[nikos1121]

Peggy, you're a great writer and we love ya...but I don't think you could possibly have the information that the pentagon has with regard to base closings shifting of our troops here and world wide.

I'm sure there is a lot of redundancy that may actually put at greater risk as we are spread too thin...

[JamesP81]

I'm sure there is a lot of redundancy that may actually put at greater risk as we are spread too thin

Well, maybe. Modern conventional weapons and nuclear weapons are so destructive, however, that it is advantageous to be dispersed, where one strike doesn't get everyone.

A similar thing happened to cavalry with the invention of firearms. Cavalry was so effective because troops armed with spears, swords, and the like stood in rigid ranks and their ability to fight hinged on their ability to hold formation. Cavalry could disrupt these formations, thus diluting the formations firepower catastrophically. However, firearms made it possible for forces to operate dispersed but still concentrate their fire, and all that was needed for this was some basic communication. When this happened, cavalry quickly found itself with no lines to break; they could attack infantry but instead of breaking up their formation they would simply ride into the middle of the dispersed infantry and be massacred by a crossfire.

It's a function of how much you can concentrate your dispersed firepower and how quickly it can be done. And that depends on having good command and control. The US military has the best C&C in the world. I think largely dispersed, with a few large nodal reaction forces, would be the best way for us to be positioned.