Private Contracting Firms - Why the US uses them

[baru911]

For the purposes of this thread/post, the term contractor includes both armed and unarmed personnel.

A very brief history of what caused the need for contractors:
1) Force reduction after Vietnam - Army logistics support elements get relegated to the Army Reserve and the National Guard in order to cut troop numbers and the force reduction in post–Cold War that cuts the Army from 18 to 10 divisions with corresponding cuts in support forces. That reduced the Services' ability to support long-term operations.
2) The 1990's - the US employs contractors in the Balkans to build traditional camp-building to the concept of force development that saw Military Professional Resources Incorporated training the Croatian army.
3) The decision to invade Iraq with minimum forces left the USA with too few troops in-theater to deal with the disorder that resulted from the removal of that country's leader.

Why the US uses contractors:
1) continuity
2) speed of deployment
3) reduction of troop requirements
4) economic inputs to local economies
5) reduction of military casualties
6) executing tasks the military and civilian workforce cannot


Continuity
While the U.S. military has a policy that the vast majority of personnel rotate every 6 to 12 months. Contractors are often willing to stay for longer periods. Private contracting companies can offer significant bonuses to people who stay longer . The companies know that they save money due to the personnel continuity, and employees see an opportunity for increased pay and bonuses.

Speed of deployment
The Pentagon failed to plan for large numbers of security personnel to protect all U.S. activities once the Afghan and Iraqi governments were removed from power. The Pentagon had not planned to keep large numbers of troops in Afghanistan or Iraq for any period of time. Also, it had not planned for the required logistics support. Why? I've no idea. Seems a bit short-sighted doesn't it?

Using database hiring, running job fairs, and contracting for labor from regional companies, private contracting firms were able to hire, and ship people to run base camps, drive trucks, and perform "housekeeping" chores required to maintain both combat forces and civil administrators in Iraq and Afghanistan. Contractors replaced tens of thousands of soldiers normally required to move, and transport personnel and supplies into Iraq and Afghanistan. As a side bar the electrical grid built by us in Iraq was completed by contractors.

Reduction of troop requirements
At the height of the surge in April 2008, the DOD reported it had 163,000+ contractors supporting around 160,000 troops in Iraq. Without contractors, the United States would have had to provide twice as many troops. The U.S. Armed Forces struggled to maintain those 160,000 troops in Iraq. It is very doubtful that we could have supported the 320,000 troops needed or supply 320,000 troops to the area. We robbed troops from Afghanistan to deal with Iraq. That didn't turn out to well and has caused long term issues ever since in the region.

Example: The majority of contractor personnel are in noncombatant tasks/roles. In Iraq and Afghanistan, many unarmed logistic support personnel functioned in what the military would define as a combat role. Convoy drivers are a perfect example of what I am trying to describe. Drivers are/were subjected to ambushes using either improvised explosive devices and/or direct fire attacks. This combination of drivers willing to run through the ambushes and armed contractors replaced at least two full combat divisions. Those divisions would have been needed to run, supply, and secure Services' operated supply convoys. At the height of the war in Iraq the supply convoys ran 24 hours a day.

The cost benefit of contractors
Contractors can be let go when their contract expires. Generally, the length of a contract is 6, 9, or 12 months. They can be longer or shorter depending on the billet. Unlike military or government employees who continue on the payroll, contractors are simply paid off and shipped home.

Reduction of military casualties
Contractors absorbed over 25% of the KIA in Iraq. By the end of 2009, contractors reported just under 1,800 dead and 40,000 wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are not counted by the Pentagon. They get reported through the Dept. of Labor. Thus, the current political party in power gets to play a shell game with the American public about casualties. That gets done by both parties. Political clout is not expended with those numbers to keep a war going. Harsh isn't it? I didn't say all the reasons I would provide would make you feel warm and fuzzy inside did I? However, it is one of the realities of contracting and why contractors are used. Its a grown-up world and everyone knows the risk going in.

Provide economic inputs to local economies by hiring locals
Creating jobs and stimulating the economy are aspects of the counterinsurgency the US has put into action. In the Balkans and Afghanistan, NATO and ISAF have hired large numbers of local personnel to conduct both armed and unarmed tasks. We want people dependent on us for their monetary survival - kind of like a counterinsurgency of "welfare" but they have to work a job to receive it.

Contractors can execute tasks that U.S. military and civilian forces cannot
In Afghanistan, we lack the forces to secure primary supply lines to Pakistan. They run through areas controlled and/or contested by the Taliban/bandits and police who charge for use of the roads. Afghan contractors have displayed the mix of force, personal connections, and negotiation skills to maintain US supply lines.

[binnie]

Interesting topic.

What distinguishes a 'private contractor' from a 'mercenary'. Don't mean that to sound snippy, I'm generally intrigued: is there not a moral issue involved here in hiring out guns for money?

[FORD]

So reductions in military forces "forced" the US to use mercenaries??

Yeah right. Couldn't possibly do something that makes sense like NOT STARTING FUCKING WARS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, could we?

Fuck the excuses. There is no need for mercenaries. In fact, I'm with Thomas Jefferson. I don't believe we need a permanent standing military at all. About the only REAL justification for keeping one, is that if it was abolished tomorrow, there would be additional millions of unemployed people.

But Poppy Bush had one of the few reasonable ideas of his life when he began reducing the military after the Cold War was over. Should have kept on going that direction, and hopefully by now there would have been something else (NOT private mercenary armies) that could have taken the place in employment.

[motherchicken]

I'm with Thomas Jefferson. I don't believe we need a permanent standing military at all.
You're brain's in the same condition. Dead. I thought your conspiracy theories were out there but this is really insane.

[jhale667]

Somebody started drinkin' early....

[FORD]

You can shove your conspiracy theories in your sock, sockfucker....


"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." --Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789.

"I do not like [in the new Federal Constitution] the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for... protection against standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787.

"Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace for [defense against invasion]." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801.

"Standing armies [are] inconsistent with [a people's] freedom and subversive of their quiet." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North's Proposition, 1775.

"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." --Thomas Jefferson to Chandler Price, 1807.

"A distinction between the civil and military [is one] which it would be for the good of the whole to obliterate as soon as possible." --Thomas Jefferson: Answers to de Meusnier Questions, 1786.

"It is nonsense to talk of regulars. They are not to be had among a people so easy and happy at home as ours. We might as well rely on calling down an army of angels from heaven." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1814.

"There shall be no standing army but in time of actual war." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

"The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814.

"Bonaparte... transferred the destinies of the republic from the civil to the military arm. Some will use this as a lesson against the practicability of republican government. I read it as a lesson against the danger of standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Adams, 1800.

[motherchicken]

You can shove your conspiracy theories in your sock, sockfucker....
Jefferson was an nutcase too.

[motherchicken]

No standing army but in time of actual war. Insanity. Modern weopons need maintenence and people need to be trained to use them.

[FORD]

No standing army but in time of actual war. Insanity. Modern weopons need maintenence and people need to be trained to use them.

Or we could STOP CREATING AND USING WEAPONS. Unless its absolutely necessary. Which it has not been at any time since August 1945.

[FORD]

Jefferson was an nutcase too.

A guy who fucks socks and cleans prison toilets says the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence was a "nutcase"

Damn.... who should I believe here? :lmao:

[motherchicken]

A guy who fucks socks and cleans prison toilets says the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence was a "nutcase"

Damn.... who should I believe here? :lmao:
Jefferson might have been correct. For that time. But that was then, this is now. Did they even have repeating rifles then? You are truly an idiot.

[motherchicken]

Or we could STOP CREATING AND USING WEAPONS. Unless its absolutely necessary. Which it has not been at any time since August 1945.
I'm sure no one was has attacked the U S since then because everybody loves us. It has nothing to do with a "strong deterrent".

[FORD]

I'm sure no one was has attacked the U S since then because everybody loves us. It has nothing to do with a "strong deterrent".

The primary reason nobody attacked us is because there's a couple of really big oceans surrounding the country. You could never have a situation like Adolf rolling into Poland here. Unless Stevie Harper went completely batshit, and even though he's probably the most extreme guy Canada's ever had in power, even he ain't THAT crazy.

Not to mention, the country's just too damn big for a sustained occupation. The 80's right wing cult film Red Dawn even proved that much.

[motherchicken]

The primary reason nobody attacked us is because there's a couple of really big oceans surrounding the country. You could never have a situation like Adolf rolling into Poland here. Unless Stevie Harper went completely batshit, and even though he's probably the most extreme guy Canada's ever had in power, even he ain't THAT crazy.

Not to mention, the country's just too damn big for a sustained occupation. The 80's right wing cult film Red Dawn even proved that much.
Hate to burst your bubble but "Red Dawn" was a movie. And in "Red Dawn" we had a standing military and an enemy invaded and took over entire cities. No military opposition and they could have sent in battalions of personell to kill the "wolverines".
You're just yanking my chain with this "no standing army" bullshit. Even you with your nutball conspiracy theories aren't completly insane.

[Hardrock69]

Private contractors have been used for thousands of years.

They used to be called "Mercenaries" or "paid soldiers".

But war is not all they are used for. For instance, EG&G runs Area 51.

The reason our government uses private contractors is also one of plausible deniability.

You can file Freedom Of Information Act requests all day long, but if the subject involves something which is done by a private corporation, you will come up empty.

This is why all anti-gravity and advance propulsion technology is not something our government is involved in. They hand that shit off to private companies. Boeing. Northrop. Raytheon. General Dynamics. EG&G. Idaho National Engineering Laboratories. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories. Sandia National Laboratories. Los Alamos National Laboratories. RAND Corporation. Genstar Corp. General Electric Corporation.


The government keeps a hands-off policy, and they can honestly say "We don't know anything".

So there are many different reasons why we use private/defense contractors.

[Seshmeister]

The primary reason nobody attacked us is because there's a couple of really big oceans surrounding the country. You could never have a situation like Adolf rolling into Poland here. Unless Stevie Harper went completely batshit, and even though he's probably the most extreme guy Canada's ever had in power, even he ain't THAT crazy.

Not to mention, the country's just too damn big for a sustained occupation. The 80's right wing cult film Red Dawn even proved that much.

The US could reduce military spending by 95% without any possible risk of invasion ever.

[Nickdfresh]

For the purposes of this thread/post, the term contractor includes both armed and unarmed personnel.

A very brief history of what caused the need for contractors:
1) Force reduction after Vietnam...

They forgot the long history of "contractors" here in America, where the first contractors-The Hessions--kept order among the unruly colonists...

[Seshmeister]

The US could reduce military spending by 95% without any possible risk of invasion ever.


If I did stand up comedy I'm sure I could do 10 minutes on how from 1789 until 1947 there was a Ministry of War in the USA, after that it became the Department of Defense.

The exact same thing happened in the UK.

This was a crucial change. Would people feel the same way if the name had stayed honest?

How about if in the State of the Union the president stood up and said "In 2012 we spent 1.03 TRILLION on the Department of War and Attack. Just to clarify that number if you are a family of 4 that's $13k you spent killing people you don't know for reasons you don't know this year."

Meanwhile everyone talks about gay fucking marriage, what a fucking joke!

[Blaze]

For the purposes of this thread/post, the term contractor includes both armed and unarmed personnel.

A very brief history of what caused the need for contractors:
1) Force reduction after Vietnam - Army logistics support elements get relegated to the Army Reserve and the National Guard in order to cut troop numbers and the force reduction in post–Cold War that cuts the Army from 18 to 10 divisions with corresponding cuts in support forces. That reduced the Services' ability to support long-term operations.
2) The 1990's - the US employs contractors in the Balkans to build traditional camp-building to the concept of force development that saw Military Professional Resources Incorporated training the Croatian army.
3) The decision to invade Iraq with minimum forces left the USA with too few troops in-theater to deal with the disorder that resulted from the removal of that country's leader.

Why the US uses contractors:
1) continuity
2) speed of deployment
3) reduction of troop requirements
4) economic inputs to local economies
5) reduction of military casualties
6) executing tasks the military and civilian workforce cannot


Continuity
While the U.S. military has a policy that the vast majority of personnel rotate every 6 to 12 months. Contractors are often willing to stay for longer periods. Private contracting companies can offer significant bonuses to people who stay longer . The companies know that they save money due to the personnel continuity, and employees see an opportunity for increased pay and bonuses.

Speed of deployment
The Pentagon failed to plan for large numbers of security personnel to protect all U.S. activities once the Afghan and Iraqi governments were removed from power. The Pentagon had not planned to keep large numbers of troops in Afghanistan or Iraq for any period of time. Also, it had not planned for the required logistics support. Why? I've no idea. Seems a bit short-sighted doesn't it?

Using database hiring, running job fairs, and contracting for labor from regional companies, private contracting firms were able to hire, and ship people to run base camps, drive trucks, and perform "housekeeping" chores required to maintain both combat forces and civil administrators in Iraq and Afghanistan. Contractors replaced tens of thousands of soldiers normally required to move, and transport personnel and supplies into Iraq and Afghanistan. As a side bar the electrical grid built by us in Iraq was completed by contractors.

Reduction of troop requirements
At the height of the surge in April 2008, the DOD reported it had 163,000+ contractors supporting around 160,000 troops in Iraq. Without contractors, the United States would have had to provide twice as many troops. The U.S. Armed Forces struggled to maintain those 160,000 troops in Iraq. It is very doubtful that we could have supported the 320,000 troops needed or supply 320,000 troops to the area. We robbed troops from Afghanistan to deal with Iraq. That didn't turn out to well and has caused long term issues ever since in the region.

Example: The majority of contractor personnel are in noncombatant tasks/roles. In Iraq and Afghanistan, many unarmed logistic support personnel functioned in what the military would define as a combat role. Convoy drivers are a perfect example of what I am trying to describe. Drivers are/were subjected to ambushes using either improvised explosive devices and/or direct fire attacks. This combination of drivers willing to run through the ambushes and armed contractors replaced at least two full combat divisions. Those divisions would have been needed to run, supply, and secure Services' operated supply convoys. At the height of the war in Iraq the supply convoys ran 24 hours a day.

The cost benefit of contractors
Contractors can be let go when their contract expires. Generally, the length of a contract is 6, 9, or 12 months. They can be longer or shorter depending on the billet. Unlike military or government employees who continue on the payroll, contractors are simply paid off and shipped home.

Reduction of military casualties
Contractors absorbed over 25% of the KIA in Iraq. By the end of 2009, contractors reported just under 1,800 dead and 40,000 wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are not counted by the Pentagon. They get reported through the Dept. of Labor. Thus, the current political party in power gets to play a shell game with the American public about casualties. That gets done by both parties. Political clout is not expended with those numbers to keep a war going. Harsh isn't it? I didn't say all the reasons I would provide would make you feel warm and fuzzy inside did I? However, it is one of the realities of contracting and why contractors are used. Its a grown-up world and everyone knows the risk going in.

Provide economic inputs to local economies by hiring locals
Creating jobs and stimulating the economy are aspects of the counterinsurgency the US has put into action. In the Balkans and Afghanistan, NATO and ISAF have hired large numbers of local personnel to conduct both armed and unarmed tasks. We want people dependent on us for their monetary survival - kind of like a counterinsurgency of "welfare" but they have to work a job to receive it.

Contractors can execute tasks that U.S. military and civilian forces cannot
In Afghanistan, we lack the forces to secure primary supply lines to Pakistan. They run through areas controlled and/or contested by the Taliban/bandits and police who charge for use of the roads. Afghan contractors have displayed the mix of force, personal connections, and negotiation skills to maintain US supply lines.I was and am not a mercenary.
DO NOT include support services in your guilty-conscience stomp.
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5310/5761982945_44db9226e1_o.jpg

Private contractors have been used for thousands of years.

They used to be called "Mercenaries" or "paid soldiers".

But war is not all they are used for. For instance, EG&G runs Area 51.

The reason our government uses private contractors is also one of plausible deniability.

You can file Freedom Of Information Act requests all day long, but if the subject involves something which is done by a private corporation, you will come up empty.

This is why all anti-gravity and advance propulsion technology is not something our government is involved in. They hand that shit off to private companies. Boeing. Northrop. Raytheon. General Dynamics. EG&G. Idaho National Engineering Laboratories. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories. Sandia National Laboratories. Los Alamos National Laboratories. RAND Corporation. Genstar Corp. General Electric Corporation.


The government keeps a hands-off policy, and they can honestly say "We don't know anything".

So there are many different reasons why we use private/defense contractors.

http://www.nanaservices.com/img/logos/raytheon.jpg
http://rpsc.raytheon.com/

[motherchicken]

The US could reduce military spending by 95% without any possible risk of invasion ever.
Maybe. If we only want to fend for ourselves right here. Isolate ourselves from the rest of the world. No allies, no traveling outside of the country.
No importing or exporting of anything.
I see where we have gotten involved in other peoples business we shouldn't have. Like Viet Nam and Iraq. Maybe even Korea. But even Neil Young thought going after Bin Laden was rightous. We can't let someone come here kill our people run home and laugh at us. A strong military is the only deterent for assholes like Bin Laden. The only deterent for assholes like Castro or whoever runs that shithole now.
There's plenty wasted in military spending. Unneeded weapons, planes, ships, personell etc. No doubt. But eliminating the military completly is insanity.

[Nitro Express]

If I did stand up comedy I'm sure I could do 10 minutes on how from 1789 until 1947 there was a Ministry of War in the USA, after that it became the Department of Defense.

The exact same thing happened in the UK.

This was a crucial change. Would people feel the same way if the name had stayed honest?

How about if in the State of the Union the president stood up and said "In 2012 we spent 1.03 TRILLION on the Department of War and Attack. Just to clarify that number if you are a family of 4 that's $13k you spent killing people you don't know for reasons you don't know this year."

Meanwhile everyone talks about gay fucking marriage, what a fucking joke!

Now the Department of Defense has become the Department of Offense.

[motherchicken]

Go ahead and gut the military. Eliminate it completely. We don't need protection. We don't have any enemies. Everybody loves us. We'll all hold hands and dance and sing here on Fantasy Island.

[Hardrock69]

Obama said in his speech this evening he is going to ensure our military the most powerful force on Earth, or something to that effect.

I thought we already were.

Thing is, there was more rhetoric about us being a mighty nation (along with a direct threat at Iran not to try fuck with anyone) than I have heard in many Republican presidential candidate speeches. Of course Mittens mentioned nothing at all about our military, the war, etc. in his acceptance speech at the RNC last week.

Ain't nobody going to gut our military. Ain't nobody going to gut the 2nd Amendment.
Guns are what keep us powerful.
We loves our gunpowder. Yes.

Along with our atomic bombs, our particle beam weapons, our death ray weapons, our dematerialization weapons, our chem/bio weapons.

Don't fuck with the USA.

[Seshmeister]

Maybe. If we only want to fend for ourselves right here. Isolate ourselves from the rest of the world. No allies, no traveling outside of the country.
No importing or exporting of anything.

What nonsense is this?

Boy the industrial military complex have really done a number on you...

Do you think only Americans have allies, can travel outside their country or can trade?

How does every one else manage?

No one said eliminate the military completely, just 95% taking you down to the same size as any potential rival.

[Seshmeister]

Don't fuck with the USA.

Your enemies don't need to, your governments are doing it for them.

[hideyoursheep]

Reason number 6 is absolute and utter bullshit.

Hiring civilian "contractors" and companies to supply class I and class VI was only an excuse for Bush-Chaney and co. to fleece America of it's finances, nothing more.

Taking soldiers out of their MOS's (taking a cook and sending him on patrol in Sadr City, while replacing him with KBR that charges the US treasury $21 dollars a plate per soldier) doesn't do much for morale, either.

Total fucking waste of money and manpower. It was done purposely. There is no other logical explanation. NONE.

[hideyoursheep]

And don't even TRY and make an argument favoring "private security firms" in a combat zone.

I'll shatter that into so many pieces, your opinion will never hold water again.

[motherchicken]

No one said eliminate the military completely, just 95% taking you down to the same size as any potential rival.
Ford clearly posted there is no need for a standing army during peacetime. And quoted Thomas Jefferson saying the same. I call that insanity. I may be wrong but wasn't the war of 1812 a by product of thoughts like that? How about 90% reduction and we maintain our military superiority?

[motherchicken]

So reductions in military forces "forced" the US to use mercenaries??

Yeah right. Couldn't possibly do something that makes sense like NOT STARTING FUCKING WARS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, could we?

Fuck the excuses. There is no need for mercenaries. In fact, I'm with Thomas Jefferson. I don't believe we need a permanent standing military at all. About the only REAL justification for keeping one, is that if it was abolished tomorrow, there would be additional millions of unemployed people.

But Poppy Bush had one of the few reasonable ideas of his life when he began reducing the military after the Cold War was over. Should have kept on going that direction, and hopefully by now there would have been something else (NOT private mercenary armies) that could have taken the place in employment.
Speak of the devil. Here it is completely uneditted from post # 3 of this thread.

[FORD]

You don't get it, Sockfucker.....

Maybe if we hadn't spent the last fucking half a goddamn century trying to be a world empire, we wouldn't have to worry about anybody attacking us.

NOT that anybody is likely to do so, as I already explained. And for fucks sake do not give me the Reichstag II fictional bullshit as a justification, because even if you believe that steaming load of Chimpshit story, it was 19 guys who were in this country LEGALLY in commercial airliners.

And the only role the military played in it was to stand down and do nothing, on Darth Cheney's orders.

So WHAT THE FUCK GOOD is a permanent world wide military empire doing us, bitch?

[motherchicken]

Maybe if we hadn't spent the last fucking half a goddamn century trying to be a world empire, we wouldn't have to worry about anybody attacking us.

So WHAT THE FUCK GOOD is a permanent world wide military empire doing us, bitch?
You forget the Soviet Union. They were a threat to our allies and us due to our differing ideologies alone. There are plenty American haters out there who hate us because they don't care for our ideologies involving freedom of religion and tolerance of alternate lifestyles alone. I don't think it hurts to have a "world wide military empire" while there are still people like Kim Jong - un around.
A "world wide military" and a "standing army" are two different things. Which one are you against?

[vandeleur]

It's been acknowledged now that the soviet union expansion into Europe was a paper tiger and exaggerated to allow for increased western military spending. The soviets had neither the logistics or actual working reliable equipment to achieve the anticipated over run of Europe , coupled with an at the time moral sapped poorly trained army it wasnt ever a goer in military circles that's now public knowledge in most books since the fall of the iron curtain.
Tho i do concede the site of Russians pushing tanks to petrol stations in Germany does sound funny now .

[motherchicken]

Moving missiles into Cuba wasn't funny paper material either. Unless that was another hoax perpetrated by the military industrial complex. I'd rather my country and my allies were prepared and nothing happened than unprepared and pay the price.

[Seshmeister]

Moving missiles into Cuba was a reasonable thing to do in response to the US moving missiles into Europe and Turkey as well as threatening Cuba with a return to a brutal dictator.

[motherchicken]

And we moved missiles into Europe and Turkey because?
This could go on forever. You believe the Soviet Union was an exaggerated threat to America and our allies. A threat exaggerated by the military industrial complex just to make money. Maybe. Maybe not.
But the bottom line for me is follow the boy scouts motto (even though I never was one) be prepared. Cut the waste. Good idea. No standing army? Insanity.

[FORD]

But the bottom line for me is follow the boy scouts motto (even though I never was one) be prepared.

On my honor, I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight.

So where does banging footwear enter into this?? :sockfucker:

[gbranton]

Moving missiles into Cuba was a reasonable thing to do in response to the US moving missiles into Europe and Turkey as well as threatening Cuba with a return to a brutal dictator.

I believe this as well. Most people hold JFK as beyond reproach, I see him as the man who almost ended the world.

[FORD]

I believe this as well. Most people hold JFK as beyond reproach, I see him as the man who almost ended the world.

On the contrary... just imagine some fucking imbecile like Reagan or Chimpy in the White House in 1962.

Well you couldn't imagine it actually, because this planet wouldn't have been here in order for you to be born.

[gbranton]

On the contrary... just imagine some fucking imbecile like Reagan or Chimpy in the White House in 1962.

Well you couldn't imagine it actually, because this planet wouldn't have been here in order for you to be born.

I suppose the what if scenarios are endless, you could say that maybe Clinton would have charmed them or Obama would have endlessly dithered or simply caved, but JFK was the man at the time and I think it was the closest we have been to MAD.

[Nickdfresh]

Ford clearly posted there is no need for a standing army during peacetime. And quoted Thomas Jefferson saying the same. I call that insanity. I may be wrong but wasn't the war of 1812 a by product of thoughts like that? How about 90% reduction and we maintain our military superiority?

You are wrong...

[Nickdfresh]

I believe this as well. Most people hold JFK as beyond reproach, I see him as the man who almost ended the world.

JFK is far from beyond reproach, he certain often acted irresponsibly. But he was far from the "man who almost ended the world" in The Cuban Missile Crisis. That award would go to the psychotic fuckwit generals like Curtis LeMay who attempted to goad Kennedy into invading Cuba, which would have ended in a disaster mainly not least of which because the Soviet forces on the island had tactical nuclear shells they no doubt would have hit invading marines and troops with rather than risk their nukes falling into American hands. As far as nukes in Turkey, the Soviets also had nukes everywhere in their Warsaw Pact subordinates and each side was always looking for an advantage, but the Soviets certainly knew they were vastly escalating by bringing nukes to Cuba and forcing America's hand and that it would be virtually regarded as unacceptable, as Washington, DC could have been obliterated in minutes in a surprise attack...

[motherchicken]

JFK is far from beyond reproach, he certain often acted irresponsibly. But he was far from the "man who almost ended the world" in The Cuban Missile Crisis. That award would go to the psychotic fuckwit generals like Curtis LeMay who attempted to goad Kennedy into invading Cuba, which would have ended in a disaster mainly not least of which because the Soviet forces on the island had tactical nuclear shells they no doubt would have hit invading marines and troops with rather than risk their nukes falling into American hands. As far as nukes in Turkey, the Soviets also had nukes everywhere in their Warsaw Pact subordinates and each side was always looking for an advantage, but the Soviets certainly knew they were vastly escalating by bringing nukes to Cuba and forcing America's hand and that it would be virtually regarded as unacceptable, as Washington, DC could have been obliterated in minutes in a surprise attack...
Are you actually admitting the Soviet Union was a viable threat? That our allies did indeed have something to fear from them? I don't think the average Joe knows much about tactical nukes. Most people think that nukes are restricted to missiles that are capable of traveling thousands of miles.

[FORD]

Going by your definition, wool socks would be a "viable threat". You know, they're all itchy and shit.

Maybe we should station troops on every sheep ranch on the planet to make sure they are "defensively" sheared.

[motherchicken]

Going by your definition, wool socks would be a "viable threat". You know, they're all itchy and shit.

Maybe we should station troops on every sheep ranch on the planet to make sure they are "defensively" sheared.
I used to think you were moderately intelligent and a smartass at the same time. But your conspiracy theories, your fixation with the BCE and your recent no need for a stranding army bullshit have lead me to believe you're a nutball and a smartass.

[hideyoursheep]

It's been acknowledged now that the soviet union expansion into Europe was a paper tiger and exaggerated to allow for increased western military spending. The soviets had neither the logistics or actual working reliable equipment to achieve the anticipated over run of Europe , coupled with an at the time moral sapped poorly trained army it wasnt ever a goer in military circles that's now public knowledge in most books since the fall of the iron curtain.
Tho i do concede the site of Russians pushing tanks to petrol stations in Germany does sound funny now .

I wonder how Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, East Berlin AND Afghanistan (to name a few) feel about that?

[vandeleur]

I can't prove this, thankfully no one can now it's just in books I read , tho I did enjoy Watching a discovery Channel programme about it showing their elite tank divisions not training together because they didn't want to waste the fuel.
Do you mean Poland in 1939 ? And Czechoslovakia who didn't fight back and surrendered except for some protests in 68.
These counties you mention wernt the same challenge as a NATO intrenched west Germany.

And as for Afghanistan we both can't claim it ,I was gonna use it for my point :D

People's I was just saying it suited every one to have a bogey man ... Something never change .

[vandeleur]

Any way to quote a man who really knew how to slice up Europe .
History is a set of lies agreed upon... Bonaparte

[Nickdfresh]

It's been acknowledged now that the soviet union expansion into Europe was a paper tiger and exaggerated to allow for increased western military spending. The soviets had neither the logistics or actual working reliable equipment to achieve the anticipated over run of Europe , coupled with an at the time moral sapped poorly trained army it wasnt ever a goer in military circles that's now public knowledge in most books since the fall of the iron curtain.
Tho i do concede the site of Russians pushing tanks to petrol stations in Germany does sound funny now .

Silly. The Soviets and their Allies very well could have taken Europe in various periods such as prior to the end of the Korean War and in the aftermath of the Vietnam era up until the late 70's. They didn't have to drive very far to overrun Germany and push into France, after that all bets were off. But the Soviets had some serious advantages in intelligence as one of the staffers in NATO was an agent feeding them almost the whole NATO war plan, and then there was John Walker. Even if the Soviets didn't succeed in conquering all of Europe, they would have done irreparable damage and inflicted serious losses. But I do think the Soviet military was becoming severely degraded by the late 1980's just as ours was after Vietnam...

[Nickdfresh]

...
Do you mean Poland in 1939 ? And Czechoslovakia who didn't fight back and surrendered except for some protests in 68.


The Czechoslovakians were fed to Germany at Munich despite having a decent arms industry and military fortifications. Fighting the Germans after Munich was nearly impossible and they were beset by a whole host of challenges such as the fact that much of their reserve army were German-speaking 'Volksdeutch' of questionable loyalties. And if you're besmirching the Poles, they were invaded not just by Germany but by the Soviet Union as well frustrating what defensive planning they had left against Germany...


And as for Afghanistan we both can't claim it ,I was gonna use it for my point :D

People's I was just saying it suited every one to have a bogey man ... Something never change .

The Red Army was actually doing okay in Afghanistan prior to the introduction of the Stinger missile, even then some say they could have marginalized the Mujaheddin if they'd stayed a bit longer and revised tactics...

[vandeleur]

All your points are valid and have merit I maybe should have given my initial comments some sort of time frame , I am basically referring to the 80's until the fall of the soviet union .

Though I still state it suited out military agenda to not acknowledge soviet failings.

[hideyoursheep]

All your points are valid and have merit I maybe should have given my initial comments some sort of time frame , I am basically referring to the 80's until the fall of the soviet union .

Though I still state it suited out military agenda to not acknowledge soviet failings.

I gotta say..,during that time frame, the Warsaw Pact equipment was nearly always berated by the US as inferior....it's the fact they made SO MUCH of it that made people nervous about Soviet "intentions". I mean, the T-34 didn't look like much compared to a Nazi Tiger, but...shit! They worked! On the other hand,the HAVOC and (then) T-80, also made us nervous....at the time.

There was an armored combat vehicle range about 10 k's from one of our O.P's...Gorby later said in an interview he had 250,000 "crack" troops already there. ready 2 go. I don't know what his idea of "crack troops" are, but 250,000 equals lots of shootin' from both sides! They could have fucked some shit up -if they chose not to live any longer. ;)



How did we get on the USSR subject anyway? Wasn't this about how we NEED unaccountable, honorless mercenaries and parasitic "contractors" sucking on America's teet?

[hideyoursheep]

Nickd can correct me, but I believe the U.S. M-48 and M-60 mbt and T-72 met on the battlefield in either '67 or '73 when Israel and Egypt (?) went at it...the Soviet Saggers were deadly! Tank-for-Tank however, and it could have been blamed on the crews, but the T-72 didn't do so well.

Now I'm rambling.:focus:

[vandeleur]

Yeah, me bad I think I de railed it sorry gents .

[Nickdfresh]

Nickd can correct me, but I believe the U.S. M-48 and M-60 mbt and T-72 met on the battlefield in either '67 or '73 when Israel and Egypt (?) went at it...the Soviet Saggers were deadly! Tank-for-Tank however, and it could have been blamed on the crews, but the T-72 didn't do so well.

Now I'm rambling.:focus:


I could be wrong, but I think the Israelis fielded M48A5's (basically an M60 with all the upgrades) and M60A3's in Lebanon against Syrian T-72's. Those upgraded tanks with improved 105mm guns, which were able to make mincemeat of the T-72. I'm not sure if they had their domestic design Merkavas yet...

In 67' and 73' it still would have been mostly T-55's, T-62's, and maybe some T-64's. The Israelis had their way in 1967, but in 73' they suffered heavy casualties against the Egyptians initially, because of a brilliant, limited Egyptian plan that marginalized the huge Israeli advantage in air power. In 73,' the Israelis had (British made) Centurion tanks, M-48's, some M-60's later, and even some left over Super-Sherman tanks. The Egyptian surprise attack took advantage of the relatively small number of Israeli troops manning the border prior to national mobilization and the fact that Israeli tanks often charged headlong unsupported by infantry making them vulnerable to Soviet type AT missiles. It should be said that the Egyptian tankers fought well and initially caused the Israelis problems because the Soviet designs had IR and were able to fight at night, whereas the Israeli tanks didn't have the latest upgrades and fought with a disadvantage at night. The Egyptian plan began to fall apart when they felt compelled to advance beyond their umbrella of SAM's into reenforced Israeli positions after the Syrians began to fold and the Israelis were able to overcome them and attack into the Sinai... (IIRC)

The T-72 and T-80 series were designed to be a relatively cheap, expendable tank with good firepower and mobility. They later tried to make up for the lack of crew protection with reactive armor with mixed success. In hindsight, the newer generation of Western tanks like the M-1/M1-A1/A2, German Leopard II, French LeClerc, and Brit Challenger were vastly superior to any Soviet tank, but the Soviets had far greater numbers of them. At the end of the Cold War, analysts often thought NATO still had an overall advantage in tanks based on quality and the fact they'd be fighting on the defensive or flanking Soviet advances...

[Nickdfresh]

Yeah, me bad I think I de railed it sorry gents .

It was an old thread that sucked anyways...

[Seshmeister]

As far as nukes in Turkey, the Soviets also had nukes everywhere in their Warsaw Pact subordinates and each side was always looking for an advantage, but the Soviets certainly knew they were vastly escalating by bringing nukes to Cuba and forcing America's hand and that it would be virtually regarded as unacceptable, as Washington, DC could have been obliterated in minutes in a surprise attack...

The nukes in Turkey were about 1500 miles from Moscow, Cuba is 1100 miles from Washington so is there that so much difference?

[Dr. Love]

The US could reduce military spending by 95% without any possible risk of invasion ever.

I don't trust the Canadians.

[Angel]

I don't trust the Canadians.

That's because you keep trying to find Canadian bacon on pizzas from US chains every time you come up here. ;)

[FORD]

That's because you keep trying to find Canadian bacon on pizzas from US chains every time you come up here. ;)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pPRaD6TKLc

[Nickdfresh]

The nukes in Turkey were about 1500 miles from Moscow, Cuba is 1100 miles from Washington so is there that so much difference?

On paper, it doesn't look much different, but the Soviets, Khrushchev, knew that deploying missiles to Cuba would be regarded as highly antagonistic by the US. He gambled that JFK was wishy washy and unable to make decisive decisions, so they caused the crisis in that sense knowing full well the US would react, but believing the Kennedy Admin would back down. Also, the US was still under the impression that there was a "missile-gap" which turned out to be pure fantasy, but they (or at least Kennedy) didn't know that at the time, and Khrushchev didn't do anything to dispel the myth when he claimed they made nukes "like sausages"...

[hideyoursheep]

The T-72 and T-80 series were designed to be a relatively cheap, expendable tank with good firepower and mobility..

The T-80U...according to Wiki, "was purchased by the US from the UK in 1993 and tested at Aberdeen Proving Grounds..."

:lol:


How could I find out if something has been declassified? I'm dead serious.

[Nickdfresh]

I was watching something on the military channel yesterday where they showed a CGI simulation of a battle in the second Gulf War. The M-1A1/2's ran through the Iraqis with the help of Apache choppers. But the sheer scale of the tanks, the M-1 looked massive next to the T-72/80. As far as effectiveness, I believe there was a real fear that the missile ammunition launched from the T-80's gun barrel caused a bit of worry, no idea how effective it is in real combat though...

[hideyoursheep]

I was watching something on the military channel yesterday where they showed a CGI simulation of a battle in the second Gulf War. The M-1A1/2's ran through the Iraqis with the help of Apache choppers. But the sheer scale of the tanks, the M-1 looked massive next to the T-72/80. As far as effectiveness, I believe there was a real fear that the missile ammunition launched from the T-80's gun barrel caused a bit of worry, no idea how effective it is in real combat though...

I think I know what you're talking about as far as the simulation thing. There is (or was) a huge computer simulator big enough for an entire platoon to train simultaneously in the same simulated enviornment in Ft. Knox near the Holder Complex. Drivers, gunners, track/ tank commanders...the whole thing. It was ahead of it's time, really...the idea was to train without using ammo or fuel...they could do an individual crew or an entire company/troop using the same artificial landscape and scenarios...whatever they punched in. I actually used it back in 88 and 89. Fucking thing must have cost a fortune!

I liked it because it was air conditioned! :lol: I only used it twice, tho..

You are spot on with the vehicle size comparisons...All of the Soviet vehicles had a very low profile compare to ours. The BMP's, BTR 60P's T-62's T-64's and T-72's...not very comfortable on the inside, tho...you had to be Mini-Me to fit inside those things! The rounded turrets must have been a design they stuck with since the T-34's. Their more modern vehicles had bigger main guns and missle launch capabilities, but using an auto loader caused problems, as well as the lack of stabilization while firing on the move....

I can't say anything about the T-80U...I'm not trying to sound like a pretentious big-shot, I just don't know if certain things have been declassified...I don't wanna get into any trouble. You would definitely find it interesting!

[hideyoursheep]

t
I can't say anything about the T-80U...I'm not trying to sound like a pretentious big-shot, I just don't know if certain things have been declassified...I don't wanna get into any trouble. You would definitely find it interesting!

Actually, a LOT of ppl might find it interesting...assuming they actually give a shit. :lol:

[Redballjets88]

Blah blah blah ...simple solution...stop policing the world

[Nickdfresh]

Main article at ABC News (http://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-video-shows-drunk-stoned-us-security-contractors-221702848--abc-news-topstories.html)

[jhale667]

Good to know my tax dollars are going to these douchebags being overpaid to shoot up Special K... :mad:

[hideyoursheep]

Makes me nauseous..