It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama and Gates Gut the Military

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
That's the title of the article .. not my title.

This article is interesting. It makes some excellent points.
We are being downsized to the pont of being left wide open
and unprepared.

This isn't downsizing to get us over a financial difficulty.
This is downsizing for the sake of downsizing .. to a dangerous
low point for our defense.

Wall Street Journal


- The termination of the F-22 Raptor program at just 187 aircraft inevitably will call U.S. air supremacy -- the salient feature, since World War II, of the American way of war -- into question.

- The U.S. Navy will continue to shrink below the fleet size of 313 ships it set only a few years ago.....

- Mr. Gates has promised to "restructure" the Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS) program, ...

- The proposed cuts in space and missile defense programs reflect a retreat in emerging environments that are increasingly critical in modern warfare. The termination of the Airborne Laser and Transformational Satellite programs is especially discouraging.



Looks like this is the one campaign promise that Obama is keeping ...
you know ... disarm America leaving us unprepared and open to failure.




Edited for spelling

[edit on 4/9/2009 by FlyersFan]




posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   
I guess we are to replace all that equipment with civilian 'volunteers'.

I'm no longer inclined to believe that these people who have been placed in Federal Government have any intention of '"defending the Constitution... so help me God"

Perhaps I'm just weary of all this change....

[edit on 9-4-2009 by Maxmars]



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   
I have an honest question. If we halted military development for the next 5 years, wouldn't the US still have the top military in the world?

Realistically, who would be our possible enemies? Russia and China? Aren't their militaries still pretty far behind ours technologically? And China has waaaay too much money invested in us to go to war and lose it all.

And, we have NATO and the EU at our backs for any legitimate defense, correct?

It's just hard for me to get mad at a cut in military spending when our military spending is so ridiculously bloated compared to everything else, and for what purpose? To project our power over the entire globe? Why don't we just project our power in North America and worry about what happens on another continent when it does actually happen.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
The US spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined.

So the WSJ says that this is a "gutting." Look at the source. The Wall Street Journal. What else is the premier newspaper of TPTB going to say?



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Sorry, your facts are wrong. If you read the budget, Gates has increased spending over 4% from Bush's budget with most of the new funds to better veteren healthcare and take better care of ground troops. Read the budget this was a huge increase. The are getting rid of the F22 for now however.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
No his military budget is $20 billion higher than bush's.

Somewhere around $537+ billion dollars. He isnt shrinking anything if anything he is expanding the war in the middle east.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Flyerfan... the U.S. military budget is larger than Russia, China, Britain, France and a few other countries combined... it could use a little trimming and it will still be the most formidable fighting force the world has ever seen afterwards.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Flyer, you DO know that the venerable WSJ has swung waaaaay right since that slimeball Rupert Murdoch got hold of it...

But, from ALL news sources, not just 'fox news', you will learn that the FY 2010 military budget is $B534...compared to Bushes last budget of $B513.

I'm no economist, but that looks like an overall budget Increase for the military.

AND, it would seem that by excising over-bloated ans wasteful 'pet' projects then focus can be aimed (pun) at programs that are more useful in the current World (Post-Soviet era).

As to the F-22....it's a cool airplane, certainly. But, plagued with tremendous cost over-runs. And, what is wrong with the F-16? The -14?

The basic airframes can still be produced, I would think...with appropriate electronic enhancements as technology develops. (Zaphod would know).

Besides, just how much 'air superiority' do we need? In response to whom? Seems the unmanned drones are cheaper, safer and more cost effective...and very useful in the current World arena.

Then there's the new 'Marine One' helicopter....what a boondoggle!!

Started by the Repubs, during Bush 43....with pork all throughout...

Not sure if memory serves, but it seems there was actually some comments from Rummy in early 2001 about making military expenditures 'smarter' to reflect changing conditions...maybe someone can find it?



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Good points. The F14 has been scrapped for a while but we still have both versions of the F18 which is a superior aircraft. The F22 is primariy a jet fighter. Neither opposition we are facing right now even have an airforce. The aircraft based laser to shoot down missles on accent has also been scrapped saving billions. David Spade, the actor spent 200K of his own money to send proper headgear (helmets) troops in Iraq who had lacking gear. If we need our private citizens to send better gear to our ground troops, well that sucks. So yeah, i have no problem with cutting the F22 and plane laser to give our guys and girls the best equipment they need.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
And, what is wrong with the F-16? The -14?


Any idea how old these airframes are? The F-14 entered service in 1974. The F-16 in 1976. Doesn't matter how many updates, after a while, they are just plain old.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
Besides, just how much 'air superiority' do we need? In response to whom? Seems the unmanned drones are cheaper, safer and more cost effective...and very useful in the current World arena.


Well, how many fighters do the Chinese have? Russia?



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Avenginggecko
If we halted military development for the next 5 years, wouldn't the US still have the top military in the world?

Definately not.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
Besides, just how much 'air superiority' do we need?

Complete and total air superiority in any and all situations ... everywhere.


In response to whom?

Terrorists. China. Iran. Venezuela. Korea. Pirates off the coast of Africa
.... anyone who threatens America, Americans, or our interests.


Originally posted by grover
Flyerfan... the U.S. military budget is larger than Russia, China, Britain, France and a few other countries combined...

Hey ya grover
I don't know if it's larger then all those combined. Russia and China are closed societies that only tell people what they want them to know. But even if our budget is larger ... we have full need of all our military assets ... everywhere that they are.... and those needs are larger then most of those other small countries. (china isn't small, I know).




[edit on 4/9/2009 by FlyersFan]



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Having been in the military I think I can say with a fair degree of accuracy that sometimes all that stuff can get in the way and a lean mean fighting machine is far more effective than a still lethal but bloated and slow respond one.

P.S. glad you liked the big stinking... etc.


[edit on 9-4-2009 by grover]



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


jericho, I was referring to the designs, not the current airframes that are way old.

Perhaps it's too late to re-tool and build new versions, but that's not something I know much about. Might be more expensive than the F-22, for all I know!

Here's an idea that comes to mind....'stealth' tech (F-119, the B-2) was de-classified long while ago...which would infer that the next generation of 'black' equipment is lurking behind the scenes already.

As you know, the'public' budget figures are just the tip of the iceberg on actual spending, since much is TS.

That's why I don't see the fuss...I'd rather see more money spent on troops' safety.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Having been in the military ...

OMG .. I've been here five years and I didn't know you were in too! I was in the Army. Tell us what branch you were in. Maybe we were in at the same time, etc etc ....



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   
I wish it would get cut drastically and take the heat off of other countries thinking they have to play catchup to us. I'm sick of the stress of this constant war and people dying so we can prove we are the tough guy on the block. Some country is gonna start blowing up satellites and render modern militarys obsolete for a couple years anyway. No more satellites. It will be skunkworks blimp platforms dodging incoming debris.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


I doubt it... I was in the Coast Guard from 74 through 76. But while we weren't a fighting branch per say what I had to say about bloat still applies.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Here are the craft that the Iranians have in service.

J-7 (Chinese-built MiG-21 derivative)
MiG-29
Su-24
F-5E
F-4E Phantom
Mirage F1

Trust me, they wouldn't be able to compete in the least. Not in the air. They are also still flying F14s we sold them decades ago.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Old airframes? Ever heard of the B-52 developed in the 40s. Still the most supreme bomber in the world. In regards to distance, payload, reliability, etc. Remeber the airforce jets are not like our old cars, their maintenance records are staggering. Any component get slightly worn it gets replaced.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
All this talk about F 16s and F 14s...

Isn't our military ordering almost 2500 Joint Strike Fighters? Wiki says on April 9th Gates placed that order to replace our aging Air Force fighters.

I believe the UK is also buying up JSFs...I think our military will be quite all right for awhile.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
I doubt it... I was in the Coast Guard from 74 through 76. But while we weren't a fighting branch per say what I had to say about bloat still applies.


Coast Guard? That means you're at least six feet tall, right?

You know, so you can wade to shore when your ship sinks!


Sorry, just had to get that one it.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join