I think that the US have the resources to start & probably win <...> a 3rd world war all by themselves if needed

To win WW3? Bwa-ha-ha! Remember, what Einstein said?

[Abraham]

I agree with Hitman that the US could take on Iran while continuing it's presence in Iraq, but I think it would take a high price, a price the US currently is not willing to pay.
That price would be:
1. political: an attack upon Iran without the solid backing of the Security Council (and even with) would do political damage to the image of the US;
2. military: it would take a lot of extra men, it would drain the National Guard and it would cost enourmous amounts of weapons and equipment (munitions);
3. humanitairy: it is clear that a lot of human suffering would result.

I could imagine a moment i time that the US would react towards the Iranian nuclear threat, but that moment will be months if not years down the road. At this time there is not yet a 'clear and present danger'.
Talking about the possibility of military action is putting some pressure upon the regime, but the most important thing is to deal with Iran as a unified international community. That unification takes more and more shape, no doubt helped by the completely irresponsable remarks with regards of Israel by premier Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

I've heard recently an interesting opinion - those Tehran moves have a goal to draw USA into a new war - to undermine economics, social and military potential. I really don't know if it's true and if it can be effective enough...