# Are Democrats soft on National Security **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 11, 2002, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-soft-on-national-security/136213 "2002-11-11T01:35:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2002, 9:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-soft-on-national-security/136213/141 "2002-11-15T09:25:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > \*\*It’s both. The Trident is a missile, but the Ohio-class subs that carry it are also called “Trident Submarines”. The official name, I believe, is "Ohio-class/Trident ballistic missile submarine ". \*\* Huh. Learn something every day. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2002, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-soft-on-national-security/136213/142 "2002-11-15T12:37:59Z")
B-52 served with distinction in the Gulf War. Not over Baghdad itself, AFAIK, but throughout the rest of the theater in attacks against against troops. If George II manages to start another war against Iraq, the B-52 will undoubtedly serve the same role. The B-2’s mission no longer exists because it was designed solely (and I do mean _solely_) as a nuclear weapons delivery platform against the Soviet Union. I misspoke earlier when I said it was generally incapable of performing the missions it is now asked to accomplish; rather, it is generally incapable of performing the missions the Air Force is asked to accomplish. It is poorly suited for quick-react strikes against small targets, in large part because it has to fly out of Missouri. Oh, and you’d better believe the B-2 gets all the same support aircraft as the B-52 in most instances. Nobody in the AF is taking any undue chances with losing one of their billion dollar babies, and Serbia showed pretty effectively that stealth aircraft are somehwhat less than undetectable. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2002, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-soft-on-national-security/136213/143 "2002-11-15T13:15:49Z")
Sam, I don’t know how many more times or ways I can explain this, since you seem bound and determined to maintain the unmaintainable. Why the hell are you babbling about air refueling with respect to the B-52 but not the B-2? The B-52’s **unrefueled** range is 8800 miles. The B-2’s **unrefueled** range is 6000 miles. 8800 miles is greater than 6000 miles. Hence, the B-52’s **unrefueled** range is greater than the B-2’s **unrefueled** range. Damn near 50% greater, as a matter of fact. I think that’s actually 500% in your math. Sheesh. Regarding radar, I appear to have misinterpreted what you wrote. When you said the B-2 enables us to attack terrorists with no warning, I assumed you were talking stealth. Upon closer reading, you appear to have been making a point (entirely invalid–see above) regarding the range of the aircraft and the likelihood of terrorist spies watching aircraft take off if we launch them from anywhere else in the world: > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Sam Stone_ > And in this age of terrorism, where threats can arise anywhere in the world, the B-2 is very useful. It also heavily complicates terrorist planning - without the B-2, terrorists could map the location of other bombers like B-52’s, and plan movements and attacks for areas outside their attack radius. Having the B-2 means the U.S. can hit them anywhere, any time, without warning. Which is even more paranoid. What, you think al Qaeda has agents on Diego Gargia reporting to Osama as aircraft take off? Sheesh, again. **Tejota** said all that needs to be said regarding me, you, and missile subs. We don’t need any **more** of the damn things. Sheesh, indeed. ---
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2002, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-soft-on-national-security/136213/144 "2002-11-15T14:38:53Z")
“What, you think al Qaeda has agents on Diego Gargia reporting to Osama as aircraft take off?” I think Sam’s point was that terrorists would know which where the US B-52 bases are,know the range of the aircraft and keep out of areas inside that range. They would not have to know the time of take-off. Of course his premise that B-52’s have a smaller range is mistake (not to mention the possiblility of mid-air refuelling). BTW what is the distance between the US and Afghanistan. I would have guessed it’s above 6000 miles which meant that B-2 needed mid-air refuelling anyway. In fact I am not even sure that Iraq is withing 6000 miles of Missouri. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2002, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-soft-on-national-security/136213/145 "2002-11-15T14:43:39Z")
BTW, in terms of military priorities, here are a few of mine. Note that I’m not excluding anything else by enumerating these priorities, I’m just saying that we are not doing near enough on these points. #1 is mobility, mobility, mobility. We need to be able to put significant numbers of well-armed personnel on the ground anywhere in the world on 48-hour notice. We need to be able to put large numbers of heavily-armed personnel anywhere in the very significant within 7 days. A Gulf War-style buildup should take no more than a month, not the disgraceful 5 months we had last time around. That means significant new acquisitions of transport aircraft and fast cargo ships, and new weapons systems designed to be transportable. In particular, we need a modern tank that is significantly smaller than the M1A1, which is a hell of a weapon if you have a few months to wait around for it to show up where you need it. Priority #2 is training, training, training. It’s long gotten short shrift in military budgets, and that has to change. And I don’t mean firing range training. I mean get your ass in the snow and muck and sand and run all over the place blowing shit up for weeks and months at a time. Priority #3 is military pay and related quality of life issues. Military housing is a joke, too many of the doctors are incompetent, and pay is a national disgrace. They’re all huge impediments to retention and the professionalism of the armed forces. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2002, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-soft-on-national-security/136213/146 "2002-11-15T16:49:56Z")
B-2 missions to Afghanistan consumed [40+ hours](http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2001/n10192001_200110191.html). They landed in Diego Garcia, switched out aircrews, and immediately flew _another_ 30 hours back to Whiteman AFB. (.PDF [cite](http://www.iss.northropgrumman.com/integrator/i_oct22.pdf)) Hoo boy, what an advantage in flying from the U.S., huh? Can’t find any info on the distance from Missouri to Afghanistan, but I believe it’s considerably longer than 6,000 miles. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2002, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-soft-on-national-security/136213/147 "2002-11-15T17:34:45Z")
Missouri to Afghanistan is about 8000 miles each way, along the actual flight route. Great circle is about 7200, but that’s over the Arctic Ocean, and I doubt they go that way. Several refuelings along the way are required, although the B-2 needs much fewer of them, having a much newer and more efficient engine design. It is also less stressful for the crew than a comparable B-52 mission, since the B-2 has room to set up a cot between the seats, while the Buff’s crew cabin is actually pretty cramped. But so what? The real-world enemy is small groups of highly mobile and low-tech terrorists. This discussion about strategic bombing is an example of the old saw that “If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.” Nothing to add to what **minty** and **Tejota** have already said, except that the slowness of the military-industrial-political complex to adjust to the post-Cold-War world is not a partisan issue but a cultural one, compounded by the extent of entrenched interests. To create the new, though, it is to some degree necessary to first clear away the old - hence the absurdity of denouncing those willing to do so, and the insultingness of related insinuations against their love of country. I do have to wonder what **Sam** meant way back on Page 2 by saying he was resting his case. Doesn’t look like it, does it? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-soft-on-national-security/136213/148 "2002-11-16T02:49:07Z")
Guys, I already conceded the point on the B-52. I was going on a press interview with (I believe) General Franks in which he said, “The B2 is the only aircraft capable of striking from U.S. soil”, and that was the second time I’ve heard that in the last year. Now, the reason may not be range - it could be something logistical. Or, he could have just been propping up the B-2 program. BTW, a better counter-example to the B-2 would be the B-1, which has even longer range, is faster, and carries more bombs. Like I said, I could be convinced that the B-2 is not necessary. However, I haven’t thought through all the potential scenarios that may require bombing. How would a B-1 or B-52 do if we had to bomb a heavily defended target like a nuclear faciity in, say, North Korea? **Minty:** I agree heartily with your three requirements above, and so do the Republicans and the Joint Chiefs. But I get the feeling that you think the military battles of the future are all going to be the kinds of battles the U.S. fought in Afghanistan or at worst, Iraq. But the job of the military is to defend against all possible threats, and not just the likely ones. For example, it’s very unlikely that China will attack Taiwan. But the reason it’s unlikely is because the United States and Taiwan have spent huge sums of money arming it to the teeth. But scale back those arms, and Taiwan becomes vulnerable again. The U.S. military has a policy of being able to fight two wars simultaneously (the ‘Two-front’ policy). Do you agree with that? What about China? Should we maintain a military deterrent against a possible war with them? What about Europe? What kind of presence should the U.S. military have there? How about South Korea? Should the DMZ still be protected by the U.S.? You seem to be ignoring the requirement to fight a large scale battle against an enemy tougher than Iraq. **ElvisL1ves:** Hey, the discussion is interesting. At least, it was until you showed up with another of your little digs at me for having the unmitigated gall to post on the SDMB. Now run along and play with your friends. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-soft-on-national-security/136213/149 "2002-11-16T04:13:40Z")
We _have_ a heavy military deterrent. I’m not advocating the _scrapping_ of the M1A1, its heavy artillery support, the B-52, etc. What I’m saying is that is only a _part_ of what the military needs to be prepared for, and an increasingly small part at that. BTW, heavy forces ain’t gonna do shit against China. They’re not in the theater exccept, to a limited extent, in South Korea. If Beijing goes postal on Taiwan, the **only** conventional line of defense we can offer is precisely the kind of fast, rapid deployment force I’m talking about. F-22’s and AEGIS destroyers won’t accomplish a damn thing if China decides to walk into Taiwan. And what you conceded merely as this: > [@](#): > > Originally posted by Sam Stone, as **directly quoted** by minty green\* > There still have to be tankers available. So now your range is just limited by the radius of no tanker coverage. But actually, I’ll concede this one. Because in today’s world with the U.S. able to maintain air supremacy wherever it wants, there are no effective gaps in tanker coverage. Uh, yeah, so the B-52 can strike the Middle East from bases in the U.S. . . . if it’s refueled. Ya know, precisely like the B-2 must be refueled, except the B-52 needs to be refueled 2,800 miles less often. See, it’s that second sentence that you couldn’t be bothered to acknowledge. Even from the United States, the B-52 is a superior weapons delivery platform for at leat 95% of the missions where you’d need a heavy bomber flying from the U.S. The B-1, incidentally, doesn’t even enter the heavy bomber equation. It’s a piece of crap that even the Air Force basically refuses to fly. Despite being deployer ca. 1983, it didn’t see combat until Afghanistan, IIRC. Bloody useless. Incidentally incidentally, we need to start planning a new heavy bomber. No stealth required, just a modern, kickass, super duper, blowing the crap out of large chunks of real estate heavy bomber that’s also capable of hanging out over the battlefield for extended periods to deliver precision munitions. But even more than that, we need new generations of unmanned aircraft, the Predator/Hellfire combos of tomorrow. ---
**Author:** ![ScoobyTX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@ScoobyTX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ScoobyTX)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-soft-on-national-security/136213/150 "2002-11-16T04:31:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > **Incidentally incidentally, we need to start planning a new heavy bomber. No stealth required, just a modern, kickass, super duper, blowing the crap out of large chunks of real estate heavy bomber that’s also capable of hanging out over the battlefield for extended periods to deliver precision munitions.** [We are, sort of.](http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/b-3.htm) ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-soft-on-national-security/136213/151 "2002-11-16T04:38:40Z")
That’s not a plan. That’s some dude pulling stuff out of his ass for 40 years down the road. And that’s not even a heavy bomber that he extracted from his rectum. It has about 40% of the range of the B-52, and abouut 20-25% of its payload. Ain’t no real estate getting disintegrated out of that design. Plus, since the B-1 is about as useful at dropping bombs on target as a muppet, a really tall cliff, and a hang glider, we’re already way below the 170 heavy bombers that article claims is the minimum. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-soft-on-national-security/136213/152 "2002-11-16T04:41:00Z")
Yeah, there’ll be a need to replace the B-52’s by 2040 at the latest, and the development time for an aircraft like that would likely be close to 20 years. So the planning stages should be starting soon. And I also agree about the unmanned aircraft. That, and other intelligence improving technologies like “Smart Soldier” and micro UAVs. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-soft-on-national-security/136213/153 "2002-11-16T04:58:22Z")
Sure, it’ll take 20 years if your goal is to bleed money. If we actually wanted to do it, we could have a state of the art heavy bomber operational within 10 years, easy. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-soft-on-national-security/136213/154 "2002-11-16T07:04:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*B-52 served with distinction in the Gulf War. Not over Baghdad itself, AFAIK, but throughout the rest of the theater in attacks against against troops. If George II manages to start another war against Iraq, the B-52 will undoubtedly serve the same role. \*\* Right - which isn’t the role the B2 would serve. Or are you saying that there won’t be a need for bombing heavily defended targets? [quote] \*\* The B-2’s mission no longer exists because it was designed solely (and I do mean _solely_) as a nuclear weapons delivery platform against the Soviet Union. [quote] \*\* I’m pretty sure the B2 was designed to carry MK 84 2000 pound conventional bombs from the beginning. > [@](#): > > \*\* > I misspoke earlier when I said it was generally incapable of performing the missions it is now asked to accomplish; rather, it is generally incapable of performing the missions the Air Force is asked to accomplish. It is poorly suited for quick-react strikes against small targets, in large part because it has to fly out of Missouri. \*\* And quick strikes aren’t the sole task of the airforce - B52s aren’t any better for quick strikes on small targets than B2s are, really - and possibly inferior because it’s not really a precision weapon platform. You’ll have to be more specific against what sort of attacks you’re referring to if you want a more specific response. In any case, there are obviously times in which we want to take out high value, heavily defended targets with great precision - see the coming war with eastasi-- er, Iraq. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > Oh, and you’d better believe the B-2 gets all the same support aircraft as the B-52 in most instances. Nobody in the AF is taking any undue chances with losing one of their billion dollar babies, and Serbia showed pretty effectively that stealth aircraft are somehwhat less than undetectable. \*\* The B2 doesn’t NEED all of the aircraft a b52 flight would - and for that matter, it’d make it a bigger target to have all those aircraft around. And the Serbian thing was a fluke. We became arrogant that no one could even hope to detect us - and the Serbs used a very crude method to get a general idea of where the planes were flying. We consistently flew through a certain canyon at roughly the same time over a few nights - and they had the technology to know SOMETHING was happening there, but nothing even remotely capable of tracking it. The plane was basically shot down by flooding the entire area with FLaK because they could predict when we’d be there. Also, that was an f117, which is technologically inferior to the B2 by a good amount, and therefore more susceptable to that sort of detection. They got lucky, and we were stupid. Ideally, we’ve learned. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-soft-on-national-security/136213/155 "2002-11-16T07:06:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*We _have_ a heavy military deterrent. I’m not advocating the _scrapping_ of the M1A1, its heavy artillery support, the B-52, etc. What I’m saying is that is only a _part_ of what the military needs to be prepared for, and an increasingly small part at that. \*\* Agreed, mostly. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > BTW, heavy forces ain’t gonna do shit against China. They’re not in the theater exccept, to a limited extent, in South Korea. If Beijing goes postal on Taiwan, the **only** conventional line of defense we can offer is precisely the kind of fast, rapid deployment force I’m talking about. F-22’s and AEGIS destroyers won’t accomplish a damn thing if China decides to walk into Taiwan. \*\* This statement confuses me. F-22s and AEGIS ships deployed to Taiwan would obviously be a superior conventional force to what the Chinese could deploy. Either system can get to Taiwan pretty quickly. > [@](#): > > \*\* > And what you conceded merely as this:Uh, yeah, so the B-52 can strike the Middle East from bases in the U.S. . . . if it’s refueled. Ya know, precisely like the B-2 must be refueled, except the B-52 needs to be refueled 2,800 miles less often. See, it’s that second sentence that you couldn’t be bothered to acknowledge. Even from the United States, the B-52 is a superior weapons delivery platform for at leat 95% of the missions where you’d need a heavy bomber flying from the U.S. \*\* Cite? I understand you were picking a number off the top of your head, but I don’t think you know any more than I do what 95% of future missions will entail. The B2 and B52 have different roles - you seem to think they’re competing for the same roles. The B52 is a better bomb carrier. It carries a shitload of bombs, and does so pretty well. The B2 is (can be) a precision weapons platform that can penetrate defenses very effectively and drop 72 (IIRC) precision weapons. The B2 can hit 72 seperate high value targets on a run to Baghdad, and the B52 never could hope to do that. The B52 can bomb the living fuck out of a field army, and the B2 can’t do that. > [@](#): > > \*\* > The B-1, incidentally, doesn’t even enter the heavy bomber equation. It’s a piece of crap that even the Air Force basically refuses to fly. Despite being deployer ca. 1983, it didn’t see combat until Afghanistan, IIRC. Bloody useless. \*\* Not really useless, just not really any better for most situations than the b52. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Incidentally incidentally, we need to start planning a new heavy bomber. No stealth required, just a modern, kickass, super duper, blowing the crap out of large chunks of real estate heavy bomber that’s also capable of hanging out over the battlefield for extended periods to deliver precision munitions. \*\* The B52 with upgrades could (and probably will) do that. The air force is now run by high ranked ex-fighter pilots, and strategic air doctrine has been neglected for decades. Don’t expect anything smart to come out of the airforce. I think the quadrennial defense review of 1998 covers this subject extremely well, if you’re interested. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > But even more than that, we need new generations of unmanned aircraft, the Predator/Hellfire combos of tomorrow. \*\* Lots of potential there. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-soft-on-national-security/136213/156 "2002-11-16T18:21:10Z")
Here’s an article what makes a pretty decent case why Democrats are soft on defense: [http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0211.hurlburt.html](http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0211.hurlburt.html) ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-soft-on-national-security/136213/157 "2002-11-16T18:36:02Z")
The very same article I mentioned in my first post in this thread, and which **RTFirefly** and I discussed in this thread’s predecessor. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-soft-on-national-security/136213/158 "2002-11-16T18:37:15Z")
Oh, and Weird\_Al also linked to it in his very first post to this thread. Do try to keep up. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-soft-on-national-security/136213/159 "2002-11-16T18:53:59Z")
Forgot that that was in this thread. What do you expect? It’s Saturday morning, and I only had one cup of coffee. I think I kissed the dog and put my wife outside, too. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-soft-on-national-security/136213/160 "2002-11-16T18:59:14Z")
Well they were posted, what, last Sunday? I think you might want to go check on your wife and dog. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-soft-on-national-security/136213.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-soft-on-national-security/136213.md?page=9)