You just gotta love how US military say everything openly and in their reports. In particular, it has a forecast of US casualties and mobilization reserves in a conflict of this level.
Thesis:
- military doctors project a [KIA and WIA] casualty rate for the US Armed Forces of 3,600\day.
- The combat replenishment rate is 25% or 800 troops per day.
- In 20 years of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. has lost about 50,000 people.
In a conflict of the Ukrainian level, the U.S. would suffer such losses in 2 weeks.
- The recruitment shortage is a major problem.
- every soldier not recruited today is a strategic mobility asset [IRR or reservists] that the US will not have in 2031**
- IRR was 700K in 1973, 450K in 1994, now at 76K.
- These numbers will not make up for the projected losses.
- the 70’s concept of contract forces is outdated and does not fit the current operational environment.
- The needs of the U.S. Armed Forces for a Ukrainian-level war require a transition to conscription.
“this method of war can only be sustained by constant replacement of troops”
bu bu mah asiatic hordes 😭
Surely they could just…I don’t know…not start any more wars? That would fix all their manpower shortages and logistics problems instantly.
Somehow I feel like they would rather go through 100 Ukraine wars rather than that though.
If they remove the bases around the globe, the vassals might start getting ideas
Surely they could just…I don’t know…not start any more wars?
That’s the neat thing. They couldn’t, if they don’t want to collapse.
military doctors project a [KIA and WIA] casualty rate for the US Armed Forces of 3,600\day.
So they project this level of losses for US Armed Forces based on the Ukraine war, so considering USAF being better armed, this means they estimate (or even know) the AFU losses are much higher? Isn’t that even higher than Russian estimations of AFU losses?
The alternate interpretation is that both countries are holding back their True Strength™ of Even More Deadly Weapons™
Caught!
deleted by creator
I don’t see any way that conscription would be a viable option. Nobody wants to go back to that. Vietnam killed it and GWOT is keeping it fresh in the minds of younger generations.
If the bourgeoisie see it is in their best interests, I can see it being a last resort.
some good old propaganda and this mfers will be smiling while they do it. for a couple years at least
Why has recruitment dropped so much? I can understand Americans being reluctant to join the CIA, FBI and NSA. But the US army is still revered by many, and it has many perks.
Anecdotally: I’ve run into a fair amount of veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars who are very vocal in their opinion that nobody should join the military right now. This isn’t necessarily because they oppose US imperialism; some veterans do oppose it, but they’ve often ovecorrected and become extreme pacifists and Leo Tolstoy types. Most of the anti-military veterans I’ve met are actually rather proud of their “service,” but they think the military is corrupt, the wars are unwinnable, and the common enlisted man is treated like shit. A former special forces guy I sort of know peripherally told me once, matter-of-factly, at a gathering we were both at: “in the the military, an attractive woman knows exactly the amount of value she has.” Voices like these carry a lot of weight in the small towns and rural areas from which recruits are largely drawn.
They have extreme enlistment requirements. For example, if you have ADHD, Autism, or depression in any form, even if you have treatment or are completely the same as a nuerotypical person, you are still barred entry.
Same goes for any form of drug use. A whole list of genetic or physical issues, and so on. They’ve limited their pool significantly.
depression and drug use, physical issues
lmao, so basically no usian can make in, psychological problems are sky rocketing because of shit living conditions + fentanyl addicts + people with diseases from low quality food like high blood pressure or diabetes.
speaking serious now, i fucking bet that in case a war breaks out, they will lift these restrictions immediately and send the “undesirables” to die, with the exception of prisoners jails are private and having people release could result in profit loss.
They’ve already done that.
Look up “McNamara’s Morons”. The US lifted those restrictions during the Vietnam war, and those units had a casualty rate of nearly 3 times that of standard units.
didn’t knew that, thanks comrade
You’re welcome! Happy to help!
MacNamara’s Morons
Every time i get to know something new about USA, it’s yet another marg bar moment.
It just keeps getting better and better doesn’t it?
And I’m still wondering how could there be people who know these things, who know about Tuskegee trials, MOVE bombing, fuckin Bonus Army - and still cheer for USA, or at least “liberal democracy”. But nope, somehow in their mind USSR is still worse
Holy shit, I never expected there ti be an actual RL explanation for Forrest Gump and Bubba
Yep, they were part of Project 100,000, if you also notice during those scenes, the other men in their platoon have some physical disabilities, alcoholism, poor eyesight, under/overweight, and other “McNamara” traits.
Well, good. Here’s hoping the numbers keep dropping.
If US troops are deployed doesn’t that risk nuclear war?
It certainly would, and to be clear we’re already at the highest risk of a nuclear war than at any point in history.
I don’t think it is sensible to talk about having a Ukrainian level war without also having the Ukrainian scenario or context i.e. being invaded by a next door neighbor with a powerful military.
I feel like there are a whole bunch of important tactics lessons to be learned, like dealing with small grenade dropping drones, but the way that the United States conducts war is pretty different.
If the United States somehow found itself needing to repel and invasion, it is pretty obvious that enlistment rates would suddenly be very different.
Context matters.
US military doesn’t focus on fantasy scenarios though. Their interest is in real world scenarios where US is the invader.
Exactly. So why waste time deciding on conscripted soldiers for a fantasy Ukrainian scenario?
What you evidently missed here is that this is discussing what’s currently happening to the Ukrainian army and their losses. That’s what they’re making their projections based on.
You evidently missed my point which is that the situation for the Ukrainian people is unique to them. The whole What If That Was Us is pure speculative fantasy and not useful.
Except that’s not true at all, what the paper shows is what US can expect if it finds itself in a direct conflict with a peer competitor. Given that US continues trying to provoke a war with China, that’s not that speculative of a scenario.
If the United States somehow found itself needing to repel and invasion, it is pretty obvious that enlistment rates would suddenly be very different.
That is a very big “if”, keeping in mind that the US has not seen a war on its mainland since 1865.
Agreed. Plus it wouldn’t be remotely comparable.
Ukraine provoked such a invasion for 8 years straight. It wasn’t russian troops doing ethnic cleansing in Donbas.
but the way that the United States conducts war is pretty different
Nah, see. I agree with this bit. Because Ukraine is exactly how United States conducts war - by having someone else do it, while the wall street filth laugh and clink their wine glasses, assured in their own safety and proud of such profitable investment