Do we need ground troops?

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

twoblink

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2002
Messages
3,736
Location
Houston, Texas
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?"
 
Of course we need ground troops. Thats a no brainer. Who is going to take the real estate?
 
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.
 
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.
Bob
 
Absolutely.

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

Do we need to put young men and women in the line of fire...
Click to expand...
No, not the women. The only ones I've heard about are in non-combatant positions.
 
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:.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Without troops on the ground, who will Iraq's Army surrender to?

Edit: Chandlerm. you beat me by less than a minute.
 
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.
 
Actually, no you don't, so long as you have the morals of a syphallitic sewer rat.
Click to expand...

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...
 
No Air Force or Navy in the world can clear and hold a piece of land other than an air base or a sandbank. ;)
From Clancy's Armored Cav:
"When I went into KUwait I had thirty-nine tanks," one captured Iraqi battalion commander said. "After six weeks of air bombardments, I had thirty-two left. After twenty minutes in action against the M1s, I had none."
Click to expand...
 
twoblink,

Assign your student the reading of Robert A. Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" (nothing like the movie) As the air and space capabilities of the military in the novel are orders of magnitude greater than our current capability, it is instructive that ground troops were still needed. Have her look up Roger Young's posthumous citation for the Congressional Medal of Honor for extra credit.
 
pizzaguy...

"We didn't use ground troops on Japanese soil in WWII.
Just used 2 bombs."

Actually, that is not true. There were ten's of thousands, if not more, ground troops there afterwards as occupation troops. The two atomic bombs certainly convinced the Japanese to surrender, but they did not surrender until we had troops on the ground.
 
Byron Quick...

"Assign your student the reading of Robert A. Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" (nothing like the movie)"

Good point! I first read ST shortly after it came out. Have re-read it many times. I consider it one of the finest novels ever written.

The movie on the other hand stunk.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Troops armed with deadly Minimi
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
Monte Harrison
M
S
  • Locked
military superiority does it breed terrorist acts?
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
jmbg29
J
M
  • Locked
We need your help!
Replies
1
Views
241
average_shooter
A
D
  • Locked
Red Friday, Support our Troops
Replies
6
Views
377
Dr.Who
D
T
  • Locked
Value of "Ladies' Only" forum on my local bulletin board
Replies
18
Views
741
hso
hso
Back
Top