This is an interesting column on conventional military structure and results. It is at best tangential to the discussion that must take place.
There’s a larger problem, and that is a nation for the first time in history choosing the sacrifice of its soldiers over the use of its most productive weapons. Ike announced his policy of “Massive Retaliation” and kept us out of war his entire time in office. An acquaintance at the National War College states bluntly that MR is the only reason Parisians don’t speak Russian today.
Re-adopting MR will reduce our defense budgets, rid us of nation building nonsense, get the military industrial complex and its neocon supporters out of the way (no need for multi billion dollar new toys), and once we show seriousness – by using 1-2 tactical nukes on Isis – reduce to near-zero the need to use them again.
Too many fail to grasp that the estimated killed in an invasion of Japan was 1M Americans and 9M (USN est) or 5M (Army) Japanese. Only about 400K died and no Americans. Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved 6-10M lives. Had we nuked Pyongyang in 1950, or Hanoi in 1963, we’d not have killed 2M Koreans, 2M Vietnamese or 100K Americans.
Constant conventional war, both in preparation (budgets & toys) and execution (iron bombs, bullets, avgas, lives) is far more expensive than the -far- more productive alternative.
The continued reliance on conventional warfare is the most immoral decision American leaders make – and they’ve been making it since 1950.
There is no excuse for it. It must stop.
I am against nukes and for thermite. Other than that I agree.