From: randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Mission for the U.S. Military
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:39:24 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences


From randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton)

>In article <Bvyqqp.5vt@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) writes:

>Discussing cuts without discussing missions is useless. First you
>define what missions you want the military to carry out, then you
>can start structuring and costing the forces necessary to carry
>out those missions. 

O.K.  Fair criticism.  Here is my first attempt.  Please feel free to
correct my mistakes.  After all, I've never been a mission planner
before.

For the purpose of this, I consider that no NATO nation could likely
become an emeny in the next 10 years.  However, I do consider Russia
and China and Iran potential enemies.  I do not consider it reasonable
that the CIS will reunite in the next 10 years.

I Think the U.S. military should be able to ...

- Fight a strategic nuclear war at a moments notice.  This will help
deter the any first strike against us.  I don't expect to win, just
maybe kill the guys who started it.

- Greatly lessen the results of any small nuclear strike by some third
world crackpot with a few balistic missiles and nuclear warheads.  I
don't expect to be able to stop every warhead from a force the size of
China's, but stopping 90% (or 50% or so) would be awfully nice.  As
far as I know, this capability is many years away, depending on SDI
funding.

- Keep track of all major military units in the world, so that we can
spot in buildups quickly, and hopefully act appropriately.

- Deploy a quick reaction force (maybe division sized) to any spot in
the world in 48 hours.  (Do we have the airlift to do this now?)

- Get a carrier battle group within strike range of any piece of coast
within a 'few days'.  Since I don't expect to send only one carrier
against an Air Force the size of Lybia's, or the former Iraqi air
force, I also want THREE carrier battle groups to be able to converge to
any one spot in two weeks.  I don't mind if this strips the
neighboring seas of carriers.

- Be able to throw a naval blockade around any other nation, and make
it stick.  For a nation the size of China, I don't mind if it takes
two weeks to get it set.  For a nation the size of Liberia, I'd like
it in a 'few days'.

- Have no other nation, or combination of two of them, be able to
blockade America's ports.  This includes the ability to defend against
enemy submarines.  I will accept some shipping losses to submarines
against either China or Russia, but not to the extent that the oil
stops flowing to America.  Further, I consider China and Russia to
each be two nations for this clause.  (Note.  I believe that most oil
headed to America comes from either Alaska, Latin America, or Nigeria.
I don't think it comes from the Persian Gulf.)

- Fight a war the size of Desert Storm, even if it is as far away as
the Persian Gulf, assuming that some neighbor provides us with the
necessary bases.  I'd like the mobilization to occur no slower than
the last Desert Storm.

- Have the reserves to fight a sustained, large-scale war about the
size of Vietnam or Korea.

So, what do you think?  I'm sure I've left some capability out, but
have I included too much?  Further, I assume that the current military
can do all of these things.  Am I right?
Newsgroups: sci.military