Gates' defense budget: more low-tech, less high-tech

[FunkMonk]

 

[jimmy olsen]

If North Korea wants to nuke the US  in a first strike you shouldn't worry about ICBMs but fishing boats, cargo containers and civilian airplanes...

How about we worry about both, rather than put all our eggs in one basket?

If money was no concern you could. Somehow I suspect it is, and all those billions would be better spent in the USCG, port facilities and the like rather than on a system which serves Putin better than the US.

If it really served Putin better than the US the Russians wouldn't be continuously freaking out about it.

[Razgovory]

Overall, I approve with the arguable exception of the F-22.
Now, if we can only axe the Missile Defense Agency and other assorted Star Wars bullshit.

Thoughts?

With North Korea testing long range missile I'd prefer that we keep the Missile Defense Agency.

Well currently we are both wasting money on projects that don't work.  I don't think it would be a big deal if we stopped our pie in the sky project.

[Razgovory]

Personally I blame the Soviet for this mess; at least with them you knew where you were.

The problem was we never did know where we were with them.  We were always overestimating what they could do.  There was always upper echelon panic from latest soviet military hardware and demands to congress that they fund some project to nullify this new threat.  About half the time it wasn't even worth it.

[Alcibiades]

I think we've seen from Iraq and Afghanistan that the Army isn't really a useful service either.

[Syt]

I got it. I went with the cheap vowel joke. 

One never knows with you Yankee Yokels.

[Alatriste]

Instantly and at zero cost?

Really?

How much do you think a nuke weighs?

Far less than you could think, we are in 2009, not in 1945. But even a direct copy from the bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki could be transported without problems inside a cargo container, a trawler, a Boeing / Airbus...   

[Iormlund]

If North Korea wants to nuke the US  in a first strike you shouldn't worry about ICBMs but fishing boats, cargo containers and civilian airplanes...

How about we worry about both, rather than put all our eggs in one basket?

If money was no concern you could. Somehow I suspect it is, and all those billions would be better spent in the USCG, port facilities and the like rather than on a system which serves Putin better than the US.

If it really served Putin better than the US the Russians wouldn't be continuously freaking out about it.

How cute. You're so naive.

[Hansmeister]

I largely approve of the cuts with the exception of the C-17.  I don't think we have enough airlift.

The problem I see is that there are a lot of announced cuts but no mention what will replace them.  I'm concerned particularly with the FCS.

[derspiess]

How cute. You're so naive.

Go on.

[Valmy]

I'm concerned particularly with the FCS.

But...but...don't you want to see more Youtube videos of the cool robots the military is investing in?

[jimmy olsen]

If it really served Putin better than the US the Russians wouldn't be continuously freaking out about it.

How cute. You're so naive.

Why wouldn't they be happy to let us waste billions of dollars on it if they really thought it was useless instead of trying to stop of us? If they were successful we'd actually spend that money on weapons systems that would be more likely to work. If they really think the ABM system won't work, then protesting like they are is in direct opposition to their own interests.

[Berkut]

Instantly and at zero cost?

Really?

How much do you think a nuke weighs?

Far less than you could think, we are in 2009, not in 1945. But even a direct copy from the bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki could be transported without problems inside a cargo container, a trawler, a Boeing / Airbus...   

Far less than I could think?

I don't know, I can think pretty light.

If Iran or Korea makes a nuke, it isn't going to be some ultra-sophisticated bomb. And frankly, it isn't like there has been any significant innovation in nuclear weapons designs for what - 20-30 years?

This fantasy that a state like Iran is going to create some ultra light and portable nuke that they will cart around "instantly and at zero cost" is rather naive. Someone has been reading too much Tom Clancy.

A nuke is a weapon, and hence a weapon system. You are not going to build one and then stick on a fishing boat and hope for the best.

[Neil]

I think we've seen from Iraq and Afghanistan that the Army isn't really a useful service either.

Don't cry.  Just because your service is useless and your mission a waste doesn't make you yourself useless or a waste.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

If it really served Putin better than the US the Russians wouldn't be continuously freaking out about it.

How cute. You're so naive.

Why wouldn't they be happy to let us waste billions of dollars on it if they really thought it was useless instead of trying to stop of us? If they were successful we'd actually spend that money on weapons systems that would be more likely to work. If they really think the ABM system won't work, then protesting like they are is in direct opposition to their own interests.

That's an overly simplified view.  First off, its not all about the system, or even mostly about the system.  Its about the network of cooperation the US needs to build with states formerly in the Soviet sphere of influence, some of which are right on Russia's border.  That cooperation has ramifications far beyond the deployment of the ABM systems.

Second, the question of whether or not it works has still not been answered.  It may be a complete waste of money, it may work splendidly, or (most likely) it will kinda work and need further development.  Regardless of the answer, its very likely that deploying the system would spur further development until it did work, meaning that, unless the deployment is a total disaster, the chance the system will work at some point in the future increases greatly.  Of course, it might cost so much money to get it there that it turns out to be a net negative, but that's part of the risk.

Also, don't discount the impression the shield sends to Russia.  Its similar to the fit Belgians threw when the French wanted to extend the Maginot line to the Channel, with the added tension that the ABM shield appears to be positioned to catch Russian missiles as well as "rogue states".