Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kingfisher1112]

Well, you're rarely building infrastructure in the middle of a war zone when you're doing development work. Plus, if your argument for maintaining an army is that we need to build bridge in Africa, you agree that we don't need tanks, or a real air force, or a navy? that's plenty of money that can be saved.

Air Force can drop supplies and generally airlift a lot of stuff.
Navy: Patrol waters, helps with seizing any illegal goods or smugglers, and helps with blowing illegal ships out of the water.
And besides, combat engineers are useful for building stuff quick. Do any of you actually have any knowledge of what the role of a combat engineer is?

What countries do you think we are helping here?
I mean we pretty much support the Asia-Pacific region, but it doesn't have much military conflict going on right now. The Middle East and parts of Africa that are torn with war lords we are staying out of for the moment.

Doesn't stop the fact that there IS conflict in these regions, just not that much. Still, it helps to pack expertise.

[Blargityblarg]

Do any of you actually have any knowledge of what the role of a combat engineer is?

Gentlemen, I think we have found the root of this discussion.

[kingfisher1112]

Do any of you actually have any knowledge of what the role of a combat engineer is?

Gentlemen, I think we have found the root of this discussion.

Well, do you?

[Reelya]

So combat engineers who would otherwise do nothing being sent to do stuff is less effective then engineers here building infrastructure here and are under the command of private companies who have no interests in small, poor nations?

No they wouldn't be doing nothing, they would have civilian jobs. Remember, the idea is to not have these positions in the first place.
You aren't very good at this, are you?

Lol, Max, you're right. The argument was extremely circular: we need combat engineers because they have to build infrastructure in poor countries. And we need to send them to build infrastructure in poor countries because otherwise they won't have anything to do!

Not that there aren't arguments to have an engineering corp, just the above line of argument to justify them fails on logic grounds.

Obviously my point was that paying a private contractor to properly build serious infrastructure is better than sending army guys who are trained to build temporary constructions to do the same job. If you're going to spend the money to send the guys to do the job, whether army or private, the private guys will be more cost-effective and they build that stuff for a living.

[Max White]

Well we could debate over our own definitions like little morons arguing over whos dad beats the other dad in a fight, or we could get a source.
http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/army/jobs/combatengineer/

Assists in construction of temporary roads, bypasses and fords.
Digs drains and constructs culverts.
Erects bridges using both equipment and non-equipment components.
Constructs and operates rafts and ferries.
Constructs field defences and wire obstacles.
Lays, arms, neutralises, disarms and removes mines and booby traps.
Conducts demolition tasks.
Constructs and operates field machines.
Operates boats.
Produces potable water using water purification equipment.
Carries out concreting tasks.
Uses and maintains power tools.

Oh hey look, nothing that might be useful like agriculture or housing. Ok some some would be useful like bridges, but for the most part they care about maintaining and advancing an army, not helping a populas.
I really would rather send a civilian engineer over.

[kingfisher1112]

So combat engineers who would otherwise do nothing being sent to do stuff is less effective then engineers here building infrastructure here and are under the command of private companies who have no interests in small, poor nations?

No they wouldn't be doing nothing, they would have civilian jobs. Remember, the idea is to not have these positions in the first place.
You aren't very good at this, are you?

Lol, Max, you're right. The argument was extremely circular: we need combat engineers because they have to build infrastructure in poor countries. And we need to send them to build infrastructure in poor countries because otherwise they won't have anything to do!

Are you paying attention? Civilian engineers are employed by private corporations. Combat engineers are not. It costs less in foreign aid to send military personnel than hire civilian personnel to do so.

[Reelya]

You really think it's cheaper to deploy full military than to hire a contractor? The amount of outsourcing the army does would state otherwise. Mostly, any engineering the army does would be a byproduct of peacekeeping missions, not a thing where it's cheaper to have the army do it than contractors.

If the army really was cheaper than contractors, people would pay the army to engineer stuff. They don't.

[kingfisher1112]

You really think it's cheaper to deploy full military than to hire a contractor? The amount of outsourcing the army does would state otherwise.

Please state where I said we were going to deploy 50,000+ men for foreign aid?

[Reelya]

Please read my edit: If the army really did engineering cheaper, then we'd contract them out for money. Since we're not doing that, it's unlikely that they're more cost-effective than hiring a professional construction firm.

[Max White]

Please state where I said we were going to deploy 50,000+ men for foreign aid?

Wasn't... Wasn't the very premise of this argument that you think we need more men for foreign aid? Isn't that the very corner stone of your point?

[Reelya]

You really think it's cheaper to deploy full military than to hire a contractor? The amount of outsourcing the army does would state otherwise.

Please state where I said we were going to deploy 50,000+ men for foreign aid?

Army dudes don't travel singular. But i never said 50,000. Even individually they're more expensive - for what you get - than a specialist construction company.

[kingfisher1112]

Please read my edit: If the army really did engineering cheaper, then we'd contract them out for money. Since we're not doing that, it's unlikely that they're more cost-effective than hiring a professional construction firm.

You really do not know what a combat engineer is about, do you? They do not construct water piping. Nor power plants. They are not full engineers. They build roads. Chop trees. Make airfields. Field works. Stuff that is cheap to make. Hiring a construction firm for roads, airfields, and other such things when you have fully capable and trained men, with more specialised equipment for doing these tasks more cheaply, is stupid.

You really think it's cheaper to deploy full military than to hire a contractor? The amount of outsourcing the army does would state otherwise.

Please state where I said we were going to deploy 50,000+ men for foreign aid?

Army dudes don't travel singular. But i never said 50,000. Even individually they're more expensive - for what you get - than a specialist construction company.

Go out and hire a professional engineer if they are so cheap. No? Can't afford them? It's like the difference between a builder and a plumber/electrician. Sure, electricity and water sure is nice, but an actual house is what we need.

Please state where I said we were going to deploy 50,000+ men for foreign aid?

Wasn't... Wasn't the very premise of this argument that you think we need more men for foreign aid? Isn't that the very corner stone of your point?

See before, defence from future conflict, and blowing illegal immigrants out of the water.

[Max White]

See before, defence from future conflict, and blowing illegal immigrants out of the water.

Yes exactly! See before; I have already pointed out that a large standing military for possible future needs is stupid. That was why you decided to point out that we need them now, instead of later.
Now that we have established that we don't need them now, you go back to trying to insist we get them for the future.

You can't just jump from state to state and disregard anything we have already established, or we all just go around in circles.

[kingfisher1112]

See before, defence from future conflict, and blowing illegal immigrants out of the water.

Yes exactly! See before; I have already pointed out that a large standing military for possible future needs is stupid. That was why you decided to point out that we need them now, instead of later.
Now that we have established that we don't need them now, you go back to trying to insist we get them for the future.

You can't just jump from state to state and disregard anything we have already established, or we all just go around in circles.

Rigghhttt. A large standing army is useless? Ahem.
Denmark, Belgium, The Netherlands. All swallowed up in WW2. All had little military strength. Plenty of people in history have been steamrolled thinking that they needed next to no standing army. What happens when, say, China decides Taiwan has been independent for too long? Hmm? We will sit by as the world dips into war? What about NK right now?

[Max White]

What about NK right now?
What are they going to do? You think they can actually field any sort of real war front? They would be better off dropping all military efforts in favor of actually supporting their own country.

We can't stem our economy just to be prepared for imaginary conflicts.