Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

We're getting a clearer picture of what the Obama Administration plans to fund and what it plans to cut in the Department of Defense...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03627.html

My comments are this...the future long range bomber can wait...not a bad cut

The New Tanker program...we need them, but the current one's can l;ast a little longer...we'll just pay a lot more in the future to replace these planes purchased in the late 50's and early 60's

The Army's FCS program...I don't really know much about it, but what I know, it's like the Tanker program...the Army can and will survive, but we need to replace older technology and the longer you wait, the higher the bill..

The Airborne Laser program...this one puzzles me, as just today there are reports out that North Korea and Iran are developing longer range, more accurate ICBM's...and this is a program with some successful testing under its belt that could provide an additional layer of protection...it's not an offensive weapon, rather a defensive one...


DISCUSS

I would have prefered to see the new Long-range tanker program up and going - American jobs, at the minimum...

Col Hogan wrote:We're getting a clearer picture of what the Obama Administration plans to fund and what it plans to cut in the Department of Defense...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03627.html

My comments are this...the future long range bomber can wait...not a bad cut

The New Tanker program...we need them, but the current one's can l;ast a little longer...we'll just pay a lot more in the future to replace these planes purchased in the late 50's and early 60's

The Army's FCS program...I don't really know much about it, but what I know, it's like the Tanker program...the Army can and will survive, but we need to replace older technology and the longer you wait, the higher the bill..

The Airborne Laser program...this one puzzles me, as just today there are reports out that North Korea and Iran are developing longer range, more accurate ICBM's...and this is a program with some successful testing under its belt that could provide an additional layer of protection...it's not an offensive weapon, rather a defensive one...


DISCUSS

I thought ARMY was an FBS school?

grizzaholic wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:We're getting a clearer picture of what the Obama Administration plans to fund and what it plans to cut in the Department of Defense...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03627.html

My comments are this...the future long range bomber can wait...not a bad cut

The New Tanker program...we need them, but the current one's can l;ast a little longer...we'll just pay a lot more in the future to replace these planes purchased in the late 50's and early 60's

The Army's FCS program...I don't really know much about it, but what I know, it's like the Tanker program...the Army can and will survive, but we need to replace older technology and the longer you wait, the higher the bill..

The Airborne Laser program...this one puzzles me, as just today there are reports out that North Korea and Iran are developing longer range, more accurate ICBM's...and this is a program with some successful testing under its belt that could provide an additional layer of protection...it's not an offensive weapon, rather a defensive one...


DISCUSS

I thought ARMY was an FBS school?

That one went right over my head.....

In Army speak - FCS = Future Combat System

Col Hogan wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:
I thought ARMY was an FBS school?

That one went right over my head.....

In Army speak - FCS = Future Combat System

Ooohhh.. My bad.

dbackjon wrote:I would have prefered to see the new Long-range tanker program up and going - American jobs, at the minimum...

It is my understanding that job creation centered around defense spending is not a very efficient. Your money is better spent in infrastructure or other public works that create a real value beyond the initial manufacturing.

hank scorpio wrote:

dbackjon wrote:I would have prefered to see the new Long-range tanker program up and going - American jobs, at the minimum...

It is my understanding that job creation centered around defense spending is not a very efficient. Your money is better spent in infrastructure or other public works that create a real value beyond the initial manufacturing.

Yes, like retrofitting existing government buildings so they're "green compliant" and building new facilities to house the additional government workers being added to the taxpayer funded payrolls. Not to mention all the billions being spent on social welfare programs...think of all the government social worker jobs that'll be created.



The cold war ended due to Reagan's investment in defense, and "threats" of investing billions into defensive weapons.
The laser airborne program could have helped put a damper on Iran's and N. Korea's designs to destabilize the balance of power in their regions. I the U.S. doesn't go forward with that program now, it will sooner or later, or risk having to spend tenfold in other military resources to deal with the resulting conflicts.

I will disagree with you on the "green" buildings, T-man.

This projects have a positive ROI - the money spent will be more than recouped in savings later.

dbackjon wrote:I will disagree with you on the "green" buildings, T-man.

This projects have a positive ROI - the money spent will be more than recouped in savings later.

You're assuming a "typical" cost to retrofit.

Ever seen how the government designs for itself...?

They'll spend $250m to pick an entire building up and turn it 3 deg. to maximize it's southern wall exposure. The phrase Return On Investment doesn't exist in government's lexicon.

Oh, yeah...I forgot the reason they're doing this...Anthropogenic Global Warming...

Now it ALL makes sense...

travelinman67 wrote:

hank scorpio wrote:
It is my understanding that job creation centered around defense spending is not a very efficient. Your money is better spent in infrastructure or other public works that create a real value beyond the initial manufacturing.

Yes, like retrofitting existing government buildings so they're "green compliant" and building new facilities to house the additional government workers being added to the taxpayer funded payrolls. Not to mention all the billions being spent on social welfare programs...think of all the government social worker jobs that'll be created.



The cold war ended due to Reagan's investment in defense, and "threats" of investing billions into defensive weapons.
The laser airborne program could have helped put a damper on Iran's and N. Korea's designs to destabilize the balance of power in their regions. I the U.S. doesn't go forward with that program now, it will sooner or later, or risk having to spend tenfold in other military resources to deal with the resulting conflicts.

From 1977-1988, which included the peak years of U.S. defense spending increases, Soviet military spending usually increased only one to two percent per year, not nearly enough to match the U.S. rate of growth. After 1988, the Soviets actually cut their defense spending. This reflected the constraints of a weak Soviet economy, as Reagan and his aides correctly perceived, but also shows the Reagan buildup did not lure the Soviets into making the military drain on their economy worse. The calculations of Soviet military spending given here are from CIA estimates cited in F. Stephen Larrabee, "Gorbachev and the Soviet Military," Foreign Affairs 66, no. 5 (Summer 1988), p. 1003, and U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers, 1995 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, April 1996), p. 94.

hank scorpio wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
Yes, like retrofitting existing government buildings so they're "green compliant" and building new facilities to house the additional government workers being added to the taxpayer funded payrolls. Not to mention all the billions being spent on social welfare programs...think of all the government social worker jobs that'll be created.



The cold war ended due to Reagan's investment in defense, and "threats" of investing billions into defensive weapons.
The laser airborne program could have helped put a damper on Iran's and N. Korea's designs to destabilize the balance of power in their regions. I the U.S. doesn't go forward with that program now, it will sooner or later, or risk having to spend tenfold in other military resources to deal with the resulting conflicts.

From 1977-1988, which included the peak years of U.S. defense spending increases, Soviet military spending usually increased only one to two percent per year, not nearly enough to match the U.S. rate of growth. After 1988, the Soviets actually cut their defense spending. This reflected the constraints of a weak Soviet economy, as Reagan and his aides correctly perceived, but also shows the Reagan buildup did not lure the Soviets into making the military drain on their economy worse. The calculations of Soviet military spending given here are from CIA estimates cited in F. Stephen Larrabee, "Gorbachev and the Soviet Military," Foreign Affairs 66, no. 5 (Summer 1988), p. 1003, and U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers, 1995 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, April 1996), p. 94.

It did not lure the Soviets into higher spending because they knew they could not...their economy could take no more...

Thus, they gave up and slid into the eventualy breakup of the Soviet Union in the early 90's...

Not a shot fired, and the Col War is won...

I'm not a fan of Ronnie, but these are facts...

Col Hogan wrote:

hank scorpio wrote:
From 1977-1988, which included the peak years of U.S. defense spending increases, Soviet military spending usually increased only one to two percent per year, not nearly enough to match the U.S. rate of growth. After 1988, the Soviets actually cut their defense spending. This reflected the constraints of a weak Soviet economy, as Reagan and his aides correctly perceived, but also shows the Reagan buildup did not lure the Soviets into making the military drain on their economy worse. The calculations of Soviet military spending given here are from CIA estimates cited in F. Stephen Larrabee, "Gorbachev and the Soviet Military," Foreign Affairs 66, no. 5 (Summer 1988), p. 1003, and U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers, 1995 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, April 1996), p. 94.

It did not lure the Soviets into higher spending because they knew they could not...their economy could take no more...

Thus, they gave up and slid into the eventualy breakup of the Soviet Union in the early 90's...

Not a shot fired, and the Col War is won...

I'm not a fan of Ronnie, but these are facts...

Bingo...that's what I recall. After the breakup of the Soviet Empire, once the west was allowed in to obtain an unfettered view of the conditions of the states, the poverty and bankruptcy was readily apparent. Infrastructures had collapsed and regional govt. agencies were completely corrupt...it was virtually anarchistic. Food was scarce, medical care only existed for the wealthy, who were often murdered out of envy, without reprise. Anything not protected was stolen and resold, their economy had reached the tipping point of central government implosion, which in effect later occurred under Yeltsin when he forcefully "dissolved" parliament.
I have a very close friend over there right now...married a Russian woman right after the break up...they live in the U.S., but spend a few months each year outside of St. Petersburg with her family. The stories he's told me about the conditions they lived in is surrealistic. Often having no utilities, for months, during winter...being restricted from harvesting wood for heat, so they huddled together in a big heap to stay warm. It's sounds overly dramatic, but that was reality.
Things have improved drastically, but the Col. is correct, the collapse came about because the Soviet Empire couldn't compete with our economic investment in defense spending. And for those too young to remember what it was like growing up and living during the cold war, surrounded by nuclear weaponry (I grew up with a strategic, nuclear arms-bearing facility 4 mi. from my house), it's something you should pray you never have to experience. It's hard to explain to someone not having experienced what it's like to live every second knowing if someone in Washington or Moscow loses their cool, you'll be dead in minutes...not months, days, or hours, but 10 to 20 minutes...vaporized.

Obama's move to cut "defensive" weapons like the laser system is ignorant and threatens our country's safety.

If we did spend the Soviets into submission, here we are a mere 20 years later watching what would be the collapse of free-market capitalism were it not for the government being able to force the taxpayers to bail out the same incompetent peckerwoods that put us into this mess in the first place so they can continue to do the same shit that hasn't worked... Very much a Pyrrhic victory, kind of like Monty Python's knights who say Nee.

I'll take the opposing view on the airborne laser sytem. My reasoning is that by the time we can make it work things will have changed too much. The system is in it's infancy, which doesn't matter much right now because the N. Koreans and Iranians are also a long way from having ICBMs that can reach us. I see this system as roughly analogous to the old B-36 which followed the B-29 - it was bigger and more capable but was obsolete the day the first one rolled off the line. The high ground is changing and we've already squandered a 40 year jump on China's space program while dicking around with piddly-ass, easily defeated, so-called missle defense systems. Once the Chinese and ourselves have established capable systems in orbit it's back to MAD since anti-missle systems will be best for helping spread the fallout over a wider area of North America, if they are lucky enough to hit an incoming missle that isn't a decoy.