US Armed Forces

Discussion in 'Forum for Polls' started by Salty, Jul 11, 2009.

?

Should the US Armed Forces be unified ?

  1. I am active duty / veteran and YES they should

    1 vote(s)
    3.2%
  2. I am activy duty / veteran and NO they should not

    18 vote(s)
    58.1%
  3. I have never been military and NO they should not

    11 vote(s)
    35.5%
  4. I have never been military and YES they should

    1 vote(s)
    3.2%
  5. Not sure

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. Other answer

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,130
    Likes Received:
    221
    Do you think the Armed Forces of the US should be unified under one commander?

    Currently, the Army has boats, the Navy has planes, and the Air Force has trucks.

    If all services were unified, there could be a signicifinate savings. For example, all services would have the same unifionrm, one set of regulations, elimiantion of similliar commands - ie Army Material Command, Navy Material Command, Air Force Material Command
     
  2. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,130
    Likes Received:
    221
    Can you iminage the Marines, land forces (Army) and Sea forces (Navy) all wearing the same unifiorm?

    Of course the DOD could authoize SM to wear their current uniform outside of formation. Of course the purchase and upkeep would be the SM expense.

    Wait, I am in Supply, I could end up on a ship!

    Can I change my vote :praying:
     
  3. billreber

    billreber
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2005
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    0
    What savings? Uniforms still have a cost, whether it be one style or 5 (don't forget the Coast Guard!). The services still operate under one commander (POTUS), and even cooperate with each other, through appropriate channels, whenever needed. Each service has a different basic mission to perform, and would still need to do that mission, even if "unified".

    There WOULD/COULD be major problems, however. Can you imagine a former Air Force member, trained in maintenance of the KC-135 tanker aircraft, being assigned to an aircraft carrier, which has no large aircraft? How about a Army infantryman being assigned to a ship? (Compared to a Marine assignment).

    A number of years ago, I witnessed what happened when the tankers were re-assigned from Strategic Air Command (SAC) to Military Airlift Command (MAC) -- people who had never worked on SAC aircraft were assigned to the "new", previously SAC aircraft, but knew NOTHING about the aircraft they now had to work on! (Yes, both SAC and MAC had "large airframe" aircraft, but after the airframe, everything else was different!) It takes years to learn the intricacies of an aircraft type, and mixing them was a GIGANTIC problem. They ended up maintaining different specialties, based on aircraft type, to avoid problems.

    Somebody might say that, with additional training, "unified" services might work better. I have read on the BB, from one of our Canadian members, that Canada has a "unified" military service, and that it is a shambles. (My words, not his). Why try to do something that has failed elsewhere?

    Bill :godisgood:
     
  4. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,378
    Likes Received:
    790
    Are you drunk? The army has trucks, the navy has boats, the Air Force has planes. Or are you simply being a provocateur?
     
  5. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,130
    Likes Received:
    221
    Not sure, did you change the label on that "soda" bottle you gave me? :laugh:

    The point I am making is that the "major" equipment for the different services are not unique to that service alone.

    Actually, I think the major obstacle would be the traditions and esprit de corps of each service.

    My goodness, do you remember the big fuss over all Army members wearing the Black Beret? The first problem is that the Black Beret was only for Rangers (which the Army changed to Brown)

    And for that reason, to this day, I refuse to wear my Beret, unless I am required to while in formation. Otherwise I always wear my service cap (Class A) or baseball cap (BDU)

    So far, its not an ideal that seems too popular.
     
  6. Tentmaker

    Tentmaker
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/tentmaker.gif>

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2002
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    0
    Absolutely not.
     
  7. Tom Bryant

    Tom Bryant
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    4,439
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, we already have a unified commander: the President.

    Actually all you'll do is add another layer of rear echelon people. Each service will still have to have a commander. The military doesn't need more bureaucrats.

    Don't get me started about the idiocy of handing out berets to people who haven't earned them. :mad:
     
  8. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    You left out Starfleet.
     
  9. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Also remember that the Air Force was once part of the Army.
     
  10. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah but they seperated for a reason in 1948. Modern warfare like many other aspects of our civilization has become very techinical and specialized. Branches really need to focus on their specializations and unified only in common purpose. However, a unified military in our society (the United States) also is a dangerous aspect. Imagine a general who has ultimate control of a unified forces and decides to be emperor. This would be more difficult in our current independence of military branches. Checks and balances.
     
  11. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,130
    Likes Received:
    221

    I would like to say that Thinking stuff had some excellent reasons for NOT combining the services.

    So how about this compromise. Service specific would stay with the service - eg Tanks for the Army - Ships for the Navy, aircraft for the Air Force. Commands such as supply, personnel, medical and chaplains could be all under one unified command.

    Thoughts?
     
  12. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    When the UN takes over or when the revolution starts, are all units of the existing armed forces equally apt to fire upon Americans?

    Off hand, Whiskey Rebellion, Shea's Rebellion, Lincoln's War, Tanks against the post WW1 bonus march on Washington led by General ??, Kent State, Recent BATF wars in Washington, Idaho and Texas . . . .
     
  13. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    0
    What are you trying to say?
     
  14. Tom Bryant

    Tom Bryant
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    4,439
    Likes Received:
    0
    You would still have all the existing layers and then add one more. I would probably agree in principle, but more rear echelon oversight would be exactly what the military doesn't need.

    And what are you trying to say, Bill Wald?
     
  15. SaggyWoman

    SaggyWoman
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2000
    Messages:
    17,933
    Likes Received:
    8
    No need. Each serve a purpose.
     
  16. Johnathon E

    Johnathon E
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    0
    Think about the football games! Which would you rather watch, an Army-Navy game or a unified service-unified service game? :tongue3:

    Besides, as an air force brat who grew up to become a Marine, I would miss all the great service jokes my father and I exchange all the time!
     
  17. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, Canada tried unified forces a few years and ended up with unified uniforms, even for the women!

    We ended up with army officers in charge of ships...............I'm glad that our military returned somewhat to sensibility.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  18. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,130
    Likes Received:
    221
    And in the US, it was not unusual for a short order cook who got drafted become a tank mechanic, or a computer whiz to be placed in an infantry unit. :tonofbricks:
     
  19. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Some say it is suspicious that National Guard units are being sent to foreign wars while the US Army stays at home. Some predict the new flu or whatever will be used as a pretext to put the country under military control and Americans would be easier to control with the Army than with the National Guards. Troops would be moved across the country so that they are not holding guns on their neighbors.
     
  20. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,130
    Likes Received:
    221

    1. And I suppose you actually believe that.

    2. Members of the National Guard are first and foremost members of the United States Army. Their Chain of Command includes the Governer of their State or Commonwealth, which allows them to preform duty on a local level
     

Share This Page

Loading...