Opinions on U.S. military strategy

Turkey | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL: Viva Redemption
PSN: HurtfulTurkey
Steam: HurtfulTurkey
ID: HurtfulTurkey
IP: Logged

8,120 posts
 
I've seen a lot of politics on here, but never a discussion about modern military strategy. I don't expect any of you to be educated strategists or anything like that, but you can still give an opinion on the current state of affairs.

The modern goals of U.S. seapower are as follows:

Forward presence - The presence of U.S. and allied forces throughout the world with the capability of quickly responding to crises.

Deterrence - Being the biggest and baddest force in the world to dissuade potential enemies from carrying out aggression.

Sea control - Overlapping patrols and deployed forces to ensure total domination of the oceans to enforce the law of the sea and ensure the continuation of fair and safe commerce and travel. Also includes sea denial, which actively prevents aggressors from deploying.

Power projection - Different from forward deployment, this is the ability for a nation to respond to foreign threats quickly from domestic or allied territory.

Maritime security -  Protection maritime (civilian and military) assets from attack through secure ports and enforcement of the law of the sea.

Humanitarian assistance/disaster response - Self explanatory, but it's important to realize that the U.S. and its allies use a significant amount of their forces to conduct humanitarian operations, especially in response to natural disasters.



This isn't really a discussion about isolationism; isolationism simply isn't going to happen in such a globalized world. To wrap up, here's an interesting quote I happen to like: "Combat operations reflect the greatest failure of our national security strategy."


BaconShelf | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL: BaconShelf
PSN:
Steam: BaconShelf
ID: BaconShelf
IP: Logged

10,794 posts
 
North Korea is pretty isolationist.

OT- I don't really think that rolling into a village with tanks is a strategy, more like overcompensation. It doesn't take much to raid an unarmed farmer.

If we went back to open warfare, then I could probably have more of an opinion. But there isn't really much strategy involved in what we're doing now. Strategy is like the fake allied camp at Dover that fooled the nazis into thinking there would be an invasion of Calais in WWII that meant the Allies had an easier time invading Normandy.


Turkey | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL: Viva Redemption
PSN: HurtfulTurkey
Steam: HurtfulTurkey
ID: HurtfulTurkey
IP: Logged

8,120 posts
 
I'm talking strategy, not tactics. Our current global strategy is deterrence-based. Though open war between nations will likely never happen to the scale that was typical the past 600 years, there will still be pockets of terrorism and aggression which can largely be preempted by presenting a large enough threat.


BaconShelf | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL: BaconShelf
PSN:
Steam: BaconShelf
ID: BaconShelf
IP: Logged

10,794 posts
 
I'm talking strategy, not tactics. Our current global strategy is deterrence-based. Though open war between nations will likely never happen to the scale that was typical the past 600 years, there will still be pockets of terrorism and aggression which can largely be preempted by presenting a large enough threat.

Same difference.


Turkey | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL: Viva Redemption
PSN: HurtfulTurkey
Steam: HurtfulTurkey
ID: HurtfulTurkey
IP: Logged

8,120 posts
 
Well no, not really. I'm talking about the role of America and it's allies in defending each other with a preemptive, deterrent strategy.



 
DAS B00T x2
| Cultural Appropriator
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: DAS B00T x2
IP: Logged

37,910 posts
This is not the greatest sig in the world, no. This is just a tribute.
I'm talking strategy, not tactics. Our current global strategy is deterrence-based. Though open war between nations will likely never happen to the scale that was typical the past 600 years, there will still be pockets of terrorism and aggression which can largely be preempted by presenting a large enough threat.

Same difference.
Nah son, this is large scale, global strategy and overarching missions to accomplish the goal of that strategy, not battlefield or campaign tactics.


My only problem with large scale military deterrence is that it generates a lot of tension with powers who would be most likely to be on the receiving end of all that preemptive firepower.


Dustin | Heroic Invincible!
 
more |
XBL: Greedy Jew
PSN: Jews Did 911
Steam: Chimpout 2014
ID: Le Dustin
IP: Logged

5,849 posts
This is pathetic, Cheat
This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.


The Lord Slide Rule | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL: MrMeatyMeatball
PSN:
Steam: SexyPiranha
ID: SexyPiranha
IP: Logged

4,334 posts
My stupidity is self evident.
Is bombing North Korea a good idea?

Okay, okay, how exactly can North Korea become stabilized?
collapse of the current regime w/ the proper people in place to replace it

not really what this thread is about tho


Forgewolf | Heroic Unstoppable!
 
more |
XBL: Forgewolf
PSN:
Steam: Forgewolf
ID: Forgewolf
IP: Logged

1,955 posts
We always say to fight fire, you must use fire. This is wrong. Fighting fire with fire will leave scars and a new flame will rise. We must instead use water. It is the opposite of fire, it extinguishes the fire, it cools, it refreshes, it heals. We are made up of 70% water, we are not made up of 70% fire. Please practice what we truly are
Here's the strategy.. Spend more money that we can afford. That'll show our enemy how freedom works.


ManOfMyth | Member
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: ManOfMyth
IP: Logged

58 posts
 
I was in Greek special force unit. Makes the Americans look like joke.