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?
QuoteGates Seeks Sharp Turn In Spending
Defense Budget Focuses On Lower-Tech Weapons
By Greg Jaffe and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, April 7, 2009; A01
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates outlined sweeping changes to the defense budget Monday that would shift billions of dollars in Pentagon spending away from elaborate weapons toward programs more likely to benefit troops in today's wars.
The proposal by Gates amounts to a radical change in the way the Pentagon buys weapons. For decades, the United States has spent trillions of dollars on weapons programs that strove for revolutionary leaps but often were delivered years late and billions of dollars over budget. In proposing his 2010 budget, which is likely to face stiff resistance from Congress, Gates emphasized that he wanted to change the "priorities of America's defense establishment."
The effort to pare back weapons programs that Gates derided as "truly in the exquisite category" reflects a growing recognition in the Pentagon that the days of soaring defense budgets are over. And it highlights Gates's long-stated desire to increase spending on surveillance systems and other relatively low-tech weapons that are best suited for guerrilla or irregular war, which has traditionally been an industry backwater. "I'm just trying to get the irregular guys to have a seat at the table and to institutionalize some of the needs they have," he said.
To bolster the Afghan war effort, he would spend $2 billion more on intelligence and surveillance programs to track insurgents and $500 million to field more helicopters and an additional 2,800 Special Operations personnel focused on counterterrorism. The $534 billion plan represents a $20 billion increase over 2009.
Among the weapons taking the biggest hits are the Navy's DDG 1000 destroyer, a stealthy ship whose cost has ballooned over the past decade. The Navy will purchase only three of the advanced ships and then revert to building the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers that have been a mainstay of the fleet for years.
Gates recommended halting production of the Air Force's F-22 fighter jet at 187 planes -- four more than the current number -- and killing the new presidential helicopter program.
The Pentagon proposal also would dramatically cut back the Army's ambitious Future Combat Systems program, which consists of a network of advanced vehicles, unmanned surveillance aircraft and battlefield sensors. Specifically, Gates said that he is canceling the $87 billion in the program set aside to develop a new generation of light armored vehicles that were meant to replace Bradley Fighting Vehicles and 72-ton tanks. These advanced vehicles, which have been in development for almost a decade, were supposed to rely on better surveillance technology to compensate for their lack of armor.
The huge toll that low-tech roadside bombs have taken on Army and Marine Corps troops in Iraq and Afghanistan led Gates to conclude that such an approach was not feasible. Instead of pouring more money into the futuristic vehicles, Gates indicated that he was more comfortable spending money on the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle, or MRAP, which is based on a South African design that dates to the early 1990s.
He also set aside $2 billion for surveillance technology, such as Predator unmanned surveillance planes and sensors that have proved their worth tracking down insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. Another $11 billion is being reallocated within the budget to pay for a planned increase of 65,000 troops to the Army's ranks and an additional 27,000 Marines.
In unveiling his new priorities for the Pentagon, Gates acknowledged that he would probably face opposition from lawmakers eager to protect jobs in their districts. "My hope is that members of Congress will rise above parochial interests and consider what is in the best interest of the nation as a whole," he said.
Gates demanded unprecedented secrecy when developing the budget over the past six weeks. Senior generals throughout the department were required to sign non-disclosure agreements. In order to prevent leaks, Gates won special permission from the president to withhold his decisions from the White House's Office of Management and Budget until after the budget proposal was formally announced. "We wanted to ensure that the changes were presented in full context," a senior Pentagon official said.
The initial response on Capitol Hill was restrained, reflecting Gates's credibility among Republicans, the president's popularity and the fact that the midterm congressional elections are still 18 months away. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) called the Gates plan "a good-faith effort." But he also asserted Congress's authority over how defense money is spent. "The buck stops with Congress," Skelton said in a statement.
The cuts will undoubtedly be painful for communities such as Marietta, Ga., where about 2,000 Lockheed Martin workers assemble the F-22. The program employs about 25,000 people around the country, said Rep. Tom Price (R), whose Georgia district includes the Lockheed Martin plant. "This decision will not only cost thousands of jobs at a critical time, it is detrimental to the country's national defense capabilities," Price said. "The president's priorities are deeply flawed."
Similarly, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) bemoaned the decision to stop building F-22s. "This would result in the loss of thousands of jobs in Connecticut," he said.
Gates said he was concerned about the impact his changes would have on companies and workers, but he noted that many of the job cuts would be offset by increases in other areas. For example, even as the number of employees working on the F-22 declined, tens of thousands more workers would be hired to build the F-35, a more affordable and slightly less advanced stealth fighter. Gates said he planned to accelerate production of the plane to buy 30 in 2010, up from a planned purchase of 14 this year.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 08, 2009, 05:05:39 AM
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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 08, 2009, 05:22:56 AM
With North Korea testing long range missile I'd prefer that we keep the Missile Defense Agency.
Go fuck yourself, you limpy gimp. It's unnecessary.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 08, 2009, 05:22:56 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 08, 2009, 05:05:39 AM
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.
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...
Personally I consider the changes eminently sensible, moderate indeed. He has not only kept but increased the number of F-35s, hasn't touched the submarine force (which IMHO is oversized as things stand now), kept the Litoral Combat Ships...
Oh, and: Did you really have an overdue, overexpensive, overkill development program for new presidential helicopters? It seems like something out of a comedy...
I hope this doesn't screw over my company too much. :unsure:
Quote from: Vince on April 08, 2009, 06:39:14 AM
I hope this doesn't screw over my company too much. :unsure:
Praise the Lord and keep your Congressmen happy!
Quote from: Alatriste on April 08, 2009, 06:56:44 AM
Quote from: Vince on April 08, 2009, 06:39:14 AM
I hope this doesn't screw over my company too much. :unsure:
Praise the Lord and keep your Congressmen happy!
My Congressman is a 2-term Neophyte. I must have my faith in my company's lobbyists and it's ability to provide kickbacks and slush funds to elected officials. :D
Quote from: Vince on April 08, 2009, 07:20:53 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on April 08, 2009, 06:56:44 AM
Quote from: Vince on April 08, 2009, 06:39:14 AM
I hope this doesn't screw over my company too much. :unsure:
Praise the Lord and keep your Congressmen happy!
My Congressman is a 2-term Neophyte. I must have my faith in my company's lobbyists and it's ability to provide kickbacks and slush funds to elected officials. :D
My congressman is a newbie. When we had DeWine and Hobson running the show, my county and district got some of the goodies.
Now with Austria in charge, I don't know. :weep:
I would say that overall this is pretty refreshing - a change of focus from the whiz-bang golly-gee super toys to practical and applicable force augmentation.
We have some 180+ F-22s already - how many more do we need[/]? Note that I am not asking how many more people in Connecticut and Georgia to we need to employ.
Good. The generals' obsession with fighting a theorectical World War III was a ridiculous strain on our budget at a time we are actually fighting a real war. They can play their games about what happens when China invades India once our war is over.
I hope they have put aside money for breech-loaders.
Quote from: Berkut on April 08, 2009, 08:22:56 AM
Note that I am not asking how many more people in Connecticut and Georgia to we need to employ.
About 450k in Georgia. http://www.dol.state.ga.us/pdf/pr/laborforce.pdf
Probably a good decision to limit the number of Zumwalts they build. They're pricey, and given that the main instrument of US sea power is the carrier group (and thus odds are good that a ship would be operating near a carrier), it doesn't make sense to have a stealth destroyer sitting right next to a huge, unstealthy carrier.
Quote from: Alatriste on April 08, 2009, 06:28:06 AM
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?
Does this mean they are going to bring back the Sgt York? That tech was rather low...
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2009, 09:17:21 AM
Probably a good decision to limit the number of Zumwalts they build. They're pricey, and given that the main instrument of US sea power is the carrier group (and thus odds are good that a ship would be operating near a carrier), it doesn't make sense to have a stealth destroyer sitting right next to a huge, unstealthy carrier.
You can see the AEW aircraft, you can see the carrier and you can see the radar from the air defense radar and the guided missile cruiser. But you can't see the JSFs in the CAP, you can't see the attack sub under the carrier group and you can't see the stealth picket destroyers all around the carrier group getting the data from the radar and sonars of the louder parts of the carrier group.
QuoteMine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle
I read that is Mime Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle...
I am now hugely disappointed :(
Quote from: PDH on April 08, 2009, 10:05:26 AM
Does this mean they are going to bring back the Sgt York? That tech was rather low...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sgtyork.org%2Fimages%2Flegacyphotos%2FSgt.%2520York%2520at%2520his%2520shoot.gif&hash=1306bcc574aaa470533f32c50d861c7eba3e1f1e)
I was quite happy when I heard they were axing the Army's FCS. That crap sounds like it would have gotten a lot of soldiers killed.
Quote from: Berkut on April 08, 2009, 08:22:56 AM
I would say that overall this is pretty refreshing - a change of focus from the whiz-bang golly-gee super toys to practical and applicable force augmentation.
I agree. I hope he doesn't get too much stick for doing what seems perfectly sensible.
Quote from: derspiess on April 08, 2009, 09:34:38 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on April 08, 2009, 06:28:06 AM
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?
That's not the point. The point is, the day the shield works (if it ever does, and that's highly unlikely) the enemy would have means to "go trough the Ardennes" instantly and at zero cost, and I didn't even mention cruise missiles, small airplanes and a host of other ways to carry a nuke to its intended destination.
Is worth it spending so many billions and investing so many R&D resources just to force the enemy to use slower but stealthier ways? IMHO the missile shield would be the most expensive & useless toy in the history of war even if it worked like a charm shooting down 100 ICBMs from every 100.
Quote from: Alatriste on April 08, 2009, 12:20:16 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 08, 2009, 09:34:38 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on April 08, 2009, 06:28:06 AM
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?
That's not the point. The point is, the day the shield works (if it ever does, and that's highly unlikely) the enemy would have means to "go trough the Ardennes" instantly and at zero cost, and I didn't even mention cruise missiles, small airplanes and a host of other ways to carry a nuke to its intended destination.
Instantly and at zero cost?
Really?
How much do you think a nuke weighs?
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 08, 2009, 12:18:50 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 08, 2009, 08:22:56 AM
I would say that overall this is pretty refreshing - a change of focus from the whiz-bang golly-gee super toys to practical and applicable force augmentation.
I agree. I hope he doesn't get too much stick for doing what seems perfectly sensible.
With all the defense jobs at stake every Congressman with a defense job in his district is going to raise hell.
Quote from: Vince on April 08, 2009, 12:28:54 PMWith all the defense jobs at stake every Congressman with a defense job in his district is going to raise hell.
We should have listened to Eisenhower.
Quote from: Norgy on April 08, 2009, 08:42:20 AM
I hope they have put aside money for breech-loaders.
And what would they need to load their pants with?
Quote from: Vince on April 08, 2009, 12:28:54 PM
With all the defense jobs at stake every Congressman with a defense job in his district is going to raise hell.
Why not then eliminate only the jobs in the Republican districts, while leaving them alone in the Democratic districts, as a compromise?
Quote from: DGuller on April 08, 2009, 12:52:40 PM
Quote from: Vince on April 08, 2009, 12:28:54 PM
With all the defense jobs at stake every Congressman with a defense job in his district is going to raise hell.
Why not then eliminate only the jobs in the Republican districts, while leaving them alone in the Democratic districts, as a compromise?
I can live with that. :)
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2009, 12:30:35 PM
Quote from: Vince on April 08, 2009, 12:28:54 PMWith all the defense jobs at stake every Congressman with a defense job in his district is going to raise hell.
We should have listened to Eisenhower.
Expensive but not entirely useful weapons programmes are really ideal ways of getting pork in a bill. They can be described as being in the national interest which makes them ideal.
Quote from: Berkut on April 08, 2009, 08:22:56 AM
I would say that overall this is pretty refreshing - a change of focus from the whiz-bang golly-gee super toys to practical and applicable force augmentation.
We have some 180+ F-22s already - how many more do we need[/]? Note that I am not asking how many more people in Connecticut and Georgia to we need to employ.
As many as neccessary to replace every F-15 :yes:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 08, 2009, 05:22:56 AM
With North Korea testing long range missile I'd prefer that we keep the Missile Defense Agency.
If only you could actually defend against missile attack just by having an Agency with the appropriate name.
All we would need then is to set up an Agency for World Democracy, Freedom and World Peace, Agency for American Economic Recovery, and Agency for Generalized Happiness.
Quote from: Syt on April 08, 2009, 01:48:12 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 08, 2009, 08:10:35 AM
Austria in charge
A-E-I-O-U? :unsure:
I'm glad to know that you know your vowels. Also, sometimes Y.
Quote from: Syt on April 08, 2009, 01:48:12 PM
A-E-I-O-U? :unsure:
Alles Erdreich Ist Österreich Untertan!
Quote from: Alatriste on April 08, 2009, 12:20:16 PM
IMHO the missile shield would be the most expensive & useless toy in the history of war even if it worked like a charm shooting down 100 ICBMs from every 100.
What makes you say that? If the missile shield was perfect, we could finally eliminate Russia.
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2009, 01:57:51 PM
Quote from: Alatriste on April 08, 2009, 12:20:16 PM
IMHO the missile shield would be the most expensive & useless toy in the history of war even if it worked like a charm shooting down 100 ICBMs from every 100.
What makes you say that? If the missile shield was perfect, we could finally eliminate Russia.
They could still nuke half the States from subs. Or even fishing trawlers if they feel like it.
Quote from: derspiess on April 08, 2009, 09:34:38 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on April 08, 2009, 06:28:06 AM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on April 08, 2009, 08:22:56 AM
I would say that overall this is pretty refreshing - a change of focus from the whiz-bang golly-gee super toys to practical and applicable force augmentation.
We have some 180+ F-22s already - how many more do we need[/]? Note that I am not asking how many more people in Connecticut and Georgia to we need to employ.
Well, they can send those unemployed F-22 builders to fill the 60 000 new openings in the Army.
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2009, 01:57:51 PM
Quote from: Alatriste on April 08, 2009, 12:20:16 PM
IMHO the missile shield would be the most expensive & useless toy in the history of war even if it worked like a charm shooting down 100 ICBMs from every 100.
What makes you say that? If the missile shield was perfect, we could finally eliminate Russia.
There is no political will to do that, even if we could.
Quote from: Iormlund on April 08, 2009, 06:34:21 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2009, 01:57:51 PM
Quote from: Alatriste on April 08, 2009, 12:20:16 PM
IMHO the missile shield would be the most expensive & useless toy in the history of war even if it worked like a charm shooting down 100 ICBMs from every 100.
What makes you say that? If the missile shield was perfect, we could finally eliminate Russia.
They could still nuke half the States from subs. Or even fishing trawlers if they feel like it.
Fishing trawlers aren't really suited to launch a nuclear missile.
Quote from: Siege on April 08, 2009, 06:52:58 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 08, 2009, 08:22:56 AM
I would say that overall this is pretty refreshing - a change of focus from the whiz-bang golly-gee super toys to practical and applicable force augmentation.
We have some 180+ F-22s already - how many more do we need[/]? Note that I am not asking how many more people in Connecticut and Georgia to we need to employ.
Well, they can send those unemployed F-22 builders to fill the 60 000 new openings in the Army.
These are skilled workers, not idiotic grunts.
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2009, 07:07:19 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 08, 2009, 06:52:58 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 08, 2009, 08:22:56 AM
I would say that overall this is pretty refreshing - a change of focus from the whiz-bang golly-gee super toys to practical and applicable force augmentation.
We have some 180+ F-22s already - how many more do we need[/]? Note that I am not asking how many more people in Connecticut and Georgia to we need to employ.
Well, they can send those unemployed F-22 builders to fill the 60 000 new openings in the Army.
These are skilled workers, not idiotic grunts.
They can build hundreds of UCAS aircraft, thereby rendering the current Air Force obsolete and send all those personnel into useful services, like the Army or Navy.
I think we've seen from Iraq and Afghanistan that the Army isn't really a useful service either.
:mad:
Quote from: Iormlund on April 08, 2009, 06:37:25 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 08, 2009, 09:34:38 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on April 08, 2009, 06:28:06 AM
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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 08, 2009, 05:22:56 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 08, 2009, 05:05:39 AM
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.
Quote from: mongers on April 08, 2009, 07:39:38 PM
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.
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2009, 07:14:08 PM
I think we've seen from Iraq and Afghanistan that the Army isn't really a useful service either.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Featourbrains.com%2FEoB%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2007%2F05%2Ftroll.jpg&hash=fab49365eb3f7a62a26c8b6e81d827b6104b784f)
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 08, 2009, 02:33:01 PM
I got it. I went with the cheap vowel joke. :blush:
One never knows with you Yankee Yokels. -_-
Quote from: Berkut on April 08, 2009, 12:25:57 PM
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...
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 08, 2009, 09:34:02 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on April 08, 2009, 06:37:25 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 08, 2009, 09:34:38 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on April 08, 2009, 06:28:06 AM
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.
:lol:
How cute. You're so naive.
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.
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 10, 2009, 06:52:18 AM
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?
Quote from: Iormlund on April 09, 2009, 05:58:19 AM
QuoteIf it really served Putin better than the US the Russians wouldn't be continuously freaking out about it.
:lol:
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.
Quote from: Alatriste on April 09, 2009, 02:02:02 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 08, 2009, 12:25:57 PM
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.
Quote from: Alcibiades on April 09, 2009, 12:08:24 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2009, 07:14:08 PM
I think we've seen from Iraq and Afghanistan that the Army isn't really a useful service either.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Featourbrains.com%2FEoB%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2007%2F05%2Ftroll.jpg&hash=fab49365eb3f7a62a26c8b6e81d827b6104b784f)
Don't cry. Just because your service is useless and your mission a waste doesn't make you yourself useless or a waste.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 10, 2009, 08:35:09 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on April 09, 2009, 05:58:19 AM
QuoteIf it really served Putin better than the US the Russians wouldn't be continuously freaking out about it.
:lol:
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".
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 10, 2009, 08:35:09 AM
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.
I thought it was obvious but I guess it hasn't occurred to you that Putin is milking this issue to focus attention away from domestic problems. There's nothing like a common enemy (terrorists, Jooos, fags) to make people bend over willingly while you're fucking them.
Quote from: Iormlund on April 12, 2009, 12:11:56 PM
(terrorists, Jooos, fags)
I for one am terrified by these Jew Terrorist Fags. The JTF might be the menace of our time.
Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2009, 12:44:10 PM
Quote from: Alcibiades on April 09, 2009, 12:08:24 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2009, 07:14:08 PM
I think we've seen from Iraq and Afghanistan that the Army isn't really a useful service either.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Featourbrains.com%2FEoB%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2007%2F05%2Ftroll.jpg&hash=fab49365eb3f7a62a26c8b6e81d827b6104b784f)
Don't cry. Just because your service is useless and your mission a waste doesn't make you yourself useless or a waste.
Yeah...you never see me crying.