For military effectiveness do we need a large Army reserve?

Question

Or should we depend upon a powerful Navy and Air Force? Why have we been able to win wars in the twentieth century without a strong Army in readiness? Will these conditions continue to hold? Would a policy of universal training shorten our wars? Reduce our losses? Would such training in times of peace really prepare men for combat in a future war?

Answer 1

The Air Force and the Navy cannot take and hold ground.

The only way to control someplace is to have somebody standing there. This means infantry.

The job of the entire armed forces is to support the infantryman - because he is then only person who can win the war.

Answer 2

A huge Army nowadays is only as good the equipment and training it gets. For example our troops are well trained and have the best weapons in the world. The Chinese Army is huge...but it's training is lax. And without a strong Navy and Airforce for logistical support our Troops would not even be able to go anywhere. Also the US Navy is able to avert conflict without the use ground troops. Take Taiwan for example, the Chinese know that they can't get past a USN blockade thus they won't even try to send troops, because it would be a million man swim.

Answer 3

I hear a lot of people these days argueing in favor of fighting wars through purely technlogical streangth. While it may seem like a good idea to dominate the battlefield with high tech mechines and keep ground troops out of the equation, the fact of the matter if that war is and has always been, and will always be, a violent land grab. For all the billions that they're worth, air strikes and bombardments usualy only claim about 10% of the caulties in modern war. Wars will always be based ground troops confronting eachother, everything else will always be based on supporting them.

Answer 4

It depends entirely on what you mean by 'military effectiveness', ie, what kind of wars do you want to fight.

The great weapons writer Ian Hogg says: (paraphrasing): planes can fly back and forward like visiting martians, tanks can drive all over the place, but in the end a man has to walk out onto the ground, dominate it, deny it to the enemy and, in the words of an American general: "winkle the other bastard out of his foxhole and make him sign the peace treaty"'.

Men like Powell and Bush the First knew this, which is why they, in 1991, used their high-tech army for an appropriate objective: routing the Iraqi army out of Kuwait. But to CONQUER Iraq today, they need men. You can't occupy or nation-build with high-tech weapons and small numbers of men. But America could defend herself against invasion with a small, high-tech army. This has worked for Australia (my country) for years. And Israel has done well with that approach, too. But you can't conquor and occupy.

A large army is very expensive and a big drain, though with the military-industrial complex demanding fantasy weapons like missile defence, that may be a moot point.

The real answer to your question is to ensure the ends are matched to the means, and that you have political leaders of sufficient intellectual calibre to use the forces appropriately.

Answer 5

Your command can deliver you in the event that they stand to learn from having a ranger-tabbed guy or woman on their books. in case you're a cook dinner or a mechanic...in step with hazard not plenty benfit to the command. in case you're infantry, and so on....then specific a earnings. The command has to learn because of fact they could be paying the cost of your college. You characterize the unit, so as that they might in basic terms deliver you in case you ought to certainly characterize the unit and have a hazard of winding up the rigorous software. talk with the reserve unit which you would be pulling responsibilities with. they provide you united statesdowns on besides the fact that if or not they are able to or will front this technique. do not forget that instruments are tight with their investment often, yet precise now even moreso because of long conflict on terrorism. they might deliver you and better united stateswon't dip into their kitty to fund it. instruments may additionally replace their strategies base on venture standards, logistics, and different motives as nicely investment. talk with the reserve recruiter to be sure if there are any form of ensures they are able to put in the settlement. this is unlikely, yet once you do not ask they gained't permit you recognize.

Answer 6

Isn't it obvious? our army and marines are currently stretched thin while the Navy and Chair Force are sitting on their asses in support roles. Of course we need a large army reserve. It gives us a large standing army without the expense of a 100% full time force or resorting to the draft.

Answer 7

no, the sad truth is the more a country goes to war the better they will be at it. look at the Germans, they didn't win WW1 or 2 but they but up one hell of a fight. same goes for the us and England. a prime example is Israel, many many wars in just a few years.