Have conventional militaries like the US become obsolete in the 21st century?

Question

Now that every country in the world knows how to take on a massive conventional military like the US has by mainly using guerilla warfare in highly populated areas like cities & large towns where innocent civilians can be used as shields & w/ things such as the Pentagon's "US Rules of engagement" preventing troops from killing the enemy, might if be time for the US military to stop spending so much on things like One $100 Million Raptor fighter/bomber, & much more on special forces/counter insurgency stuff?

What good is a $100 Million Raptor plane if it blows up 10 terrorists & 50 innocent civilians that happen to be in the same building & their are zero enemy planes & no radar/SAMs tracking it? Heck, a Boeing 737 could drop a GPS bomb on a house in Iraq & it costs about $10 Million.

No one is dumb enough to take on the US in a conventional war anymore so why does the US spends so much on conventional warfare? Is China going to attack the US conventionally? Not a chance.

Answer 1

Conventional weapons can do more damage than guerrilla warfare. We can't afford to lose to an enemy with conventional weapons. We need to be able to fight both ways.

Answer 2

It's not that our military is functionally obsolete, rather it is the fact that our society is much less accepting of certain military tactics. The unwillingness of society to accept the collateral damage that would result from a fully unleashed military campaign has resulted in progressively more restrictive rules of engagement. I put it to you that, if our military was unhindered by modern rules of engagement, the war in Iraq would have been over a long time ago, along with the lives of many innocent civilians. It is the existence of those rules of engagement and the enemy's knowledge of and ability to exploit the weaknesses those rules create, that threaten to render conventional militaries obsolete. What we are discussing is the degree to which our civilization is willing to accept the sacrifices of war, and in these times that willingness is in a fragile state. Imagine what would change if a terrorist nuclear strike were carried out in a Western city. It's a scary thing to contemplate. In my view as a veteran, I would much prefer dealing with restrictive rules to the alternative. As far as your critique of military spending is concerned, you may have a point. However, we have the luxury of operating under unchallenged air dominance for the last couple of decades. The existence of an aircraft as powerful as the Raptor (or the Eagle before it) may be one of the few reasons for powers such as Iran to think twice before pushing things at the negotiating table too far. After all, even a nation with an obsolete air force would definitely be able to see the 737 coming (and shoot it down), but their first clue that a Raptor is around is when a bunch of things suddenly explode for no good reason. China may not attack the US, but they may go after Taiwan and both China and Russia are more then willing to sell arms to Iran. Having the stealth card up our sleeve gives us a definite edge, although many may see it as an edge not worth having. Me, I think it's essential to maintain that dominance if we want to remain relevant.

Answer 3

This is an excellent question. Military planners and analysts like Hemmes and Lind consider the current military structure to be a 3rd generation type military. The insurgent, distributed style of warfare is considered the 4th generation. The US military currently isn't prepared to fight a 4th generation war, and we have a history of not doing well against 4th generation opponents. The vietnam war was a texbook on how to fight against the US, and be successful. North Vietnam did not win a direct force on force battle against the US, but they did win the strategic fight by convincing the American public that the US was losing and the war wasn't worth fighting. You see the same dynamic occurring now in Iraq.
The current purchases of billion dollar fighter planes and multi billion dollar submarines are an example of the crippling beauracracy in the Pentagon and the power of the defense industry. We may never be able to make the transition to a 4th generation fighting force if we continue to do buisness the way we do now.

Answer 4

Warfare is evolving continually and it is necessary for any military power to be on the cutting edge. Guerilla warfare is only one type of war and it's absolutely true that to fight it you have to fight the same way but better. This is why the special and elite forces receive different training to regular infantry. Also, guerilla war only happens when your country is already overrun - it is a means of retaliation, not of using power. What is happening in the Middle East is not what would happen in the event of war against a military power, hence the need to have cutting edge weapons now. It's no good assuming you will never need to fight a developed power with strong military capabilities. How many times did the US go to war in the twentieth century ? Five ? That's the thing with war - it has a nasty habit of just happening so you have to be prepared.

Answer 5

It's true, the United States has hamstringed its military in Iraq with highly restrictive rules of engagement, however it's easy to envision scenarios where a major military power does not restrict its own ability to fight and win. Look at the Russians in Chechnya for example.

So, the answer to your question is no, large conventional armies are not obsolete.

Answer 6

Just because we're the only superpower right now, it doesn't mean that it will always be that way. Do you honestly think that the US will never have a power struggle in the future? If What if another Hitler comes along? You need to think beyond the next decade. You must be very young.

Answer 7

my, my ... missed your bullying lessons in grammar school, did you?

what that 100 million dollar Raptor does is prevent some lesser power that has 3,000 conventional warplanes from seizing the airspace they can reach over their neighbor's country.

This keeps the cheap electronics flowing from Korea and Taiwan, among other places, so you can afford the PC you used to ask this question.

oh

Answer 8

a 737 would be a perfect target for missiles and it would probably be easier to hear and see...read your question., you answer your own question in the lest paragraph......Semper Fi..http://360.yahoo.com/lavadogmarineone.

Answer 9

Why not just nuke them? We've got plenty of missles with the warheads just waiting to go.