Does anyone actually believe spending billions on peacetime army prepares us for the next big war?

Question

Truth is, it DOESN'T. No one actually knows what a real military needs to beat their opponents until it actually goes to war. World War I is a fine example, along with World War II. In the first World War, there were many advancements with weapons, but it took many years before the Allies could figure out how to beat the Germans.

Then in World War II, the United States was as unprepared as it could be for the war, still yet it came out on top. The Russians were pretty much in the same position. It was the development of weapons during the war by the Russians and Americans, tailored more to beat the enemy than to be superior in every way, that won the war. Germany's weapons were the finest in the world, except for the fact none of the German high command realized that superiority does not equal practicality and victory on the field.

I feel America has fallen victim to the mentality of the German army during WWII. There are many parallels that I feel are vulnerabilities for the US.

Ok, technically this isn't a peacetime army, but it isn't a big World War one either. The American armed forces spent almost the same amount during the Clinton years, so that's not really a factor. Even in Iraq, it's been found that despite all the spending America makes on its military, we still weren't prepared AT ALL for the situation there.

A hurricane is halfway predictable in the amount of damage that will occur, a war is not because you are dealing with the complexity and unpredictability of the human mind. With a hurricane, you know what any relief force would need...with a war, you could spend billions on a tank and find out in a real-world situation how vulnerable it is...such as was the case in World War II with Hitler's tanks.

France did prepare for WWII with the Maginot Line. Germany got around it in their battle plans when war actually came. It did no good. It was poor planning by the French.

Answer 1

AMERICANS CANT EVEN BEAT IRAQS OR AFGANS WITH ONLY AK47'S AND THEY HAVE GOT EVERY SORT OF WEAPON.

Answer 2

Well, sorta.
Most of the technology that helped us and the Soviets win WW II was developed in the 30's, though, so it won't do to go too far. Those items were improved during the war, but most were already developed before hostilities began.
I'd also point out that there's nothing German that was markedly superior. When they had their stunning victories in Poland, the Low Countries, and France, their finest tank was the 1935 model they'd "inherited" from the Czechs. As a matter of fact, they lost two thirds of the tank force that went into Czechoslovakia, almost all from mechanical breakdown. They were repaired before Poland, of course, but reliability remained a problem in all their tanks throughout the war.
Moving to current affairs, it seems we have an overemphasis on the technology for fighting other countries, with whom we're unlikely to fight anytime soon, and budget too little for fourth-generation war, which is by far the more likely threat, and if it weren't for the huge argument over whether we should be fighting the current one at all, we might be able to redesign our forces better to fight that kind of war. But arguing over priorities in spending is somewhat different from arguing over whether to try to be prepared at all.

Answer 3

they became complacent again like what happened during pearl harbor!!!

if people would have been doing the jobs assigned to them at the time of theses incidents they never would have happened!!!

call me what ya want, but there were some major screw-ups on messages being checked out, warning signs not being followed through, just a file it away and go to lunch attitude, like the D.M.V.!!!!

and yes we have the best of the best when it comes to the military, but they don't play by our rules!!!

and why should they , we don't even play by our rules anymore!!!

Afghanistan has regrouped and is starting up again!!!

its not our troops fault, if it was a good ol American war case would be closed, but our leaders have dragged us into unfamiliar territory to satisfy there secretive wishes!!!

and then slapped a label on people who do not agree with there policy's!!!

they have divided us, and support is dwindling, not for our troops, for our so-called learning as they go leaders!!!!

so yes congresses hands are tied until the senate finaly breaks all ties and support for bush, wich wont happen until someone comes up with a better plan, until then the money keeps flowing or they will be labeled as traiters!!!!

so were stuck with the dumbf**k until then!!!

Answer 4

I think you are not a student of history. The failures in WWI were caused by countries not prepared to fight. The US had four years to gear up for war before we got involved in WWI.

The people of France sat on their hands while Hitler was gearing up. More than 50% of people in the US were opposed to getting involved in WWII. Had we started earlier, the war may not have lasted as long as it did.

I am in favor of a strong military. It is a deterrent. No country attacks the US precisely because of our military strength.

Answer 5

You sweat, train and spend on weapons when at peace so that you will bleed less in war. How you figure we were not prepared for war with Iraq defies all evidence to the contrary. Keep your job and let better tacticians plan for war, OK?

Answer 6

You can definately see the difference in the Gulf War and Iraq today. In between Clinton cut the military to the bone.

Answer 7

Definately. I support military spending. We need to keep a strong, well trained army at all times.

Answer 8

I disagree with you. Why should we wait for something to happen in order to start training and developing new soldiers and equipment? That is a recipe for defeat. A defeat that will cost way too many lives.

Answer 9

I don't agree.

Do you think we should have still had troops trained for trench warfare when we entered WWII?

We need to keep spending money on R&D and training the troops with the latest equipment.

Answer 10

Should we wait to see what happens in a hurricane and then try to mobilize to save lives? Just wondering . . . should I wait to see what I need during my retirement and then start trying to scrounge some money together?