Obama Defense Policy:

Bish,

In this country, if you don't fund a program to the level you said you would, even though it is more than the year before, we call it a cut in budget. I'm not sure what we would call a budget that is less than the year before. It has never happened before!! :erm:

As for the F-22, there are several reasons we need more of them:

1) It is not only the replacement for the F-15 in the air-to-air role (which by the way was grounded recently because they were breaking apart just behind the cockpit), but it is also the replacement for the F-117 (which has been retired already) in the stealth interdiction role. Now, if memory serves, the F-117 played a huge role in the Iraq and Bosnian campaign.

2) About 5 or 6 years ago, we deployed some F-15s to India to participate in their war games. Our F-15s flew against their SU-30 Flankers and they waxed our asses. That was a real eye opener for the USAF.

3) We have already paid for the R&D costs. This is like going to a buy one get one free sale and saying no thank you to the second item.

4) In light of the fact that the F-22 will be our front line Air-to-air fighter as well as our front line Air interdiction fighter, these will be in very high demand when the next confrontation takes place, even before the shooting starts. That will be a high ops tempo not only for the airplane but also the few pilots that fly them.

As for the combat Search And Rescue (SAR) helicopters, I'm not sure what was proposed, but the V-22 would be an excellent idea that I would support whole heartedly. We should be upgrading in this area.

I'm OK with canceling the Marine one helicopter. They need to figure out what they want before they try to build it next time. That was a waste of money.

I won't speak to the Navy destroyers or the Future Combat Systems since I am not an expert in these areas, but I will say that as a rule, the Army gets shafted again and again on these programs.

If you want to save defense money, keep these congressmen from going to the Pentagon and telling the Generals that they will buy X and by the way, you will buy these X's from my buddy's company with no questions asked.
 
MrBishop said:
That's what you had before all this went down..and it wasn't 'enough'.
You had Saddam stuck in his little country, not able to project his power beyond his borders...but Bush decided to stick his nose in. :shrug:
Click to expand...

It's also what we thought we had with Al Qaida in Afghanistan back in 2000.
 
Altron,

You should read Clauswitz's book "On War". He breaks down the art of war like Tsun Tsu with out all the eastern gobbledy gook about reeds bending in the wind against the enemy crap.

In there he talks about laying out your strategic goals. i.e. what is the political objective that you want to achieve by going to war. He makes the point that the strategic goal must not be defensive i.e. maintain the status quo, since that would be a war which by definition you can only lose. Vietnam and Korea had defensive strategies. We lost in Vietnam and the Korean war is still on going.

After Iraq, I have concluded that the strategic goal must not depend on someone else either. That was a huge flaw in Iraq. Bush's strategy was to have the Iraqis set up a democratic government. That is a strategy that we have little control over. Now, if we had said that the strategy was to remove Sodamn Insane and remove all WMDs, that would have been achieveable.

Anyway, it is a good book that has withstood the test of time. It should be mandatory reading for all Presidents!!
 
Frodo said:
It's also what we thought we had with Al Qaida in Afghanistan back in 2000.
Click to expand...
You armed and supported a group in order to stop the Russians..then dropped them like a hot potato and then didn't expect them to come and bite you back in the ass at some later date. Same way as you armed Saddam to protect against the Iranians..and that's another clean-up in Aisle 3 to take care of.

Breed an attack dog..expect to get bitten. Just don't act surprised when it happens.
 
Clausewitz is still dated, Frodo. Easier to understand than Tsu - I'll ahve to find the title of anotehr book that I read a few years ago. More modern yet..and touches on electronic & economic warfare as well.
 
Frodo said:
Altron,

You should read Clauswitz's book "On War". He breaks down the art of war like Tsun Tsu with out all the eastern gobbledy gook about reeds bending in the wind against the enemy crap.{snip}
Anyway, it is a good book that has withstood the test of time. It should be mandatory reading for all Presidents!!
Click to expand...

Here's the eBook
Gutenberg Project - legal copy - text only.
 
Thanks for the link Bish and the suggestion Frodo. I've read Sun Tzu but I've never read this one. Bish, I would suggest to you that many of the abstracts touched on by Sun Tzu apply to all kinds of war, even economic or electronic.
 
In light of the recent North Korean missile tests, and the fact that Iran is now running 7,000 uranium enrichment centrifuges, why does the Obamaloon want to cut back on our military defense systems? Starting with us, why does he want to reduce and eventually completely eradicate nuclear weapons -- but apparently not the ones the countries that are apt to use them have?

The only thing that prevents Russia, China and other totalitarian states from overrunning Europe and Asia is the knowledge of the "big stick" the United States possesses in nuclear weapons. The United States could never trust nations like Russia, China, Pakistan, and Iran to the extent it would take for us to completely destroy our nuclear arsenal.

Thanks, again, Obots. :shrug:
 
With all due respect, Cerise...what is the use of having enough nuclear weapons to destroy all life on Earth 1000 times over when being able to do so 100 times over is far more than enough?
 
The point is to spread out our arsenal, so that a targeted attack could never eliminate our nuclear assault program. That's why we need silos all across the US, and submarine nuclear weapons as well. With that much redundancy, there's no single location that could be destroyed in order to prevent American missile launches.
 
chcr said:
Thanks for the link Bish and the suggestion Frodo. I've read Sun Tzu but I've never read this one. Bish, I would suggest to you that many of the abstracts touched on by Sun Tzu apply to all kinds of war, even economic or electronic.
Click to expand...
..and business. I've heard that it's required reading for corporate leaders.

I've read it on a few occasions..a really well written piece of work, but it's application in modern warfare is entirely based on subjective thinking. With enough interpretation added, the farmer's almanac could probably be used to solve the global economic crisis. Seasonal investment, use of supplies, saving for a rainy day etc... ;)

I'm not trying to dismiss his thinking in any way, but warfare and weaponry has changed dramatically. ie. Sun Tsu didn't discuss much range weaponry, and certainly not enough to touch on WMDs like nuclear weapons and their use as deterrents. Even Clausewitz doesn't stray far from the organized meeting of two uniformed armies, though he does spend more time on what it means to win/lose/tie and the reasons why to go to war and why not to go to war. While Tsu assumes that the war is inevitable and talks about how to attain victory despite strong opposition. (Very strategy oriented).
 
Altron said:
The point is to spread out our arsenal, so that a targeted attack could never eliminate our nuclear assault program. That's why we need silos all across the US, and submarine nuclear weapons as well. With that much redundancy, there's no single location that could be destroyed in order to prevent American missile launches.
Click to expand...
No Altron..the point for having so many is to never have to use them. To make mutually assured destruction be so 'front of mind' that it deters all sides (including yours) from even contemplating actually using the damn things.

If 100x total-destruction is good, 500x must be better and 1000x better still. Right?
 
Altron said:
The point is to spread out our arsenal, so that a targeted attack could never eliminate our nuclear assault program. That's why we need silos all across the US, and submarine nuclear weapons as well. With that much redundancy, there's no single location that could be destroyed in order to prevent American missile launches.
Click to expand...

Do you honestly find MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) a viable (or even remotely sane for that matter) defense strategy?

BTW, you are aware are you not that most of those ICBM silos to which you refer were actually decommissioned decades ago. I know somebody who used to live in one.
 
MrBishop said:
With all due respect, Cerise...what is the use of having enough nuclear weapons to destroy all life on Earth 1000 times over when being able to do so 100 times over is far more than enough?
Click to expand...

Not to harp on an obscure point, but anyone who believes that really shouldn't have the right to vote. Every nuke on earth isn`t enough to destroy all life on earth even once. Destroy all humans on earth, probably. (frankly, I`m hard pressed to see that as a bad thing) But for some reason I doubt that the shrimp and sea worms living on the black smokers at the bottom of the ocean will be significantly impressed with our efforts. Hell, I doubt we could even manage to wipe out all the mammals, let alone tag all the land based life for the worse. Might even find a few that evolve and thrive .... and suffer an environmental crisis of their own as the radiation subsides.


But then, in dealing with fundamentalist muslims, we deal from a position of weakness. They've got no problem losing a city of their own to take out on of ours. 'cept Mecca, naturally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top