U.S. Troops

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Isn't it about time we start pulling in our over-deployed troops and assets from around the world and set up a "Hasty-Defense" in and around this Great Nation. I could go on but...any thoughts?

-- Larry (Rampon@cyberramp.net), October 17, 1999

Answers

Two questions:

(1) What if the rest of the world decided to pull its assets out of the US? (2) Do you really think having more troops in the US during Y2K is desirable?

-- Y2KGardener (gardens@bigisland.net), October 17, 1999.

Larry,

How do you know we're not? I don't think it would be smart to make it obvious.

Gardener,

When you said "the rest of the world's assets", were you talking about terrorists?

-- @ (@@@.@), October 17, 1999.


Assets....Military Hardware...Planes, Guns, Ships, Vehicles,etc.

The reason that I question that we're pulling our resources in is because your Commander In Chief is trying his damnedest to give (or sell) everything this country has worked so hard for. He is not a military stratagist nor have I seen any around him who are. In fact, it is a well known fact that he has great disdain for the Military

-- Larry (Rampon@cyberramp.net), October 17, 1999.


Makes sense Larry. I honestly didn't know the answer to my question, I was just wondering if you might have had any first-hand information from anyone in the military. When you say "your" commander in chief, I hope you're not referring specifically to me, because that ain't the way I see it... uh-uh, no way.

-- @ (@@@.@), October 17, 1999.

Larry, actually, it is better that we stay where we are. We are in a better position to "act". Do you have any idea how long it takes a carrier to "position" itself? Circling the wagons? Where? Personally, I wouldn't mind if Clinton took a few hits, nor would I mind if D.C. had a big scare. Clean out the rubbish there.

And do you have any idea where we'd put all the troops? Are you aware that (for instance in Japan), the foreign countries where we are deployed pay for a monster share of our housing and bases, utilities, operational expenses, etc.? Would YOU prefer to pick up that tab? Do you think we'll be able to afterwards? Nope, it is better to remain where we are and watch the world teeter....perhaps fall....

Militarily,and strategically, being deployed and spread out is a MUCH better proposition. Do you recall Pearl Harbor?

-- Ynott (Ynott@incorruptible.com), October 17, 1999.



Larry,

Been saying that for a few years now. However, the blank stare is the only reply I get. Protect the Heartland of America, but don't panic WE WIN!

-- Mark Hillyard (foster@inreach.com), October 17, 1999.


Or you might say, protect the Valley of the Passengers.

-- Mark Hillyard (foster@inreach.com), October 17, 1999.

Earlier this year Britain announced that they
would bring their troops home from Kosovo for
Y2K.

-- spider (spider0@usa.net), October 17, 1999.

It's far too late to make any kind of an orderly return of US forces back to the states. TPTB made their decision last year or even before that our folks overseas were going to stay there. And they just might stay there forever if things get really bad.

You might see some Dunkirk-style evacuations of Americans from some Middle-Eastern countries to a safer place like Germany or the UK. And the troops in Kosovo and Bosnia might get pulled back or have to march (and fight) their way out to the nearest NATO country.

But I don't think that we'll see the White House issue orders to bring the troops back to the States before Y2K. We wouldn't want to cause our host nations to lose face or spark an international panic over Y2K, now would we? Nope, US troops are expendable for political purposes.

And keeping a smiley face on Y2K is a huge political purpose for the current Commander In Chief.

WW

-- Wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), October 17, 1999.


WW, that is one of the sickest aspects of the Y2K debacle, and you are correct in your conclusions. Criminal neglect of the troops.

-- weary (too@much.everything), October 17, 1999.


I heard that the UN had 3 million UN troops in the US, Mexico and Canada. Now, that's ridiculous, but let's assume it's true, the idea was that the russians would come up out of mexico and down through canada and alaska, and that the chinese would take california (along with other UN troops) link up in the middle and take us down. (sounds a bit like red dawn eh?) the problem with all of these "use y2k as an excuse for WW3 plans" is that y2k is NOT WW3. WW3 assumes that everybody is functioning at the beginning and is fighting each other, not everybody collapsing and starving. If there are a million russian troops in mexico they wouldn't last a week if 100 million mexicans were starving and undergoing a revolution. They couldn't invade anything. I have the sneaking suspiucion that y2k will turn assets into liabilities at an alarming rate, for example we have thousands of servicemen on Okinawa, which is a strategic asset if you can get them someplace. But, if you can't they now become a liability, squatting on Okinawa with no way to get anywhere. also, we have 37,000 troops in Korea, how long will they last if they haven't a giant pile o high tech missiles and such, to protect them from millions of (already) starving north Koreans? Will they be left there? yeah. will they stay there forever? no, only till they die. will the russians conquer the US? maybe, but they better finish off chechnya, ( size of connecticut) first. this round, they have been trying since 94, no luck so far, maybe detroit will only take 10 years.

-- bob (braponspdetroit@hotmail.com), October 17, 1999.

Air Force flew a C-5B out of Travis last month to Nome, Alaska apparently to see if they could safely get the bird in. Back-hauled a few National Guard snowmachines (go figure)! For the amount of fuel burned on this mission could have bought new snowmachines for the entire Alaska Army National Guard!

-- (snowleopard6@webtv.net), October 17, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ