PDA

View Full Version : America's Dangerous Rush to Shrink Its Military Power



megimoo
12-27-2010, 05:59 AM
From the president on down through his secretary of defense, the service secretaries, and a cast of generals whose decorations would choke an alpine meadow with color, we are told that further reductions in American military power are warranted and unavoidable.

This view is supported by the left, the right that unwisely fears accounting more than war, by most of the press, the academy, and perhaps a majority of Americans, and it is demonstrably and dangerously wrong.

Based upon nothing and ignoring the cautionary example of World War II, we are told that we will never face two major enemies..

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703727804576017513713585854.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion#printMode

djones520
12-27-2010, 06:22 AM
What is he talking about?

Rockntractor
12-27-2010, 08:37 AM
What is he talking about?

This is a wall street Journal article talking about how the president of the United States Is Cutting back our military.

djones520
12-27-2010, 08:46 AM
This is a wall street Journal article talking about how the president of the United States Is Cutting back our military.

It's a WSJ Op Ed peice that had no references at all from what I saw. Maybe I missed something, but all that came up for me was the three paragraphs that Megi linked. There was no mention of any specific cut backs or anything. I did a pretty good check of current stories from various sites as well and found nothing at all, nor have I heard anything in the military channels about proposed cuts, outside of things like the pay freeze and etc.

So what am I missing here?

Rockntractor
12-27-2010, 08:58 AM
It's a WSJ Op Ed peice that had no references at all from what I saw. Maybe I missed something, but all that came up for me was the three paragraphs that Megi linked. There was no mention of any specific cut backs or anything. I did a pretty good check of current stories from various sites as well and found nothing at all, nor have I heard anything in the military channels about proposed cuts, outside of things like the pay freeze and etc.

So what am I missing here?

I can't fill you in on two years of budget cuts and downsizing, I thought you got the same news as everyone else.

djones520
12-27-2010, 09:05 AM
I can't fill you in on two years of budget cuts and downsizing, I thought you got the same news as everyone else.

Ummm... DoD budget has increased over the last two years and it's expected to continue increasing over the next couple. So what cuts?

And there has been no downsizing. The Army and Marines were approved in 2007 for a five year increase in troop strength of the scale of 100,000. The Air Force and Navy have received some "cuts" to personnel, but that is because they where over what they were already allowed to have, and have been cutting back to meet their mandated manpower totals.

Rockntractor
12-27-2010, 09:19 AM
Ummm... DoD budget has increased over the last two years and it's expected to continue increasing over the next couple. So what cuts?

And there has been no downsizing. The Army and Marines were approved in 2007 for a five year increase in troop strength of the scale of 100,000. The Air Force and Navy have received some "cuts" to personnel, but that is because they where over what they were already allowed to have, and have been cutting back to meet their mandated manpower totals.

No missile defense cuts, no missile cuts, no cutbacks on fighter planes? How is the big cost of living raise working out for you. You are the first military person I have heard defend Obama in this way.

djones520
12-27-2010, 09:27 AM
No missile defense cuts, no missile cuts, no cutbacks on fighter planes? How is the big cost of living raise working out for you. You are the first military person I have heard defend Obama in this way.

2011 budget has money for a missile defense system, and there have been no cutbacks made on Fighters under the Obama administration. 2011 is ending the F-35 alternate engine production, but that is because no one wanted it, and it was a waste of money.

And COLA is determined by the strength of the local economy. Since the economy has been shit, and cost of living has shrunk, so has COLA. It's like that stateside or overseas. In Japan whenever the Yen devalued to the dollar, we'd get less COLA. Whenever it strengthened, we'd get more.

But in the end, budgets have still risen, and troop strengths have still risen as well. Programs get cut all the time in the DoD, that doesn't matter whose sitting in the Oval Office. What matters is that we have the money we need to keep the fight going, and we are getting that.

I'm not defending Obama with any of this. I'm just stating the facts.

Rockntractor
12-27-2010, 09:45 AM
2011 budget has money for a missile defense system, and there have been no cutbacks made on Fighters under the Obama administration. 2011 is ending the F-35 alternate engine production, but that is because no one wanted it, and it was a waste of money.

And COLA is determined by the strength of the local economy. Since the economy has been shit, and cost of living has shrunk, so has COLA. It's like that stateside or overseas. In Japan whenever the Yen devalued to the dollar, we'd get less COLA. Whenever it strengthened, we'd get more.

But in the end, budgets have still risen, and troop strengths have still risen as well. Programs get cut all the time in the DoD, that doesn't matter whose sitting in the Oval Office. What matters is that we have the money we need to keep the fight going, and we are getting that.

I'm not defending Obama with any of this. I'm just stating the facts.

The treaty he pushed through stopped missile defense.

djones520
12-27-2010, 09:53 AM
The treaty he pushed through stopped missile defense.



3. Each Party shall not convert and shall not use ICBM
launchers and SLBM launchers for placement of missile defense
interceptors therein. Each Party further shall not convert
and shall not use launchers of missile defense interceptors
for placement of ICBMs and SLBMs therein. This provision
shall not apply to ICBM launchers that were converted prior to
signature of this Treaty for placement of missile defense
interceptors therein

So... we can't put our missile defence system in our ICBM bunkers. That hardly stops missile defense. That is the only part of the START treaty that touches on Missile Defense.

Rockntractor
12-27-2010, 10:02 AM
So... we can't put our missile defence system in our ICBM bunkers. That hardly stops missile defense. That is the only part of the START treaty that touches on Missile Defense.

Obama good ,I know I read DU too.

megimoo
12-27-2010, 12:45 PM
Obama good ,I know I read DU too.Young Mr.Jones see's what he wants to see in what he reads and disregards the rest !

Novaheart
12-27-2010, 12:57 PM
Young Mr.Jones see's what he wants to see in what he reads and disregards the rest !

I can almost hear Mark Levin's grating nasty whine when you post.

megimoo
12-27-2010, 01:12 PM
I can almost hear Mark Levin's grating nasty whine when you post.
Thank you for that .When you post I read the whine of the pro queer lobby loud and queer ! BTW Where did you hide out when NU first went belly up and what did you do with your running mate Fruit n Nuts ?

Odysseus
12-27-2010, 01:22 PM
So... we can't put our missile defence system in our ICBM bunkers. That hardly stops missile defense. That is the only part of the START treaty that touches on Missile Defense.

That dramatically restricts our emplacement of them. The bunkers provided the same protection to the interceptors that they did for the missiles that used to be in them, a critical issue with missile defences.

The Russians were desperate to prevent deployment of any anti-missile shield because they saw it as a statement to their former satellites, a challenge to their very lucrative trade in missile technology and nuclrear weapons development expertise, and a reminder of the fall of the USSR. They went so far as to tie SDI to everything else that they did, raising the subject at every bilateral ebent between the US and Russia, even those that had nothing to do with defense, and even interrupting other speakers in order to make thier dislike ofr missile shields known.

Zathras
12-27-2010, 01:40 PM
I can almost hear Mark Levin's grating nasty whine when you post.

And we can almost see you drooling on your keyboard each and every time you post your idiotic bullshit.

megimoo
12-27-2010, 02:12 PM
That dramatically restricts our emplacement of them. The bunkers provided the same protection to the interceptors that they did for the missiles that used to be in them, a critical issue with missile defences.

The Russians were desperate to prevent deployment of any anti-missile shield because they saw it as a statement to their former satellites, a challenge to their very lucrative trade in missile technology and nuclrear weapons development expertise, and a reminder of the fall of the USSR. They went so far as to tie SDI to everything else that they did, raising the subject at every bilateral ebent between the US and Russia, even those that had nothing to do with defense, and even interrupting other speakers in order to make thier dislike ofr missile shields known.
Russia has long feared Americas technical ability to make anything they design work as advertised.

When Reagan first announced ABM missile defense the soviet party followers all decried it as Star Wars stuff But Russia knew it would neutralize their Long Range missiles threat thereby rendering their Missiles threat Neuter.

http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Missiles-And-Rockets-2005/Missile-defence-radar-installed-on-floating-platform.html

They are at a disadvantage to America in many areas of warfare but the Soviet Sleepers in the US Government are all hard at work to even the score.

Russia today has lost their technological expertise and their new missile Sub and Missile still has serious design flaws.The deployment of the new American SBX Seagoing Long Range Anti Ballistic Missile Targeting Radar system has given them fits .They have nothing that can match its capabilities.

Novaheart
12-27-2010, 02:23 PM
Thank you for that .When you post I read the whine of the pro queer lobby loud and queer ! BTW Where did you hide out when NU first went belly up and what did you do with your running mate Fruit n Nuts ?

He had a heart attack and died in his sleep sometime last year. I never knew him personally.

megimoo
12-27-2010, 02:33 PM
He had a heart attack and died in his sleep sometime last year. I never knew him personally.I am truly sorry to hear that .He came across as a confused young guy who fell into homosexuality and suffered the consequences.He seemed like a gentle soul and never pushed his gayness on NU boards.I recall his posted wedding pictures and his great pride on NU and I will remember him in my prayers.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
12-28-2010, 08:19 AM
I'm a little confused on this whole START issue...
Why is this such a big issue now yet wasn't nearly as controversial when JFK, Nixon, Ford, Carter and Bush I did similar measures during the Cold War? Didn't we have SALT I under Nixon and the original START in 1990 or 1991?

I mean the original START had it's genesis under Reagan, who wanted it to be SALT III.

megimoo
12-28-2010, 09:33 AM
I'm a little confused on this whole START issue...
Why is this such a big issue now yet wasn't nearly as controversial when JFK, Nixon, Ford, Carter and Bush I did similar measures during the Cold War? Didn't we have SALT I under Nixon and the original START in 1990 or 1991?

I mean the original START had it's genesis under Reagan, who wanted it to be SALT III.

Usually when two countries negotiate a treaty the negotiations have been done in the background and the fine details remain.Treaty's are mostly give and take,You give me this and I'll give you that.The skill on the negotiator is in what to give and what to ask for in return.If one side is over anxious they tend to give away too much .

Russia gave up old obsolete system of missiles that were due to be junked already and Obama's team gave away our entire missile defense system and refuse to release the full details of what else was negotiated away.

Russia won big and has little to do in order to comply with the treaty,the old missiles are inoperative and unarmed .We have to dismantle active ABM systems in order to comply.

This boob is a master at lying to your face and smiling at you at the same time.Reagan was tough on the Russians and held them to their agreements unlike this guy.Reagan 'danced' them into a corner every time they tried to pull a fast one on America.

This critter pulls down Americas draws and tells the Russians to take a shot at it.

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-new-york/obama-pushes-for-flawed-start-strategic-arms-reduction-treaty-during-lame-duck-session

I Hope that answers your questions .

djones520
12-28-2010, 09:41 AM
Obama's team gave away our entire missile defense system

Did you even bother reading what I posted earlier? Or do you just enjoy being wrong?

So all the THAAD systems are gone? We're no longer using the AEGIS system? Or the GMD?

Missile defenses based out of ICBM launchers. That is all that was agreed apon. Nothing more. :rolleyes:

megimoo
12-28-2010, 11:11 AM
Did you even bother reading what I posted earlier? Or do you just enjoy being wrong?

So all the THAAD systems are gone? We're no longer using the AEGIS system? Or the GMD?

Missile defenses based out of ICBM launchers. That is all that was agreed apon. Nothing more. :rolleyes:

From your limited point of view all that you posts is Infallible but from my point of view you are very far from being an acknowledged expert in all thing military .That being the case you can expect me to disagree with your point of view quite often .

AEGIS Isn't actually part of the main line ABM system. Its a ship born shorter range tactical ABM missile defense system like the Patriot system designed to protect carrier Strike Groups.

One important difference from Aegis is the use of X band in the SBX. Aegis uses S band, and Patriot uses the higher-frequency C band. The X band frequency is higher still, so its shorter wavelength enables finer resolution of tracked objects

SBX ABM was designed to defend against heavy MIRVed ICBM'S using huge land and Sea-Based X-Band Radar.

The radar is described by Lt. Gen Trey Obering (director of MDA) as being able to track an object the size of a baseball over San Francisco in California from the Chesapeake Bay in Virginia, approximately 2,900 miles (4,700 km) away. The radar will guide land-based missiles from Alaska and California, as well as in-theatre assets.

THAD is an older system and uses radar AN/TPY-2 radar has a max range of a little over six hundred miles.

And GMD is an interceptor missile not a system.

GMD/BV-Plus American anti-ballistic missile. Three-stage booster for use with the Missile Defense Agency's Ground-based Midcourse Defense System. Built by Lockheed Martin Corp., the booster was one of two slated for use with the GMD system. The system was designed to intercept and destroy long-range ballistic missiles

djones520
12-28-2010, 11:46 AM
From your limited point of view all that you posts is Infallible but from my point of view you are very far from being an acknowledged expert in all thing military .That being the case you can expect me to disagree with your point of view quite often .

AEGIS Isn't actually part of the main line ABM system. Its a ship born shorter range tactical ABM missile defense system like the Patriot system designed to protect carrier Strike Groups.

One important difference from Aegis is the use of X band in the SBX. Aegis uses S band, and Patriot uses the higher-frequency C band. The X band frequency is higher still, so its shorter wavelength enables finer resolution of tracked objects

SBX ABM was designed to defend against heavy MIRVed ICBM'S using huge land and Sea-Based X-Band Radar.

The radar is described by Lt. Gen Trey Obering (director of MDA) as being able to track an object the size of a baseball over San Francisco in California from the Chesapeake Bay in Virginia, approximately 2,900 miles (4,700 km) away. The radar will guide land-based missiles from Alaska and California, as well as in-theatre assets.

THAD is an older system and uses radar AN/TPY-2 radar has a max range of a little over six hundred miles.

And GMD is an interceptor missile not a system.

GMD/BV-Plus American anti-ballistic missile. Three-stage booster for use with the Missile Defense Agency's Ground-based Midcourse Defense System. Built by Lockheed Martin Corp., the booster was one of two slated for use with the GMD system. The system was designed to intercept and destroy long-range ballistic missiles

So lets cover some of your issues here. First off, you make an assinine post about how Obama gives away all of our missile defense capabilities, then create a huge post extolling the virtues of how robust and elaborate our multiple capabilities are. But you got a few things wrong in there.

THAAD is a brand new system, engineering starting in 2004. It was just deployed last year. I know this because I was briefing the sorties that deployed it to Hawaii.

The GMD is not a missile, it is a system that utilizes many differant integrated tools. Interceptor missiles, ground and sea based radar, and BMC3's. It is a wide spread system. It was what we planned on putting into eastern Europe originally.

Our current AEGIS is part of the mainline defense. It is the main part of the PAA that we will use to provide Ballistic Missile Defense to Europe with the cancellation of the GMD plan. We currently have 5 DDG's in the Atlantic fleet that have this capability, with at least 6 more being added to the list over the next few years. By 2015, our total ship based capabilities will have increased from 21 to 38.

So don't even tell me about my "limited" point of view when you got all of that wrong.

Odysseus
12-28-2010, 12:17 PM
I'm a little confused on this whole START issue...
Why is this such a big issue now yet wasn't nearly as controversial when JFK, Nixon, Ford, Carter and Bush I did similar measures during the Cold War? Didn't we have SALT I under Nixon and the original START in 1990 or 1991?

I mean the original START had it's genesis under Reagan, who wanted it to be SALT III.
But Reagan withdrew from START over missile defense, recognizing that the Soviets would be unable to match it, and that it would render their offensive capability obsolete. And, this treaty fails on so many levels that it is almost impossible to imagine anyone but Obama (okay, or Jimmy Carter) going for it. See below for my objections.


So lets cover some of your issues here. First off, you make an assinine post about how Obama gives away all of our missile defense capabilities, then create a huge post extolling the virtues of how robust and elaborate our multiple capabilities are. But you got a few things wrong in there.

THAAD is a brand new system, engineering starting in 2004. It was just deployed last year. I know this because I was briefing the sorties that deployed it to Hawaii.

The GMD is not a missile, it is a system that utilizes many differant integrated tools. Interceptor missiles, ground and sea based radar, and BMC3's. It is a wide spread system. It was what we planned on putting into eastern Europe originally.

Our current AEGIS is part of the mainline defense. It is the main part of the PAA that we will use to provide Ballistic Missile Defense to Europe with the cancellation of the GMD plan. We currently have 5 DDG's in the Atlantic fleet that have this capability, with at least 6 more being added to the list over the next few years. By 2015, our total ship based capabilities will have increased from 21 to 38.

So don't even tell me about my "limited" point of view when you got all of that wrong.

However, START did create areas of vulnerability. First, the replacement of the land-based interceptors with sea-based units puts the sea-based units out of position for the primary threat, which is not Russia, but Iran, which already has missiles capable of reaching Eastern Europe. Second, the land-based systems are part of an initial deployment, as the threat matures, so will our response. Now we have to start from scratch with the next administration. Thrid, the abandonment of the deployment was done to placate Russia, but has gained nothing in return. Russia is supplying equipment and knowledge to Iran, both in nuclear and missile technology, and is deliberately undermining us in every other area, so it's bad from a diplomatic position, as well. It also undermines our credibility with our allies, especially nations that were scheduled to host the systems. They agreed to do so in the face of Russian anger, and had a lot to lose, and by abandoning them, we have left them to Putin's mercy. And, it undermines our credibility with our enemies. Iran, for example, sees this as weakness and appeasement, and has actually increased the pace of their nuclear program. North Korea sees the same thing, and rattles its saber, and don't get me started on China.

A treaty that weakens our defenses, hurts our alliances and strengthens our adversaries is a bad deal all around.

djones520
12-28-2010, 12:28 PM
Ships in the Mediterranean, the North Sea, and potentially the Black Sea will provide just as good coverage as the ground based system would have.

As for giving up things for nothing in return... well it's limiting the Russians just as much as we are, and it does not weaken our nuclear threat. We will still have more then enough assets to wipe out the world twice over. But it is going to lower the cost of a ton of maintenance that we provide on nuclear facilities that we won't be using anymore.

Considering that we want to shrink the deficit, I'm not seeing an issue here. We save money, and still have plenty of cabapility to attack, and defend.

megimoo
12-28-2010, 12:48 PM
Ships in the Mediterranean, the North Sea, and potentially the Black Sea will provide just as good coverage as the ground based system would have.

As for giving up things for nothing in return... well it's limiting the Russians just as much as we are, and it does not weaken our nuclear threat. We will still have more then enough assets to wipe out the world twice over. But it is going to lower the cost of a ton of maintenance that we provide on nuclear facilities that we won't be using anymore.

Considering that we want to shrink the deficit, I'm not seeing an issue here. We save money, and still have plenty of cabapility to attack, and defend.

Why don't you finish it.And provide a peacetime bonus to spend on the great society !Spoken like a true liberal.

They should transfer your butt to the army and teach you something about real world warfare .

Watch my lips airman Jones.Russia is still our enemy and and works every day towards our destruction.They counter our every move in the world and arm our enemies with sophisticated weaponry.
ABM counters their world ambitions so they want to stop its development and deployment any way they are able.