I was very careful all along to say that opposition to any individual program was not evidence of being ‘soft’ on Defense. That’s why I wasted a whole bloody afternoon establishing that the Democrats have a pattern of being consistently oppositional, or at least weaker than the Republicans, on a host of ‘core’ military programs.
As for the Crusader, yeah it looks like a system ripe for killing. The problem with the Crusader is basically that restructuring of the armed forces into a rapid deployment force have made the Crusader a tough sell. The two biggest problems with the Crusader are that,
A) it is very difficult to transport by air. The only aircraft that can lift it are the C-5 Galaxy and the new C-17. That means it’s hard to bring them into play on an actual battlefied in rapid fashion.
B) Its primary mission of medium-range precision bombing has been overtaken by smart weapons dropped from aircraft.
Bear in mind that artillery systems are the military component I know least about, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.
Anyway, a couple of the programs I listed that Democrats wanted to kill I would probably agree needed killing. However, the big difference is that the Democrats always want to kill these programs and then take the money they save and move it out of defense entirely and into social programs (You can find dozens of bills entered by Democrats seeking to transfer funds from the military budget to other things). I might support the Crusader’s cancellation, but whatever hole that cancellation leaves behind needs to be filled. If smart bombs can do it, great. Then order more airplanes and bombs.
Minty is a perfect example of a Democrat who would be ‘soft’ on defense not because he’s a dove, or even because he lacks commitment to defense. But he really apparently doesn’t understand it very well, or if he does, he’s much more willing than I to dismiss defense concerns. For example, these are some of Minty’s assertions from the first page of this thread:
[ul]
[li] Ballistic Missile Defense (a) doesn’t work, (b) won’t provide any reasonable measure of protection damn thing even if it did work exactly as advertised, and © is a giant black hole for billions and billions of dollars that would be more effectively spent elsewhere in the military budget. [/li]
This argument always bothered me. Especially when it comes from liberals who will turn around and claim that the government should just ‘solve’ the energy crisis with R&D. Ballistic Missile Defense doesn’t work. That’s true. That’s why you do research. All evidence points to the fact that it WILL work. There have been a number of spectacular successes in tests recently. But perhaps even more important is that the technology from SDI is filtering down into area missile defense systems like the Arrow missile, which DO work.
[li]Strategic Nuclear weapons are ‘no longer needed’ to protect the U.S. [/li]
This is contrary to the opinion of every armed service, the defense policy of the United States, and common sense. It is critically important for the U.S. to maintain the largest fleet of nuclear weapons in the world, lest it fall prey to nuclear blackmail. It is also the best deterrent against adventurism from countries like North Korea, China, and Russia. As long as the nuclear club has members who have interests opposed to the U.S., the U.S. needs a strategic deterrant. And by the way, nukes are the CHEAPEST way to do that. Take away the Trident subs patrolling the oceans, and the ICBM’s that can hit anywhere in the world, and the U.S.'s only other choice to deter a country like China would be to employ MASSIVE conventional arms in the area.
[li] Allowing the Secretary of the Army and Navy to lease corporate jets when they might need to is ‘too ridiculous to dignify with a response’. [/li]
It’s telling that Minty thinks this is a big joke without even knowing what the issue is. The notion that some military guys should be allowed to fly in executive jets apparently makes his lip curl up. A common affliction among Democrats.
[li] ** Cutting 1% across the board from the military budget is ‘chump change’** [/li]
Okay, you go off and cut 39 billion dollars from the military in one year, without damaging it. But if 1% is chump change, then surely you wouldn’t object to cutting the overall budget of the U.S. by 1%?
[li]The Army School of the Americas has ‘fuck all’ to do with defense. [/li]
The Army School of the Americas trains Latin American soldiers in principles of military leadership, so they can go home and make their own militaries more effective. These militaries through treaty act as front-line defense in case of insurrection or political unrest in Latin America. The ASOTA also requires that students be schooled in human rights, and holds governments who send students responsible for their behaviour, thus giving the U.S. more human rights clout. Another important function of the ASOTA is to train foreign soldiers and civilian managers in the principles of disaster relief - a job that would otherwise fall on the United States military. The ASOTA also organizes joint training between Latin American countries and the U.S., which would allow them to work together more effectively if the need should arise. Finally, the ASOTA trains soldiers and police in other countries how to stop terrorist threats, and how to prevent their countries from being used as transit routes for terrorists and their supplies. I’m guessing Minty didn’t know any of this before he knee jerked and he declared the Army School of the Americas to be useless.
[li]The B-2 is a weapons system designed for a mission that no longer exists, and which is generally incapable of performing the missions it is now asked to perform.[/li]
As I mentioned before, the B-2 is the only aircraft in the U.S. inventory that is capable of striking targets in the Middle East from U.S. soil. All other aircraft need to be staged out of other airbases overseas. There are several huge advantages to this. First, this means rapid response. If a crisis erupted somewhere, the U.S. can respond to it without the logistical problems of moving aircraft and supplies closer to the action. Second, intelligence. Overseas air bases are under heavy scrutiny by intelligence agencies. Moving aircraft to them is a signal of imminent action. The B-2 is the only way the U.S. can strike somewhere with absolutely zero warning.
For a useless aircraft, it sure got a lot of use in Afghanistan. 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.
[li]His guess is that the Arrow missile is not so good, not even against such fat targets as Saddam’s Scuds.[/li]
I guess Minty doesn’t know that the Arrow missile is already operational, and is a major factor in the possible upcoming war with Iraq. Israel has sped up deployment of the Arrow, and their confidence in the system is not just a big boost to the population of Israel, which doesn’t have to feel quite so helpless under Iraq’s SCUDS, but it also acts as a deterrant to Saddam’s launching of those misiles in the first place.
But here, let me quote from the Associated Press:
*
The developers of the Israeli Arrow missile system say it is ready for use.
An Israeli Arrow missile from the largely U.S.-funded weapons system intercepted and destroyed a missile launched off the Israeli coast on Thursday.
Although the Arrow has hit missiles in previous tests, this was the first time it had intercepted a small, high-speed missile head-on.
The target missile was launched from an F-15 warplane, which makes it more difficult to track and intercept. The Arrow was launched from the ground.
“The Arrow was fired at the target in a stable, precise manner until it hit and destroyed the target,” said Daniel Peretz, head of the Arrow program at Israeli Aircraft Industries.
Peretz said the Arrow is now operational. “If one day, we will need it, the system is functioning,” he told Israel radio.
Prime Minister Ehud Barak said the successful test strengthens “the strategic deterrent capability of the state of Israel.”
*
Of the 8 operational tests of the Arrow, 7 were successful. Not R&D tests, operational tests. That means tests in real-world scenarios. They have shot-down SCUD missiles, and in the test mentioned above, an air-launched, high speed missile significantly more difficult to hit than a SCUD.
Or let’s just ask the question: If you were an Israeli right now, with the fairly high likelihood that in the reasonably near future Saddam was going to launch chemical or biological weapons at you in SCUD missiles, would you like a 7/8 chance of shooting those missiles down?
[/ul]