Embedded Files
Being in the US military during the 1980s and 1990s, especially after the Cold War, meant a shift in focus from preparing for a large-scale conflict with the Soviet Union to participating in minor military operations and peacekeeping missions. scale all over the world. This period was characterized by a reduction in overall military spending and a reevaluation of military strategy to adapt to the changing global landscape. Many service members experienced deployments to regions such as the Balkans, the Middle East and Africa for humanitarian and peacekeeping missions. The military also underwent major restructuring and downsizing during this time. Overall, it was a period of transition and adjustment for the military as it adjusted to a new role in a post-Cold War world.
The military focused on high-intensity combat in Europe and Korea. everything else was a secondary issue, for example, Central America and the Middle East. The entire decade was spent restructuring from the H series TO&E to J/L, re-equipping with the 'Big 5' (MLRS, M1/2 IFV, M1 tank, AH-64, Patriot ADA).
The collapse of the Warsaw Pact in 1989 began the “peace dividend” and the beginning of the withdrawal/RIF in Germany, with units deactivated or transferred to Conus, and much flag changing. a process that was already underway until he hit the brakes in August 1990.
it was not an organization riddled with SJWs
How much stronger was the US military in the Cold War (late 1980s) than today?
How much stronger was the US military in the Cold War (late 1980s) than today?
In the 1980s, its perceived enemies were the Soviet Union and its satellites and countries like Iraq. In simple terms: large-scale conventional warfare. So weapons and platforms were built for that: tanks, fighter planes, submarines, aircraft carriers. But today their enemies are more diverse and so are their tasks. ISIS, Boko Haram, Houthis… all groups of insurgents who like to hide among the civilian population and in remote and difficult terrain. There is a hybrid war. Things like using the Internet for disinformation campaigns, election manipulation, and cyber attacks. Or arm rebel/insurgent groups to destabilize regions. In the 1980s, getting a remote-controlled long-range weapon was extremely difficult. But now you can buy a couple of jet skis, load them with explosives, and control them with an old phone and some parts you order from a Chinese website. The same goes for some flying drones. These are just a few examples of how the battlefield has changed. And with that, the US military has changed too. Its cyber division, for example, has grown exponentially. It has invested heavily in (small) drones, such as switchblades and reapers. APCs and IFVs are now more protected against FDI etc.
In the 1980s, its perceived enemies were the Soviet Union and its satellites and countries like Iraq. In simple terms: large-scale conventional warfare. So weapons and platforms were built for that: tanks, fighter planes, submarines, aircraft carriers. But today their enemies are more diverse and so are their tasks. ISIS, Boko Haram, Houthis… all groups of insurgents who like to hide among the civilian population and in remote and difficult terrain. There is a hybrid war. Things like using the Internet for disinformation campaigns, election manipulation, and cyber attacks. Or arm rebel/insurgent groups to destabilize regions. In the 1980s, getting a remote-controlled long-range weapon was extremely difficult. But now you can buy a couple of jet skis, load them with explosives, and control them with an old phone and some parts you order from a Chinese website. The same goes for some flying drones. These are just a few examples of how the battlefield has changed. And with that, the US military has changed too. Its cyber division, for example, has grown exponentially. It has invested heavily in (small) drones, such as switchblades and reapers. APCs and IFVs are now more protected against FDI etc.
Another factor to mention is the increasing cost of platforms due to increasing requirements. If you look at tanks, for example: they went from being bulletproof and requiring a machine to having enough armor to withstand artillery and gunfire from another tank, to integrated battlefield awareness systems, link systems data, period armor, a trophy system and anti-drone electronic warfare systems. We went from something that a couple of guys with a welder could assemble in their garage to a machine that takes 20 years to develop and requires hundreds of subcontractors and a legion of engineers and scientists. For that money, you get a platform that is more capable and has better protection against a variety of threats, but at a much higher price. And therefore, it is produced in smaller quantities.
Another factor to mention is the increasing cost of platforms due to increasing requirements. If you look at tanks, for example: they went from being bulletproof and requiring a machine to having enough armor to withstand artillery and gunfire from another tank, to integrated battlefield awareness systems, link systems data, period armor, a trophy system and anti-drone electronic warfare systems. We went from something that a couple of guys with a welder could assemble in their garage to a machine that takes 20 years to develop and requires hundreds of subcontractors and a legion of engineers and scientists. For that money, you get a platform that is more capable and has better protection against a variety of threats, but at a much higher price. And therefore, it is produced in smaller quantities.
So overall, the US military is not weaker, but rather has fewer weapons and platforms, but more capable and with greater diversity.
Page updated
Report abuse