http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6983099Oh my.
And it's a big bonfire.
Xithras (1000+ posts) Tue Nov-10-09 03:20 PM
Original message
A question for military people...
Can anyone tell me why, in this day and age, we still have and fund BOTH an Army and a Marine Corps? Other than history, is there any valid reason for us to spend untold billions of dollars per year maintaining two completely separate military branches, both dedicated to ground combat, which largely use the same weapons & tactics to accomplish identical goals?
I've seen and heard lots of comments about the Marines anniversary today, and just wonder why we should keep funding more of them. Is there a difference between the Marines & Army that I'm missing?
Since the bonfire's so big, only a few primitive comments, selected at random:
unhappycamper (1000+ posts) Tue Nov-10-09 03:21 PM
Response to Original message
1. The Marines are considered 'shock troops'.
The Army is, well, the Army.
virgogal (1000+ posts) Tue Nov-10-09 03:23 PM
Response to Original message
2. Marines are part of the Navy . Different missions.
Xithras (1000+ posts) Tue Nov-10-09 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. That sound like an organizational or political division, not a practical one.
What I want to know, based on what REAL Army soldiers do on an average day, and what REAL Marine soldiers do on an average day, is what the practical operational differences are TODAY between the two branches that justifies countless billions of extra dollars per year in military spending while our pols whine about a lack of money for healthcare.
The primitive once known as the "MookieWilson" primitive, who might, or might not, be a dyke:
Captain Hilts (1000+ posts) Tue Nov-10-09 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. The Marines are a self-sustaining unit with no visible supply trail.
The libertine terrorist primitive, who was a Marine eons ago:
Tierra_y_Libertad (1000+ posts) Tue Nov-10-09 03:29 PM
Response to Original message
8. Marines are cheaper cannon-fodder.
Unless things have changed since my day in the Crotch, the marines generally got the upgrades and perks last.
Xithras (1000+ posts) Tue Nov-10-09 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. That might not be a bad thing.
I just looked it up, and the Marines have a $12 billion a year budget. Seems to me that it would be better to let the Army handle the expeditionary work and put that $12 billion to use on more important things...like healthcare.
Captain Hilts (1000+ posts) Tue Nov-10-09 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. The need for the mission and the money allocated for it would not disappear.
You have a lot to learn about the government, and the military.
I thought you were actually interested in knowing the difference.
margotb822 (1000+ posts) Tue Nov-10-09 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #24
34. Did you know the Navy has more pilots than the Air Force?
My point is, I don't think you actually grasp the nature of the services. If I were to ask you what service you'd join if you wanted to fly, you'd say Air Force because, from what you know, they do the flying. From what you know, the Army and Marine Corps all fight on the ground. Well, in reality, there are differences, both obvious and subtle that make them completely different services. Not necessarily services that can't work together (although lot of people will debate the success of joint-ness), but that it wouldn't be worthwhile to combine them.
You're not going to get the answer you want from people that know and understand the services, their capabilities, and the development of future forces.
I say all the time that the modern mission of the Air Force is completely misguided. I think the flying should be returned to the Army and the rest should go to NASA. While, that may seem like a good theoretical idea, it's probably not possible. And, it might not make a difference.
Honestly, what would be the point of combining them? It seems like all you want to do is add the Army and Marine Corps together.
If your goal is to streamline the forces, this would be the worst way to do that.
Question from franksolich: what's this deal about the Navy having more pilots than the Air Force? Isn't that like the Army having more ships than the Navy?
I never knew that, never even suspected that.
NeedleCast (1000+ posts) Tue Nov-10-09 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
14. Being dedicated to ground combat doesn't mean their roles are the same
The Marines are generally rapid-deployment. The army has special forces elements that play the same role, but not nearly the same numbers.
Further, if you combined them into the same force but kept the same number of active duty people in them, the cost difference would be negligable.
Marine equipment tends to be lighter and faster moving. A typical Marine division is faster moving but has less firepower than a typical Army division.
optimator (157 posts) Tue Nov-10-09 03:39 PM
Response to Original message
19. you are right.
We actually shouldn't have any standing military at all unless there is a threat of invasion, which there never will be.
Oh, I dunno.
Alcibiades (1000+ posts) Tue Nov-10-09 03:44 PM
Response to Original message
27. Multiple redundancy
Every branch wants to maximize its budget. Aside from the historical and military reasons for this, the Pentagon is filled with budget-maximizing bureaucrats.
So the Navy has its own Army. The Army has its own air force. The Air Force has its own special forces. The Navy has its own air force. All three branches have their own nukes.
And they all get a blank check.
Just like too many primitives get filled-out checks, which costs the taxpayers a damned sight more than the whole military does.
Xithras (1000+ posts) Tue Nov-10-09 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #27
33. See, I actually think that we should get rid of all military divisions.
While I do get the historical reasons for their existence, many nations do not segregate their militaries the way the United States does. Few people here, for example, would mock the military effectiveness of the IDF in full combat, and yet the IDF operates as a single military unit that merely has multiple internal "wings". All training is joint, and a unified command structure makes them highly effective. Similar structures exist in other nations all around the world. It's also MUCH cheaper to operate, because you're eliminating the redundancies you just described.
margotb822 (1000+ posts) Tue Nov-10-09 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. I challenge your definition of "need"
How much do you know about Law of the Sea and Freedom of Navigation Operations?
Every day, the Navy is out on the seas ensuring that lanes of traffic stay open and available for international use. It's not an inherently militaristic task, yet the Navy provides the force necessary to carry out the task.
Other nations aren't forced to develop these capabilities because they know they can rely on the US to carry out this vital mission.
Critters2 (1000+ posts) Tue Nov-10-09 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
35. I'm trying to figure out why, in this day and age, we haven't progressed beyond solving problems by killing people.
And the religion of peace is about a thousand years behind us.
And then there's the abortion profiteers.
The Straight Story (1000+ posts) Tue Nov-10-09 04:28 PM
Response to Original message
46. The army is the cleanup crew for the marines
There's more, but too much to load in the boat and bring over here.
