How many soldiers are enough?
The Pentagon changed it's mind
AGAIN on how many soldiers it needs in Iraq. Maybe somebody should tell them about
this, before they shut down what's left of our active duty force and put national defense in the hands of one dozen
Pinkerton men.
In addition to the war on terror, which the pentagon has run out of resources to fight the few battles it's been forced into, we're looking at a war with the chicoms sometime in the next 16 years. A war with a high likelyhood of going nuclear.
And what do we have on our side? Carrier battle groups. Everything else is committed to either Iraq or Afghanistan, or unusable because it's just gotten back. Our soldiers, if we had any to spare, wouldn't have the finely honed training we've heard so much about, because they'd have spent no time training, but a lot of time doing nation-building missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And they wouldn't have any tanks. The Pentagon plans to phase out tanks, and replace them with the soviet manufactured
BTR, erm, I mean the american designed
stryker, or whatever. In the future, the only ones with armor will be the people trying to kill us.
When I, as a young private, was taught the difference between cover and concealment, the instructors always said "cover is better!" Cover is now against army policy, instead of using cover, we'll try to conceal ourselves, and shoot down incoming
rounds.
All FCS systems, manned and unmanned, will have an inherent, lightweight, small arms protection, capable to withstand a first hit from a 0.5" cal fire.
Which will do what when they shoot a second round, or use a
152mm cannon?
Plus, if China starts a war with the United States, as they plan, they'll be the ones running North Korea's army (and nuclear weapons). North Korea isn't a rogue state, it's China's vicious dog, loyal to it's master and aggresive to all others.
Goe, praying that carrier battle groups will be enough to stop the chicoms.