| From | Message |
steve gosling
Guest
7/15/2002
11:48:52
|
 Subject: Paleo Defence Policy
IP: Logged
Message:
If a Paleo conservative administration(President and Congress)were to be elected and put thru a defence policy/budget based on non-intervention and non-alignment/alliances, etc., what would be its form and size?
Initial suggestion: 2 Army Divisions, 2 Marine Divisions to defend US. Several hundred F16's to defend US air space. A fleet of cruisers to defend US Waters. Nuclear element, 10 Trident Subs with 500 nuclear warheads.
Scrap Missile defence system; Scrap all germ and chemical warfare weapons and technology(we are a christian nation and should disavow their use)
Scrap all plans for utilising Space for military purposes.
Additionally, scrap the CIA and turn over all intelligence matters to the Defence Intelligence Agency.
Just a rough idea, but this is the way to go if we are to return to a sane and sound defence for this republic.
'We should be friends to liberty everywhere, but guardians only of our own' John Adams(?)
|
John
Guest
7/15/2002
14:55:52
| RE: Paleo Defence Policy
IP: Logged
Message:
A paleo-con defence policy?
There could be major disagreement on that issue since we tend to be either realists or pragmatic/ strict isolationists. I'm not sure how interested others are with this topic, but I'll give it a whirl.
I'd err on the side of maintaining force levels (for the most part) while changing the missions away from "peacekeeping" and such and focus on direct national interests (not things like Kosovo or Somalia). While building strong alliances (or simply good relationships) with a few countries in Asia (Australia, Japan, etc) and Europe (Turkey, Britain, etc) just in case.
I'd try to build up certain industries and reserve officer and NCO corps so that we can have variable force levels. Then when this is in place cut down standing Army to special forces, armor, experts, and the other things that can't be replicated on short notice. While maintaining Air Force, Navy and Marines. I support missile defence, some of the technologies coming down the pike will make it worthwhile. We need the germ and chem tech to make better defences if others use it on us: immunities, understanding how they are deployed, etc.
Cutting intelligence services is the mistake that this country makes time and time again. If anything we need more quality people in them. Space contains lots of important assets for both trade, entertainment, communications and military applications, and should be militarized to some degree.
-----
If this sounds too neo-con, blame it on my youth.
:)
|
steve gosling
Guest
7/16/2002
05:22:45
| RE: Paleo Defence Policy
IP: Logged
Message:
John, being something of a minimalist, I take the view that we we should go back to the drawing board and decide in real sense the requirements of defending US Territory with simple state of the art technology--for real battlefied use-not necessarily high tech whiz kid inventions for computer games.
The CIA has been a failure in its intelligence role; more importantly, their is no place in a republic for an organisation that is involved in
creating and pursuing clandestine operations in the under handed and un-American way it has since its founding.Besides which the existence of the CIA is a constant reminder of its role as one of the major tools for an interventionist foreign policy. Military intelligence should be dealt with by military intelligence!
|
Jason Eubanks
Guest
7/16/2002
18:56:38
| RE: Paleo Defence Policy
IP: Logged
Message:
When you scrap interventionism then current force levels need no longer be maintained. I agree with outlawing bio and chem weapons. However, nukes would still be the bulk of deterence policy. Strategic missile defense is nothing more than Cold War redux. Eliminate it.
As far as military organization, I think the Marines ought be disbanded or at least reduced to 1 or 2 brigades. They're a complete redundancy and the "6 cents to the defense dollar" quip is disingenuous propaganda. The regular Army should have 4-5 divisions (1 armored, 2 mech, 2 light) plus 1 airborne brigade and 1 air assault brigade. Get rid of all spec ops except the Rangers. Disband the Army Reserve or reduce it to cadre only. The National Guard should be reorganized and only called to active service with congressional approval. The Air Force should consist of 1 strategic bomber air force (with nukes) and two fighter air forces with 2 tac bomber wings in support. Maybe keep some air transport assets. The navy should consist of a Pacific Fleet and Atlantic Fleet each with 1 CVN, 5 SSNs plus how ever many DDGs or FFGs needed. They're should also be a naval strategic command with 8-10 SSBNs. Control of the ICBMs should be given to the Army. I'm undecided about tactical nuclear devices like artillery, landmines, torpedos, depth charges, cruise missiles and 'division killers'.
I don't think totally eliminating the CIA is a wise idea. Presumably, someone will think that an isolationist US would be ripe for military conquest. Having information whether someone is gearing up politically, economically or militarily for such an event would be good. Certianly, the CIA should be reformed and more restrictive controls placed on their operations.
I'm in favor of withdrawing from NATO and the UN. Close down all European bases and bring all the troops home. Do likewise in Japan and Korea.
|
John
Guest
7/18/2002
19:45:23
| RE: Paleo Defence Policy
IP: Logged
Message:
There needs to be adequate industry and infrastructure (especially command structure) that can assure variable force levels before cutting too much. The poor status of the steel industry, for example, needs to be remedied.
|
William
Guest
8/01/2002
09:22:44
| RE: Paleo Defence Policy
IP: Logged
Message:
Good discussion. I think the first step in formulating a paleo defence policy would be to define objectives: what is it we are defending?
For instance, will the US in 2050 resemble the US today? Some of us on the right predict increasing Balkanization. Today California and the Southwest are part of the American polity. But if they were to secede and ethnic conflict rips the country apart -- in which case you would have an emergency, counter-insurgency, or fully-fledged civil war -- defence priorities would be very different from, say, those needed to defend a continental and overseas empire.
Just a thought.
|
John
Guest
8/02/2002
15:23:56
| RE: Paleo Defence Policy
IP: Logged
Message:
Well, to answer William it would be like being in 1812 and making military preparations for the Civil War, that is; silly.
|
Steve Gosling
Guest
8/03/2002
09:07:02
| RE: Paleo Defence Policy
IP: Logged
Message:
Well, John, Williams'suggestion,especially in regard to the domestic political pressures coming our way in the next twenty years, and the changing nature of war and accessibility to military and germ warfare capabilities, not such a 'silly' suggestion to take into account for an unknown future. A good military mind is always open.
|
Steve Gosling
Guest
8/03/2002
09:08:00
| RE: Paleo Defence Policy
IP: Logged
Message:
Well, John, Williams'suggestion,especially in regard to the domestic political pressures coming our way in the next twenty years, and the changing nature of war and accessibility to military and germ warfare capabilities, not such a 'silly' suggestion to take into account for an unknown future. A good military mind is always open.
|
William
Guest
8/05/2002
09:09:42
| RE: Paleo Defence Policy
IP: Logged
Message:
What is it we are defending: people, territory, ideals, or all three? As a starting point, I would much rather take up arms to defend my white kith and kin in, say, Zimbabwe or South Africa, than to defend the sovereignty of the Taiwanese, for example.
|
Steve Gosling
Guest
8/07/2002
07:27:51
| RE: Paleo Defence Policy
IP: Logged
Message:
A Paleo Defence Policy would defend the territory of the USA.Period.
|
John
Guest
8/07/2002
21:45:49
| RE: Paleo Defence Policy
IP: Logged
Message:
Point taken. To speculate on the next 50 some years may be rather difficult. We don't know for sure if the trends we see will continue or if they will stop. We can't know the context of when or even if the Southwest attempts to suceed. If anything such a conflict would be de-localized with most of the fighting in the major cities. Other powers such as China or whoever would attempt to take advantage of the chaos doing God knows what.
But preventing that from happening should be one goal of a paleo defence policy and as such protecting the borders from illegal traffic should be a priority.
|
William
Guest
8/08/2002
11:53:36
| RE: Paleo Defence Policy
IP: Logged
Message:
Well said.
|
William Riggs
Guest
9/04/2002
20:16:59
| RE: Paleo Defence Policy
IP: Logged
Message:
All the concrete proposals I see on this board are extraordinarily draconian cuts that would even make a social-liberal blush. It transcends mere isolationism and territorial defense. Despite the dispersal of US military forces abroad, the current force levels, 10 Army Divisions and 2 Marine Divisions, plus about the same number of National Guard - are a bare bones minimum to defend THIS country. It really bothers me to see so-called "conservatives" being this self-deluding about the realities of the military balance.
|
Jason Eubanks
Guest
9/05/2002
00:54:11
| RE: Paleo Defence Policy
IP: Logged
Message:
Every one here worked under the assumption that nuclear deterence would halt foreign aggression from China and Europe. You don't need 20 divisions to stand guard against Mexico's three brigades and Canada's 4 divisions.
|
Stephen Gosling
Guest
9/05/2002
07:54:27
| RE: Paleo Defence Policy
IP: Logged
Message:
Mr Riggs:
The cuts proposed are based on the assumption that the next generation of technology and the REAL threats against the continemtal U.S.
in the next 20 years or so will not require 10 divisions etc(devised and built for a cold war scenario, and even then out of date).
The continental United States could successfully be defended by: 2 Lite Army Divisions.2 Marine Divisions(trained for coastal defence). A Navy consisting of mainly cruisers(200) armed with anti-missile and anti-aircraft missiles.Air Force defending US air space(500 F-16's) Formidable!!
|
William Riggs
Guest
9/06/2002
16:25:51
| RE: Paleo Defence Policy
IP: Logged
Message:
Faith in advanced technology - in and of itself - is quite misguided, and I am very surprised that a group of populist conservatives would want to concentrate "so much" combat power in "so few" hands. But the truth is that you just can't get there from here. The only virtue of "Light" divisions lies in their strategic mobility - how many C-17 flights it takes to move them overseas, not in their tactical or operational mobility.
We are looking at all kinds of force design issues associated with the Interim Brigade Combat Teams - another "light force" initiative, as well as the operational concept and capabilities for the Future Combat System. Heck, the Pentagon is slashing Army programs left and right to pay for FCS. But, realistically, you can't have bloodless wars, and unless you want to go the way of Gaullist France and Yeltsin's Russia, you'll want the ability to defend our nation without having to use nuclear weapons. Without active US involvement in world affairs, nuclear proliferation AND real live nuclear war somewhere WILL happen.
|
Jason Eubanks
Guest
9/07/2002
11:06:17
| RE: Paleo Defence Policy
IP: Logged
Message:
You are quite correct that Light Divisions are a trade off of heavy equipment in favor of strategic mobility. They are also much cheaper to train and maintain except for airborne units. Presumably, an isolationist military policy would entail the development of more advanced mechanized weaponry like Crusader and next generation tanks as troops would not be subject to world-wide strategic mobility concerns.
As far as TF-XXI, I thought the Pentagon would be better served by developing mechanized airborne units based on the M8 AGS and the AIFV version of the M113 rather than these medium weight brigades based on the LAV-25. The Russians have been using mechanized airborne units for years although they lack real strategic mobility because of outmoded air transport assets. The USAF could over come those problems given enough resources.
The fact is that nuclear proliferation has happened with the current US foreign policy of interventionism. Israel, Pakistan, India and quite possibly North Korea. All four places are very unstable politically or strategically. It's very possible that Pakistan and India will have a nuclear exchange or the Pakistani nuclear arsenal will fall into the hands of Islamic extremists in the near future. What then?
|
steve gosling
Guest
9/09/2002
06:05:26
| RE: Paleo Defence Policy
IP: Logged
Message:
The U.S. should not attempt to control what is going on in any area of global activity: economic, military, nuclear, etc.,Conseqently The U.S. should seek to maintain a defence policy that defends the contintental united states. Whether this is to be done by lite divisions/high or low technology, a small professional military or a large national guard will be determined by observing global developments and possible real threats.
|
paleocon
Guest
6/09/2003
01:46:25
| RE: Paleo Defence Policy
IP: Logged
Message:
Why such a weak military? Look I'm an avowed paleocon of the Old Right, and I believe our foreign policy needs to be commensurate with original intent of the founders. As John Quincy Adams declares, "America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is a well wisher to the freedom of all and a vindicator only of her own." We should strive to recapture the essence of the Neutrality Act of 1798 in articulating an American defense and foreign policy.
What I don't understand is why we repeat the folly of Jefferson who believed a large navy was provocative. He scrapped much of the navy fleet and outfitted a few paltry gunboats. Thus, America was menaced by the British in the War of 1812. There is no denying that defense is like in other facet of government and subject to bureaucratic waste. Moreover, much could be done to eliminate redudant weapon systems and be prudent in the implementation of new ones. But why go down to such a small military. America's enemies won't disappear. Lets embrace the realpolitk of the founders and recognize that armed neutrality and policy of strategic independence is the best foreign and defense policy.
|