We The People 2020
"A strong offense is also a strong defense."
The status of our military I would call excellent. But the size of our military is crucially small. The reason our military is in the shape that it’s in right now is because we have to fund Obama’s ideologue politics. As it is with any Democratic President the first place they run to, to get free tax dollars as to where they won’t have to raise taxes is to strip down the military. When Obama gets done striping down our military, it will be the same size it was after the Korean War.
Our military has been going through such a “roller coaster ride” subject to this
constant building up with one president and striping down with another president that it’s starting to take its toll on the members of the military. It has such a negative impact that I will introduce a policy on how far down a president can strip down the military.
My policy is this. The United States military effectiveness standard cannot go below a
+20% advantage against the next two size militaries combined regardless of who
these militaries are. Let’s say Canada and Great Britain were rated #2 and #3. The United States would still have to maintain a +20% advantage over Canada and Great Britain combined even though these two countries are considered our sister countries and a war between our three nations would probably never happen in the Earth's lifetime. Today Russia and China are rated #2 and #3 so The United States military needs to have a +20% advantage over these two countries militaries combined.
Why do we need to maintain such a high effective standard? All one needs to do is to look back at WWII. One of Hitlers first plans of the war was going to ally up with the Russians so both countries can conquer Western Europe. After the fall of Western Europe, Hitler then was going to turn his army around and attack the Russians to conquer Russia. Since the Russians were not ready militarily, Hitler decided to attack Russia without first conquering Western Europe and the rest is history.
Today we do naval exercises and missile exercises with Russia. With Putin and the hard core Communist leading Russia who's to say we can trust the Russians on our flanks? Who's to say that they won't attack us in the blind? I think it's still too risky to have total faith in the Russians in believing they won't be attacking The United States for the prosperity, just like Saddam Hussein did to Kuwait.
In 1939 the military ranking fell in this order. Germany, Soviet Union, United Kingdom, Japan, United States. If the United States held my policy back then, WWII would have never started and The United States would have never been attacked.
But how do we afford to keep such a military one would ask? We can, we did in the
past without busting our economy. The answer is the way we do defense contracts. See my page on “Defense Contracts”.
Today we are not even close to this standard. Here is what I would do to get to that
China’s Navy has increased the number of ships to 535 in that, a large number of
amphibious ships are being built, along with ballistic missile ships.
The United States has decreased its Navy to only 235 ships and still trying to get
down to 225 ships just to save costs.
Just to keep up with just China, The United States needs to maintain a 500 ship Navy
with the majority being different configurations of the Arleigh Burke Class. Have 12 Aircraft Carrier battle groups active and continuing building the Ohio Class Submarine to where we have 25 active SSBN submarines.
To support the Marines and Army along the shores, the United States needs to build a build a modern day Battleship with 12 inch guns to support the MAGTFs (Marine Air Ground Task Forces.) The United States would require 6 of these ships. These ships would fulfill the role of the aircraft carriers during beachhead operations.
The Navy needs to increase the size of the amphibious fleet by 150% to fulfill the requirement of the Marine Corps. Today, the Navy could only carry 33,103 Marines if all of the amphibious were operational. (Not in dry docks for upgrades) The United States Navy needs to be able to put an entire MEF out at sea, which a minimum MEF is 46,000 Marines. A fully manned MEF is 90,000 Marines. We have 3 MEFs!
My proposal is for the Navy to carry 100,000 Marines. To put this into perspective, the Battle of Iwo Jima, 70,000 Marines landed on that Island. So, 100,000 Marines is not an overly very large task force world wide.
To understand the Marine Corps, you have to understand its mission and structure. The principal organization for all missions across the range of military operations are (MAGTFs) Marine Air Ground Task Forces.
MAGTFs are a balanced air-ground, combined arms task organization of Marine Corps forces under a single commander that is structured to accomplish a specific mission.
The composition of the MAGTfs is as follows:
The four core elements describe types of forces needed and not actual military units or commands. The basic structure of the MAGTF never varies, though the number, size, and type of Marine Corps units comprising each of its four elements will always be mission dependent. The flexibility of the organizational structure allows for one or more subordinate MAGTFs to be assigned.
MAGTFs are deployed in different strengths according to the threat involved, these are:
I Marine Expeditionary Force located at Camp Pendleton, California.
II Marine Expeditionary Force located at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.
III Marine Expeditionary Force located at Camp Courtney, Okinawa, Japan.
1st Marine Expeditionary Brigade
2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade
3rd Marine Expeditionary Brigade
11th Marine Expeditionary Unit
13th Marine Expeditionary Unit
15th Marine Expeditionary Unit
22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit
24th Marine Expeditionary Unit
26th Marine Expeditionary Unit
31st Marine Expeditionary Unit
Because of the military downsizing, especially the Navy's amphibious fleet, the MEFs, MEBs, and the MEUs, are going to be manned at the minimum requirements:
46,000 for the MEFs
16,00 for the MEBs
2,200 For the MEUs
The MEUs are going to be the focal point of the Marine Corps of any Marine cops landing. The Navy, IF ALL the amphibious ships (troop assault ships) were operational at once, the Navy could only carry 33,103 Marines. The United States Navy can not put an entire MEF out at sea. We have 3 MEFs!
As I see it, there are three national security reasons for maintaining deployed-at-sea (MAGTFs) in modern times and why the MEUs are too small of a force to be the "mainstay" landing force of the Marine coops.
1) To maintain combat ready, coherent, and combined arms, land sea and air forces at sea, which from the sea, can swiftly and directly retaliate against the perpetrators of a surprise attack on CONUS that has damaged seaports and airfields sufficiently to prevent ships and aircraft from deploying for some period in time. (MEUs do not possess the force structure or staying power to fulfill that requirement).
2) Perform 'show of force' (from off the cost) by conducting 'demonstrations of landings' or conducting combined arms seabased raids or limited objective and limited duration attacks in the worlds littorals within the limits of the President's 'War Powers Act' authorization from Congress as the situation warrants. [That's what 2nd MEB(-)(+) and 5th MEB(-)(+) did in Desert Storm in the Persian Gulf to divert Sadam's attention away from the US army's 7th Armored Corps staging to the west of Kuwait, and instead hold (fix) a significant portion of the Iraqi Army in the east along the Kuwati coast line to repel the potential landing by the Marines. By the way a CRITICAL PART of making a landing by the 4th and 5th MEBs credible WAS THE ON SITE PRESENCE OF THE USS WISCONSIN BB-64 AND THE USS MISSOURI BB-63 to provide naval bombardment in support of the Marines with their eighteen 16" guns. Without the presence of the battleships, it is very doubtful that Sadam would have held so many Iraqi forces in place to oppose the Marines as he did. Aircraft carriers operating from far over the horizon do not tend to influence the positioning of ground forces the way battle ships do.] MEU's may be able to perform some of those, against failed states or third world countries, but not against credible state militaries.
3a) Secure a beach head (lodging) of sufficient size and capacity (with the Sea Bees) to facilitate the arrival and build-up of sufficient USA forces (minimum of a Corps - 100,000+ up through a Field Army - 500,000+) to be able to go forward and prosecute a land campaign to defeat the enemy's land forces. Army Corps and Field Armies are far too large to be delivered by airlift alone. I think the lift ratio needed is something like 95% ship transport and 5% air transport. (MEU's can't secure a large enough beach-port-airfield area do that either.)
3b) Once the Army has completed its build up and begins its land war campaign the MAGTF redeploys aboard ship and becomes a mobile seabased combined arms reserve force for the Army which can land to reinforce the Army or to land in a different area to draw the enemy's forces away from the Army's forces. (MEUs are not large enough to do that either.)
My proposal is for the Marine Corps to use MEBs as the principle landing force. This prevents having to do "Surge Buildups."
Army plains to cut from the current 535,000 soldiers down to 380,000 soldiers and use a limited war doctrine.
I want the Army to maintain a 700,000 man Army, and do away with the current limited fight and nation rebuilding doctrine. This doctrine is what currently in place
today. You fight a limited war, you rebuild the nation, you prepare for counter-insurgencies. It’s basically you go on the offense you win the battle, then you go into a defensive posture on the same battlefield. As you can see this is not what our military is all about.
I would have the Army draft a doctrine of going on the offensive, winning the war
(not just the battle) and then coming home. Leave the nation building and replacing the government to the civilians and politicians, that’s why we have the State Department. It's not up to the Dept. of Defense to nation build.
Right now the United States only has 3 Army Corps: Major Fighting Combat Units
I Corps (Ft. Lewis)WA - 7th infantry Division (Ft Lewis) Washington
2nd Brigade Combat Team, (Stryker Brigade)
3rd Brigade Combat Team, (Stryker Brigade)
16th Aviation Brigade (Ft. Lewis) Washington
III Corps (Ft. Hood) TX - 1st Infantry Division (Ft. Riley) KS
4th Infantry Division (Ft. Carson) CO.
III Corps Artillery (Ft.Sill) OK
1st Armored Division (Ft. Bliss) TX
1st Cavalry Division (Ft. Hood) TX
XVIII Corps Airborne (Ft. Bragg) NC - 3rd Infantry Division (Ft. Stewart) GA
10th Mountain Division (Ft. Drum) NY
82nd Airborne (Ft. Bragg) NC
101st Airborne (Ft Campbell) KY
The doctrine of The United States Air Force is basically up to date. Gaining air
superiority, we have done that since WWII
But as in all administrations the type of aircraft is always at the forefront. I would
require the Air Force to follow what I said in the page Defense Contracts. But here’s what’s happening today, and it does not make any sense.
Sec. of the Air Force wants to retire the A-10’s, and replace those with the F-35. I
say NO! The A-10 Warthog is the best ground support aircraft ever built, the F-35 won’t even come close to matching the A-10’s ground support capabilities, if anything, the United States needs to start up production of a new A-10 Fleet.
She also wants to Mothball the Global Hawk Fleet and start flying the U-2’s solo
again. I feel since the Global Hawk aircraft is a remote controlled aircraft, the use of it should be limited. This will help to prevent hackers from hacking in to the Global Hawk and turn the aircraft on our military.
Unless there is a mission that requires the use of the Global Hawk, U-2 flights should take precedence.
We have approximately. 42 Global Hawks and about 70 or so U-2's
The United States bomber fleet is getting to the end of it’s service life. Both the
B-1’s and B-52’s are nearing the end of their service life. The United States has no plans in the works for a new bomber. All we need is a good basic bomber like the B-52. The B-2 is ok but we don’t need to spend as much money on a bomber as we do on an aircraft carrier or submarine.
When it comes to Nuclear weapons first, I want to say is everyone is worried about the numbers of war heads available and that number could wipe out the world population. Well this is true. But one factor never comes to play here.
That's if these missiles can make it through a missile defense system without being destroyed before it hits its target. I predict that for every 300 warheads that are launched against each country, 1 warhead might make it through. I think it’s even higher odds than that. Both countries have excellent antimissile defense capabilities. Again this is my best guess as no one knows the answer to this. Some of our Ticonderoga Class Destroyers were turned into such platforms. These are an excellent system, since these ships are mobile and not subject to an attack as a stationary system would be.
Ok, down to the numbers. Again I do not have an official “top secret" report so I have to research and fact check all my work and here is what I came up with. These are an average of all the reports.
This is from The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. This is a group is a little liberal so it’s going to show The United States a little high in the actual numbers and show the Russians a little low then what it should be. But it’s in the ball park.
3,000 waiting dismantling
4,000 waiting dismantling
Russia has met the latest reduction agreement and the Russians show no interest to reduce any more. The only nuclear weapons Russia is dismantling are her obsolete ones. Russia has been upgrading to the country’s new mobile ICBMs (Yars-M type) with an increase to 10 warheads and new fuel type. The RS-24 is an enhanced, MIRVed
development of the Topol-M missile that would finish all testing in 2008 and most likely be deployed in 2009. These are upgraded versions of the SS - 27 and -29 missiles.
Russia begins to grow her missile inventory with the production of a new heavy ICBM that can better penetrate the US missile defense system in Europe, the head of Russia’s Strategic Missile Forces said. “The building of the missile continues, it will be complete in 2018,” Colonel-General Sergey Karakayev said in an interview with RIA-Novosti. The new and as-yet-unnamed silo-based ICBM will replace the R-36M2 ‘Voyevoda’ missile (known to NATO as the SS-18 ‘Satan’). Russia refuses to give
a report to the United States of number of Nuclear weapons.
In the same time frame The United States is still dismantling our weapons according to the new treaty Obama signed in 2012. The Unites States is trying to get down to 1,300 warheads I believe. The United States is the only player still interested in reducing Nuclear weapons.
Here are the Actions I would take.
I will stop further reduction in The United States’ Nuclear arsenal and upgrade our stock pile equivalent to what the Russians have done. Institute a mobile ICBM missile system with a 7,000 mile missile capability. I will also stop further destruction of missile silos and bomber aircraft, if these are still being destroyed. Why should The United States be the only country that has to expose a bare backside?
The United military is at a crucial level, to where the United States cannot be engaged with more then one conflict at a time. If this were WWII, the United States would have to decide to either fight the Nazis or the Japanese. This is a major security threat concerning Russia and China. We can take car of one or the other but we cannot take care of both.
"Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer."
John F. Kennedy
"History shows every time the United States is weak, we get attacked."