US Military down in personnal plus in budjet

[IpswichIan]

Down the road is challenging in the fight for a better sum in the United States military unit that I wish if I will stay on the United States again.

I want to remove all navy soldiers from the navy, since soldiers in the southern area will all be removed. There will be 4 defense branches with the coast guard.

Marines in the reserve fleet should remain in case of war for attack.

The army in southern and eastern front left the army reserve in the west.

659,000 proffesional soldiers.

800,000 reserve force.

Down to 220-300 billion in military budjet.

Thought.

 

[IpswichIan]

Over 1000 boats in Coast Guard.

Over 500 boats in Navy.

3 aircraft carrier in Navy.

Thought.

 

[IpswichIan]

36,000 sailors in Navy.

28,000 men in Coast Guard.

460,000 men in the Army.

135,000 men in Air Force.

 

[IpswichIan]

US Military remain in NATO.

 

[IpswichIan]

Have nothing interests with Brittish armed forces.

I went to US Military.

 

[IpswichIan]

550,000 men is old South African and franchise size.

 

[Richard Cranium]

You weird c***

 

[Abertawe]

^^
Reported for bullying.

 

[IpswichIan]

So you guys dislike Military Power ???

 

[IpswichIan]

Maybe 460,000 in the Army.

 

[IpswichIan]

Maybe many of world's people dislike Militaries so it doesn't thread care about this t want to happen around America but you can close this thread ???

 

[IpswichIan]

4 countries with over 600,000 men is A medium big war size but close thread pleasure.

 

[The Jovial Forester]

Great time to invade then. Let's have this colony back!

 

[IpswichIan]

American military can defend they self even with smaller war size you know.

 

[The Jovial Forester]

American military can defend they self even with smaller war size you know.

Bollocks, they got run by a load of Afghan shepherd boys in flip-flops.

 

[IpswichIan]

160,000 in Army are four frontline war with 40,000 soldiers in Alaska rest in coasts and south USA and then 1,1 million reserve force one secondery war sum.

 

[IpswichIan]

Bollocks, they got run by a load of Afghan shepherd boys in flip-flops.

No. Forever justice US policy.

 

[Cornish Piskie]

Britain has never maintained a large standing army even in the days of Empire. In our overseas possessions we recruited from within. We ruled India for over a hundred years and never had more than a few thousand British troops in the country. We recruited Indians to do the job..!!

Our standing armies at before the start of various conflicts have been as follows:

1750, pre 7 years war: 78,900
1800 pre Napoleonic War: 80,300,
1939, start of WWII: 230,000,
1969, start of NI Troubles: 174,000,
1982: Start of Falklands War: 159,000.
2001, Start of Afghanistan War: 110,000
(source: Imperial War Museum)

Bearing in mind that Britain has traditionally maintained a strong navy which has protected our island nation from invasion and has only ever needed an army for overseas conflicts, where foreign powers are concerned, then should we not be more concerned with the strength and fighting effectiveness of our seaborne forces to prevent any future invasion of the UK homeland?

More than 16’000 troops were redeployed as Britain’s commitment to the army on the Rhine was wound down from 2014, so an army of less than 100'000 can easily cover Britain’s commitment to NATO and our overseas interests such as the Falklands.

In my opinion, if any branch of our armed forces needs strengthening, it is the Royal Navy.

 

[IpswichIan]

I does not like british armed forces. I does like smaller or bigger sums than UK.

 

[IpswichIan]

UK have 140,000 troops current situation. Terrible tactical from officiers.

 

[Cornish Piskie]

Food for thought. I cannot vouch for how up to date this is, but I believe it is the most recent chart produced by Global Firepower, the Centre for Arms Control and Non Proliferation.

 

[IpswichIan]

Germany think they are stronger within nothing nuclear weapons.

 

[IpswichIan]

Food for thought. I cannot vouch for how up to date this is, but I believe it is the most recent chart produced by Global Firepower, the Centre for Arms Control and Non Proliferation.

Maybe Asian militaries were correkt but not USA and NK.

 

[Cornish Piskie]

It's all very subjective. The important thing is for NATO unity and every country meeting its military commitments.

I don't think we should be treating this matter as some sort of "who can piss highest up the wall" contest.

We take our security seriously and as long as the alliance is strong and acts as a deterrent to any potential aggressor, then that is the important thing.

You may disagree and that is your privilege but I am in the deterrence through unified strength camp.

 

[IpswichIan]

NK have going down from 4 million reserve to 600,000 with them nuclear bombs ambitions.

 

[Cornish Piskie]

I try to be a friendly, tolerant person, open to all points of view and willing to engage in any discussion on its merit, but I'm finding your messages - not just this one, but across the entire site - somewhat perplexing.

Are you really who you say you are? Or are you a demented troll posting gibberish in order to gratify some weird perversion?

I'm beginning to suspect the latter.

 

[Lance Stoe]

NK have going down from 4 million reserve to 600,000 with them nuclear bombs ambitions.

Fancy a pint lad?? Seshlehem os the way forward ya wee radge