Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
The post that caught my attention, which prompted my response, is this:  "America needs to maintain at least a core network for evacuation and troop transport, in the event natural or military conditions prevent airplanes from flying". Moving large numbers of troops by trains ala WW II probably is not a key component of U.S. military plans for going to war.  Moving them by air to the potential points of conflict is the primary method of moving troops today. Clearly, if significant amounts of heavy equipment need to be moved to seaports for deployment overseas, railroads are ideally positioned to handle the task as long as the homeland is not under attack.  However, if the homeland is under attack by a force with air and naval superiority, the rail system, as the Germans found out during WW II, is likely to be neutered.   Once the Allies got ashore in Normandy, their move inland was supported largely by trucks.  The French rail system was largely ourt of service, due in no small measure to concentrated bombing by the Allied air forces.  If a rail line gets blow to bits, especially if a key bridge is knocked out, it is difficult to repair it quickly.  But if a highway is cratered, including knocking out key bridges, military trucks and track vehicles can take off through the fields, ford shallow streams, or cross on pontoon bridges that can be thrown up quickly. Also, the U.S. military has staged equipment near potential hot spots as opposed to keeping it in the U.S.  Thus, prior to the current situation in Iraq, the U.S. had staged significant amounts of equipment in Middle East countries near Iraq.  This has also long been the case in Europe.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag