Comments about ‘Letter: Our modern military’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, March 5 2014 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

The A-10 was designed beginning in 1966 and 1st flew in 1972.
You would never send a warrior to war in a Ford Pinto or Chevy Vega.

Pres. Obama and Defense Sec. Hagel have already told us our 21st century military does not need more bayonets and horses.

The United States is already currently under attack - CYBER-attack, 12,000 times per day by our Corporate comrades in Communist China.
This the current battlefield, 1st line of Defense, and needs our top priority.

An A-10 is 1,000,000% useless in that sort of warfare.
and
the AF-16 and AF-18 can handle close ground suppport just fine,
and has been since the 1st Gulf War 23 years ago.

BTW -- Jimmy Carter was right after all -- Cruise Missiles DID replace manned fighters and Bombers. UAV and Drones will be doing the same thing for the rest of the fleet.

By being perpetually stuck in the past -- rather than PROGRESSING --
Conservatives would still have us throw sticks and stones at each other to win future wars.

one old man
Ogden, UT

Conservatives really don't have a very good track record in American history.

Conservatives lost out when Liberals wrote the Declaration of Independence.

Conservatives lost the Revolutionary War.

Conservatives lost the arguments in Shay's Rebellion.

Conservatives lost when the the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation.

Conservatives lost the Civil War.

I could go on and on, but the bottom line is that they are still losing. They just don't understand what's going on around them because they're too busy looking backwards.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

Then there is the cut Government spending rubes, who want to cut Grandma’s medicine – but want to keep an airplane the Military doesn’t want.
The USAF frees up $3.7 billion for other more critical missions by cutting the A-10.
Why not let the Pentagon decide what the Pentagon wants and needs, rather than putting our weapon systems up for a non-military civilian public vote?

The letter writer laments the year 1938 like it was such a long time ago,
interesting because that places the need of A-10 only 26 after that time, and nearly 2 twice that time since then.
If you want a “Modern” Military, it’s time to Modernize the Military, not hang on to out-dated weapon systems.

[I type as I’m working on adding another titanium doubler to help beef up the aging A-10s]

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

As we have seen in recent conflicts, mechanized infantry are more sitting ducks then long term sustainable fighting units. This is exactly why the US is revamping our military infrastructure. Just as the mounted infantry became a liability rather than a competitive advantage in WWI, how we fight wars is morphing dramatically. In the confines of the current theater of battle now, which is largely urban setting, heavy armor is of limited use, and light, nimble, fast strike capability is paramount.

Do you really want our guys relying on 30 and 40 year old technology? Why would you want to do that? If we are going to win future wars... it isn't going to be by throwing more of our young men into the front lines then the other guy. That type of warfare is over.

happy2bhere
clearfield, UT

The A-10 would be a great plane to give to Israel, if they wanted them, because ground/tank warfare is still very much the Middle-East threat of today.

One old man. Your schtick is like a Saturday Night Live skit. Liberals good. Conservatives bad. And if they are losing as you say, then you must have forgotten the election of 2010 and 2012 for the most important body of government in America. The House of Representatives. That is the body that most reflects the will of the people. Not to mention, Reagan and his military buildup that caused the end of the cold war without a nuclear shot being fired. I'd consider that a pretty great conservative victory. Perhaps the most important in human history.

one old man
Ogden, UT

Happy, you completely missed the point of my post.

And it was NOT Reagan who ended the cold war. It was a Polish Pope and a bunch of very courageous Polish labor union members who deserve about 98% of the credit. Reagan just managed to hitch a ride and then take credit among his more gullible followers.

cavetroll
SANDY, UT

Happy, from most indications, the Cold War is still being waged. It may have taken a hiatus, but it seems to be back.

As for the letter writer, does he not realized the A-10 (as well as the F-16, F/A-18, F-15,etc.) are being replaced with newer and more advanced (though still glitchy) aircraft?

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

@one old man
Ogden, UT

And it was NOT Reagan who ended the cold war. It was a Polish Pope and a bunch of very courageous Polish labor union members who deserve about 98% of the credit. Reagan just managed to hitch a ride and then take credit among his more gullible followers.

10:53 a.m. March 5, 2014

===========

Agreed!

All the spending, all the military hardware, all the politicians, idn't do it.

Not a single shot was fired,
That "Wall" came down by Labor Unions - and the Voice of the People.

Is it any wonder politicians hate Labor Unions?

Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT

Why is it mostly just the draft dodgers who are criticizing President Obama for this?
On one hand all of the President's critics believe he's spending far too much. On the other hand, the President recognizes the wasteful spending in the military and wants to cut it back.
Can't have it both ways, critics.

CHS 85
Sandy, UT

How will the military-industrial complex cope if we don't have boots on the ground?

Midvaliean
MIDVALE, UT

Russia is a Land Power, America is a Maritime power. We could not get enough tanks and troops on the ground to combat Russia in their own territory, just as Russia can't get enough boats and Navel power to stop the United States on the Atlantic and Pacific shipping lanes.
Tanks are heavy vehicles, and cost lots of resources and need supply lines to stay in battle. Russia has the complete advantage in "attacking" satellite countries on their perimeter. If the Ukraine had been a part of NATO we would fire up our coalition defense, but... they are not. Its a complex geopolitical situation in which Russia, in this area, has the upper hand. Russia has also transformed its economy into one that supplies much of Europe with natural gas, and I don't think Germany is going to want to shut off that gas valve anytime soon.
The bottom line is, its complicated and the news agencies want to simplify things to the point of stupidity.

happy2bhere
clearfield, UT

Old man and LDS Lib.
So what WAS the point of you post. You never did explain that. And to those of you who are trying to claim that the Reagan military buildup had nothing to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union, even they the Russians claim that Reagans pressure had a lot to do with it. In past times, the Soviets would have just invaded Poland and taken out the labor unions and stopped any further resistance. But, they were afraid to try that old manuever with a strong U.S. and NATO. Interesting that they are back to their old tricks with a weak U.S. So, if you insist on taking credit away from Reagan, then I suppose I can say Obama had nothing to do with getting Bin Laden. Sound fair?

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

@happy2bhere
clearfield, UT

Old man and LDS Lib.
So what WAS the point of you post. You never did explain that.

==========

I don't know where you were, but I at Ramstein AFN, Kaiserslatern Germany when the wall came down.

We didn't fly one single sortie.

I remember watching TV and seeing the Labor Unions go on strike,
The East Germans walking through Check-Point Charlie - and NOT going back,
and the people of Lithuania taking ferry boats to Sweden and NOT going back.

Not one short fired.

Yet --
We've been in South Korea for 70 years and North Korea is still there,
We've occupied Japan for 70 years and Japan has never attacked us,
We've occupied Germany for 70 years, and Germany is better than the U.S.

But --
We lost Vietnam,
and Afghanistan and Iraq seem to have been a big waste of time and money as well.

mark
Salt Lake City, UT

"Interesting that they are back to their old tricks with a weak U.S. "

Hahaha. Now that is funny. A weak U.S.A. Funny stuff. Someone talked about Russia lining up 150,000 soldier mechanized ground force. Too funny. (I don't know if they did, but no matter.) And someone talked about our maritime advantage. This is true. But the real point with our military: we control the AIR. Get it? Let em line up all the tanks they want, all the soldiers they want. It doesn't matter. (Not that I think going to war with Russia would be a good idea. In fact it would be about the most stupid thing somebody could do. Something a Republican president might do.) WE control the high ground, always in war today. We have the most powerful army the world has EVER seen. We spend more on our military then the next sixteen countries COMBINED. Our technology is far superior to any other nation.

And yet here is someone that says we are weak.

Well, he might think so, but all other countries know the truth. Didn't anybody watch what we did in Iraq? Read Cobra II. Great book.

happy2bhere
clearfield, UT

LDS Liberal

I think you are desperatly in need of a basic understanding of what "deterrent" is. That was why the cold war won by the west. I, by the way, was in political science classes at college, so I was studying these things from the global point of view, not just standing some post in Germany. And a little history, the old Soviet Union had many times squashed these kinds of revolts with tanks and troops. However, in 1989, they were overmatched and out of money. That happened in large measure due to our military industrial complex and the star wars threat of Reagan. Please don't try to rewrite history just to try to protect a weak President, Obama.

Mark

You are so off about how hot wars are won, it is hardly worth responding to you. But, hot wars are NEVER won from air power. It always has to be followed up by occupation. That's why we lost in Vietnam. And why we won in Europe WW11. We bombed the heck out of them for 10 years. We never went North to defeat them. History repeats itself.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

@happy2bhere
clearfield, UT
LDS Liberal

That was why the cold war won by the west. I, by the way, was in political science classes at college, so I was studying these things from the global point of view, not just standing some post in Germany.

==========

1. I was not "standing post" in Germany. We wre flying deep into Soviet Airspace for years -- Globally. I was waving at Soviet aircrews and taking pictures IN Russia.

2. I will put my College Degrees in Mechanical/Aerospace Engineeering, and 33 years the Military and Department of Defense over your Political Science classes in college anyday.

FYI -- Empires are crushed when they spread themselves to thin, over too many places, for too long.

Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Nephite, Chinese, Japanese, English, German, Soviet, and now even the American Empires.

And they implode from internal forces.
Like a balloon that takes in more than it can sustain, grows thin, it eventually bursts.

The Berlin Wall and Iron curtain fell from INTERNAL forces.

Something I learned in MY PoliSci classes in college.

Please don't try to rewrite the history I helped write just to try to make Pres. Obama look bad.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

'Our modern military’

=========

Everytime I read that headline,
and think about the A-10 that has been in USAF service since 1972 (that's over 42 years ago)...

I can't help but think that those who keep wanting it,
would think going into WWII with the Wright Brothers 1st airpleane (1943) as the most "modern" would somehow magiaclly beat the Germans and Japanese (1943) ...

BTW -- Saddam Hussein's military was more "modern" than the A-10, and look how that turned out against 4th generetion F-16, F-18s,

...let alone with the 5th generation F-22s, and F-35s we have today.

mark
Salt Lake City, UT

Uh. . . Happy to be here, why don't you go sit in your poli sci class some more. (I can't believe someone pulled poli sci out trying to impress anybody.)

WARS are won from the high ground. We control the high ground. NO ONE can compete with us in the air. Not even close. Iraq literally got zero planes in the air when we attacked. After that it was all over. We fight wars today far differently then we did in WWII or Vietnam. Vietnam was not lost because of our military. But it doesn't matter one way or the other what happened in Vietnam. Again, we do not fight wars like we did, or with the type of military, we had in Vietnam. The advances in technology, tactics, and real time information gathering capabilities in the military is astounding. Vietnam was basically fought with WWII ideas.

The U.S. Military is the most powerful army the world has ever seen. NO other army today comes close to what we have. We control the air in ways that have never been possible before in history. Because we control that high ground so thoroughly we win.

mark
Salt Lake City, UT

Also, let's not take any thing away from our ground troops. The U.S. Military's ground forces are the most capable force that has EVER been put in the field. The tactics and battle ground coordination, training and capabilities that these forces show is awe inspiring. Never before in history has any ground force had the capabilities, and the ability to use those capabilities, that our ground forces do. And that's not to impugn other armies that have existed.

There have been fearsome armies throughout history. But the current U.S. Army, on the land, on the sea, or in the air, would soundly defeat them all. There is also no other army in the world today that could stand against ours. It really is that lopsided.

But let me tell you something, you are confusing military victory with occupation. They are two decidedly different things.

Anyway, my initial point was that somebody said we have a weak military, and I was calling him out. That person is dead wrong, laughably wrong, to believe we have a weak military.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments