Surprised all you guys missed this today
QuoteNew Pentagon Strategy Calls For Leaner, But Still Dominant, Military
The Pentagon's new military strategy unveiled today will result in a "smaller and leaner" military force , but one that President Obama insists will maintain America's military superiority around the world.
Though no Defense budget spending information was presented today, the new strategy provides hints at potential personnel cuts that will be announced in a few weeks.
Entitled "Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense" the new strategy lays out a vision for what the American military will look like by 2020.
The president made a rare appearance in the Pentagon briefing room to provide the first details of the military strategy review begun in early 2011 that was designed to guide the anticipated $450 billion in defense spending cuts slated to take place over the next decade.
"Our military will be leaner, but the world must know the United States is going to maintain our military superiority," Obama said.
With the end of the U.S. involvement in Iraq and with significant troop reductions slated for Afghanistan by the end of 2014, the new strategy serves as a roadmap for where the military should prioritize its resources in the lean budget years to come.
"We will of necessity rebalance toward the Asia-Pacific region," the eight page document states, reaffirming a point that Obama and other senior administration officials have emphasized recently.
The shift away from Iraq and Afghanistan also means there will be less of a need to maintain the increased number of Army soldiers and Marines required to conduct a counterinsurgency fight. U.S. forces "will no longer be sized to conduct large-scale, prolonged stability operations" says the strategy. That statement translates into smaller Army and Marine forces.
Another main highlight of the strategy released today is that it does away with the Cold-War era requirement that the military be able to fight two wars simultaneously.
Seeking to ease any concerns that dropping the requirement could leave the U.S. vulnerable if it has to face multiple threats, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said, "We can confront more than one enemy at a time."
As an example, Panetta cited the possibility of having to fight a land war inKorea while dealing with a naval threat in the Strait of Hormuz at the same time.
"We have the capability, with this Joint Force, to deal with those kinds of threats, to be able to confront them, and to be able to win," he said. "That's what counts" and that could be done "without tying ourselves to a paradigm that is a residual of the Cold War."
Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the new strategy doesn't mean the U.S. is not going to fight land wars. "It doesn't say we're never going to do stability operations. It does say explicitly we have to be capable of conducting operations across the full spectrum," Dempsey said.
Of the shift towards Asia, Dempsey said "all of the trends, demographic trends, geopolitical trends, economic trends and military trends are shifting toward the Pacific. So our strategic challenges in the future will largely emanate out of the Pacific region."
He cautioned that "it would be really a mistake for ... anyone to walk away with the impression that we're going to niche ourselves to some point on the spectrum of conflict and declare ourselves a global power."
The Army and Marines were already planning to reduce their numbers beginning in 2015, but the strategy unveiled did not provide specific information whether they would be reduced beyond current planning.
However, a U.S. official confirms to ABC News that the Army will likely drop to 490,000 soldiers from its current end-strength of 570,000, a deeper cut than a planned cut of 520,000. That force strength will still be 10,000 more soldiers than were in the Army the year before 9/11.
The Marines are currently at 202,000 and had already planned to reduce their number to 186,800, a figure that will still be more than 10,000 higher than the number of Marines who were serving prior to 9/11.
The Navy will retain its fleet of 11 aircraft carriers and won't be reduced to 10 as some national security analysts had speculated. Maintaining that number of carriers should make it easier for the Navy to continue to project U.S. power in the Asia-Pacific region and the Middle East where for the past few years the Navy has maintained a two carrier presence for much of the year.
Another way the U.S. is expected to project its power in the coming decade will be through the purchase of more than 2,000 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters. The program has been beset by cost overruns resulting from production difficulties. A lot of speculation has swirled around the F-35 being a likely target for any potential budget savings.
But the U.S. official says the purchase plan for the F-35 will slide to the right by a few years so that production factories remain in operation to give some time for some of the plane's design kinks to be worked out. That move would continue the program, but also free up spending that could be spent elsewhere.
Cyberwarfare, intel and recon, reduction from Europe and ramping up in the Pacific. Meh, I can dig it.
I still prefer Reagan's 2 and 1/2 wars at once policy, though.
Here's the full doc--
www.defense.gov/news/Defense_Strategic_Guidance.pdf (http://www.defense.gov/news/Defense_Strategic_Guidance.pdf)
Perhaps he could have channelled Carter more ? :ph34r:
This seems a bit unambitious:
Quote
As an example, Panetta cited the possibility of having to fight a land war in Korea while dealing with a naval threat in the Strait of Hormuz at the same time.
Quote from: mongers on January 05, 2012, 10:13:27 PM
Perhaps he could have channelled Carter more ? :ph34r:
You got a problem with James Earle?
This seems a bit unambitious:
Quote
As an example, Panetta cited the possibility of having to fight a land war in Korea while dealing with a naval threat in the Strait of Hormuz at the same time.
We're talking scalability here.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 05, 2012, 10:14:40 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 05, 2012, 10:13:27 PM
Perhaps he could have channelled Carter more ? :ph34r:
You got a problem with James Earle?
No, I was referencing the Carter doctrine and the good old RDF; maybe if the gulf blows up this year it'll be like 1980 gone hot ?
Quote from: mongers on January 05, 2012, 10:21:27 PM
maybe if the gulf blows up this year it'll be like 1980 gone hot ?
One can only hope.
I would much prefer if he were to abolish China and start bombing.
The ideal 21sty century war machine would permit decisionmakers a full menu of possible responses to enemy forces, from 100 kilotons to 475 kilotons.
I saw this in the news. I feel the Defense budget will be ok with some triming, but figured that was already being done with about 400-500 billion in cuts already, over ten years. So I'll wait to see how these additional changes/cut backs look.
Cutting the political pork from military spending would be the best thing that can be done. Procurement based on whose district is getting the plum doesn't necessarily guarantee US military dominance in this or any other century.
I'm hoping it'll be temporary. When revenue picks up, perhaps we can go back to the 2 wars doctrine.
The important service to spend money on during the lean times is the navy since it takes years to build ship. Obama recognizes this, so that's good.
How long does it take to build an ICBM? A month?
Actually, we do still make them, or have the capacity to make them, right?
Push more of the force into the reserves, but it keep it semi-operational and ready. Mobilize individuals as needed to supplement the active force. It will save on personnel/building costs and preserve human capital.
SO we cut down because we didn't need to fight the Soviets.
Then we had GF1, and we gutted that force because we would never have to fight a regional power like that again.
Then we had GF2, and Afghanistan, so we cut down to focus more on those kinds of counter-insurgency wars.
Now it seems that we are confident we won't ever have to fight a war like that again, so we can cut some more, because there is no way we would ever need the kinds of numbers on the ground necessary to fail at keeping the peace in Afghanistan.
But don't worry, we are still going to be the pre-eminent military power, capable of fighting and winning...well, some kind of war anyway. Just nothing large enough to require the massive numbers of combat troops deployed to Afghanistan.
QuoteHe cautioned that "it would be really a mistake for ... anyone to walk away with the impression that we're going to niche ourselves to some point on the spectrum of conflict and declare ourselves a global power."
I think that is exactly what we are going to do.
Which perhaps is fine - maybe the US can be done doing the worlds dirty work. But we can at least be honest about it.
Quote from: Berkut on January 06, 2012, 03:08:35 AM
Now it seems that we are confident we won't ever have to fight a war like that again, so we can cut some more, because there is no way we would ever need the kinds of numbers on the ground necessary to fail at keeping the peace in Afghanistan.
We really don't *need* those numbers. Look how easily the Taliban, Saddam and Qaddafi's regimes fell. And that's with smart bombs, if we didn't fret about civilian casualties we could pacify these places even more cheaply. Our forces are totally overkill for national defense.
Quote from: Berkut on January 06, 2012, 03:08:35 AM
QuoteHe cautioned that "it would be really a mistake for ... anyone to walk away with the impression that we're going to niche ourselves to some point on the spectrum of conflict and declare ourselves a global power."
I think that is exactly what we are going to do.
Which perhaps is fine - maybe the US can be done doing the worlds dirty work. But we can at least be honest about it.
The only time you worry about someone wailing about defense cuts is when they stop bitching. Relax already.
I think you're missing the important part: "However, US forces will no longer be sized to conduct large-scale, prolonged stability operations". Which means no more 10 year x2 occupations. Which, I think, is fine for all involved.
Besides, the bigger picture here in all this is the formal acknowledgement that the geopolitical priorities for our power projection have shifted to the Pacific Rim. Which has been long overdue.
Also military spending as a % of GDP is falling to roughly the levels of mid-70s detente. It's not going to the level of the 90s and certainly not falling below that. So Berk shouldn't worry too much on that front.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 05, 2012, 11:31:22 PM
How long does it take to build an ICBM? A month?
Actually, we do still make them, or have the capacity to make them, right?
I'm sure we have manufacturing contracts for those with China or something. ;)
Quote from: Berkut on January 06, 2012, 03:08:35 AM
SO we cut down because we didn't need to fight the Soviets.
Then we had GF1, and we gutted that force because we would never have to fight a regional power like that again.
Then we had GF2, and Afghanistan, so we cut down to focus more on those kinds of counter-insurgency wars.
And we are still spending 680 billion dollars plus the Veteran's affairs budget. Good thing we did cut down so radically or I guess our entire economy would be going to the military by now.
Since I'm not in the DoD anymore I can say that probably more than any other government agency it is in serious need of better financial reporting and oversight systems. There's just too many different spending ideologies, I genuinely think you could reduce the budget of the DoD by 1/3rd and still maintain all of the military's current capabilities if you streamlined things.
Not that it would ever happen. Any conservative who works for government only becomes more convinced how shitty government is at everything it does the longer they work there. I know one stereotype of bureaucrats is we're all left-leaning union types, but the reality is there's a lot of conservatives in my office and most of us spend 80% of the day talking about how inefficient it is and how lazy most of the staff are.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 06, 2012, 01:15:23 PM
Since I'm not in the DoD anymore I can say that probably more than any other government agency it is in serious need of better financial reporting and oversight systems. There's just too many different spending ideologies, I genuinely think you could reduce the budget of the DoD by 1/3rd and still maintain all of the military's current capabilities if you streamlined things.
Not that it would ever happen. Any conservative who works for government only becomes more convinced how shitty government is at everything it does the longer they work there. I know one stereotype of bureaucrats is we're all left-leaning union types, but the reality is there's a lot of conservatives in my office and most of us spend 80% of the day talking about how inefficient it is and how lazy most of the staff are.
I complain, too. But I still enjoy the bloated paycheck. :D
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 06, 2012, 01:15:23 PMI know one stereotype of bureaucrats is we're all left-leaning union types, but the reality is there's a lot of conservatives in my office and most of us spend 80% of the day talking about how inefficient it is and how lazy most of the staff are.
:lol:
Quote from: Berkut on January 06, 2012, 03:08:35 AM
SO we cut down because we didn't need to fight the Soviets.
Then we had GF1, and we gutted that force because we would never have to fight a regional power like that again.
Then we had GF2, and Afghanistan, so we cut down to focus more on those kinds of counter-insurgency wars.
Now it seems that we are confident we won't ever have to fight a war like that again, so we can cut some more, because there is no way we would ever need the kinds of numbers on the ground necessary to fail at keeping the peace in Afghanistan.
But don't worry, we are still going to be the pre-eminent military power, capable of fighting and winning...well, some kind of war anyway. Just nothing large enough to require the massive numbers of combat troops deployed to Afghanistan.
Not sure what GF1 and GF2 we had, but we sure didn't "cut down" to wage them.
The defense budget is massively bloated and spending is poorly distributed. We are spending half the world's total defense spending and getting nothing near half the world's combat power. There have always been wars we could not afford to fight. That this will continue to be true is not cause for tears or despair.
QuoteQuoteHe cautioned that "it would be really a mistake for ... anyone to walk away with the impression that we're going to niche ourselves to some point on the spectrum of conflict and declare ourselves a global power."
I think that is exactly what we are going to do.
Why are you going to do that?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsi.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FP1-BE226_USMIL_NS_20120105173603.jpg&hash=015bcffc353fcbe61b8c875664c79c6d43fa46b5) (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsi.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FP1-BE225A_USMIL_G_20120105224102.jpg&hash=32bf7916f729d39b74558b3316706278d536b10e)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203471004577142691225718730.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203471004577142691225718730.html)
Quote from: grumbler on January 06, 2012, 02:45:37 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 06, 2012, 03:08:35 AM
SO we cut down because we didn't need to fight the Soviets.
Then we had GF1, and we gutted that force because we would never have to fight a regional power like that again.
Then we had GF2, and Afghanistan, so we cut down to focus more on those kinds of counter-insurgency wars.
Now it seems that we are confident we won't ever have to fight a war like that again, so we can cut some more, because there is no way we would ever need the kinds of numbers on the ground necessary to fail at keeping the peace in Afghanistan.
But don't worry, we are still going to be the pre-eminent military power, capable of fighting and winning...well, some kind of war anyway. Just nothing large enough to require the massive numbers of combat troops deployed to Afghanistan.
Not sure what GF1 and GF2 we had, but we sure didn't "cut down" to wage them.
The defense budget is massively bloated and spending is poorly distributed. We are spending half the world's total defense spending and getting nothing near half the world's combat power. There have always been wars we could not afford to fight. That this will continue to be true is not cause for tears or despair.
QuoteQuoteHe cautioned that "it would be really a mistake for ... anyone to walk away with the impression that we're going to niche ourselves to some point on the spectrum of conflict and declare ourselves a global power."
I think that is exactly what we are going to do.
Why are you going to do that?
Yes, it doesn't make sense in terms of spending vs the rest of the world, has there ever been a greater inbalance in living memory ?
If Berkut was a Russian he'd be correct, they've slashed their military and massively underspent for most of two decades now, the chinese are still trying to get one mid-sized carrier up and running vs what, 11 US carriers.
As for aircraft, is there any air force in the world that can field even a tenth of the modern aircraft the US has ? That's before leaving out all the high tech stuff.
I think Berkut's point is different - it;s not that the US doesn't have impressive capabilities - clearly it does. He is questioning to what extent those capabilities, if cut further - will be capable of translating into the ability to fight and win whatever conflicts the US may find itself in the future (which cannot be known with any precision now). I.e. is the US at risk of building an array of highly specialized, capital and tech intensive capabilities that may not match whatever future challenges it may face?
Given the budgetary dynamics, the cuts are coming, they will be big and they are coming soon, so it is imperative the US gets this right.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 06, 2012, 04:23:28 PM
Given the budgetary dynamics, the cuts are coming, they will be big and they are coming soon, so it is imperative the US gets this right.
I suggest they learn from our process.
Not only do we not have any carriers now, when we get a carrier again in about 10 years it won't have planes and because we're depending on a joint US project for those planes the delivery estimate's been pushed back by several years. Yay :bleeding:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 06, 2012, 04:23:28 PM
I think Berkut's point is different - it;s not that the US doesn't have impressive capabilities - clearly it does. He is questioning to what extent those capabilities, if cut further - will be capable of translating into the ability to fight and win whatever conflicts the US may find itself in the future (which cannot be known with any precision now). I.e. is the US at risk of building an array of highly specialized, capital and tech intensive capabilities that may not match whatever future challenges it may face?
Given the budgetary dynamics, the cuts are coming, they will be big and they are coming soon, so it is imperative the US gets this right.
Well as Otto has mentioned and i think most people here would agree, the bureaucracy is a huge challenge to overcome to get cost effective weapons programs into the hands of the military; he'll maybe that's the US military greatest challenge, rather than as you say the unknowns of the future.
I think it's time to start cutting uniformed military pay and benefits.
Quote from: mongers on January 06, 2012, 04:31:26 PM
Well as Otto has mentioned and i think most people here would agree, the bureaucracy is a huge challenge to overcome to get cost effective weapons programs into the hands of the military; he'll maybe that's the US military greatest challenge, rather than as you say the unknowns of the future.
The campaign to crack down on Pentagon waste and inefficiency has been going on since the five walls first went up in the 40s. It would be nice if big savings could be wrung of it. Just like it would be nice to have peace between Israelis and Palestinians, or workable nuclear fusion. I'm all for the effort but practical, real world planning does not permit assuming such conjectural savings.
Rather than outlining specific war fighting plans or guessing likely scenarios of future conflicts, why doesn't the US decide what sort of conflicts it's willing to fight vs the probably costs involved ?
So my outline would be this:
1. maintain naval dominance of all oceans and be able to concentrate forces to control any sea or coastal regions for extended periods of time.
2. Don't fight new land wars on the Asian mainland, unless it's an existing commitment that's can be mostly limited in it's geographic scope ie defending S.Korea.
3. Maintain amphibious forces so as to be able to seize and hold significant sections of an enemies coastal regions for an extended period.
4. Avoid all conflicts that require or end up evolving into a multi-year occupations / pacifications of an asian state.
5. Maintain nuclear parity or deterrents with/against Russia and China.
6. Keep a sufficiently large technologically advanced air force to be able to gain air superiority over nearly all other combinations of states across most of the earth's airspace, thus enabling the application of tactical air power to overcome most numerical disadvantages in any supported land war of limited scope.
Well that's a start anyway. :)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 06, 2012, 04:41:52 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 06, 2012, 04:31:26 PM
Well as Otto has mentioned and i think most people here would agree, the bureaucracy is a huge challenge to overcome to get cost effective weapons programs into the hands of the military; he'll maybe that's the US military greatest challenge, rather than as you say the unknowns of the future.
The campaign to crack down on Pentagon waste and inefficiency has been going on since the five walls first went up in the 40s. It would be nice if big savings could be wrung of it. Just like it would be nice to have peace between Israelis and Palestinians, or workable nuclear fusion. I'm all for the effort but practical, real world planning does not permit assuming such conjectural savings.
Come on, I think there is some possibility of peace in Israel/Palestine and fusion has to work eventually doesn't it ?
Quote from: mongers on January 06, 2012, 04:50:09 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 06, 2012, 04:41:52 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 06, 2012, 04:31:26 PM
Well as Otto has mentioned and i think most people here would agree, the bureaucracy is a huge challenge to overcome to get cost effective weapons programs into the hands of the military; he'll maybe that's the US military greatest challenge, rather than as you say the unknowns of the future.
The campaign to crack down on Pentagon waste and inefficiency has been going on since the five walls first went up in the 40s. It would be nice if big savings could be wrung of it. Just like it would be nice to have peace between Israelis and Palestinians, or workable nuclear fusion. I'm all for the effort but practical, real world planning does not permit assuming such conjectural savings.
Come on, I think there is some possibility of peace in Israel/Palestine and fusion has to work eventually doesn't it ?
How exactly would fusion power work?
Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2012, 05:00:05 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 06, 2012, 04:50:09 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 06, 2012, 04:41:52 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 06, 2012, 04:31:26 PM
Well as Otto has mentioned and i think most people here would agree, the bureaucracy is a huge challenge to overcome to get cost effective weapons programs into the hands of the military; he'll maybe that's the US military greatest challenge, rather than as you say the unknowns of the future.
The campaign to crack down on Pentagon waste and inefficiency has been going on since the five walls first went up in the 40s. It would be nice if big savings could be wrung of it. Just like it would be nice to have peace between Israelis and Palestinians, or workable nuclear fusion. I'm all for the effort but practical, real world planning does not permit assuming such conjectural savings.
Come on, I think there is some possibility of peace in Israel/Palestine and fusion has to work eventually doesn't it ?
How exactly would fusion power work?
You're in the 'business', you tell us if it's practical or not.
Don't listen to Brain. He's got a fissile bias.
(Although fusion's got some serious issues. Generating and maintaining sufficient temperatures and pressures is a huge problem; so is neutron flux from D-T and D-D fusion processes; He-3 is aneutronic but isn't plentiful enough on Earth--and yields less eV per reaction as well iirc.)
"Nuclear power? No thanks!" bumper stickers always had a picture of a gigantic fusion reactor on them............curious....... :hmm:
Quote from: mongers on January 06, 2012, 05:09:26 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2012, 05:00:05 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 06, 2012, 04:50:09 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 06, 2012, 04:41:52 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 06, 2012, 04:31:26 PM
Well as Otto has mentioned and i think most people here would agree, the bureaucracy is a huge challenge to overcome to get cost effective weapons programs into the hands of the military; he'll maybe that's the US military greatest challenge, rather than as you say the unknowns of the future.
The campaign to crack down on Pentagon waste and inefficiency has been going on since the five walls first went up in the 40s. It would be nice if big savings could be wrung of it. Just like it would be nice to have peace between Israelis and Palestinians, or workable nuclear fusion. I'm all for the effort but practical, real world planning does not permit assuming such conjectural savings.
Come on, I think there is some possibility of peace in Israel/Palestine and fusion has to work eventually doesn't it ?
How exactly would fusion power work?
You're in the 'business', you tell us if it's practical or not.
It's not practical in any meaningful sense of the word.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 06, 2012, 05:12:13 PM
Don't listen to Brain. He's got a fissile bias.
(Although fusion's got some serious issues. Generating and maintaining sufficient temperatures and pressures is a huge problem; so is neutron flux from D-T and D-D fusion processes; He-3 is aneutronic but isn't plentiful enough on Earth--and yields less eV per reaction as well iirc.)
Fusion has a number of great applications. Power just isn't one of them.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 06, 2012, 05:12:13 PM
Don't listen to Brain. He's got a fissile bias.
(Although fusion's got some serious issues. Generating and maintaining sufficient temperatures and pressures is a huge problem; so is neutron flux from D-T and D-D fusion processes; He-3 is aneutronic but isn't plentiful enough on Earth--and yields less iirc.)
Just patch in the phaser array to the lightspeed drive and perform a manual override.
It is practical if you can generate sufficient pressure to ignite a self-sustaining fusion process.
You only need a billion trillion trillion kilograms of hydrogen. Then you're all set. No special training required to operate.
Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2012, 05:14:56 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 06, 2012, 05:12:13 PM
Don't listen to Brain. He's got a fissile bias.
(Although fusion's got some serious issues. Generating and maintaining sufficient temperatures and pressures is a huge problem; so is neutron flux from D-T and D-D fusion processes; He-3 is aneutronic but isn't plentiful enough on Earth--and yields less eV per reaction as well iirc.)
Fusion has a number of great applications.
^_^
Such as increasing the neutron flux within a uranium casing? :)
Quote from: Ideologue on January 06, 2012, 05:16:31 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2012, 05:14:56 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 06, 2012, 05:12:13 PM
Don't listen to Brain. He's got a fissile bias.
(Although fusion's got some serious issues. Generating and maintaining sufficient temperatures and pressures is a huge problem; so is neutron flux from D-T and D-D fusion processes; He-3 is aneutronic but isn't plentiful enough on Earth--and yields less eV per reaction as well iirc.)
Fusion has a number of great applications.
^_^
Such as increasing the neutron flux within a uranium casing? :)
I was gonna go straight to Moscow, Tehran, Mecca, Peking...
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 06, 2012, 01:15:23 PM
Since I'm not in the DoD anymore I can say that probably more than any other government agency it is in serious need of better financial reporting and oversight systems. There's just too many different spending ideologies, I genuinely think you could reduce the budget of the DoD by 1/3rd and still maintain all of the military's current capabilities if you streamlined things.
Hell, revamping the entire contractor and sub-contractor model alone would probably solve a substantial portion of budget issue.
Eliminating the Air Force would be a good first step.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 06, 2012, 05:16:31 PM
^_^
Such as increasing the neutron flux within a uranium casing? :)
I'm trying to remember where I heard that phrase "neutron flux". Is that what makes an A bomb an H bomb?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 06, 2012, 09:42:08 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 06, 2012, 05:16:31 PM
^_^
Such as increasing the neutron flux within a uranium casing? :)
I'm trying to remember where I heard that phrase "neutron flux". Is that what makes an A bomb an H bomb?
More or less. The tritium and deuterium is compressed to fusion temperatures and pressures by a primary device, and the fusion of tritium and deuterium generates neutrons, which increases the rate and efficiency of fission. In regular Gadget-style A-bombs (e.g. the Hiroshima bomb), only a small percentage of the fissile material is actually fissioned, wasting a lot of the explosive potential. Tellar-Ulam fission-fusion-fission designs waste a lot less.
Okay. See, I try not to look these things up.
Quote from: Berkut on January 06, 2012, 03:08:35 AM
SO we cut down because we didn't need to fight the Soviets.
Then we had GF1, and we gutted that force because we would never have to fight a regional power like that again.
Then we had GF2, and Afghanistan, so we cut down to focus more on those kinds of counter-insurgency wars.
Now it seems that we are confident we won't ever have to fight a war like that again, so we can cut some more, because there is no way we would ever need the kinds of numbers on the ground necessary to fail at keeping the peace in Afghanistan.
But don't worry, we are still going to be the pre-eminent military power, capable of fighting and winning...well, some kind of war anyway. Just nothing large enough to require the massive numbers of combat troops deployed to Afghanistan.
QuoteHe cautioned that "it would be really a mistake for ... anyone to walk away with the impression that we're going to niche ourselves to some point on the spectrum of conflict and declare ourselves a global power."
I think that is exactly what we are going to do.
Which perhaps is fine - maybe the US can be done doing the worlds dirty work. But we can at least be honest about it.
The army will by the same size as it was in 2001. That's certainly a big enough force for small interventions, and big enough to serve as a base for a rapidly growing force if we get involved in a more serious conflict.
Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2012, 05:14:56 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 06, 2012, 05:12:13 PM
Don't listen to Brain. He's got a fissile bias.
(Although fusion's got some serious issues. Generating and maintaining sufficient temperatures and pressures is a huge problem; so is neutron flux from D-T and D-D fusion processes; He-3 is aneutronic but isn't plentiful enough on Earth--and yields less eV per reaction as well iirc.)
Fusion has a number of great applications. Power just isn't one of them.
It's the source of like 99% of all power on earth.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 06, 2012, 04:41:52 PMThe campaign to crack down on Pentagon waste and inefficiency has been going on since the five walls first went up in the 40s. It would be nice if big savings could be wrung of it. Just like it would be nice to have peace between Israelis and Palestinians, or workable nuclear fusion. I'm all for the effort but practical, real world planning does not permit assuming such conjectural savings.
Right, it's the same way we talk about Social Security reform or reforming the tax code. All of us agree it would be nice if it happened, but I don't think any of us are holding our breath. You get into a big part of the Federal government like the DoD and start trying to reform things, and it gets ugly. It costs a lot of political capital for very small amounts of gain, not to mention you make enemies of people in the defense industrial complex who sometimes have the means and the access to hurt you badly later on.