a reply to: Zaphod58
Well see, this is what I do not understand worth a damn.
The US government spends a fantastic amount of money, astronomical sums, on defence. It purchases so much gear, and pays so much for it, that at
times it borders on the ridiculous, and although there has been a trend in recent years of cutting this and that, the numbers of dollars expended are
still absolutely insane.
What I cannot fathom, is that if one has a platform which performs its role effectively, has a proven track record, is loved by the people who
operate it, and the people on the ground who rely upon the aegis it can throw up around them, why one would decide that any course of action other
than flying that airframe until it literally disintegrates through age, is sensible! Surely this makes no sense?
Let's say that I have two implements on a table in front of me, with which I must achieve my personal defence. One of them, is a sleek, small combat
knife of modern construction, with a compass built into one end, and a micro computer with a USB port that I can attach to my computer, to record stab
forces, so that in my next encounter I can use the recorded data to improve my shanking action. The other is an old, weather beaten Bowie knife with a
bone handle. Guess which one I will pick up in a heart beat? It will be the Bowie, because I already know that it is sharp, I can handle its extra
weight, and know how to account for its slower speed of strike, the width of its blade, its balance.
For similar reasons, the A-10 ought to be protected from canning I think. If it can fly, then it can fight, and if it can fight, then it damned well
ought to! I certainly think that getting rid of this Major General fellow was the right course of action here, since he had no business interfering in
his subordinates ability to access representatives on the subject of the A-10s retirement.