My Vision For America

[Centurion1]

B) Military/Foreign Policy
1. The US would be removed from nearly foreign conflicts. Our new foreign policy would be that unless there is a clear and demonstrable gain for the US (material, monetary, diplomacy, etc) AND said country poses a direct military threat to the US, we would not interfere militarily.

2. The Army would need to adopt current Marine Corps standards (e.i., the "Every Man a Marine" policy) and the Marine Corps marksmanship standards would be raised.

3. Small Caliber assault rifles would be phased out for .308 and 30-06 battle rifles (either magazine fed variants of the M1 Garand with synthetic stocks or the M14 EBR).

4. Women would be allowed in combat roles in the military if they could meet military standards (e.i. the same ones for men). There would be all man and all woman units, not mixed gender units.

5. I would create 'war games' of a sort to test the combat readiness and performance of infantry. Both the Army and the Marine Corps would compete every year for a $50 million grant in addition to their regular spending that can be put toward any program of their choice.

This is all ridiculous. I still don't understand why you consider yourself such an expert on all things military.

1. personal preference but its absurd to maintain a large standing army with no war.

2. your marine corp fetish as mrd pointed out is adorable. I'm not goin to go into details on why it is ridiculous.

3. stupid theres a reason we use 5.56 the m-14 would be a crap alternative. i can see using a 7.62 bull pup design weapon or soemthing like a scar. but certainly not an m-14 thats essentially a dmr.

4. its not just about being able too...... women have different needs in the field compared to men and as it stands the combat filds women cannot serve in (they can serv ein some combat arms like aviation) such as infantry, armor, and artillery are logical and the limits should remain in place.

5. war games are already played so thats ridiculous to say. and you act like there is no more navy or air force.... finally 50 million is complete chump change.

[Vuk]

We use small caliber assault rifles for several reasons, and moving back to giant rounds as stnadard load makes us as bad as the monkeys we fight against.

Giant rounds? Since when is a .308 a giant round? And since when is using the most effective round in combat a bad thing? Would you not rather have the confidence of knowing that you can kill your enemy in 1-2 rounds instead of 3-5? I suppose though that you think the SAS are monkeys, as they deemed .223 too ineffective for their purposes and have purchased .308 rifles to replace most of their .223 rifles.

underated post IMO.

The only thing I am gleaning from this thread is that VUK is a superhuman

Save us from ourselves, we beg of you

Because I have an opinion that America could be improved I am saying I am superhuman? Ok, if it makes you happy...

This is all ridiculous. I still don't understand why you consider yourself such an expert on all things military.

1. personal preference but its absurd to maintain a large standing army with no war.

2. your marine corp fetish as mrd pointed out is adorable. I'm not goin to go into details on why it is ridiculous.

3. stupid theres a reason we use 5.56 the m-14 would be a crap alternative. i can see using a 7.62 bull pup design weapon or soemthing like a scar. but certainly not an m-14 thats essentially a dmr.

4. its not just about being able too...... women have different needs in the field compared to men and as it stands the combat filds women cannot serve in (they can serv ein some combat arms like aviation) such as infantry, armor, and artillery are logical and the limits should remain in place.

5. war games are already played so thats ridiculous to say. and you act like there is no more navy or air force.... finally 50 million is complete chump change.

First of all, I don't consider myself an expert on all thing military. I simply said that based on my knowledge, these are things I think would make the US better. I am also not an expert on all things economy, or on all things education (and neither are most members here), and I don't remember claiming to be.

1. Did I even say I would increase the size of the military or even maintain it? No, I didn't. You again seem to be arguing something that I never said (or even insinuated)

2. It has absolutely nothing to do with a love of the Marine Corps. It has to do with the fact that the Marine Corps simply has better discipline and higher standards than the Army. (I don't think most would argue with that)

3. There is a reason we use the 556? I would certainly hope so (in fact, I there is more than just one reason)! The fact is though, that does not make it a good decision. Almost every infantry man I have ever talked to about it (literally every Marine I have ever talked to about it) has told me they prefer the 308. The M14 would be a crap alternative? Why? From what I have gathered talking to military personnel, a carbine version of the M14 would have every advantage over the AR other than mag capacity. (something that could easily be solved) This small advantage of the AR though hardly makes it worth taking over a .308.

5. I know that we currently have war games, but I am talking about something to fuel competition. Of course 50 million is not an enormous amount of their budget, and it is not supposed to be. It is supposed to be added incentive to win. Heck, they could buy a lot of rifles with it.

[Papewaio]

I think the idea of a military is to A) stop a war happening in the first place
B) win it if it happens

Focusing on games will mean winning games not war. It is much like over focusing on discipline, boot polish and parades rather then combat readiness. One would have to be careful that proficiency at war games tracks into combat ability.

I think a focus on innovation in any sphere be it science, medicine, business or war would make a better economy. Too much of education is styled to past tests and create drones.

[Vuk]

I think the idea of a military is to A) stop a war happening in the first place
B) win it if it happens

Focusing on games will mean winning games not war. It is much like over focusing on discipline, boot polish and parades rather then combat readiness. One would have to be careful that proficiency at war games tracks into combat ability.

I think a focus on innovation in any sphere be it science, medicine, business or war would make a better economy. Too much of education is styled to past tests and create drones.

As I stated in my first post though, perhaps 'games' isn't the best description. They would be more tests of combat readiness. Accuracy tests, CQC room clearing tests, terrain navigation tests, etc. Those with the best scores win, and with it bring $50 mill to their branch of service.