Who will fight the next war?

alcaline

he majority of Americans do not want to fight for their country.

The statistics are staggering…

The Economist, 24 October 2015, http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21676778-failures-iraq-and-afghanistan-have-widened-gulf-between-most-americans-and-armed: Who will fight the next war?

“… … it concerns America’s future ability to mobilise for war.

During the Korean war, around 70% of draft-age American men served in the armed forces; during Vietnam, the unpopularity of the conflict and ease of draft-dodging ensured that only 43% did. These days, even if every young American wanted to join up, less than 30% would be eligible to. Of the starting 21 million, around 9.5 million would fail a rudimentary academic qualification, either because they had dropped out of high school or, typically, because most young Americans cannot do tricky sums without a calculator. Of the remainder, 7 million would be disqualified because they are too fat, or have a criminal record, or tattoos on their hands or faces.

That leaves 4.5 million young Americans eligible to serve, of whom only around 390,000 are minded to, provided they do not get snapped up by a college or private firm instead — as tends to happen to the best of them. … …”

The days of the the US as worlds police man might be coming to a end if they like it or not.

Gatling

Let us guess the Russians are coming

Manach

Technology might ease the need for both the size and physical requirements in a future war? I was reading a book "War Law" which had a chapter which dealt with R&D on semi/full independant military weapons. These would allow the out sourcing of the dangers to mechanised devices. Leaving aside the moral/legal aspect, these seem to be the answer?

josephryan1989

You can't expect to win wars without risking life and limb.

Larbre34

It is unlikely any big war would be manpower intensive, relative to Nam or WWII. Should any large boots-on-ground engagement arise, like a frontier war with Canada, needing hundreds of thousands of G.I.s, you can bet the conscription standards would drop to hoover up plenty of cannon fodder from among the criminal and the stupid.

Modern fighting forces are built on equipment and technical proficiency in the ranks, a full US deployment would still defeat a China or a North Korea provided the limits on deployment of battlefield weapons were lifted. The mass armies are largely consigned to history.

BoJack Horseman

Android users vs iOS users.

Fanatical & ferocious.

josephryan1989

Larbre34 wrote: »

It is unlikely any big war would be manpower intensive, relative to Nam or WWII. Should any large boots-on-ground engagement arise, like a frontier war with Canada, needing hundreds of thousands of G.I.s, you can bet the conscription standards would drop to hoover up plenty of cannon fodder from among the criminal and the stupid.

Modern fighting forces are built on equipment and technical proficiency in the ranks, a full US deployment would still defeat a China or a North Korea provided the limits on deployment of battlefield weapons were lifted. The mass armies are largely consigned to history.

Nonsense.
Territory needs to be taken and held.
After combat troops have taken the territory occupation troops have to be posted in cities, towns and villages and the countryside patrolled and insurgents defeated.
Despite support from drones, jets, helicopters, artillery, tanks and heavy weapons, soldiers still have to kick in doors and clear rooms with grenades and small arms, soldiers still have to slog up hillsides, close in on enemy positions and kill the enemy at close quarters.

Jawgap

I think you'd have to define 'war' - do you mean interstate war?

In which case there is an argument to be said that we are moving from that era (or have already) and major interstate wars are becoming less and less likely.

Are China and the US currently 'at war'? Are NATO and Russia currently 'at war'? Again depends on your definition of war - they are no doubt in conflict and that conflict is playing out on multiple levels (except outright combat) in a form of hybrid war.

One thing you can bank on though - like the Falklands, Gulf War I and 9/11, it will be a surprise when and where it happens.

laoch na mona

theres always proxy's, superpowers have been making good use of them since the cold war

discus

laoch na mona wrote: »

theres always proxy's, superpowers have been making good use of them since the Persian Empire

ftfy

Morpheus

Technology as a modern force multiplier is something to be considered, but I wonder how effective some of these would actually be in a real intercontinental shooting war where your infrastructure is getting smashed by the enemies force multipliers.

Jawgap

Here's an interesting snippet from an article in The Intercept about the proposal to send US special forces to Syria......

The special operations deployment to Syria comes at a time of expanding use of America’s most elite forces all around the world. In the fiscal year that just ended, U.S. special operations forces — Army Green Berets and Navy SEALs, among others — deployed to a record-shattering 147 countries, according to Special Operations Command (SOCOM) spokesperson Ken McGraw. That number translated into a SOF presence in 75 percent of the nations on the planet and a jump of 145 percent since the waning days of the Bush administration. On any day of the year, America’s most elite troops can be found in 70 to 90 countries.