Strategic Air Command?FEOS wrote:
What are "SAC functions"?
That's the only thing I can think of ... but then, I'm not in the service so I don't know all the acronyms.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- If a branch of the military had to be removed, for whatever reason.
Poll
If a branch of the American military had to be removed.
| Army | 30% | 30% - 9 | ||||
| Navy | 13% | 13% - 4 | ||||
| Air Force | 46% | 46% - 14 | ||||
| i'm one of "those people" who abhors the military. | 10% | 10% - 3 | ||||
| Total: 30 | ||||||
That's the only thing I can think of ... but then, I'm not in the service so I don't know all the acronyms.
I figured that was it...which speaks to how little the poster actually understands what the AF does in general or what SAC did (it has been stood down for years) specifically.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
there you go ............. you must have slipped up when you postedGunSlinger OIF II wrote:
the only time the Army and Marines get along are in a combat zone or a video game forum.
Army is Ain't Real Marines Yet .
1. The USAF does a hell of a lot more than strategic bombing and close-air support.GorillaTicTacs wrote:
They should divvy up the Air Force between NASA (SAC functions), the Army (CAS functions), and the Navy (ship/shore functions). Their DIA contribution should just be secretly executed, and that evangelical university that passes as the AF Academy should be burned to the ground.
2. SAC no longer exists
3. There are good reasons we separated from the Army in '47. Maybe you should look into some of them...and maybe Billy Mitchel while you are at it.
4. NASA is a civilian agency. They should never have control of military strike capabilities, as such. IMO.
What exactly are you basing your "evangelical university that passes as the AF Academy" comment on? I'm just going to guess that I might have a little better idea of what goes on at USAFA, and let me say that the leadership is very careful NOT to promote any religion...although we did have a guy give a presentation yesterday who said Christians in the military should quit because the mere fact that some military members are Christian creates religious intolerance...(rather flawed in my opinion)
Last edited by RAIMIUS (2008-04-10 22:40:42)
1. They sure do, and these functions should be handed back to the Army as well. You ever done a massive airlift op between Army and AF? Believe me, its not fun running back and forth in a convoy for a week while the officers get in a pissing contest over which loading regs to follow, and then sleeping on tarmac for 3 weeks waiting for your turn because the AF won't talk to the Army about flight schedules.RAIMIUS wrote:
1. The USAF does a hell of a lot more than strategic bombing and close-air support.GorillaTicTacs wrote:
They should divvy up the Air Force between NASA (SAC functions), the Army (CAS functions), and the Navy (ship/shore functions). Their DIA contribution should just be secretly executed, and that evangelical university that passes as the AF Academy should be burned to the ground.
2. SAC no longer exists
3. There are good reasons we separated from the Army in '47. Maybe you should look into some of them...and maybe Billy Mitchel while you are at it.
4. NASA is a civilian agency. They should never have control of military strike capabilities, as such. IMO.
What exactly are you basing your "evangelical university that passes as the AF Academy" comment on? I'm just going to guess that I might have a little better idea of what goes on at USAFA, and let me say that the leadership is very careful NOT to promote any religion...although we did have a guy give a presentation yesterday who said Christians in the military should quit because the mere fact that some military members are Christian creates religious intolerance...(rather flawed in my opinion)
Don't even get me started on my joint ops experience with AF intel, every single one of us (especially our token jarhead) wanted to choke the shit out the of the zoomie weasels...when we weren't laughing at them.
I haven't seen anything resembling real competence except in old AF cold-warriors, but they are really quick to pass the buck and shield themselves with regs. I did see an AF guy that starched his BDU uniform so much he could actually crack parts off like giant tortilla chips They do have that going for them...
2. SAC no longer exists, but we still have nukes, aerial and satellite recon, and other aerospace strategic assets. This should be turned over to the State Department, NASA, and other federal intelligence agencies. If we are using strategic nukes/capabilities in a full-blown nuclear exchange, the military is a bit superfluous.
3. Strategic Bombing. Ironically, this has proven one of the big losers in both money and combat effectiveness for the military over-all. The raison d'etre for the AF, and they fail.
4. The military doesn't "have control" of military strike capabilities. Love em or hate em, civilians are in control of the miltary at the macro level. The decision to use nukes or other WMD's comes straight from the Prez. The decision to unleash hell comes from Congress (traditionally) or the president for X days.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?art … _air_forceNevertheless, the idea of an independent air force was not handed down on Mount Sinai. We have institutions because we've built them. When these institutions outlive their usefulness or fail as experiments, we can take them apart. In a post–September 11 world, we live with threats quite different from those that the Soviet arsenal used to pose. We can and should devise uses and a bureaucratic structure for American airpower better suited to our current challenges than those set out in 1947.
The Air Force, despite being the "bastion of cool technology and kick ass new fighter jets", is a conceptual and costly dinosaur.
I can see where they're all necessary, but in terms of reform the AF would be the most likely candidate. As far as a branch being abolished, however unlikely it may be, I could possibly see the Marines (yes I know they're not a branch per se, but we are dealing with hypotheticals here) being absorbed into the Army.
The Marines' stock in trade (amphibious assaults) aren't really workable in the modern era. Quite frankly there is nothing that the Marines can do that the Army could not do.
Plus, my grandfather (a vet of 3 wars) was the baddest motherfucker on the planet as far as I'm concerned. He was Army...so there.
The Marines' stock in trade (amphibious assaults) aren't really workable in the modern era. Quite frankly there is nothing that the Marines can do that the Army could not do.
Plus, my grandfather (a vet of 3 wars) was the baddest motherfucker on the planet as far as I'm concerned. He was Army...so there.
I'd say Army as the Marines can easily serve the roles filled by that branch at present. The Air Force I would argue as the most important as it is the most likely to house or spawn the future generation of conflict outside our planet. I could also see the Navy taking this role as well.R0lyP0ly wrote:
This kinda-sorta branched off of the "deciding on a branch" thread. Feel free to turn this into a "which is the best" thread.
Personally, I'd say Air Force. They do little that the Navy or Army cannot do.
[disclaimer]
This comment was not intended to disrespect any branch of our armed service and to those who have or are serving - you have my thanks.
[/disclaimer]
The AF flies the plane. The AF is responsible for its safe operation. Why exactly would there be an argument over how the plane is loaded? Could it be because the Army guy didn't know is role (self-loading cargo)? And flight schedules for those kind of aircraft are handled by USTRANSCOM, not the AF. Bitch to the Joint Staff and SECDEF if you don't like it.GorillaTicTacs wrote:
1. They sure do, and these functions should be handed back to the Army as well. You ever done a massive airlift op between Army and AF? Believe me, its not fun running back and forth in a convoy for a week while the officers get in a pissing contest over which loading regs to follow, and then sleeping on tarmac for 3 weeks waiting for your turn because the AF won't talk to the Army about flight schedules.
And I've seen the same thing in Army personnel. And Navy. Very few Marines, though. Biggest douchebag I ever met on active duty was a Navy CPO. Never heard someone say "that's not my job" more in my life.GorillaTicTacs wrote:
Don't even get me started on my joint ops experience with AF intel, every single one of us (especially our token jarhead) wanted to choke the shit out the of the zoomie weasels...when we weren't laughing at them.
I haven't seen anything resembling real competence except in old AF cold-warriors, but they are really quick to pass the buck and shield themselves with regs. I did see an AF guy that starched his BDU uniform so much he could actually crack parts off like giant tortilla chips They do have that going for them...
If it weren't for the fact that your plan would be illegal (at least for application of force), maybe. Or do what the space gonks keep preaching: create a separate branch for space. And the AF doesn't run those other satellites, anyway.GorillaTicTacs wrote:
2. SAC no longer exists, but we still have nukes, aerial and satellite recon, and other aerospace strategic assets. This should be turned over to the State Department, NASA, and other federal intelligence agencies. If we are using strategic nukes/capabilities in a full-blown nuclear exchange, the military is a bit superfluous.
You're right. Probably why we had that huge ground force go into Bosnia...oh wait. Or why the ground portion of Gulf I lasted longer than 100 hours...oh wait.GorillaTicTacs wrote:
3. Strategic Bombing. Ironically, this has proven one of the big losers in both money and combat effectiveness for the military over-all. The raison d'etre for the AF, and they fail.
Quoting an "unbiased" blog ftl. If you had a scientific study by a respected thinktank, it might be worth more than the non-existent paper it's written on.GorillaTicTacs wrote:
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?art … _air_forceNevertheless, the idea of an independent air force was not handed down on Mount Sinai. We have institutions because we've built them. When these institutions outlive their usefulness or fail as experiments, we can take them apart. In a post–September 11 world, we live with threats quite different from those that the Soviet arsenal used to pose. We can and should devise uses and a bureaucratic structure for American airpower better suited to our current challenges than those set out in 1947.
The Air Force, despite being the "bastion of cool technology and kick ass new fighter jets", is a conceptual and costly dinosaur.
Unbelievably short-sighted to be looking at the war now and saying that there's no need for the AF. That because the insurgents don't fly, there's no need for the AF or air superiority. Look at a map...there's more out there than just Iraq and Afghanistan and the US (and its allies) have to be prepared for several different eventualities. Nearly all of which involve air-to-air combat and/or distances that carriers can't cover in the time needed.
Last edited by FEOS (2008-04-11 19:22:08)
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I would say the Air Force, as the Navy has the capability for both sea and land based aircraft operations. The difficulty simply lies in consistent training, since AF pilots have no need to learn to land on aircraft carriers, where if it were navy only, every pilot would need the same set of skills. The up-sizing of the Navy to cover the current AF responsibilities would not be as drastic as trying to upscale the Marines to cover for the army.PuckMercury wrote:
I'd say Army as the Marines can easily serve the roles filled by that branch at present. The Air Force I would argue as the most important as it is the most likely to house or spawn the future generation of conflict outside our planet. I could also see the Navy taking this role as well.R0lyP0ly wrote:
This kinda-sorta branched off of the "deciding on a branch" thread. Feel free to turn this into a "which is the best" thread.
Personally, I'd say Air Force. They do little that the Navy or Army cannot do.
[disclaimer]
This comment was not intended to disrespect any branch of our armed service and to those who have or are serving - you have my thanks.
[/disclaimer]
As for losing the army to the Marines. Just based on size alone, the opposite would most likely happen. Say bye-bye to the Marines; the army would take over. How about looking at the very definitions. Marines are "naval infantry." An army is a group of land forces. Even if you got rid of the "U.S. Army" and landed the "U.S. Marines" to take their duties, those jarheads would be your army. Those trying to say the USMC can do anything the Army can, they are correct, but only on a limited scale. THe USMC is missing critical portions of their infrastructure that are provided by the Navy, which the Army does have intergal to the Army.
Try launching or landing a heavy bomber, airlifter, or tanker from/on a carrier.
TBH, arguments can be made to eliminate every branch and give it to another, but they are all in the end unfeasible. Each service has its role, and each service is very good at their role. It's when they start trying to take over another service's role that things start to break down.
TBH, arguments can be made to eliminate every branch and give it to another, but they are all in the end unfeasible. Each service has its role, and each service is very good at their role. It's when they start trying to take over another service's role that things start to break down.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
executive branch
The navy has land-based bases too. NAS Jacksonville, NAS Dallas, just to name a couple. There are a lot of them around. There is Navy presense and support, and a runway. I guess you can launch a heavy airlift or a bomber from there.FEOS wrote:
Try launching or landing a heavy bomber, airlifter, or tanker from/on a carrier.
TBH, arguments can be made to eliminate every branch and give it to another, but they are all in the end unfeasible. Each service has its role, and each service is very good at their role. It's when they start trying to take over another service's role that things start to break down.
They do launch tankers from an aircraft carrier. They are just small tankers.
However, I will agree that this is mostly a mental excersise and debate; each branch does have something they can do better than any other branch. After all, each branch has been working on making sure that is true for the last 60 years!
QFT, the only time they send in the clowns is during operation " human shield ".GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
the only time the Army and Marines get along are in a combat zone or a video game forum.
Army is better.
SemiSquids have there purpose, just that nobody knows what it is.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- If a branch of the military had to be removed, for whatever reason.