ping
Eventually we will be forced to use nukes to protect ourselves.
Conventional war is too costly in men, materials and morale.
Some unstable president in the near future will make that decision.
And Americans will ask......
"why did we wait so long?"
I've thought the exact same thing lately. The base closings make me nervous.
------
Yes, and if anything, we should be building our military strength back up, not only to where it was before Carter and Clinton destroyed it, but beyond given the actions of China, just for openers.
Each day, I become more concerned about the wisdom that resides in Washington ---
One disadvantage the current administration has is that some of the strategerie behind this needs to remain secret and they are very good at keeping secrets. Other administrations might be tempted to leak the reasons rather than accepting the heat but soldering on. That might be rose-colored glasses optimism but I have to think that Rumsfeld knows what he is doing.
There isn't much worry of that anyway, and the "stand-up time" isn't particularly long anyway.
The truly worrisome part for me is declining numbers of long-lead weapons systems: ships, planes, and the like. Given the likely pace of a major war, if we ever get into a serious mess, our lack of hardware may well bite us badly.
I do think that we take the war on terror too lightly. Things can get bad very quickly.
bttt for later read.
I trust the recommendations of Donald Rumsfeld far more than the new found military expertise of ole Peggy.
It's a thought. Another point, and what I told my wife when she asked my opinion of the base closings, is political. I'm not convinced that the closings will in fact save all that their proponents project them to. But I am convinced that there will be a political cost to implementing them.I just am not sure that this is the hill I want Republican Congressmen dying on.
Well, tell us what you think having a base nearby will protect you FROM?
After some time, quite possibly we will have to open some new bases. But this present move won't have been a waste, because the new bases will have advantages (location and design) to fill the modern-times needs.
"We don't need them because we must never change the structure and operations of our defense system."
"This of course is pure guessing on my part. I can't prove it with data."
Thankfully the BRAC is not made up of people who think we must never change the structure and operations of our defense systems, and who have actual data to back up their position.
Yesterday I was going to post a reply in exactly the same vein, wondering if I was the only one who was nervous about the proposed base closing. Once we close them, they won't be coming back. And if we need them?...
I see we've thought exactly the same thing about this matter, prairie. This does not seem to be the time to consolidate bases. But I trust Rumsfeld and we shall have to wait and see.
Thinking "dark" isn't something I have a problem with most days and it's interesting Peggy chose that particular phrase.
Exactly. And when the dark times come, nobody's going to help us. We'll have to do it all, ourselves.
I honestly think we have more bases than we need, and that it's stupid to spend money on bases kept open mostly for political purposes when it could be spent on something more militarily useful.
Of course we should think dark, in the sense of being prepared for trouble. But trouble doesn't necessarily require more bases.
I have no military background, that said, I have a few thoughts. Fortifications go back to ancient times. A place to house troops and the necessary items to support the troops and keep hold to territory. However with new modern equipment, communications and less man power more machinery to accomplish a mission, I would think a modern military in these times of our WOT, (without a landmass to claim or capture,) that is quick to manuver, light but effective equipment and instant modern communications would be the most effective military. Small, deadly forces for quick lethal strikes. Quick in - quick out. Less colladerial damage too. With less bases as targets in the WOT and more intergrated troops in cities and rural areas might be more effective. Just my opinion.
I'm not nervous about it. I work not a stone's throw from NAS Atlanta. I have now for more that 20 years. Their mission while at times seemed barely operationally necessary, when I heard the base commander comment for the news the day they announced the BRAC base closures, and essentially say "they know what they're doing," I believed him. It didn't sound like he was trying to stay out of trouble. He sounded to me like a man finally realizing that what he should be saying instead of trying to protect his "command turf", political largesse turf, and all of the other accoutrements that come with a military base near a civilian town.
One helluva big pot of money gets wasted trying to keep the appetites of Congressmen and Senators happy (coincidentally, so they can get re-elected). As a Georgian, I have somewhat mixed feelings that we had to accept the realization, I feel especially bad that Kings Bay lost to Groton Connecticut on the sub base stuff...my feeling is THAT was political....BUT , in the end, if the rational of us accept what's needed, then ALL are better served.
In the thirties industrial power in Niagara Falls, N. Y. cost .003$/kw hour (3 tenths of a cent). Electric trolleys bound the city together. A nickel took you where you wanted to go. Then progress!! Busses! Infernal combustion engines. Trolley tracks and overhead power distribution system removed. Then war came with fuel shortages due to German submarines torpedoing the tankers from Texas. The water still flowed; the electric power plants still operated, but the trolleys were gone. GM's fault?
If our enemies have nuclear weapons, concentrating our forces is most unwise. Its hoping they will never acquire such.