United States Branches of the Military and their Constitutional Wonkiness

[King Arts]

Where do you get that idea from what I wrote?

The commenting upon the dubious Constitutionality of the Air Force, Space Force, and Army is not the same thing as claiming we do not actually need an Air Force, Space Force, and Army or that having them is "a mistake".

I actually think we need all four... well three, frankly, I'd merge the Space Force and Air Force back together and rename it the Aerospace Force.

But I also would like to see a Constitutional amendment to allow Army procurement and and standup for more than two year timeframes thus updating the Constitution to what is actually needed for a modern military.

You are right about the Army. But Air Force and Space force are not covered by the Constitution so there is no limit for them being indefinite like the Navy.

 

[Husky_Khan]

You are right about the Army. But Air Force and Space force are not covered by the Constitution so there is no limit for them being indefinite like the Navy.

Why no mention of the Air Force or Space Force in the Constitution? That sounds like a serious oversight by the Founding Fathers. It seems like it'd be an obvious thing to bring up, at least to me.

 

[King Arts]

Why no mention of the Air Force or Space Force in the Constitution? That sounds like a serious oversight by the Founding Fathers. It seems like it'd be an obvious thing to bring up, at least to me.

I know, the founding father's were not infallible gods. They couldn't see the future, and since in the 1700's air planes and spaceships were not real things. They did not talk about it.

 

[King Arts]

I know @Husky_Khan it surprised me too when I learned about it in elementary school.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

You are right about the Army. But Air Force and Space force are not covered by the Constitution so there is no limit for them being indefinite like the Navy.

They’re not covered by the Constitution, therefore the federal government had no lawful authority to create them in the first place.

 

[King Arts]

They’re not covered by the Constitution, therefore the federal government had no lawful authority to create them in the first place.

The U.S. does not take a strict interpretation of the 10th ammendment. If it says nothing about something they will think they have the right to do it.

 

[Agent23]

TL;DR, heroic and based second amendment militia got put up against Peninsular War Veterans and were promptly steamrolled.

Edit: Apparently our lads were quite surprised by how quickly the American defence collapsed. After fighting the French in Spain it must have felt like a cakewalk in comparison.

If it was so easy why didn't you retake those pesky rebellious colonials?

 

[Husky_Khan]

If it was so easy why didn't you retake those pesky rebellious colonials?

Early 18th Century Britain could never sustain a huge War across the Ocean against a country with several hundred thousand in potential manpower even less divided (there were divisions in America) then it was during the Revolution, even without the specter of Napoleon hovering about.

It would've been extremely expensive in manpower and treasure and popular opinion and obviously didn't end when the Capitol was captured.

The Americans had their largest loss with the biggest Army they fielded in the opening of the American Revolution at the Battle of Washington Heights and resulting in the loss of New York City and that didn't end the Revolution of a much more fractured and younger country.

Brits obviously knew that and also knew it wasn't in their best interests to waffle about North America for vague "reasons" when Peace is more profitable.

British also never wanted to recapture America AFAIK. It was more about keeping them boxed up on the Eastern Seaboard like a prequel Ukraine.

 

[Scottty]

If it was so easy why didn't you retake those pesky rebellious colonials?

They didn't want to rule them again - just get them adopt British-style banking.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Early 18th Century Britain could never sustain a huge War across the Ocean against a country with several hundred thousand in potential manpower even less divided (there were divisions in America) then it was during the Revolution, even without the specter of Napoleon hovering about.

It would've been extremely expensive in manpower and treasure and popular opinion and obviously didn't end when the Capitol was captured.

The Americans had their largest loss with the biggest Army they fielded in the opening of the American Revolution at the Battle of Washington Heights and resulting in the loss of New York City and that didn't end the Revolution of a much more fractured and younger country.

Brits obviously knew that and also knew it wasn't in their best interests to waffle about North America for vague "reasons" when Peace is more profitable.

British also never wanted to recapture America AFAIK. It was more about keeping them boxed up on the Eastern Seaboard like a prequel Ukraine.

The colonies were lost in no small part thanks to the intransigence of Parliament. They were not retaken because, as you say, cost benefit analysis said otherwise. Indeed, in 1812 our war aims were probably more realistic than that of Americans!

 

[Agent23]

The colonies were lost in no small part thanks to the intransigence of Parliament. They were not retaken because, as you say, cost benefit analysis said otherwise. Indeed, in 1812 our war aims were probably more realistic than that of Americans!

Looks at the GDPs of the USA and UK rn and laughs.