Comments on: Roles and Missions Review Underway

By: jeff greco

jeff greco — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 01:26:06 +0000

i have an idea to maybe make troops safer when in a tank from snyper fire etc.. who do i contact!!

By: Cole

Cole — Wed, 14 May 2008 20:26:41 +0000

Test

By: Paul Zimmerli

Paul Zimmerli — Wed, 14 May 2008 16:40:07 +0000

As long as they throw out the Key West agreements of 1948, go ahead!

By: Roy Smith

Roy Smith — Mon, 12 May 2008 03:21:50 +0000

The one thing that both Russia & China does that we don't seem to be doing is that they DO NOT throw away or scrap their old weapons.China wraps her old fighter aircraft up & stores them in caves & are we really sure that Russia has scrapped her old ships,submarines,fighters,& tanks? You only need a certain quantity of quality weapons & a mass quantity of "shitty" weapons,that if your "quality" weapons defeat your enemy's,your "shitty" ones will have nothing to stop them from overrunning their enemy.China,& Asia in general,has the capacity to raise 200,000,000 troops.How many of that number would actually be combat troops is unknown,but if they have a reserve number of that many troops,versus us only being able to raise maybe 2,000,000,in a weapons of mass destruction nuclear slug fest,chances are they'll out last us due to attrition.having just under 200 F-22s will still have their hands full if our enemy has say 22,000 fighter jets,with a mixture of high end Su-27,MiG-31,& MiG-29 derivatives & upgrades & lower end MiG-25,MiG-23/27,MiG-21 space fillers.Our F-22s may be great,but they are not miracle workers. As far as the whiz bang sci-fi weapons go(Tesla Howitzers,scalar electro-magnetic weaponry,that is if you believe such weaponry exists & performs as advertised),from what I hear,Russia has them,from as far back as the 1950s,& thus can afford to have shitty conventional weapons,because their "sci-fi" weapons trumps all.We put "quality(which is questionable anyway,judging by our current acquisition problems with the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle,Littoral Combat Ship,DD-21 Zumwalt Destroyer,& Coast Guard Cutter)" before quantity.The Russians & Chinese do not need all of their weapons to be quality,just enough. I'm reminded of a line from the movie "Zulu Dawn," where one British Soldier mentions about the difference between their "superior" weapons versus the Zulus(who greatly outnumbered them,& defeated the British,by the way).It goes,"bullets run out,spears don't." I bet,as long as they didn't have body armor,I could defeat an enemy armed with rifles & other automatic weapons,just by using multiple bows & arrows.If I had proper concealment,& the enemy didn't have whiz bang stuff like night vision,or if I had bow & arrows(I mean the good stuff,the modern bow & arrows,not prehistoric arrow heads) AND night vision,I could with the proper tactics,defeat guns.

By: G

Sun, 11 May 2008 02:13:01 +0000

Get rid of the service secretaries along with each service department, and consolidate all civilian control to the DoD. Everyone reports to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, with no middle-man.
That’s the way it should be.

By: Chuck

Chuck — Sat, 10 May 2008 14:26:21 +0000

Enough with the reviews, let get to work, first the DOD should be abolished, its too big and unwilling to change, second too many chiefs, not enough indians. Third the review should be done by Military and experts outside the beltway who don’t have an interest in Military Defense companies, or functions. Finally, the Miitary has to grow up and begin to serve the interests of the Country over there individual Services. If they can’t do that i propose that the USAF, USA, USN and Married be disbanded and the United States Defense Force be institued. There mission would be to defense the Constitution of the US over those of the Political master. I’m wishing without hope that would happen.

By: Shamus62

Shamus62 — Sat, 10 May 2008 04:32:01 +0000

Not implying anything here, but does it seem appropriate that the same agencies that are doing what they do now are going to examine themselves? I don’t know if its realistic or practical, but wouldn’t having a completely objective entity looking at these things make more sense?

By: TB

TB — Fri, 09 May 2008 17:25:23 +0000

Did they accomplish anything in that 1995 review?

By: ohwilleke

ohwilleke — Fri, 09 May 2008 16:41:36 +0000

This is long overdue but it is hard to see why it is best to do this in the waning days of a lame duck’s Presidential administration, rather than at the start of the administration of a newly elected President who would then buy in while he or she has the political capital, ability and an incentive to make major changes.