BF2S Forums US Navy to fire 3,000 sailors, Army aiming for 22,000

All five branches have a viable role. Merging any two would just bloat the result and complicate the chain of command. Better to just keep manpower at necessary levels, reduce spending for the sake of spending, and replace gear with what's actually needed.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

SEREMAKER wrote:

I really don't get why so many people have to be a negative nancy

I'm not being negative. I just don't see how it would be a good idea. By the time the brass got done ripping one another's throats, the bases were reconfigured, budgeting was reworked out and all the nightmarish red tape that would go along with merging the two branches, you might as well not have done it at all. So no, I don't think that's worth doing. There are plenty of other ways to streamline military budget.

can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs

I'll leave it up to the cook to be factor of that ........ give the order, it gets done

then what would be some suggestions ......... don't just neg everyones idea but not throw your hat in the ring

SEREMAKER wrote:

then what would be some suggestions ......... don't just neg everyones idea but not throw your hat in the ring

Well, merging branches was suggested. The hat I threw in the ring was that I didn't think it was a great idea and would unnecessarily complicate things. I think the effort would be better focused on streamlining military budget in other ways.

There's streamlining and then there's dismemberment.

go army

Go jobless

11 Bravo wrote:

War Man wrote:

SEREMAKER wrote:

shut down the airforce branch

Or merge them with the Army, I never clearly understood the reason behind the Airforce becoming independent of the Army other than "Other nations have an independent airforce."

merge the army and marines, then the air force and navy.

Merging the Marines in to the Army would be a horrible choice. You are looking at taking a "force in readiness" and reducing it to another corps of the Army. More than likely the top brass would start picking apart the divisions and give out equipment and personal piecemeal to Army units they deem needy. You basically take a self reliant unit and dismantle it, making it inefficient and bloating other units.

Doctor Strangelove wrote:

I would ask why do we still need the marines if there hasn't been an amphibious landing in 60 years, but I know I would get flamed for asking that so I won't.

Having the option available is just as valuable as using it. In Gulf War I the Marines constantly practiced amphibious landing leading up to the ground force invasion. Sadam Hussein responded by placing the large bulk of his forces along his coast line to defend against the Marines amphibious landing. And not to make the world sound like there is human nature but there will be another war and there will be another large scale amphibious landing.

Dilbert_X wrote:

cpt.fass1 wrote:

You know how shitty our Economy is.... They're actually fireing service members..

Wow 15 years ago the recruiters were all but sucking dicks to get people to join, now they're full. We as a country are fucked and I can imagine that the Army and the Airforce aren't far behind with letting people go.

Your military is about 5 times bigger than it needs to be, and its broken your country.

Our Military budget is larger than it needs to be. It has been regarded as a sacred item in the national budget for a long time. However no one has really gone through and audited the budget to the full extent to see where wasteful spending is occurring. The force itself is really not that big, especially for what the world demands of the United States in peace keeping action, humanitarian relief and policing actions.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Not sure how cutting the social welfare budget to support the military social welfare budget makes sense but there you go.

At least 19 year old bitches are productive.

I really don't even know why I am putting this in here. Dilbert_X is just a bafoon spouting off from his ass about things he doesn't know. A socialist agenda might look good and well in the short run but you are reducing the human desire for functional work production by giving free hand outs. An easier way for you to understand this would be take a class of kids and tell them that they are all going to receive the same grade for a test. The first test they all get a B because you have a few students who study extremely well and aced it, most students study at least somewhat and did decent but there are a few who did not study and did not even complete the test and bragged about getting a B without working. So the second test the average drops because a few more students want to get a decent grade without working for it. Those that studied are getting frustrated because they worked hard and are getting a shoddy reward for it. The cycle continues until only a handful of students who care more about personal pride and self worth are studying compared to the rest of the class who want a free ride. The result is that everyone gets an F.

eleven bravo wrote:

get rid of the USMC, call em naval infantry.  keep the airforce.  get rid of the coast guard.  get rid of the dept of homeland security.

The Marine Corps is a division of the Navy. They are Naval Infantry with the ability to project force rapidly and self sustain for a limited amount of time to allow the Army to make its landing and roll through.

Shocking wrote:

I don't really understand the USMC, it's like a miniature army. Very different from what we call marines.

The Marine Corps is a self sustaining force for a limited amount of time designed to create and maintain a beach head to allow further reinforcements from around the globe to arrive and land.

Shocking wrote:

What? They've got all sorts of heavy equipment which you don't usually expect in an amphibious/fast deployment unit. Tanks, very large arty installations, their own aircraft etc. The USMC can fight a conventional war on its own.

Once again, it is a self sustaining force designed to create a beach head to allow for more forces to land and reinforce. This means that they have to be able to:
1. Land and make a beach head.
2. Defeat any forces that counter attack be they armor, air, infantry or a combination thereof.
3. Create and maintain a base of operation that allows for sustainable operations and expansion.
So yes it can fight a small war on its own for a limited amount of time. That is exactly what it was created to do.

SEREMAKER wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

SEREMAKER wrote:

then what would be some suggestions ......... don't just neg everyones idea but not throw your hat in the ring

Well, merging branches was suggested. The hat I threw in the ring was that I didn't think it was a great idea and would unnecessarily complicate things. I think the effort would be better focused on streamlining military budget in other ways.

can't get more streamlining a budget by eliminating entire branch


but don't want to rock the boat



so less start eliminating wasteful bases

example : MCRD in San Diego is a waste, close it down and move it up Pendelton .... they spend half the training at Pendelton anyway

MCRD is located right next to an airport. It is land that normally would not be bought by any retailer or home owner. It is not marketable. The only other marketable use of it would be dock storage and if you look across the water you can already see a dock.
Also it is a visible reminder to the people of Southern California that there is a local military installation which for most if a reassuring factor.
Third it is a source of income to the area. It brings federal money into Southern California basically pumping more money into the area instead of just having the same money cycle through the same peoples' hands. It is a way to insure that the area does not start 'leaking money' to out of area installations or companies (more and more common with the internet shopping age).

Last edited by Ridir (2011-07-15 11:23:49)

USMC sucks big donkey dongs

Sere try the whole paragraph first before you reply. But here it is barney style for you.

1. Merging USMC and Army is bad because you lose the naval aspect of it. Leave the USMC as a division of the Navy. It will never be a self sustained branch and it has a marginal percent of the Navy's budget. The money spent on the USMC is well spent because it is so small. We don't always get enough rounds for training where as a Bn in Fort Hood fired off several hundred thousand extra rounds of 5.56  simply because someone added a few too many zero's for a Co training operation.
2. No it would not rip the heart out of the USMC to move MCRD. They spend 2/3 of recruit's time in San Diego and 1/3 of their time "up north."
3. However it would leave a large space unused and extremely hard to sell. It would move a source of income for several thousand people in the immediate area. It is better for the community to have MCRD then for the Marine Corps to have MCRD.

a ft hood battalion with hundreds of thousands of rounds?  bullshit.   A company is given a few thousand rounds to qualify for a day.  there are only 4 companies in a modern army mech battalion.