Check out my essay for @TheNatlInterest on the concerning parallels between Roman professional armies and the American All-Volunteer Force.
The AVF may still be the right tool, but it is time to admit that all professional volunteer armies pose tradeoffs:https://nationalinterest.org/feature/roman-lessons-american-all-volunteer-force-192563 …
-
How important is manpower really? If US strategic objective for 2020s is "preserve the status quo in Asia-Pacific", Navy/Airforce/Marines are front and center, which need long training to be combat effective with high tech weapons. Draftees cycling out is bad here
The British thought the same in 1914 until their small, highly professional, very skilled army was very nearly bulldozed by German formations several times its size.
-
-
Though in truth, the real trade off here between capabilities vs. capacity has to do with keeping the army's standing strength high vs. investing more in shipbuilding capacity to manage future naval buildups. But a big professional army closes off that debate in some ways.
-
Can the US really expand its naval strength without a significant civilian shipbuilding sector?
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
I think Jutland is the real analogy here. I don't think US has any near-peer land warfare commitments? "Korean war 2" is the best modern comparison to the British situation, and yes I think we would face similar challenges in that unlikely situation
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.