Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Air Transportation Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Defense downsizing
Melchoir42    7/31/2002 8:49:41 AM
Very good points, but it was Dick Cheney as SecDef who closed 800 bases and signed off on the plan to reduce force size by 20%-25%. In fact, he bragged about this upon joining Halliburton, saying he had experience in "down-sizing". Nothing wrong with that, because we were supposed to receive the so-called "peace dividend" when the USSR collapsed. And, Congress was controlled by the GOP from ''94-2000, and in our Constitution (at least what is left after the PATRIOT Act), the Congress has the power of the purse. Yes, Clinton submitted the budgets, but Congress approved the $. Both parties have to share the blame there. I quite agree that we should cut back on the world-spanning deployments. Let the UN do something to keep the peace, and let NATO spend some more $ on defense. Unfortunately, under W, the deployments will get worse, not better. Let''s spend more on Air and Sea Transport, Heavy Lift Helicopters, a good Light Tank for light forces; and less on worthless boondoggles like the F-18E/F (@$80million), V-22(@$100million), SSGN''s (@1.5billion+), and Missile Defense (@$80billion and counting), and the IAV (@3million). Your point about spending more on R&D, training, and maintenance is right on. Anyone in the DOD listening here?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Phoenix Rising    RE:Defense downsizing   7/31/2002 10:00:46 AM
I agree that the F-18 isn't entirely necessary (it's helped, but we could be spending the money better), the V-22 is more hassle than it's worth, and the SSGN's may be a bit overpriced. I'm not sold on missile defense, simply because many of the advances that we make in attempting it will be of more use later. The first computers were the size of small buildings, after all; now you can get fifty times that processing power on your tabletop. We have to start somewhere. The procurement programs that I'd put more emphasis on are UAV's, lasers, and electronic warfare. However, I like the Bush DoD's original plan to "skip" a generation of technology and reclaim a technological lead on the ROW, and I wish we'd make up for the training and base maintenance shortfalls of the Clinton era (and earlier). --Phoenix Rising
 
Quote    Reply

Melchoir42    RE:Defense downsizing   8/1/2002 3:46:12 PM
I agree with you Phoenix. See I'm not totally misguided. Probably. To get really excited how about cavitation weapons, electro-magnetic armor, and EM rail guns. Nothing like 4000mps to ruin your day. I like the idea of skipping a generation of weapons now, while we as a nation have such overwhelming military superiority that ifupgenning (is that a word?) doesn't go as smooth as we'd like we still lose nothing in terms of military strength. SMD is so far in the future I just don't see the cost-benefit being in our favor, especially if it makes China and Russia more belligerent. Not worth it. R&D, by all means. Treaty withdrawal, and the consequent ill-will we generate, nope. Just an interesting factoid. Guess where most of our Chips are made? Taiwan. Care to bet that China doesn't think about this on a daily basis. How easy to crash our high tech economy by obliterating Taiwans Silicon Alley. Remember when Taiwan had an earthquake a few years back, and the fallout of a week's shortage nearly felled Gateway, Dell and weakened Compaq mortally? Just a factoid.
 
Quote    Reply

Melchoir2    RE:Defense downsizing   8/1/2002 3:48:02 PM
My previous post has nothing to do with Air Transport. Phoenix, you led me astray, and I fought so hard... Sorry.
 
Quote    Reply

macawman    RE:Defense downsizing-Phoenix Rising   6/26/2003 9:00:08 PM
Your point about skipping a generation. The problem with that concept is the greater chance of a major screw up in the design/technology/construction capability. Evolution (vs Revolution) is the safer path to take IF the risk is at the national level.
 
Quote    Reply

Soylent Green    RE:Defense downsizing   6/29/2003 9:14:49 AM
Good initial point about Cheney. I've got a few RAND papers from the early 1990s trying to counter his plans. Cheney was really big on the idea of slashing back on manpower - especially infantry - and bullying up the nuclear deterrent to compensate.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics