The Instigator
TyJack11x
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Jevinigh
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

The U.S. Military as a whole needs an overhaul.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Jevinigh
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/24/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 356 times Debate No: 85487
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)

 

TyJack11x

Pro

Rules: Round 1 is acceptance
Round 2-4 is for debating
Round 5 is for your conclusion

This debate is about whether the U.S. military is good as is, or rather it be changed.

I love our military and can't wait to join after I finish my last year in high school, and that is why this needs to be done. The Air Force for instance is ruled by fighter jocks that love to feed the military-industrial complex, the Navy must realize that we don't need 100,000+ ton super carriers. The Army has to realize that it's policy towards equipment is stupid, and finally the marines should go back to their roots as the poor bastard child of the military.
Jevinigh

Con

Challenge Accepted: 24.1.2016.
Contender; Objective: prove the current strategic model of the United States Military is optimal for protection and or enforcement of United states political and economic interests.

For the purposes of clarity; I will not address U.S. Foreign policy as it out side the scope of this argument. The focus of my contention will be on Strategic asset deployment and development of technologies in furtherance of U.S. Strategic goals, as they are currently.

- Jevinigh
Debate Round No. 1
TyJack11x

Pro

Thank you for accepting and good luck!

The Military's first big issue is powerpoint. What seems like a tool to organize thoughts and help public speakers with fear of crowds, is actually the Military's biggest enemy. It takes up hours and hours of time, this cancer should be cut out of the military and banned. It is an intellectual crutch, it is for those that can't write a concise and lucid paper, not a 30-slide powerpoint of death. Lucid writing leads to lucid thinking thus powerpoint should be banned.

The next issue is leadership. The Brass needs to be as good as possible and strict standards should be put in place, lessons learned from the Army's 90th Division [1] in Normandy must be remembered. A soldier that looses his rifle can be punished more than a senior CO that looses his part of the war. General Petraeus and his airborne division were able to keep Mosul quiet for almost a year while other parts of the country were doing less than favorable jobs at countering the insurgency. Poor leaders most be relieved immediately.

A huge issue is the fighting mans load. A infantryman should carry no more than 45-50 Ibs combat load but for some reason the average Marine Grunt is carrying anywhere from 97- 135 Ibs.[2] This weight is attributed to many things they must carry but a lot of it is from body armor. Regulations should be relaxed so soldiers and marines can have more freedom of movement. They could remove the neck protection from body armor, the Deltoid plates could also be removed, and the Groin protection. This would make the vest far lighter and give soldiers far better mobility. A mobile soldier with superior firepower is far more lethal than a soldier that has good firepower but can't move. I mean just look at any video with Marines or Soldiers in combat their tactics suck because they can barely move, most of the time they just go static and poor as much led as possible in the enemies general direction.

Alright more to come on my next turn, with some branch specific material.

Sources:
http://www.theatlantic.com...

http://archive.marinecorpstimes.com...
Jevinigh

Con



Because of the nature of Pro's argument the rebuttal will be most of my post. When I took this debate I assumed you where going to be arguing in favor of a more Nuclear centric strategy or at least another defined war doctrine other than the Power-Projection doctrine currently at the center of U.S. Military Strategic planning. What you gave me is kind of hard to decipher. Power-point; really? It sounds more like you have an opinion you wanted to air rather than a coherent military doctrine you wanted to argue in favor of. Alright, PowerPoint aside, This is at least something to grab onto with these other two points.


1. On leadership, accountability of leadership has always been an issue with any military. In the absence of really good argument by pro about what exactly to do besides a blanket assertion of 'dismiss bad commanders'. On this point I will grant Credit to Pro's point. This is not a new problem how ever, as Pro's source highlights " American troops were fighting to stay alive—no small feat in that summer’s [1944] bloody combat. One infantry company in the 90th began a day in July with 142 men and finished it with 32. Its battalion commander walked around babbling “I killed K Company, I killed K Company.” Later that summer, one of the 90th’s battalions, with 265 soldiers, surrendered to a German patrol of 50 men and two tanks. In six weeks of small advances, the division would use up all its infantrymen, requesting replacements of more than 100 percent. "[1] In this article, this story goes on to show the commander being relieved of command and replaced, as it should have been and continues to assert that modern U.S. military command fails to do this today, an assertion I do not dispute.

Disputes over military leadership are nothing new how ever, we contended with bad commanders in virtually every war we've thought with varying levels of accountability going back to the Revolutionary war it self. Benedict Arnold for example.[2] A famous example is the legacy of Union general Killpatrick who: "... was a master, in his mid-twenties, of using political influence to get ahead. His men had little love for his manner and his willingness to exhaust men and horses and to order suicidal mounted cavalry charges."[3]

2. Weight of gear on soldiers is variable depending on mission duration and job of the solider in question. A soldier on patrol will carry something in the ball park of 20kg~ (40ish pounds) where as a solider on a long duration mission will be carrying a full 40kg up to 65kg+ This is all dependent on mission length and combat role and it is a reality of warfare that has persisted for a very long time. U.S. Strategic planners are already well aware of it[4] and spend a lot of money to develop lighter weight materials and lighter equipment with out compromising effectiveness. Army planners the world over have known of this issue for a very long time . Famously Sergeant Costello (75th rifle 1809) wrote in his biography of carrying at least 80 pounds of gear.[5]


To conclude this round, Besides pro's war on power point, Nothing brought up is especially new nor is it issues that U.S. Strategic planning already contends with to one level or another. In point 2,regarding weight, this is a long term issue that has burdened troops and military planners through virtually every generation, the U.S. military is already working on it.

Sources:
[1] http://www.theatlantic.com...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://www.protonex.com... (Protonex is a military contractor who manufactures batteries and some other electronics.)
[5]Costello, Edward. The Peninsular and Waterloo Campaigns Hamden : Archon Books; 1968.
Debate Round No. 2
TyJack11x

Pro

TyJack11x forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
TyJack11x

Pro

TyJack11x forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
TyJack11x

Pro

TyJack11x forfeited this round.
Jevinigh

Con

Jevinigh forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by BakaliarosJrJr 1 year ago
BakaliarosJrJr
I'm not talking about military and how it can be used, I'm talking generally, saying society could have been created without needing the military. If you think about it, military is something created by someone who believed he wasn't safe. But, without the military at all, he would be safe. It's a paradox.
Posted by TyJack11x 1 year ago
TyJack11x
I think you're miss understanding my point, we need change not lack of. Keep posted on the debate and see if you change your mind by the time it's completed :)
Posted by Eeliejun 1 year ago
Eeliejun
*Boat* and *army* my bad ^^
Posted by Eeliejun 1 year ago
Eeliejun
Yes, if you believe that the navy is not needed and must go back to an undeveloped *** hole whose best weapons where a fishers bout whit a cannon evry are my needs navy support to successfully fight a war
Posted by TyJack11x 1 year ago
TyJack11x
I'm stupid?
Posted by Eeliejun 1 year ago
Eeliejun
are you stupid a country like the USA needs a big navy to protect its interests and shores for the enemy a carrier is needed for a beach attack if you don't have any nearby support your army would be destroyed before it even landed
Posted by TyJack11x 1 year ago
TyJack11x
So your saying under the circumstances of today the military is an useless entity?
Posted by BakaliarosJrJr 1 year ago
BakaliarosJrJr
If we're talking about the world of today, it is a good way to save your life. But generally, yes.
Posted by TyJack11x 1 year ago
TyJack11x
Right because having a military is a terrible idea...
Posted by BakaliarosJrJr 1 year ago
BakaliarosJrJr
Military is useless, you have mess the point, i won't challenge you because i thing the answer is obvious for logical people.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
TyJack11xJevinighTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited more turns.