He wants to "rid the word of nuclear weapons." I suppose that he is going to convince N. Korea and Iran to stop their ambitions by asking them over for tea, right?

I wish I lived in Obama's fantasy world, but even talking about getting rid of nukes on the news is a waste of time and money.

Also just heard that DoD head Robert Gates wants to stop production of the F-22. Really? Does Obama not understand just how technologically advanced that fighter is? Does he not understand how much control of the air that machine gives us? And yet, he wants to get rid of it. Sounds like he didn't learn the lesson from the Clinton years: neutering your military doesn't exactly help you project force. And before you say it, you better damned well believe that Obama is behind the F-22 shenanigans. Gates didn't come up with that on his own.

4/6/2009 2:26:20 PM

Quote :

"1:00:44 PM me: they're only talking to us because obama is making america weak 1:01:08 PM me: north korea's launching rockets, china and russia do nothing and then obama talks about disarmament 1:01:12 PM me: FUCKIN LIBERALS 1:01:18 PM my buddy: damn liberals"

4/6/2009 2:29:13 PM

I mean, I understand his initial point that we can't really tell people they can't have nukes when we have em. I actually agree with that argument on the surface, but part of our moral authority comes from the fact that we aren't bat-shit insane and we don't threaten to blow up our neighbors and wipe them off the map every other week.

4/6/2009 2:37:54 PM

^ LOL

4/6/2009 2:38:45 PM

Quote :

"I understand his initial point that we can't really tell people they can't have nukes when we have em. "

Yes we can.

Just as we can allow some people in our own country to buy handguns while telling others they can't; we have every right to consider our own safety as well as the safety of the rest of the world in these matters.

4/6/2009 3:26:28 PM

and we can consider our safety. It doesn't mean, though, that we don't look a wee bit hypocritical doing so.

4/6/2009 3:37:43 PM

Quote :

" DoD head Robert Gates wants to stop production of the F-22."

Perhaps Robert Gates a person Bush trusted enough to appoint as his DoD head wants to assist in helping Obama trim the budget and cut gov't
spending.....
At $361 Million a pop it is quite a hefty expense to order out a few sqaudrons of F-22. With the project in the production phase
its not like we would not be able ramp back production if needed.

I forgot though Republican (at least power-holders in D.C.) only believe in "smaller" gov't and decreased spending except for when it
comes to bailing out big buisiness from financial blunders, waging wars for oil, playing world police, providing lucrative no-bid contracts
to their favorite CEO buddies, survallence plus wire taps to catch 19 yr olds munching on cheetos while getting high, and bridges to nowhere.

Quote :

"I suppose that he is going to convince N. Korea and Iran to stop their ambitions by asking them over for tea, right? "

Nothing says please do not build nukes and act hostile toward's our country more than Bush's policy of labeling N. Korea as the axis of evil, sabre rattling,
and threats of violence.

We do not have to be N. Korea's buddy and can take a hard line in discouraging them from having nukes but ultimately China, Russia, S. Korea, and Japan have more at stake here. They should take ownership of the situation; as any uncoordinated action on N. Korea from us would likely not sway well with them. Worst case scenario surely China would not be very excited that its neighbor next door is a steaming pile of radioactive rubble following a U.S retaliation after a N. Korea attack.

Get some fucking common sense. N. Korea is a rouge nation unfriendly and incapable of playing "nice" in global politics. This does not mean the head honcho is completely irrational and crazy enough to think of possibly accomplishing anything by provoking open warfare against the US; even if they have nukes. This would be like a doberman fighting a grizzly. yeah the doberman will get some nasty licks on the bear but the grizzle will straight up pwn the dog.

I keep forgetting though Republicans easily abandon their platform of small gov't and capitalism (which i support); when confronted with issues like gay marriage, kids getting high, or when their gross paranoia of minorities or foreign nations kick in. OMG SADDAM WAS PART OF 9/11 and wants to blow up grandma's house INVADE!!

[Edited on April 6, 2009 at 4:58 PM. Reason : aa]

4/6/2009 4:55:00 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/START_I
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/START_II

Reagan and George H.W. Bush - those communists!

Seriously, furthering the path of a further, multilateral drawdown in nuclear weapons arsenals is not a bad thing. They cost a lot to maintain and they're a security liability, especially in more marginal states like Russia. The less of them there are, the better.

Cold War's over, man. Live with it.

4/6/2009 4:56:07 PM

Quote :

"At $361 Million a pop it is quite a hefty expense to order out a few sqaudrons of F-22. With the project in the production phase its not like we would not be able ramp back production if needed."

so, it's OK to spend trillions on welfare-queens, but God help us if we actually try and defend the nation by spending a couple million.

Quote :

"I forgot though Republican (at least power-holders in D.C.) only believe in "smaller" gov't and decreased spending except for when it comes to bailing out big buisiness from financial blunders, waging wars for oil, playing world police, providing lucrative no-bid contracts to their favorite CEO buddies, survallence plus wire taps to catch 19 yr olds munching on cheetos while getting high, and bridges to nowhere."

Not sure who you are talking to. I am against pretty much all of those things.

As for the rest of what you say, I don't disagree with a word of it. But, it is idealistic to say "let's get rid of our nukes." Which is what I was saying


^ it's one thing to draw down. It's entirely another to rid yourself entirely of your strategic deterrence.

4/6/2009 4:59:25 PM

^^ holy fuck; i bet George Dubya must be so embarrassed....

his dad is a bleeding heart peace-loving

Li

Li

LIBERAL!
Advocating nuclear arms reduction! the shame...



[Edited on April 6, 2009 at 5:04 PM. Reason : j]

4/6/2009 4:59:45 PM

reagan was a liberal. he was an actor, you know

4/6/2009 5:01:26 PM

Quote :

"it's one thing to draw down. It's entirely another to rid yourself entirely of your strategic deterrence."

The stated goal of the NPT - of which we are a major signatory - is the eventual and complete elimination of nuclear weapons. Nobody's under the illusion that this will happen in the span of one administration, but agreements we are party to and have ratified express this goal.

Meanwhile, incrementally achieving this goal isn't a bad thing. It would be one thing if Obama was proposing radical and unilateral disarmament- like the kind the retarded hippies were going on about in the 70's and 80's. This is not it.

(Or, I might add, Superman coming in and tossing them into the Sun. God that was a retarded movie.)

Ultimately, most arms reductions have focused upon the U.S. and Russia - which, incidentally, is due to the fact that them's where most of the arms are. However, it is perfectly logical to reassert what has been a long-standing goal between administrations (of both parties) to make progress toward a total elimination of nuclear weapons through multi-lateral commitments.

In other words, I don't think our strategic deterrent is going away anytime soon, not even under this administration. But the ultimate goal is not exactly new, either.

[Edited on April 6, 2009 at 5:06 PM. Reason : Superman IV]

4/6/2009 5:05:19 PM

you're a towel

4/6/2009 5:06:58 PM

Quote :

"reagan was a liberal."

He certainly spent enough to qualify as one.

4/6/2009 5:07:45 PM

you're a towel

4/6/2009 5:10:55 PM

Quote :

"so, it's OK to spend trillions on welfare-queens, but God help us if we actually try and defend the nation by spending a couple million"

well truthfully nothing burns me up more than hearing stories like the octomom receiving gov't handouts and propragating a future generation of 14 drains on the economy.

rolling through the trailer park to see Acura TSX's, brand new Ford F250's, or Caddilac

stories from my friend a salesman at time-warner cable about women trying to pay their bill (which includes Tivo, premium channels, etc) with their welfare checks

nonetheless two wrongs don't make a right. If we build 20 F-22's versus 30 this year. This equates to $3 Billion.

Quote :

"Mandatory spending: $1.788 trillion (+4.2%) $608 billion (+4.5%) - Social Security $386 billion (+5.2%) - Medicare $209 billion (+5.6%) - Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) $324 billion (+1.8%) - Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending $261 billion (+9.2%) - Interest on National Debt "

i'll help ya out

[Edited on April 6, 2009 at 5:14 PM. Reason : aa]

4/6/2009 5:12:05 PM

3 billion. over the course of how many years? riiiiiight. as opposed to almost 1T a year for welfare queens and entitlements...

The point being we are neutering our military over... 3 billion dollar bucks? Thanks, Obama. You don't get it.

4/6/2009 5:13:04 PM

Quote :

"$324 billion (+1.8%) - Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending "

^ I read 324 billion/year.

i'll give 40% of this expense the benefit of teh doubt of being people inbetween employment that need a little bump. 10% being those legit disabled or incapable to work.

Thus 50% just being lazy, dumb, life long welfare recepients. Of those i'd estimate onl 25% or 12.5% of the total being be legit welfare queens. Thus the approx cost we would be saving...



[Edited on April 6, 2009 at 5:17 PM. Reason : a]

4/6/2009 5:14:50 PM

welfare queens AND ENTITLEMENTS.

btw, you are only counting the US budget...

and it still pales in comparison to the number you just stated. but, by all means, lets neuter our military so we can pay for more people to sit on their ass all day

4/6/2009 5:16:05 PM

trimming the budget to reduce overall gov't spending by building say 15 F-22's versus 25. Does not equal trimming the fucking budget. hell they could even use half of the save money on F-22's on other defense projects/expenses that would provide much more benefit/utility.

go ahead though and trim welfare spending too; i don't care. Every department though should be willing to make cuts in the name of cutting spending.

4/6/2009 5:22:24 PM

really? you are going to provide more defensive benefit? please, do tell...

you do realize that an airframe such as this will last for at least 20 years, right?

4/6/2009 5:24:25 PM

Listen, Im all for the might of our military but I just dont get the F22 thing.

I realize I probably dont understand the nuances of running a military or maintaining Air superiority but consider this:

Our military could probably outfit our fighting men and women on the ground with the better H&K XM8 for the same price as a few F22s.

These are the soldiers that are actually getting shot up on the modern battlefield!!!!!!!



instead we blow money up Lockheed's (or whoever makes the F22) ass because it "makes us stronger and safer"



I call bullshit ; its the government - industrial complex

[Edited on April 6, 2009 at 5:42 PM. Reason : http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,131317,00.html]

[Edited on April 6, 2009 at 5:43 PM. Reason : link]

4/6/2009 5:41:52 PM

how about we... do both?

4/6/2009 5:43:36 PM

^ok




that post may not refer to you but more to higher ups in the military (or maybe they are politicians I dont know) that will complain about this program getting cut but are too cheap to spend money to get some rifles that dont jam


its easy to see where their priorities are

[Edited on April 6, 2009 at 5:48 PM. Reason : *]

4/6/2009 5:45:29 PM

Quote :

"instead we blow money up Lockheed's (or whoever makes the F22) ass because it "makes us stronger and safer""

probably

it shows USA #1

4/6/2009 5:52:25 PM

aaronburro:

Quote :

"Also just heard that DoD head Robert Gates wants to stop production of the F-22. Really? Does Obama not understand just how technologically advanced that fighter is? Does he not understand how much control of the air that machine gives us? And yet, he wants to get rid of it. Sounds like he didn't learn the lesson from the Clinton years: neutering your military doesn't exactly help you project force. And before you say it, you better damned well believe that Obama is behind the F-22 shenanigans. Gates didn't come up with that on his own."

Obama Budget = Good Medicine for Sick Pentagon
http://warisboring.com/

Quote :

"Inside Defense has a preview of President Barack Obama’s first defense budget, expected Monday. This according to Noah at Danger Room. If the predictions are correct, Obama and his people have made all the right decisions. To recap: * The Airborne Laser, a 747 firing a chemical laser that has fared poorly in tests, is dead — and so are many of the politically contentious, unrealistic missile defenses that seem to cause more problems than they solve. The $10-billion-a-year Missile Defense Agency, which oversees ABL and other dubious programs, will be reduced to a research shop. The Navy and Army will manage their own working missiles defenses, respectively the ship-fired SM-3 and the land-based Terminal High-Altitude Air Defense system. * The Army’s $160-billion Future Combat Systems will lose most of its lightly-armored, manned vehicles and some of the high-order networking. The vehicles were too vulnerable, anyways, and the network has ballooned in complexity and cost. For networking, the Army has older, more reliable systems already in place. * The Navy will end the over-budget presidential helicopter — truly a George W. Bush vanity project — and, on the shipbuilding side, finally kill the DDG-1000 stealth destroyer and delay the Ford-class aircraft carrier, which has serious design problems. The large-carrier fleet will shrink from 11 to 10, presumably to free funds for more numerous, smaller coastal ships. Notably, the 10-carrier force will remain by far the world’s most powerful concentration of deployable firepower. * The Air Force’s F-22 stealth fighter, an excellent performer compared to the smaller, more sluggish F-35, gets a reprieve, with the total buy bumped from 183 to 250. Other sources nevertheless report strong support for the F-35. The 250-strong Raptor fleet will ensure air dominance for decades, and help mitigate the accelerating loss of aging F-15 fighters. In the balance, this is an excellent budget that cuts expensive weapons that are worse than unnecessary, for in many cases they actually make us more vulnerable. National missile defenses failed tests and provoked Russia. FCS cost too much and embraced the wrong philosophy for future ground warfare. The Navy’s addiction to huge carriers was sapping the service’s ability to buy the smaller vessels it needs for coastal warfare. If Congress plays along with Obama’s plan, I feel confident in saying we’re finally on the path towards rebuilding a truly effective — and more affordable — 21st-century military. But that’s a big if."

[Edited on April 6, 2009 at 7:37 PM. Reason : .]

4/6/2009 7:33:25 PM

I was under the impression that the JSF was scrapped years ago.

I will admit that I am not the biggest fan of an all-in-one airframe. 99 times out of 100 it ends up being worse at its respective jobs than purpose built airframes, and it ends up being more expensive in the long run. I just don't like the idea of one aircraft. At least as it stands right now, if the F-16 turns out to have a major vulnerability, we still have the F-15, the F-14, the F-18... etc.

^ I hear you. However, I saw a headline today on OMG FAUX NEWS that Gates wants to scrap the F-22s. >.<

4/6/2009 7:39:59 PM

its a pretty good blog, http://wingsoveriraq.blogspot.com/ links to it often

4/6/2009 7:42:17 PM

Quote :

"you do realize that an airframe such as this will last for at least 20 years, right?"

They haven't proven all that reliable and durable so far. In a Time article from a few weeks back outlining military cuts, they pointed out that at any given time a massive chunk of the F-22 fleet is grounded for non-routine maintenance.

The F-22 is an astonishing machine, but it's overkill. Our regular aircraft are more than adequate to deal with any conceivable foe. Russia and China are the next two largest air forces in the world, and these put together would not be as large as the USAF. They also lag behind us substantially in key technologies that we already use in other aircraft. We need to stay ahead of the competition, but we don't always have to be as far as possible ahead. We could build a fleet of F-22's, sure. We could also build a giant laser on the goddamn moon. It would increase our might, but it wouldn't be cost effective.

Besides, in the current global political climate, it's a safe bet that we will almost exclusively be fighting enemies with no air force. According to wikipedia's unit prices, the money spent on one Raptor could buy 30 Predator drones that blow up terrorists just fine.

4/6/2009 7:55:31 PM

SPITBALLS!

4/6/2009 7:59:31 PM

what regular aircraft are you talking about, the F15? those are aging and their numbers are falling.

4/6/2009 8:00:24 PM

Quote :

"We could also build a giant laser on the goddamn moon. It would increase our might, but it wouldn't be cost effective."

What are you talking about, man? A giant laser would be freaking fantastic - nobody fucks with a country with a gigantic freaking moon laser.

Moonraker all the way!

4/6/2009 8:06:19 PM

Quote :

"Our regular aircraft are more than adequate to deal with any conceivable foe."

Our regular aircraft are also 20+ years old.

F-14: Retired, so scratch that
F-15: Deployed in 1976
F-16: Deployed in 1978
F-18: Deployed in 1983

4/6/2009 8:06:58 PM

Quote :

"We could also build a giant laser on the goddamn moon. It would increase our might, but it wouldn't be cost effective."

George Dub is taking us to MArs fool!
We will have the mightiest airforce created once we get there to blow up enemies that haven't yet arrived. Gotta show USA da Bomb

4/6/2009 8:26:58 PM

I love it how when you get owned you start talking about ridiculously absurd things. thx for the admission of defeat

4/6/2009 8:28:00 PM

Did not realize i got owned.....

i think its apparent Obama is not trying to rid the defense budget or scrap the F-22 project.
Merely wanting to act more prudent on a costly expense; limiting production to that which would be more practical. The freed money going to other expenses which could include other expenses within the DoD that would have much more tactical use to our soldiers and the war on terror.
If we could just convince Obama to utilize this prudence when it comes to corporate bailouts and entitlements we would be in better shape. Unemployment benefits is not the enemy; lifelong welfare recipients and even your average working class Joe who irresponsibly blows his paycheck neglecting his 401k in favor of SS is the issue.



[Edited on April 6, 2009 at 8:34 PM. Reason : l]

4/6/2009 8:30:00 PM

aaron you are a fanatic. Completely obsessed with Obama even, and we're only what.....3 months in? Many more to go!!!!!

Your tears will continue to amuse!

4/6/2009 8:31:47 PM

Quote :

"probably it shows USA #1"

haha, a case where a "usa #1" post is good

4/7/2009 12:41:17 AM

The F35 is staying in production.

The F22 is getting cut because its only a fighter.

How exactly did Clinton Neuter the military? It seemed perfectly functional when it steamrolled Iraq. Before you reply, read Rumsfeld's attitude towards pentagon spending before we invaded Iraq. Canning the F22, among other things, was one of his pet projects as well.

Furthermore, disarmament deals with reducing relevant nuclear arsenals and not imaginary ones and it was an actual goal of Ronald Reagon and a host of other US presidents. Its motivations aren't very complicated:

1) Our arsenal is getting old fast, and updating it would require billions of dollars and would trigger a similar weapons arming program by Russia and China and a new global arms race.

2) We don't need 5000 nuclear warheads to utterly lay waste to either Iran or Korea should they manage to ever get their one national bomb on a rocket that won't explode on their own soil.

4/7/2009 1:54:55 AM

Quote :

"The F35 is staying in production. The F22 is getting cut because its only a fighter."

where are you reading that? every source i have read has said the opposite

4/7/2009 6:49:38 AM

Here is some one else that openly talked about ridding the world of nuclear weapons.

Quote :

"We seek the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth."

-1985 inaugural address
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/reagan2.asp


[Edited on April 7, 2009 at 7:43 AM. Reason : ``]

4/7/2009 7:39:13 AM

Quote :

"Listen, Im all for the might of our military but I just dont get the F22 thing. "

None of our other fighters are the best in the world anymore. The F-22 is, by a WIDE margin, and it brings some other crazy, force-multiplying capabilities (sensor and connectivity/C2 stuff) to the fight.

As far as your argument to the guys on the ground getting shot at, well, no...the F-22 isn't necessary or cost-effective for COIN ops in Afghanistan or Iraq, but it is against, say, China. In a full-fledged war, everybody is getting shot at. Also, without air superiority or air supremacy, those guys on the ground will die in droves. There won't be close air support to protect them...there won't be deep air strikes to knock out strategic and operational-level targets. It would be a scenario of who can throw more bodies into the grinder.

4/7/2009 8:42:24 AM

good lord

if we ever start fighting china, wouldn't nuclear warfare inevitably be the end?

4/7/2009 11:14:01 AM

Quote :

"Our regular aircraft are also 20+ years old."

So? The B-52 has been in service longer than anybody on this board has been alive, but we keep using it because it gets the fucking job done.

And theDuke866, what would you say is the best fighting in the world now? Excluding the F-22, of course.

Even if we plan for the highly unlikely possibility of a full-fledged shooting war with China, I'm not sure I see the need for F-22. It would help, certainly, and be convenient -- but of course, we already have some F-22's and the ability to start building them if we ever needed them. But in what regard is the People's Liberation Air Force even remotely on par with our own? We have more than double their number of aircraft. We have stealth technology. We have superior electronic warfare and detection capabilities. Other than the fact that a land war in China would just generally be a bloodbath, where are you getting the idea that we won't be able to achieve air superiority?

4/7/2009 12:12:00 PM

Quote :

"How exactly did Clinton Neuter the military?"

it is common knowledge that he massively reduced the size of the military. And yes, we "steamrolled" iraq... but would have been unable to respond to any other conflict in the world in the process. That, I would say, is a neutering

4/7/2009 1:11:26 PM

A reduction and redirection of military spending made sense after the Cold War. I'm not going to blast Clinton for recognizing that there had been a major shift in national defense paradigms.

4/7/2009 1:22:00 PM

^ thats what I was going to say

4/7/2009 1:25:49 PM

have we entered Bizarro World in this thread?

4/7/2009 1:32:55 PM

Still pointing out that the F-35 will be in production.

Besides I mean really

How long do you think its going to be before drones get respectable AA capability.

Without a pilot, an aircraft can be a hell of lot more agile and lighter.

4/7/2009 3:24:19 PM

Also notable is that the F-35 is intended for export whereas the F-22 is solely for US use.

I'm just wary of another situation similar to the sale of F-14s to the Shah.

4/7/2009 3:46:22 PM