Obama Budget to Boost Spending $20.4B

Obama Budget to Boost Spending $20.4B

www.defensenews.com

President Barack Obama wants to increase spending on the U.S. military by $20.4 billion in 2010, but he's also calling for a crackdown on the Pentagon's profligate procurement system.

The $533.7 billion does not include money for fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or about $20 billion that is to be spent on nuclear weapons and other military items outside the Defense Department.

Spending for 2009 is about $681 billion.

(visit the link for the full news article)

The article states this:

Among the items competing with costly weapons will be programs to prepare for asymmetrical and non-conventional attacks posed by cyber, biological, radiological and nuclear warfare, the outline says.

However...

Manual lays out Army hopes for electronic warfare

For the first time since the end of the Cold War, the Army is updating its manual for the electronic battlefield.

The doctrine calls on the Army to develop and deploy directed-energy weapons such as high-powered microwaves, lasers and infrared beams, as well as wireless networks and other devices to confuse enemy communication.

source: www.google.com...

Seems like it's not the enemy using unconventional tactics.


And then there's this
Oshkosh receives $477 million Army vehicle order

Oshkosh Corp. said Wednesday it has received a $477 million order from the Army for more than 1,350 new and rebuilt trucks and more than 1,000 armor-ready trailers.

source:
www.forbes.com...


and this

Northrop gets $574M deal from Army

RESTON, Va. - The U.S. Army is giving Northrop Grumman Corp. an additional $574 million for work on a system that offers soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan situational awareness, the company said Monday.

Source:
www.msnbc.msn.com...



Is it just me or does anyone else think that something BIG is happening?

www.defensenews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Sounds like O's actually doing something right for a change.
I dont think it necesarily means they know something will happen. Biden and Powell both said that they suspect something could happen. Also its pretty much expected that a new president will be tested.

This is what is happening, US is going into full force in Afghanistan and rumors are that they will be also getting into Pakistan.

Already my local base is getting ready for the deployment of equipment for the new groups of marines that will be deployed in Afghanistan, my husband just told me yesterday that they were going in full force.

And for Iran that is no part of the issue right now.

For some reason Pakistan is the new target now.

Well, as I recall, then candidate Obama was very adamant about his willingness to 'go where ever the terrorist are - even Pakistan - if necessary' (not a direct quote - please forgive the liberty).

And since the northern provinces were willing to accept that Taliban's presence without requiring disarmament, it's the perfect excuse to spend billions more on our war against 'terror.'

$20B is chump change when you stack it up against the trillions were either giving to, or forgiving of, the transnational banking cartel. And on the up side - for someone - the Poppy harvest won't be disrupted.

I am not reassured, nor can I see how this is making us safer, either now or in the long run. Seems like more fuel for blowback.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by Maxmars]

reply to post by marg6043


It's probably because Pakistan is essentially a failed state with nukes. The Pakistani intelligence service(ISI) also paid for the 9/11 attacks and they support the Taliban and Al-qaida.

reply to post by projectvxn


I hadn't thought of that. This could get ugly.

Projectvxn, yesterday I didn't give much attention to what my husband was telling occurs this is good news if you work for the defense contracting.

As that means more funding for projects.

So yes something is going on and is going to be big, like some are already saying in this thread.

Maxmars the war profiteers will never end the cash influx that Bush war on terror has created.

Agreed. This could get very ugly. We're dealing with a country who hates us and has nukes. This cannot be a good thing. We've been so worried about Iraq and Iran that the true threat to our national security in Pakistan has been largely ignored.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Well to start with, we've been at war for years now in 2 countries which has taken a large toll on vehicles and personnel.

In addition, you don't want to just rebuild the old stuff but add new inventory. You never know when something is going to come up so you need to be prepared. That was one of the big problems with Iraq, in a tactical sense, the soldiers were not given the equipment they needed.

The whole idea behind military technology is to figure out what the enemy can/has the potential to do and make sure you can counter it and you have equipment they don't.

As for this,

The doctrine calls on the Army to develop and deploy directed-energy weapons such as high-powered microwaves, lasers and infrared beams, as well as wireless networks and other devices to confuse enemy communication.

This stuff has been out there for awhile now.
Thanks to a recent breakthrough in solid state modular design, high powered combat lasers can now be used.

Mexico is ready to implode and when it does, who do you think will need to protect the United States Southern boarder and might need to step in to help keep 10's of thousands of innocent mexicans from dying?

All that being said
SO?
Wouldn't you rather your big brother country that protects you, be well armed?

[edit on 28-2-2009 by jfj123]

I am wondering if the US military has grown to the point where it would even be possible to cut its budget, say by 50-75%, without causing complete collapse of the defense infrastructure.

The small 'reforms' mentioned in the article seem like tokens. Not much cost savings, and totally meaningless - Congress is in the same information-consumer group as foreign enemies and analysts, so I would not expect any cost-accounting to bear much resemblance to reality.

As to Pakistan, I have a feeling our intelligence community is on top of it. I very much doubt any of those weapons would ever be able to enter a pre-ready use state without explicit American approval (and not simply 'diplomatic' approval).

Interesting how Obama has done such a good job convincing the anti-war pacifist contingent in the US that he's less militaristic than Bush, isn't it?