1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Do we need ground troops?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by twoblink, Mar 11, 2003.

  1. twoblink

    twoblink Well-Known Member

    A student of mine asked me the question, and I thought it a fairly good question, so I'll throw it on the forum.

    She asked, "with the technology (smart bombs, stealth planes etc..) today, do we REALLY need ground troops anymore? Do we need to put young men and women in the line of fire in order to win a war?"
  2. SIGarmed

    SIGarmed Well-Known Member

    Of course we need ground troops. Thats a no brainer. Who is going to take the real estate?
  3. Lord Grey Boots

    Lord Grey Boots Well-Known Member

    Yes. The rule is that you don't control land until you can put a 19 year old with a rifle on it.

    The high-tech stuff makes it easier and safer for the 19 year old, but you still need to put him there.
  4. beemerb

    beemerb Well-Known Member

    That question was being asked in the 60's when I was in the army.The answer is a big YES.You never take and control ground from the air.It takes grunts-tanks -arty and air working as a cordinated unit to fight and win a war.
    One of reasons our units are getting more and more effective( even though there are less people) is is the high teck commo now in use.Communications between all the units now is faster and more reliable then it ever has been.
  5. Lennyjoe

    Lennyjoe Well-Known Member


    Even though smart bombs and new technology are advancing its still necessary to have the guys on the ground taking real estate.

    Of course if you look at Desert Shield/Desert Storm, airpower did a great job of blowing up alot of equipment and breaking the Iraq ground forces will to fight.
  6. BigG

    BigG Well-Known Member

    It's very hard to hold real estate without a snuffy smith with a rifle on the ground.

    No, not the women. The only ones I've heard about are in non-combatant positions.
  7. Jim March

    Jim March Well-Known Member

    Actually, no you don't, so long as you have the morals of a syphallitic sewer rat. :scrutiny:

    You can always nuke the enemy till they glow, and not risk any ground troops at all. Or rather, not yours.

    We don't do that because we're fundamentally *moral*. So we send ground troops in to deal with the enemy on a *precision* basis.

    Believe me, Liberal weenies who hate ground troops haven't considered the alternatives. Par for the course :barf:.
  8. BigG

    BigG Well-Known Member

    Let's leave the Clintons out of this, OK Jim? :p
  9. FPrice

    FPrice Well-Known Member

    As one who has studied and practised the application of air power all of my adult life, the answer is an unqualified "YES!".

    Air power and Sea power can do a lot of things to help defend the country and prosecute hostilities when necessary. But since our fundamental view of warfare (today, but not always in the past) is stop our enemies from harming us, we are not in the business of wholesale destruction of other countries. Air and Sea power can help weaken an enemy's resolve and damage their forces, but it takes a man on the ground to sort out combatants from non-combatants and deliver the real pin-point application of force necessary to accomplish our mission in light of the view expressed above.

    We will always need soldiers, marines, and those land-based portions of the Navy and Air Force to be able to do the job properly.
  10. Viking6

    Viking6 Well-Known Member

    An airplane can't rescue a hostage or snatch a high value prisoner for interrogation or seize documents, etc. IMHO, the tough guys with muddy or slimy or dusty boots will always be required. Heaven help them if they don't have airplanes and ships and Lord knows what else to back their play.
  11. ChandlerM

    ChandlerM Active Member

    Somebody needs to be there for the Iraqis to surrender to. :D
  12. Pheonix

    Pheonix Well-Known Member

    Without troops on the ground, who will Iraq's Army surrender to?

    Edit: Chandlerm. you beat me by less than a minute.
  13. seeker_two

    seeker_two Well-Known Member

    Wars are won by guys on the ground w/ guns.

    Bombers and missles just make sure our guys have fewer of their guys to shoot...:evil:
  14. DadOfThree

    DadOfThree Well-Known Member

    You could probably take France without ground troops! :D :D
  15. DonP

    DonP Well-Known Member

    Video game mentality

    Perhaps you should ask her if she really thinks there is a reset button in war?

    It's normal for the very young to seek out what they believe is a better or easier solution. Yes, as stated above, the smart bombs etc.. reduce the enemy's ability to resist and strike back, but they can't occupy territory or enforce rules and laws.

    Ground troops are essential for controlling a given area of a country. That ground control is neccesary for the next stage of redeeming Iraq and installing the seeds of a Democratic government there IMNSHO.

    As mentioned above, Japan surrendered with out a ground war on their home territory. But we all know that it took two nuclear strikes for them to wake up and smell the coffee.

    Conquer with out ground troops? Sure, just be ready to handle the guilt of killing millions of civilians. Nuclear air bursts do not discriminate between a combatant and a child, the way a man with a rifle can.

    Don P.
  16. twoblink

    twoblink Well-Known Member

    There you go Jim, always adding Feinstein to the mix ;)

    Me and the other two guys in the room thought (of course you need ground troops!) but it seems that some women have no clue about wars; but of course they have 150% more opinions about them then men do.. Wish they all had Runt or Tamara's mentality...
  17. 10-Ring

    10-Ring Well-Known Member

    Absolutely! It takes people on the ground to control the infrastructure.
  18. T.Stahl

    T.Stahl Well-Known Member

    No Air Force or Navy in the world can clear and hold a piece of land other than an air base or a sandbank. ;)
  19. seeker_two

    seeker_two Well-Known Member

    You could probably take France w/ a Girl Scout troop...:D
  20. T.Stahl

    T.Stahl Well-Known Member

    You'd still have to defeat at least the Foreign Legion! :rolleyes:

Share This Page