Military, Army and War - Military Down Sizing and the Fall of a Great Nation

The United States military says it must prepare to deal with traditional threats coming from Russia, China, North Korea and Iran, and at same time to contain the spread of extremist terror groups like the self-proclaimed Islamic State. Four to five threats that US faces right now comes from the Asia Pacific. Therefore, it is one of the most important regions for the US and its partners. In comparison among those America’s threats, while North Korea and IS are just sort term threats, Russia or Iran will stay behind China because of its dramatically rising in economy and population as well as the investment for its military. Therefore, China’s rise is the greatest threat to the United State because its capability to change the world order,

The quick evolving military environment, needs the US Army redouble its efforts to reduce the uncertainty associated with the downsizing. There are some predominant principles that can guide the Army’s efforts in minimizing the impact of uncertainty during the force reduction. Even with major political and legislative challenges, keeping balance among the different proportions of readiness is a goal of US defense policy. During the budgetary preparation, downsizing of the armed forces often becomes one of the first victims of fiscal reduction. This was true of the years between World War I and World War II, when the Great Depression made military preparedness a very low national priority. The Army’s downsizing effect put its readiness

“The Evil Empire” — that is what, at the height of the arms race, United States President Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union (Rudolph 1). Unsurprisingly, the Soviet Union was similarly upset at the United States. This anger is what fueled the arms race. During the Cold War, due to fears of nuclear attack, the US and Soviet Union designed and deployed thousands of nuclear warheads, each hoping to deter the other from nuclear launch with threat of counter attack (O’Neal 1). This massive arms buildup, however, had many negative effects on the US. To recognize the impact that the arms race continues to have on today, it is crucial to understand not only its causes, but also its immediate impacts on the US economy, society, foreign

In a 2015 article, “Is U.S. military becoming outdated?” written by Stuart Bradin, Keenan Yoho, and Meaghan Keeler-Pettigrew, the authors argued that despite the U.S. military maintaining a position of global dominance “without peer” during conventional operations, it is not the ideal force against current and future threats. The authors claim that there are several negative factors arising due to the past sixteen years of war against several state and non-state elements, inferior cultural differences of government bureaucracy compared to commercial firms, and a misallocation of defense spending that leaves the US military waging war inefficiently while simultaneously losing technological dominance against current and future threats.

America’s military has been around since the beginning of this great country. This military has become one of the world 's strongest. The country has an Army, Navy, Marines Corps, Air Force, and a Coast Guard. Those branches don’t include all the people involved in the Reserves, Air National Guard, and the National Guard. As of the 31st of January 2015, America’s military included 1.4 million troops. America’s population has reached a total of over 321 million people. Less than 1 percent of the total population is serving in the military. Of that 1 percent, the LGBT, also known as the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender, community is involved. Is the LGBT right for pushing to be in the military?

Through tracing its development over the last few decades, this explores the modern day significance of the military industrial-complex. One such decade is the one following the end of the Cold War and the 1990-91 Persian Gulf War. It is during this time, 1997-2002 that U.S. plans requested $1.6 trillion dollars in military spending, despite having no major military rivals. Moreover, although US military spending has decreased in recent years, this is mainly the result of reduced fewer weapons purchased as opposed to the cancellation of weapons which further speaks to the impact of the military industrial-conflict. It is through the analysis of this and times and events like the war on terrorism, that the article comes to results such as, powerful MIC’s greater the risk of war, in addition to increasing the number of countries that hold access to technologically advanced

should adjust its priorities and spending to address the changing nature of threats in the world: What all these potential adversaries—from terrorist cells to rogue nations to rising powers—have in common is that they have learned that it is unwise to confront the United States directly on conventional military terms. The United States cannot take its current dominance for granted and needs to invest in the programs, platforms, and personnel that will ensure that dominance's persistence. But it is also important to keep some perspective. As much as the U.S. Navy has shrunk since the end of the Cold War, for example, in terms of tonnage, its battle fleet is still larger than the next 13 navies combined—and 11 of those 13 navies are U.S. allies or partners." (Staff,

After the invasion and burning of Washington there was a hurried demand for a strong army to be ready and on call for duty at any given time. We realized we could handle ourselves abroad when it came to war, but we need to strengthen our own country and focus on the new world.

SMA Dailey issued his top priorities they included the following; a) Higher readiness achieved with fewer non-deployable Soldiers, b) Incentive pay for deploying Soldiers c) Right-sizing the Army, d) Expand tuition Assistance for credentialing opportunities, e) Grow Army University, f) Successful integration of women into combat jobs. As the Army continues to transition into 2020 the increase for higher readiness is a must as a Senior Non-Commissioned Officer I’m very aware of the positive impact on a unit’s function, cohesiveness, and overall efficiency when the majority of the formation is fully prepared to execute the days tasking’s. Higher readiness achieved with fewer non-deployable soldiers. The issue has always been a talent issue more

military is huge. So big if you add up China’s and Russia’s military spending’s per year, the total is under half of what the U.S. spends. We are not short of soldiers yet we still have selective services to ensure the safety of our country. Russia a country notorious for a strong military is only a fourth of the size of the U.S. military. We have an excess of soldiers compared to other nations. We have such a large military the only ones who dare to challenge us are power hungry dictators, and radicals who are sent on a mission by “God”. The military draft is simply unneeded. The world is changing and we must change too. The new era in technology has changed the way we fight wars. Yet a system that dates back to the civil war is still in place

The United States spends roughly $600 billion a year on defense, more than the rest of the other great powers combined. More impressive is that this massive expenditure is still essentially being done on the relative cheap. Defense spending today is at a rate of approximately 4% of GDP annually, a percentage that, while higher than those of other great powers, is lower than the rate of 10% of GDP spent in the mid-1950s and the 7% spent in the late 1980s . This is a fact that is overlooked by proponents of retrenchment. For example, Eugene Gholz, Daryl Press and Harvey Sapolsky’s “Come Home, America,” an article advancing retrenchment was published in 1997, a point where U.S. defense spending was near a fifty-year low at 3% of GDP . Military spending, however, is not the best device through which to frame capacity as it is ultimately a voluntary action on the part of the state, and as such is inherently variable. But, taken over time, it reveals something integral: long-term investment in the capacity to generate military power. Indeed, the United States over the span of decades has accumulated military capabilities nearly impossible for any state to match. This is especially the case in the modern world given the increased complexity of weapons systems and their long-term development process. If anything, simply using defense spending numbers underestimates the global military gap . By using Barry Posen’s “command of the commons” as a framework for an analysis of comparative power potential, it becomes clear that the capacity of the United States military remains unmatched. For Posen, command of the global commons-the sea, space, and air- is “the key military enabler of the US global power position” allowing the United States to project its power far from its border. In his analysis of each “common” Posen uses multiple indicators, such as number aircraft carriers and

As the past affects the present, and the present affects the future, it has become excessively apparent how devastating war on this world is, was, and can be. Nuclear weapons not only provides the protection The United States needs, but leads the world in world peace. In the world today nine countries have nuclear weapons. (Robinson) These nine countries are; the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Israel, South Africa, Pakistan and North Korea, also which are leading countries (lerner) . Those nine countries have protection for themselves, thus making them leading. Ultimately, protection is the necessary for power. The United States has to protect itself, and remain powerful. Nuclear weapons

The Cold War had split the world in two halves and had broken traditional concepts of power. Therefore, it was possible for USSR to be a military superpower and at the same time an economic dwarf. Contrastingly, Japan was an economic giant and militarily irrelevant. The post-Cold War world changes these patterns. On the one hand, the victor of the Cold War (USA) is still the world’s leading superpower, however, its relative military power is steadily diminishing and without a clearly defined enemy, the voices calling for cuts on the US military spending are getting louder. The ISIS and the post 9/11 terrorist threat are merely slowing down this process.

Introduction: The United States has been the super power in the world for the past several decades and this has been mainly due to so many reasons ranging from technology, economic, political and military strength and implication of their foreign policy. However, due to various roles the United States played in most international events that occurred in the world, they have been referred to as the ‘’World Policemen’’ Adelman, 2013). Two major events involving the United States military as a result of their foreign policy created after the Civil War are:

To help assist the United States with maritime appearance and adequately support war fighting the Navy is saying it needs more ships and fewer personnel on its fleets. Downsizing of personnel is a growing concern among many current Navy personnel. Navy is considering increasing its ship fleet to 292 to about 375 ships. It plans to pay for this increase of ships at the