You are too busy contradicting yourself, I won’t stand in your way.
Mr Moto
Was it necessary that the launcher of the cruise missiles be submarine? Was it convenient? Was it done because the sub was there and it had the missiles?
Were the navy airstrikes optimally carried out by F-18’s? Would A-6’s (a-7’s/a-4’s) have been better or worse (or at least adequate)? Would the A-12 have been better or worse? What would the advantages of a JSF based force have been over the existing force?
I fully agree that in the conventional war we used pretty much everything we had. If you try and persuade me that the war could not have been won without subs and I don’t think I will take you seriously.* Further, I do hope that the occupation does not require ongoing submarine support.
The conventional war also used our naval aviation forces extensively as you note - which is of course in large part their intended use. That doesn’t mean that for fighting wars against foes of Iraq’s (or any axis of evil member) capabilities you need the next generation of attack planes. Are we still using carrier based airstrikes to support our efforts?
Yes the GOP is big into defense spending. Yes, many of the systems we have bought have been used in the current conflict. That does not mean that the sexiest big ticket items are the optimal set of equipment for the current conflict.
*This is not saying that the US has no need or use for its existing or planned submarine force, merely that for this war they are irrelevent.
Damn, good thing I did it, then.
Apparently you can’t.
Here’s a simple one for you, then.
If full armor refit kits are what’s required to help protect the troops, then why are the troops using scrap metal and chunks of ballistic glass to try and help enhance their protection?
Are the troops stupid, or is it too expensive to ship some steel plating to Iraq so the troops don’t have to spend their time looking through scrap heaps?
-Joe
I guess if Halliburton hold the steel scraps contract the answer is almost certainly ‘yes’. 
Well, this seems perfectly silly, MMI.
You say we need submarines. That’s perfectly correct. Yet you seem to want those submarines to be limited in the use we can put them to.
Given that we need them, and have to build them anyway, wouldn’t it be wise and cost effective to equip them to do multiple jobs? A submarine is a perfect strike delivery vehicle due to its stealth. This quality makes it useful for special operations as well.
You seem to want to restrict our subs to a more limited deep water role, when many of the new warfare challenges we’re going to face will be in the littoral space, close to shore.
Mr Moto:
At no point was I (or from what I’ve read, the American Democratic party) suggesting that there was no use for those weapons and systems or that they should be eliminated completely. My comment was in response to Sam’s assertion that the amount of such systems needed to remain at historically high levels, or perhaps even higher.
But since you are so well versed in the matter, would you be so kind as to submit a few cites which shows how the systems you specifically referenced (ie nuclear subs, fighter jets, etc.) were a) critical to the success of the operation b) necessary and helpful to the subsequent occupation, and c) how having levels comprable to 1992 levels would have made the mission easier or more successful.
I would appreciate you informing me further by submitting some cites as I requested above.
This isn’t General Questions, Nietzsche.
The points I wished to make were quite well cited. Now, if you want to make assertions about the relative necessity of these systems, I suggest you conduct your own research and post your own citations.
Subs were needed for their stealth? What were they hiding from? And didn’t they expect the Iraqis would know they were out there since the whole Fifth Fleet was there?
This war would’ve gone about as well with WWII technology.
Here’s a wacky idea, let’s use the missle shield money for shit we actually need.
The steel plating is already there. There are tons of three inch steel plate that was sent over as emergency road repair material. It is being fitted onto vehicles as needed. Scrap heaps are being raided because if you put 3 inch plate on a vehicle Joe (not you, the generic Joe) is going to want 6 inch plate. If he has 6 inch he’ll want 9 inch. Every truck driver wants to know why his HEMTT doesn’t have Chobham armor.
There have been several arguments going on here. The main inferance here and elsewhere after the comments were broadcast was that the administration is not doing enough to field armored vehicles at this time. That has been discounted by several cites in this thread alone. The factory is putting out armored HMMWVs 24/7, Army arsenals and private contractors are putting out armor add on packages 24/7, any short falls are being made up by using materials that are in theater already.
The next argument is that the administration is at fault for not foreseeing the need for a great number of armored vehicles. True. No one foresaw the need. For the last twenty years since the HMMWV was first fielded, no one foresaw the need. In order to have had full fielding, the procurement needed to start sometime during the Clinton Administration. Why didn’t they concieve of any contigency why they would need it, even after Somalia? I do have some serious disagreements with the planning of this conflict but I do not see any way to blame the lack of armored HMMWVs on this administration
The argument that this thread seems to be moving to is that we wouldn’t need so many vehicles if Bush didn’t invade. That’s not what the thread is about. If you want to argue the legal or ethical reasons for or against the war start a thread. I don’t think it’s been done before.
From the Drudge report:
From the reporter’s email to his paper:
It’s interesting, although not surprising that he considers this shameful, dishonest act to be one of his best days as a journalist. Perhaps this is why the American people have so little respect for journalists.
Wow. Such idiocy is so shocking. I’m simply in awe of this.
I need an armored Hummer to carry the grain of salt I am taking with that story. I would have to see something a little more concrete than something Drudge throws up on his site.
I agree. Drudge gets enough stuff right that one might reasonably look for corroboration of his stories, but he’s wrong often enough that using him, uncorroborated, as a source is a poor idea.
Had we done the ‘Shock and Awe’ thing with the same approach we took to Dresden or Tokyo, it would have been much more shocking and awing than it was with precision weapons.
OK. Bombs and mines. Let’s try that:
“The problem is that there are more bombs or mines being deployed than anybody with any authority expected.”
Nope, ‘explosive devices’ works better – it covers the entire range of use for the explosive materials now in the possession of our enemies, and is more specific. Plus, it’s two words instead of three. Of course, you have to have more than a 2nd grade education to understand those two words. Is that a problem for you?
Frankly, I’d have thought you’d complain about ‘deployed’. If I wanted to dumb down my writing style, that’s where I’d start.
“There are a lot of bombs and mines being used. The people in charge didn’t plan for that. They lost 380 tons (760,000 pounds) of explosives. They were stupid not to think about putting armor on their Hummers, plus they were stupid to let the explosives get stolen. That makes them doubly stupid.”
Is that simple enough for you, asshole?
Are you broken in the head? Plenty of people foresaw the need. The idiots in charge thought we would roll right in and everyone would kneel before us.
Well then you must be the twin brother of Stevie Wonder.
Fuck Clinton who cares about him, get out of the past. Bush should have checked the state of the military during the ramp up to war, and made adjustments accordingly. The decision was his and his alone, to send our military in its current state to war. Leave Clinton the hell out of it. Fuck I could have planned this war better then these knuckleheads.
Again, there’s a difference between “we wouldn’t need so many vehicles if Bush didn’t invade” and “Bush should have realized that an armed occupation of a foreign territory would require more armored vehicles than he had.” In the latter case, there are things that the planners should have done differently (like, say, recruited more allies before committing themselves, hold off on attacking until we had enough armor for the job, adjust tactics, had an exit strategy, you know, that kind of stuff) without delving into the reasons for or against the wall. The fact that he didn’t do those things can imply that he didn’t care that they’d be going in underequipped.
And there’s also a difference between “doing everything reasonably possible” and “doing enough”. As in, you can be doing everything reasonably possible to fix a situation, but it still isn’t enough to fix it. Getting into that situation is a direct result of poor planning as well.
-lv
Fair enough. I’m certainly not going to bet the farm on the accuracy of Drudge’s story. However, it’s certainly relevant and interesting. We’ll see in the next couple of days if it’s actually true or not.
Who saw the need? Who was asking for every HMMWV to be armored in the 80s, or the 90s or 4 years ago? You can not “make adjustments accordingly” in a couple of months. In order to procure that many vehicles it would have taken years. I don’t think Clinton would have allowed Bush to start buying HMMWVs during his administration.