Pentagon Budget: poll

[Beowulf]

$20k JDAM versus $1.4 million Tomahawk.

[Mr Bean]

The ability to put steel on target anywhere in the world in under twenty four hours and do it undetected is unequaled

And I'm still left wondering if we can't achieve the same effect with cruise missiles at less expense, greater saturation of the target area with ordinance as needed, no need for expensive pilots, etc.

The key word is UNDECTED Unlike with cruise missles which while they have excellent striking range they can't go anywhere from CONUS, B-2s have flow missions to Iraq from US Bases droped bombs, then landed Europe to rearm and rest

And the first thing Saddam knew was one of his Palace exploding their air defense was turning but never saw a thing.

And really, our record with decap strikes isn't good enough to base a strategy off of.

We have not exactly got a huge long list of them, there are half a dozen targets we could take out this instant with 100% success but either are politicaly unacceptable(Grand IT) or unessary(Castro)

A cruise missle can kill a target but it can't do it without lighting off every air defense tower between the Launch point and the target, nor do we always have a CCG, DDG, or SSBN in range.

[Petrosjko]

Point conceded on the B-2 vs. cruise missile issue.

[Chmee]

What heap do you think we're on top of? What 'security' are we maintaining, if we're pissing away funds while our kids are malnourished and our jobs are being Wal-Marted away?

The one that really counts; we can affect global change worldwide with
the tanks and aircraft of the US Armed Forces, while Europe is hard put
to affect events in it's own backyard.

While their kids live longer and they enjoy a higher average standard of living .... I don't see that the ability to beat your chest about the esoteric ability to knock off guys armed with AK-47's on the other side of the planet with a weapon that cost hundreds of times their annual income is 'the one that counts.' It's very nice as bragging rights, but I think I'd rather have better-educated, healthier kids, if it really came down to choices.

[Chmee]

The original mission for them was to hunt down mobile ICBM launchers. These you can't manage to target with ICBMs. The disappearance of this role is what caused the program to get shrunk.

And now SLBM's are so accurate that they're talking about retrofitting Trident IV's with conventional warheads as bunker-busters. It's going to be *very* hard to justify the cost of a supersonic strategic heavy bomber. Stealth strike planes I can see, but the Cold War mission of penetrating Soviet airspace with manned bombers carrying nukes is as about as meaningful for the current defense budget as a trebuchet.

[Knife]

While their kids live longer and they enjoy a higher average standard of living .... I don't see that the ability to beat your chest about the esoteric ability to knock off guys armed with AK-47's on the other side of the planet with a weapon that cost hundreds of times their annual income is 'the one that counts.' It's very nice as bragging rights, but I think I'd rather have better-educated, healthier kids, if it really came down to choices.

One problem won't solve the other problem if you cancell the first. Again, show how 400 to 500 billion will make schools better or diets better.

I've asked this since you've started this thread, you've tap danced around it. We spend a shit load more on defense because we like being on top of the heap. When Bush leave office, we still want to be on top of the heap and a decade down the road, we still want to be on top.

Domestically, 500 billion is about half of what we already spend. So what will a 50% increase do that the trillion dollars isn't already.

Again, most of the US's problems do not stem from the amount of $ we thow at the problem, rather other problems.

[Chmee]

While their kids live longer and they enjoy a higher average standard of living .... I don't see that the ability to beat your chest about the esoteric ability to knock off guys armed with AK-47's on the other side of the planet with a weapon that cost hundreds of times their annual income is 'the one that counts.' It's very nice as bragging rights, but I think I'd rather have better-educated, healthier kids, if it really came down to choices.

One problem won't solve the other problem if you cancell the first. Again, show how 400 to 500 billion will make schools better or diets better.

I've asked this since you've started this thread, you've tap danced around it. We spend a shit load more on defense because we like being on top of the heap. When Bush leave office, we still want to be on top of the heap and a decade down the road, we still want to be on top.

Domestically, 500 billion is about half of what we already spend. So what will a 50% increase do that the trillion dollars isn't already.

Again, most of the US's problems do not stem from the amount of $ we thow at the problem, rather other problems.

I don't really feel I've danced around it at all. You have to have priorities. Our government has focused strongly on building a killing machine second to none ... and we have it. Have they applied the same focus to having health care that's second to none? Education? Nutrition? Job development? I know we're not getting the same results as we're getting at inventing killing machines. Yes, destroying is easier than building ... but I don't see any urgency from the current Administration on resolving the issues that I've discussed, but plenty of urgency in building dead-end, low-security systems like SMD.

The feds are talking about cutting out something like 10% of Pell Grant recipients this year ... basic federal aid for kids getting college education. It might save a few hundred million. I can think of better things to cut.

At the very least, cuts in overall expenditures would slow the growth of this disastrous deficit. That's not even a partisan issue ... traditional Republicans are appalled at the voodoo economics this Congress and President are applying, as if there will never be a day when we have to pay the piper for this irresponsible behavior.

I don't want zero defense spending ... I want defense spending that makes sense in today's world, and I'm not seeing it.

[Beowulf]

The original mission for them was to hunt down mobile ICBM launchers. These you can't manage to target with ICBMs. The disappearance of this role is what caused the program to get shrunk.

And now SLBM's are so accurate that they're talking about retrofitting Trident IV's with conventional warheads as bunker-busters. It's going to be *very* hard to justify the cost of a supersonic strategic heavy bomber. Stealth strike planes I can see, but the Cold War mission of penetrating Soviet airspace with manned bombers carrying nukes is as about as meaningful for the current defense budget as a trebuchet.

That's interesting... talk about retrofitting a missile that doesn't exist, and if it did, would cause heart attacks if launched. And the point of a supercruising bomber would be to reduce the mission length. For example, a B-70 took as much fuel to go mach 3 a given distance as a similarly weighted subsonic plane would. It could get to the target 3 times faster though, turning a 30 hour mission into a ten hour one.

[MKSheppard]

And now SLBM's are so accurate that they're talking about retrofitting Trident IV's with conventional warheads as bunker-busters. It's going to be *very* hard to justify the cost of a supersonic strategic heavy bomber.

BWHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH

How do you know that ballistic missile just launched is carrying a conventional or nuclear warhead?

You don't.

And bombers can be recalled up to the moment before they drop their
bombs. An ICBM is non-recallable, making them useless for bluffs.

[Chmee]

That's interesting... talk about retrofitting a missile that doesn't exist, and if it did, would cause heart attacks if launched. And the point of a supercruising bomber would be to reduce the mission length. For example, a B-70 took as much fuel to go mach 3 a given distance as a similarly weighted subsonic plane would. It could get to the target 3 times faster though, turning a 30 hour mission into a ten hour one.

Yeah, you're right, I had the wrong designation ... I was referring to the research underway for a modified high-accuracy version of the D5 (you're already paying for it).

Supercruising is nice but .... y'know, I'm not sure I'd ask the taxpayer to pay for that capability. Should we pay for every system we can feasibly build, regardless of cost? There has to be a benefit analysis. I don't think we should just build it because we can.

[Chmee]

And now SLBM's are so accurate that they're talking about retrofitting Trident IV's with conventional warheads as bunker-busters. It's going to be *very* hard to justify the cost of a supersonic strategic heavy bomber.

BWHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH

How do you know that ballistic missile just launched is carrying a conventional or nuclear warhead?

You don't.

And bombers can be recalled up to the moment before they drop their
bombs. An ICBM is non-recallable, making them useless for bluffs.

Um, if we're the one launching it, I certainly hope we know the difference. That would be an embarassing accident. "Whoops, sorry! That was supposed to be a conventional warhead ... our bad!"

How often do we bluff with stealth bombers? I mean, if you can't see them coming, how are you bluffed by them?

[MKSheppard]

Um, if we're the one launching it, I certainly hope we know the difference. That would be an embarassing accident. "Whoops, sorry! That was supposed to be a conventional warhead ... our bad!"

Were you dropped on your head repeatedly as a child? When you light
off a ballistic misile, EVERYONE for hudnreds of miles around KNOWS
you just did that, and will be able to track it through the atmosphere.

You know it's a conventional warhead, but does the other guy know
that? And will he retalitate with his own special weapons?

How often do we bluff with stealth bombers? I mean, if you can't see them coming, how are you bluffed by them?

CNN. Simply show them taking off from Whiteman.

[Chmee]

Um, if we're the one launching it, I certainly hope we know the difference. That would be an embarassing accident. "Whoops, sorry! That was supposed to be a conventional warhead ... our bad!"

Were you dropped on your head repeatedly as a child? When you light
off a ballistic misile, EVERYONE for hudnreds of miles around KNOWS
you just did that, and will be able to track it through the atmosphere.

Really? EVERYONE? Think you might be exaggerating just slightly there?

If I light off a Trident in the middle of the Atlantic, just how many terrorist organizations have an intel network that tells them about it? Does Syria have infrared tracking satellites looking down on us? Does .... anybody who might be a potential enemy except China and Russia?

Before you drag out the dramatic comments you might want to put a governor on your own over-dramatic over-statements. They don't make your argument more effective ... quite the opposite.

[Petrosjko]

Chmee, if you light off a missile in the mid-Atlantic, you're going to have every government with tracking radars going on high alert. How would we react if a Russian sub shot off an SLBM in the mid-Atlantic?

Bad, BAD idea.

[Chmee]

Chmee, if you light off a missile in the mid-Atlantic, you're going to have every government with tracking radars going on high alert. How would we react if a Russian sub shot off an SLBM in the mid-Atlantic?

Bad, BAD idea.

Petro, let's be clear that *I* am not the one who came up with this idea ... they're already researcing it. When you can build a ballistic missile warhead (possibly guided in-flight) that's as accurate as a cruise missile, there are obvious tactical advantages to using it ... basically, it's pretty frickin' hard to shoot down and it has a short flight time.

It worries me, too. Presumably if we ever deployed such a system, we'd be communicating pretty heavily with the Russians about their need to be aware of that deployment. Is it really *that* different from the situation today? We launch cruise missiles from ships and subs all the time, and everybody just takes our word that they're not armed with tactical nukes while they're in flight.

[Petrosjko]

Petro, let's be clear that *I* am not the one who came up with this idea ... they're already researcing it. When you can build a ballistic missile warhead (possibly guided in-flight) that's as accurate as a cruise missile, there are obvious tactical advantages to using it ... basically, it's pretty frickin' hard to shoot down and it has a short flight time.

It worries me, too. Presumably if we ever deployed such a system, we'd be communicating pretty heavily with the Russians about their need to be aware of that deployment. Is it really *that* different from the situation today? We launch cruise missiles from ships and subs all the time, and everybody just takes our word that they're not armed with tactical nukes while they're in flight.

Well then I see two flaws in this reasoning right off the bat. First of all, to be sure it would involve communicating with the Chinese and the Russians, so while we're at it we might as well email whoever we're targeting so they hear it from us first. Secondly, cruise missiles are theater weapons. The Chinese weren't terribly concerned that cruise missiles we were popping off in Iraq were heading for them, for example. Ballistic missile launches are events that are noted precisely because of their threat profile.

[Knife]

I don't really feel I've danced around it at all. You have to have priorities. Our government has focused strongly on building a killing machine second to none ... and we have it. Have they applied the same focus to having health care that's second to none? Education? Nutrition? Job development? I know we're not getting the same results as we're getting at inventing killing machines. Yes, destroying is easier than building ... but I don't see any urgency from the current Administration on resolving the issues that I've discussed, but plenty of urgency in building dead-end, low-security systems like SMD.

Tappity tappity tap. Where do you feel we should devert the money? I'm all for cutting WF&A and that's a no brainer, but for significant cuts in defense, where do you want to put it?

Where do you feel all the wasted money will be better spent?

The feds are talking about cutting out something like 10% of Pell Grant recipients this year ... basic federal aid for kids getting college education. It might save a few hundred million. I can think of better things to cut.

*shurg* Not the best of things, I admit.

At the very least, cuts in overall expenditures would slow the growth of this disastrous deficit. That's not even a partisan issue ... traditional Republicans are appalled at the voodoo economics this Congress and President are applying, as if there will never be a day when we have to pay the piper for this irresponsible behavior.

I'm in no way a fan of the drunken sailor spending of Bushy boy or his programs in general. I might agree with the *stated* goal of some of them, but the execution was pittiful.

I don't want zero defense spending ... I want defense spending that makes sense in today's world, and I'm not seeing it.

The curent goal of the US defense spending (rightly or wrongly) is to have a military the far exceeds any *foreseeable threat* that it deters agression. To do such, you need weapon systems that the other guy can A) not afford and B) if he can afford, not deploy in such numbers that the US cannot match or exceed.

This is why the US is on top of the heap.

Other countries that can afford or could, at any rate, spend their $ on craddle to grave shit. Which on some issue's, I'm not unsupportive on.

[Chmee]

Well then I see two flaws in this reasoning right off the bat. First of all, to be sure it would involve communicating with the Chinese and the Russians, so while we're at it we might as well email whoever we're targeting so they hear it from us first. Secondly, cruise missiles are theater weapons. The Chinese weren't terribly concerned that cruise missiles we were popping off in Iraq were heading for them, for example. Ballistic missile launches are events that are noted precisely because of their threat profile.

I agree with all of that ... yet our buddies the Chinese and N. Koreans aren't above conducting ballistic missile 'tests' that involve overflights of their neighbors' airspace when they want to rattle their cage, are they? And when I say that we're going to advise other powers about deployment, I doubt they'll advise them of actual launches. Seems like it would be more along the lines of 'If you see a single ballistic missile launch from mid-Atlantic from now on, remember that we have conventionally armed SLBM's ... give us a call if you have any questions.' If there is a launch, of course we're not even going to confirm it was *us* who launched it until after the conventional strike, are we?

I very much agree it's a potentially destabilizing technology ... moreso than supersonic strategic strike aircraft heading toward their continent that they see on the radar for hours? In both cases you have to be ready to answer the phone and say 'It's not aimed at you, don't worry.'

Yeah, I wouldn't feel very reassured by that either!

[Howedar]

Aircraft can turn around. Ballistic missiles cannot. Aircraft fly training flights. Ballistic missiles do not. Aircraft can be stopped. At the moment, ballistic missiles cannot.

[Beowulf]

The feds are talking about cutting out something like 10% of Pell Grant recipients this year ... basic federal aid for kids getting college education. It might save a few hundred million. I can think of better things to cut.

Well, considering that it isn't getting cut, but rather the eligibility has changed, so the richest ones that were eligible aren't. Spending is actually increasing for the Pell Grants.

[Chmee]

The feds are talking about cutting out something like 10% of Pell Grant recipients this year ... basic federal aid for kids getting college education. It might save a few hundred million. I can think of better things to cut.

Well, considering that it isn't getting cut, but rather the eligibility has changed, so the richest ones that were eligible aren't. Spending is actually increasing for the Pell Grants.

Actually it's some of both. When you say 'richer,' do you mean a dual-income household that makes $40,000? Try paying a mortgage and sending a kid to college on that.

Bush administration officials said the new formula -- which is used to measure a family's ability to pay college costs -- will save the government at least $300 million in the 2005-2006 academic year. The neediest students, who receive the maximum federal scholarship of $4,050, will be unaffected and only a small fraction of the 5.3 million Pell recipients will lose their grants entirely, officials said.

The previous formula was a decade old and relied on 1990 data that is widely acknowledged to be out of date. The new formula uses tax data from 2002.

Congress, however, had resisted the change in a series of bills approved by both houses over the last 18 months, and education officials indicated yesterday that they were taken aback by the timing of the announcement, just two days before Christmas.

Senator Arlen Specter, a Republican from Pennsylvania, said he was ''very unhappy" and promised to renew the battle for broader Pell Grant funding next year. Senator Jon Corzine, a Democrat from New Jersey, said he was ''outraged that the Bush administration is going forward with these punitive cuts," adding that the change in the eligibility rules was ''nothing more than a backdoor effort to cut student aid funding."

''For those working to get ahead, this is a scene from 'The Grinch who stole my education,' " he said.

The Chronicle of Higher Education called the move the ''December Surprise," and Terry Hartle, senior vice president of the American Council on Education, representing 2,000 colleges and universities, said the timing was ''unfortunate and probably deliberate."

Because many states use the federal formula to calculate aid to students at state universities, the changes announced yesterday will have a ripple effect, education officials said.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washi ... _to_80000/

[Chmee]

Tappity tappity tap. Where do you feel we should devert the money? I'm all for cutting WF&A and that's a no brainer, but for significant cuts in defense, where do you want to put it?

Where do you feel all the wasted money will be better spent on?

Are we talking minor changes, or radical? In the minor changes category, I'd want to be 100% sure that nobody on active duty in the military qualifies for frickin' food stamps. We're going to have a hell of a time keeping qualified people in the professional armed forces after the way they've jerked around reservists in Iraq. Pay & benefits need serious attention.

If I were talking about radical change ... REALLY radical? I'd want a President who committed us to something on the scale of the Manhattan Project or Apollo Program: zero energy imports by 2020. How we got there would be an engineering/economics question, just like those other massive efforts. Nukes, hydrogen, alternatives, conservation ... those are all policy decisions. But by the end of next decade, let's be in a position to tell the Saudis, the Iranians, the Iraqis, the Israelis and OPEC as a whole "Screw you, figure out your own damned problems. Work it out with the EU and China, they're your customers now."

Let's have a revolution to make the Information Revolution of personal computing and the Internet look like a minor footnote in history. We have the brains, the money, the motivation ... now that would be a heap worth being on top of.

[Knife]

Are we talking minor changes, or radical? In the minor changes category, I'd want to be 100% sure that nobody on active duty in the military qualifies for frickin' food stamps. We're going to have a hell of a time keeping qualified people in the professional armed forces after the way they've jerked around reservists in Iraq. Pay & benefits need serious attention.

I think the money spent on basic pay is well served, as for reservist, really I see it as an awakening. While I'm sympathetic to their plight, the use of the reservists has slowly increased and really has been a bang for the buck we pay for them for the last decade or so.

If I were talking about radical change ... REALLY radical? I'd want a President who committed us to something on the scale of the Manhattan Project or Apollo Program: zero energy imports by 2020. How we got there would be an engineering/economics question, just like those other massive efforts. Nukes, hydrogen, alternatives, conservation ... those are all policy decisions. But by the end of next decade, let's be in a position to tell the Saudis, the Iranians, the Iraqis, the Israelis and OPEC as a whole "Screw you, figure out your own damned problems. Work it out with the EU and China, they're your customers now."

Let's have a revolution to make the Information Revolution of personal computing and the Internet look like a minor footnote in history. We have the brains, the money, the motivation ... now that would be a heap worth being on top of.

In that case, leave the defense spending alone and go after the domestic spending, especially the blue hair fund, that'll give you the capital to do some real change. But even if you do change the country, alot of problems will still be there.

Personally, I'd cank SS and medicare and *wait for it* institute a national health care program. Grandma and the kiddies all need basic medical care and I admit I'm a convert to the idea (thanks Wong ), before I'd cank too much of the defense spending.

[Chmee]

Well thanks for the interesting discussion folks ... I'm off to a New Year's party at a buddy's house.

Seeya next year, have a safe night!

[Mr Bean]

And when I say that we're going to advise other powers about deployment, I doubt they'll advise them of actual launches. Seems like it would be more along the lines of 'If you see a single ballistic missile launch from mid-Atlantic from now on, remember that we have conventionally armed SLBM's ... give us a call if you have any questions.' If there is a launch, of course we're not even going to confirm it was *us* who launched it until after the conventional strike, are we?

The thing is from Time of Launch to impact is of course thirty minutes, it means informing over ten countries at all times of launching of the missle, Cause case you forgot, all it takes is one Nuke missile to wipe out Command and Control for most countries, all ICBM tests normaly have a couple of MONTHS lead time to make sure everyone and their little brother knows what the ICBM is doing and what path its flying, hell even the North Korea's did the same, India gave Pakistan half a year of warning before testing their missle

ICBM's are not something you use to take out targets in Bumfuckmeistan.
Oh and speaking of costs.... Add a three zeros behind "million" if you want to know the diffrence between using an ICBM and using a B-2 or Cruise missle

I very much agree it's a potentially destabilizing technology ... moreso than supersonic strategic strike aircraft heading toward their continent that they see on the radar for hours? In both cases you have to be ready to answer the phone and say 'It's not aimed at you, don't worry.'

Bzzt wrong please play agian, They arn't going to see the B-2, period, A flight of B-52s yes but those will be flying out of local bases not CONUS(Though they can if you want to commint enough tanker assets what the hell why not)

The "alternative" you mention is exactly the Pie in the sky bullshit you want to cut!