View Full Version : Our forces

09.17.01, 11:49 AM
Does anyone know the current number of people in our armed forces? Also how many aircraft carriers, planes, tanks, etc do we have? I know we have put a lot of ships in mothballs over the years.

09.17.01, 12:08 PM
You can find all that info on the various services' websites.

09.17.01, 02:10 PM
For those curious, this is a list of the forces that the Clinton administration eliminated during his 8 year term. In other words, these are forces we HAD in '92 that were downsized out of the military, or, in the words of the first post of this thread, these are our forces on mothballs.

709,000 regular (active duty) service personnel;

293,000 reserve troops;

Eight standing Army divisions;

20 Air Force and Navy air wings with 2,000 combat aircraft;

232 strategic bombers;

13 strategic ballistic missile submarines with 3,114 nuclear warheads on 232 missiles;

500 ICBMs with 1,950 warheads;

Four aircraft carriers, and;

121 surface combat ships and submarines, plus all the support bases, shipyards and logistical assets needed to sustain such a naval force.

09.17.01, 02:16 PM
Ok, so about a million folks......Lets keep china outta this.

09.17.01, 08:30 PM
Abe, you're too quick to place blame. Those force cuts aren't something that is done by just one administration. They started back under GB Sr., and Congress and Clinton continued them.

You sure do mention a lot of strategic weapons without mentioning the treaties that required their retirement.

You don't mention that our Reserves are finally equiped with weapons on par with our active duty forces, or at least much more so than any other time in the past 50 years.

Speaking of 50 years, that's almost how old those carriers you mentioned were. The Forrestal class began to deactivate before Clinton even came to office--Ranger's last cruise was in 1992. They were due. We're still building new carriers at about the same rater we were in the 70s and 80s.

We decommed plenty of 60s and 70s vintage warships in the 1990s. Ships are designed for a 30-year life, so do the math.

Changes in miltary structure are long lead-time decisions. You can't pin the reductions on any one administration or congress. What they did were the right things to do at the time.

[ September 17, 2001 at 09:32 PM: Message edited by: MikeL ]

09.17.01, 08:54 PM
Ahhh...I am not placing 'blame' on anyone. I am simply pointing out the cutbacks made in the military since the last large-scale US military action that we are best familiar with, namely the Gulf War. People had a fairly good idea of what forces we had during the Gulf War, since the media gave us a play-by-play description of our activities during the event, and for months afterward while we watched the replay of events.

TV, newspapers, magazines, radio...ALL of them were teeming with reports pertaining to the might (or lack thereof) of the US military at the time. I am not, nor have I ever been in, the military, and I am not privy to much of what they've added and/or enhanced during that time, so I cannot speak for what our forces may consist of nowadays.

I gave the list for COMPARISON ONLY, that's all.

On the other hand, Clinton is still a weenie, but that's a story for a different thread. smilies/tongue.gif smilies/biggrin.gif

09.17.01, 08:57 PM
Abe you should know by now not even to bother replying back to something MikeL has to say.

09.17.01, 09:03 PM
You plainly made it sound as though it was solely Clinton's doing, Abe. That looked a bit like placing blame to me. smilies/smile.gif

Rumsfield recently was considering cuts similar in scope to those that took place in the 90s. I'd imagine those plans have been shelved for the moment, eh?

09.17.01, 09:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AxeSlinger84:
Abe you should know by now not even to bother replying back to something MikeL has to say.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While I may be inclined to agree with you on this point when it comes to certain topics, one thing I DO know is that MikeL was once in the service and knows considerably more about its inner workings than I do. Therefore, continuing a conversation with him in a thread like this potentially serves a good purpose-I might learn something. If not, at least I will have tried.

MikeL...as for Rumsfeld, I have no clue what cutbacks he was planning on making. I can only assume that he wouldn't be planning to continue on that course, but then again, ya never know anymore.

For all we know, the Taliban has somehow learned to communicate with sharks and is responsible for the attacks along the east coast lately. Then we would have to recommission some OLD vessels to deal with that problem.

A serious question, though: When you say that the reserves are now armed on the same level as the regular army now, what exactly do you mean? Are we talking just the gear they would carry? Or are we talking all the heavy equipment as well?

09.17.01, 09:37 PM
The idea is that our reserves receive just as good of equipment as our active duty forces. This spans everything from the gear they carry to their heavy equipment.

This concept started to come along in the 80s, and the force cuts in the 90s made it more of a reality.

In the past, reserve units got equipment that was worn out and at least a generation obsolete. The idea now is that with some solid workups, they can be plugged into the force structure and be nearly as effective as an active duty unit.

The Gulf War showed this to be a pretty impressive system, even though it wasn't anywhere near complete then.