All right, this, in part, was a test. I've learned one thing about the new site from it: the required preview is gone, and, apparently, there's no way to edit your own post.

So, treat this as a continuation.

While some say the military role should not be more than "defend the continental United States against direct attack," that can bring in boondoggles such as the National Ballistic Missile Defense (NBMD) system, also known as the ground-based midcourse intercept system, and sometimes loosely called "Star Wars". Theater ballistic missile defense (TBMD) is quite another animal, with both a better track record in tests and a much more flexible and plausibly useful mission. NBMD, however, is able only to defend against a very limited ICBM attack, which mostly means rogue attacks from North Korea or China (if the latter doesn't fire all its missiles). Iran is far from ICBM capability. Russia could easily overwhelm NBMD.

TBMD can be used against shorter-ranged threats, by both US forces and by allies we trust with it. A good example is protecting Japan against North Korean threats, reducing Israel's paranoia about Iran, or, if both sides were carefully given equal capability, turning down the heat between India and Pakistan.

There are two operational pure US system, SM-3 on ships and PAC-3 on land. SM-3 is somewhat more flexible, but both work. There is also the Arrow, jointly developed with Israel, that complements PAC-3. Israel, for all its trumpeting, has the two-level defense system of Arrow and PAC-3.

Moving to other missions, there are such things as Noncombatant Evacuation Operations (NEO), which have taken place many times. Typically, there's a civil war or coup in a third-world country, the Embassy is under direct threat, and US and allied citizens have no way to get out. NEOs typically secure the embassy, take out the civilians, and, if appropriate, destroy sensitive facilities before the troops leave.

I don't suggest that the US needs to be part of every coalition operation, some of which are of dubious value. Nevertheless, I would prefer to see it be the exception rather than the rule for the US to operate as the sole country in a military action. Ironically, Afghanistan was the first case where a NATO country activated the treaty mutual defense feature as a result of a direct attack. Iraq, however, in no way was a NATO operation.



There are people here, however, that demand massive military cuts, but won't say where they should be, or will say simplistic things like "defend the continental US against direct attack." In that case, Pearl Harbor, get ready for the sequel.

When I've asked for suggestions about roles and missions, I usually get what comes across as a hostile demand that I propose them. Realistically, even a basic set of such is a substantial effort, requires some familiarity with the military to understand, and may not be something that can be drawn up in a blog format that doesn't allow cooperative markup of a document.



So, Vast Listening Audience, is the idea of asking for roles and missions, rather than simplistic military budget cuts, an exercise in blog futility, or perhaps something that can be asked of candidates. In the latter case, there might well be some classified aspects, and there also needs to be contingency plans & resources for things that were not predicted.