A Realistic Defense for America
Scape @ Wed Sep 28, 2005 4:42 am
The Korb Report: A Realistic Defense for America
$1:
Summary:
Without diminishing America’s ability to fight terrorists, America can safely trim $60 billion (15 percent) from President George W. Bush’s proposed fiscal year 2006 Pentagon budget, freeing up much-needed funding for America’s broader national security needs.
Here's where these savings would come from:
* About $13 billion would be saved by reducing the nuclear arsenal to no more than 1,000 warheads, more than enough to maintain nuclear deterrence.
* About $7 billion would be saved by cutting most of the National Missile Defense program, retaining only a basic research program to determine if this attractive idea, which has proven to be an utter failure in actual tests, could ever work in the real world.
* About $26 billion would be saved by scaling back or stopping the research, development, and construction of weapons that are useless to combat modern threats. Many of the weapons involved, like the F/A-22 fighter jet and the Virginia Class Submarine, were designed to fight the defunct Soviet Union .
* Another $9 billion would be saved by eliminating forces, including two active Air Force wings and one carrier group, which are not needed in the current geopolitical environment.
* And about $5 billion would be saved if the giant Pentagon bureaucracy simply functioned in a more efficient manner.
If Congress and the president make these cuts, not only would they have more money to spend on other priorities, but they would also make our military stronger, allowing our soldiers to focus on the weapons, training, and tactics they need to do their jobs and defend our nation.
Without diminishing America’s ability to fight terrorists, America can safely trim $60 billion (15 percent) from President George W. Bush’s proposed fiscal year 2006 Pentagon budget, freeing up much-needed funding for America’s broader national security needs.
Here's where these savings would come from:
* About $13 billion would be saved by reducing the nuclear arsenal to no more than 1,000 warheads, more than enough to maintain nuclear deterrence.
* About $7 billion would be saved by cutting most of the National Missile Defense program, retaining only a basic research program to determine if this attractive idea, which has proven to be an utter failure in actual tests, could ever work in the real world.
* About $26 billion would be saved by scaling back or stopping the research, development, and construction of weapons that are useless to combat modern threats. Many of the weapons involved, like the F/A-22 fighter jet and the Virginia Class Submarine, were designed to fight the defunct Soviet Union .
* Another $9 billion would be saved by eliminating forces, including two active Air Force wings and one carrier group, which are not needed in the current geopolitical environment.
* And about $5 billion would be saved if the giant Pentagon bureaucracy simply functioned in a more efficient manner.
If Congress and the president make these cuts, not only would they have more money to spend on other priorities, but they would also make our military stronger, allowing our soldiers to focus on the weapons, training, and tactics they need to do their jobs and defend our nation.
Canadaka @ Wed Sep 28, 2005 4:45 am
sounds logical and reasonable... but won't happen
dgthe3 @ Wed Sep 28, 2005 5:38 am
I'm just wondering how much 60 billion would help if it were diverted to fight the terrorists. A better use of the money, and even less likely, would be to use it to fight the causes of terrorism by increasing funding for aid, and relieving poverty and hunger. As a result, the US may not be seen as 'the Great Satan' and would gather support for its new causes while the support for terrorism against the US decreased. However, this will never happen for a long time because that's just not the way that superpowers behave. They conquer and chrush radicals, not solve the root cause of the discontent. That's how it has always been and that's how it will be for some time to come.
BartSimpson @ Wed Sep 28, 2005 6:52 am
dgthe3 dgthe3:
I'm just wondering how much 60 billion would help if it were diverted to fight the terrorists. A better use of the money, and even less likely, would be to use it to fight the causes of terrorism by increasing funding for aid, and relieving poverty and hunger. As a result, the US may not be seen as 'the Great Satan' and would gather support for its new causes while the support for terrorism against the US decreased. However, this will never happen for a long time because that's just not the way that superpowers behave. They conquer and chrush radicals, not solve the root cause of the discontent. That's how it has always been and that's how it will be for some time to come.
Appeasing tyrants has never, ever, not once worked in human history. Also, in Arab culture they do not see such charity as a charitable act, they see it as tribute and they see our paying them tribute as a clear sign of our weakness.
Ironically, our charitable acts to them encourage more terror.
Do note, of course, that this phenomenon is limited to the Arabs. Not all Muslims, such as Indonesians, see things this way.
BartSimpson @ Wed Sep 28, 2005 7:06 am
$1:
* About $13 billion would be saved by reducing the nuclear arsenal to no more than 1,000 warheads, more than enough to maintain nuclear deterrence.
The overkill capability of the USA has so far deterred a nuclear attack by any adversary. The current system clearly works and should not be tampered with.
$1:
* About $7 billion would be saved by cutting most of the National Missile Defense program, retaining only a basic research program to determine if this attractive idea, which has proven to be an utter failure in actual tests, could ever work in the real world.
NMD is better than nothing when a country like North Korea or Iran decides to chuck a nuke at us. Also, the cost of an NMD failure in a real-world scenario will be the utter immolation of the country that launched the attack since MAD is a systematic US policy on WMD attacks. NMD protects the country that attacks the US as well as the US since an intercepted missile is just an 'incident' while one that reaches its target is a war.
$1:
* About $26 billion would be saved by scaling back or stopping the research, development, and construction of weapons that are useless to combat modern threats. Many of the weapons involved, like the F/A-22 fighter jet and the Virginia Class Submarine, were designed to fight the defunct Soviet Union .
China would deeply appreciate it if we did not have superiority over them when they launch their new Greater East Asia CoProsperity Sphere.
$1:
* Another $9 billion would be saved by eliminating forces, including two active Air Force wings and one carrier group, which are not needed in the current geopolitical environment.
We're already short on forces in Iraq. Cutting back even further is nonsensical when threats like China and North Korea are on the horizon.
$1:
* And about $5 billion would be saved if the giant Pentagon bureaucracy simply functioned in a more efficient manner.
Maybe. A lot of the so-called "inefficiency" is simply the Pentagon's way of channeling funds to black budget projects and still accounting for the funds in the real world. Do note that prior to 1989 there was never an official budget item for the Stealth fighter and the Stealth bomber. The multi-billion dollar development projects were paid for by shoveling money at $4,000 "coffee pots" and other such line items to bury the actual expenditures in a real budget. What the less sophisticated see as "inefficiency" I see as a very efficient way of the Pentagon accounting for funds and still maintaining their National Security directives.
$1:
If Congress and the president make these cuts, not only would they have more money to spend on other priorities, but they would also make our military stronger, allowing our soldiers to focus on the weapons, training, and tactics they need to do their jobs and defend our nation.
If Congress and the President make these cuts we'll simply be allowing history to repeat itself.
That's what happend the last time the USA cut defense to "sensible" levels.
DerbyX @ Wed Sep 28, 2005 7:28 am
$1:
The overkill capability of the USA has so far deterred a nuclear attack by any adversary. The current system clearly works and should not be tampered with.
By that measure Russia, China, UK, Cuba (every country but japan) can say their system works to.
$1:
NMD is better than nothing when a country like North Korea or Iran decides to chuck a nuke at us. Also, the cost of an NMD failure in a real-world scenario will be the utter immolation of the country that launched the attack since MAD is a systematic US policy on WMD attacks. NMD protects the country that attacks the US as well as the US since an intercepted missile is just an 'incident' while one that reaches its target is a war.
MAD? A fully functional & comprehensive NMD program may protect against balastic strikes but there is stilll the very real danger of smuggled in nukes, an option the enemy is far more likely to try.
$1:
China would deeply appreciate it if we did not have superiority over them when they launch their new Greater East Asia CoProsperity Sphere.
Gotta agree wholeheartedly with that. War & war industry research has brought a great deal of modern progress & technology to practical use including leaps in medical technology.
$1:
We're already short on forces in Iraq. Cutting back even further is nonsensical when threats like China and North Korea are on the horizon.
1 carrier group is probably worth (cost wise) a division of fully equiped ground troops. Retreating from iraq make even more sense if china and to a lesser extent NK are a military threat. I am sure they absolutely love the fact that the US is wasting billions of dollars and losing thousands (KIA & WIA) of troops while they modernize & strengthen their forces. Imagine if both them & say iran decided to exercise military force. America simply not have the forces to counter this without resorting to nukes.
themasta @ Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:25 am
dgthe3 dgthe3:
I'm just wondering how much 60 billion would help if it were diverted to fight the terrorists. A better use of the money, and even less likely, would be to use it to fight the causes of terrorism by increasing funding for aid, and relieving poverty and hunger. As a result, the US may not be seen as 'the Great Satan' and would gather support for its new causes while the support for terrorism against the US decreased. However, this will never happen for a long time because that's just not the way that superpowers behave. They conquer and chrush radicals, not solve the root cause of the discontent. That's how it has always been and that's how it will be for some time to come.
It is interesting to note that the leaders of Al-Qaeda (Osama bin Laden for example) are neither poor nor hungry. The bin Laden family has a fortune in the billions of dollars. Maybe they should give that money to the starving masses. Or perhaps it is more likely that there is no such thing and that they hate the Western world not because of poverty, but because of envy.
BartSimpson @ Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:31 am
DerbyX DerbyX:
$1:
The overkill capability of the USA has so far deterred a nuclear attack by any adversary. The current system clearly works and should not be tampered with.
By that measure Russia, China, UK, Cuba (every country but japan) can say their system works to.
Only China is actively building anything. The Brits are no longer a superpower but at least they have adequate forces to deter attacks on the Home Islands.
DerbyX DerbyX:
$1:
NMD is better than nothing when a country like North Korea or Iran decides to chuck a nuke at us. Also, the cost of an NMD failure in a real-world scenario will be the utter immolation of the country that launched the attack since MAD is a systematic US policy on WMD attacks. NMD protects the country that attacks the US as well as the US since an intercepted missile is just an 'incident' while one that reaches its target is a war.
MAD? A fully functional & comprehensive NMD program may protect against balastic strikes but there is stilll the very real danger of smuggled in nukes, an option the enemy is far more likely to try.
True, but only when the enemy is Al Qaeda. North Korea, Iran, and China are more likely to use missiles.
DerbyX DerbyX:
[
Gotta agree wholeheartedly with that. War & war industry research has brought a great deal of modern progress & technology to practical use including leaps in medical technology.
1 carrier group is probably worth (cost wise) a division of fully equiped ground troops. Retreating from iraq make even more sense if china and to a lesser extent NK are a military threat. I am sure they absolutely love the fact that the US is wasting billions of dollars and losing thousands (KIA & WIA) of troops while they modernize & strengthen their forces. Imagine if both them & say iran decided to exercise military force. America simply not have the forces to counter this without resorting to nukes.
$1:
China would deeply appreciate it if we did not have superiority over them when they launch their new Greater East Asia CoProsperity Sphere.
Gotta agree wholeheartedly with that. War & war industry research has brought a great deal of modern progress & technology to practical use including leaps in medical technology.
$1:
We're already short on forces in Iraq. Cutting back even further is nonsensical when threats like China and North Korea are on the horizon.
1 carrier group is probably worth (cost wise) a division of fully equiped ground troops. Retreating from iraq make even more sense if china and to a lesser extent NK are a military threat. I am sure they absolutely love the fact that the US is wasting billions of dollars and losing thousands (KIA & WIA) of troops while they modernize & strengthen their forces. Imagine if both them & say iran decided to exercise military force. America simply not have the forces to counter this without resorting to nukes.
A carrier group is a far more efficient projection of power than an infantry division because the carrier air wing can prevent the enemy from reaching their objective. Any division of ground pounders against a CAW will just be so much body-bag filler.
China must maintain a huge standing army to counter the comparatively more efficient US (and Indian) military. China's problems in an encounter against the USA will mostly consist of trying to leverage advantages of scale against our technological advantages.
Considering that most of China's military technology resembles that of Iraq from 2003 then one can extrapolate that a non-nuclear conflict between the US and China would resolve with China's Army looking mostly like this...
Jaime_Souviens @ Wed Sep 28, 2005 9:07 am
Scape Scape:
The Korb Report: A Realistic Defense for America
$1:
Summary:
Without diminishing America’s ability to fight terrorists, America can safely trim $60 billion (15 percent) from President George W. Bush’s proposed fiscal year 2006 Pentagon budget, freeing up much-needed funding for America’s broader national security needs.
Here's where these savings would come from:
* About $13 billion would be saved by reducing the nuclear arsenal to no more than 1,000 warheads, more than enough to maintain nuclear deterrence.
* About $7 billion would be saved by cutting most of the National Missile Defense program, retaining only a basic research program to determine if this attractive idea, which has proven to be an utter failure in actual tests, could ever work in the real world.
* About $26 billion would be saved by scaling back or stopping the research, development, and construction of weapons that are useless to combat modern threats. Many of the weapons involved, like the F/A-22 fighter jet and the Virginia Class Submarine, were designed to fight the defunct Soviet Union .
* Another $9 billion would be saved by eliminating forces, including two active Air Force wings and one carrier group, which are not needed in the current geopolitical environment.
* And about $5 billion would be saved if the giant Pentagon bureaucracy simply functioned in a more efficient manner.
If Congress and the president make these cuts, not only would they have more money to spend on other priorities, but they would also make our military stronger, allowing our soldiers to focus on the weapons, training, and tactics they need to do their jobs and defend our nation.
Without diminishing America’s ability to fight terrorists, America can safely trim $60 billion (15 percent) from President George W. Bush’s proposed fiscal year 2006 Pentagon budget, freeing up much-needed funding for America’s broader national security needs.
Here's where these savings would come from:
* About $13 billion would be saved by reducing the nuclear arsenal to no more than 1,000 warheads, more than enough to maintain nuclear deterrence.
* About $7 billion would be saved by cutting most of the National Missile Defense program, retaining only a basic research program to determine if this attractive idea, which has proven to be an utter failure in actual tests, could ever work in the real world.
* About $26 billion would be saved by scaling back or stopping the research, development, and construction of weapons that are useless to combat modern threats. Many of the weapons involved, like the F/A-22 fighter jet and the Virginia Class Submarine, were designed to fight the defunct Soviet Union .
* Another $9 billion would be saved by eliminating forces, including two active Air Force wings and one carrier group, which are not needed in the current geopolitical environment.
* And about $5 billion would be saved if the giant Pentagon bureaucracy simply functioned in a more efficient manner.
If Congress and the president make these cuts, not only would they have more money to spend on other priorities, but they would also make our military stronger, allowing our soldiers to focus on the weapons, training, and tactics they need to do their jobs and defend our nation.
Some of these are reasonable.
An extensive submarine fleet, today, seems a little less than fully useful.
But when the DOD tried to close the submarine base in Groton, Connecticut, this year, local politicians forced them to keep it open.
It isn't always that fiercely insane Bush, there are a lot of other groups pushing for excessive spending.
DerbyX @ Wed Sep 28, 2005 9:09 am
$1:
Only China is actively building anything. The Brits are no longer a superpower but at least they have adequate forces to deter attacks on the Home Islands.
That doesn't make sense in light of what I was saying?
$1:
True, but only when the enemy is Al Qaeda. North Korea, Iran, and China are more likely to use missiles.
I don't agree. The russians had massive long range delivery capacity yet still designed and built suitcase sized nukes, not all of which are accounted for. I'm willing to bet that any potential US advesary, including china views this as a very very viable alternative.
$1:
A carrier group is a far more efficient projection of power than an infantry division because the carrier air wing can prevent the enemy from reaching their objective. Any division of ground pounders against a CAW will just be so much body-bag filler.
Neither of which is any real use in iraq or in vietnam for that matter beyond a threshold level. In light of iraq & afganistan (pull out now) which would be more effective?
$1:
China must maintain a huge standing army to counter the comparatively more efficient US (and Indian) military. China's problems in an encounter against the USA will mostly consist of trying to leverage advantages of scale against our technological advantages.
You yourself has posted that they are narrowing the technology gap all the while you waste men & resources in an unwinable war.
$1:
Considering that most of China's military technology resembles that of Iraq from 2003 then one can extrapolate that a non-nuclear conflict between the US and China would resolve with China's Army looking mostly like this...
1) Do not count on that. The chinese have a huge airforce that would negate most of that carnage.
2) Who is to say they won't decide to go nuclear under the assumption that with far more people they can recover quicker?
BartSimpson @ Wed Sep 28, 2005 9:11 am
IceOwl IceOwl:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Do note, of course, that this phenomenon is limited to the Arabs. Not all Muslims, such as Indonesians, see things this way.
Since when are all Arabs Muslim?
I don't believe I said that anywhere in any post of mine ever.
I put in the disclaimer to head off accusations of bigotry against Muslims and I see I incurred one anyways.
Try it this way:
In Arab culture charity from infidels is routinely portrayed as tribute payment.
Not all Arabs are Muslims.
Not all Muslims are Arabs.
Druse Arabs (who are Christians) tend to hold the popular Arab view that those who concede in any dispute, even for merciful reasons, are weak and that the charity is actually a form of tribute that recognizes the strength of the recipient.
It is a perverse cultural value from our perspective, but when seen from the perspective of a culture of nomadic warriors it seems logical.
In Europe the only group I can think of that held such views are the Cossacks and the Russians evidence similar views towards potential adversaries who are merciful to them.
American @ Wed Sep 28, 2005 10:58 am
Scape Scape:
The Korb Report: A Realistic Defense for America
$1:
Summary:
Without diminishing America’s ability to fight terrorists, America can safely trim $60 billion (15 percent) from President George W. Bush’s proposed fiscal year 2006 Pentagon budget, freeing up much-needed funding for America’s broader national security needs.
Here's where these savings would come from:
* About $13 billion would be saved by reducing the nuclear arsenal to no more than 1,000 warheads, more than enough to maintain nuclear deterrence.
* About $7 billion would be saved by cutting most of the National Missile Defense program, retaining only a basic research program to determine if this attractive idea, which has proven to be an utter failure in actual tests, could ever work in the real world.
* About $26 billion would be saved by scaling back or stopping the research, development, and construction of weapons that are useless to combat modern threats. Many of the weapons involved, like the F/A-22 fighter jet and the Virginia Class Submarine, were designed to fight the defunct Soviet Union .
* Another $9 billion would be saved by eliminating forces, including two active Air Force wings and one carrier group, which are not needed in the current geopolitical environment.
* And about $5 billion would be saved if the giant Pentagon bureaucracy simply functioned in a more efficient manner.
If Congress and the president make these cuts, not only would they have more money to spend on other priorities, but they would also make our military stronger, allowing our soldiers to focus on the weapons, training, and tactics they need to do their jobs and defend our nation.
Without diminishing America’s ability to fight terrorists, America can safely trim $60 billion (15 percent) from President George W. Bush’s proposed fiscal year 2006 Pentagon budget, freeing up much-needed funding for America’s broader national security needs.
Here's where these savings would come from:
* About $13 billion would be saved by reducing the nuclear arsenal to no more than 1,000 warheads, more than enough to maintain nuclear deterrence.
* About $7 billion would be saved by cutting most of the National Missile Defense program, retaining only a basic research program to determine if this attractive idea, which has proven to be an utter failure in actual tests, could ever work in the real world.
* About $26 billion would be saved by scaling back or stopping the research, development, and construction of weapons that are useless to combat modern threats. Many of the weapons involved, like the F/A-22 fighter jet and the Virginia Class Submarine, were designed to fight the defunct Soviet Union .
* Another $9 billion would be saved by eliminating forces, including two active Air Force wings and one carrier group, which are not needed in the current geopolitical environment.
* And about $5 billion would be saved if the giant Pentagon bureaucracy simply functioned in a more efficient manner.
If Congress and the president make these cuts, not only would they have more money to spend on other priorities, but they would also make our military stronger, allowing our soldiers to focus on the weapons, training, and tactics they need to do their jobs and defend our nation.
Ridiculous. You're not considering China. No, modernization is necessary. The last point is the only one I would agree with. Reducing entitlement programs by $60B would be much better. Why is it that the budget hackers always look at the Defense budget first? You want a good government, then eliminate what it shouldn't be doing in the first place. No where in the Constitution does it specify that the Federal Government should be curing our social ills.
bootlegga @ Wed Sep 28, 2005 11:56 am
Personally, I don't see the need for the US to spend as much on defence as the next 6 or 7 nations. US spending alone equals almost one-third of total defence spending worldwide (400 Billion out of 1.1 Trillion).
I suppose if they plan on bankrupting themselves like the Brits did during WW1, than that is there perogative, but if I was an American, I'd want my leader to look to the future and cut defence spending.
I'm not calling for appeasement or isolationism, but unless a base meets critical national security needs, it should be closed and forces can be drawn down. Likewsie with weapons systems.
Why for example does the USN need 10-12 carrier battle groups when the closest nation (the UK only has three very inferior carriers). The French have only have two, as do the Indians. Everyone else with a carrier has one, and many major nations have NONE (China, Japan, Germany, South or North Korea, Iran, South Africa, Australia, etc). Why does the US need almost 3000 Joint Strike fighters when their major future threat, China, has less than 500 Su-27s? And the Su-27 will be much less capable than the JSF. Even the next-generation Chinese fighter, the J-10, is based on the Israeli Lavi, which was itself based on a F-16 Falcon.
I think about the only part of the US forces that is the right size are ground forces, although I could see the need for a slightly larger Spec Ops force.
Still, if Americans in general want to keep spending insane amounts on defence, I say let them. In a few years, they will find out that China owns their soul because people bought too much shit at Wal-Mart.