Posted on 07/30/2011 9:25:45 PM PDT by Clairity
It's not easy to figure out how much we should spend on defense and where we should spend it. Our weapons have become much more accurate and effective than they were 25 years ago, and thus 10 USAF aircraft dropping GPS-guided bombs could have more effective firepower than 50 aircraft had 25 years ago. That trend argues for a reduced force size and lower spending. But at the same time China and Iran are expanding their military forces and we have to think ahead to what force size we will need in 10-20 years to still be able to defeat their forces.
The best thing to do is give the Pentagon a total budget and leave it up to the Generals & Admirals to decide the size and capabilities of forces and weapons that they need. Get congress and all its political horse-trading out of the decision process as much as possible and let the Pentagon make the decisions about how to spend the military budget. I worked for a defense contractor for a few years and I will say this--there were too many office employees at our location and defense contractors can produce the same amount of weapons, ships, and airplanes at a significantly lower cost. Congress really should bring in some management consultants to streamline all the defense contractors, but they don't want to lose the jobs at defense contractors. Eventually those extra office jobs have to be eliminated because our country can't afford them.
We can’t wait for imminent attack with nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are devastating sneak-attack weapons and just one nuclear bomb detonated in the wrong place could be catastrophic for America. That is why NATO is still sitting in Afghanistan holding a big gun pointed at Iran and saying “don’t restart you nuclear weapons program or we’ll invade eastern Iran and destroy your nuclear facilities...don’t even think about it.” We wiped out Al Qaeda in the first six months we were in Afghanistan. NATO is still in Afghanistan to stop Iran from building a nuclear arsenal.
I remember the A-6F, which was an A-6E with upgraded avionics, a modified wing, and two non-afterburning versions of the F404 engine. Pity the US Navy didn’t adopt the plane, because that would have extended the life of the A-6 well into the 21st Century.
Reagan got us involved in three military actions. Two (Libya and Grenada) were small. The third, Lebanon, ended with Reagan withdrawing the troops and considered his attempt at peacekeeping folly. I agree with Reagan on all three accounts.
And don’t tell me where I belong. It’s not “lunatic fringe” to suggest we don’t need to be involved in all the wars we are involved in, nor need as large of a military is not “lunatic fringe.” In fact, it’s the majority of the public according to every opinion poll you can sight. Fact is, you don’t know what Reagan would have done in any of these cases. Furthermore, the one comparable situation he got us in he realized it was stupid. Russell Kirk, one of the founders of the modern conservative movement, opposed Gulf War I. Bill Buckley opposed Gulf War II. To call me “lunatic fringe” or not conservative is patently absurd. I might be wrong, but I am neither of those. Furthermore, I consider it ironic that I am the nut on the conservative forum because I think we are probably being too liberal (I am using the word properly) in our military spending policy.
You don't understand how these discussions work. I get to have my own opinion of where you belong.
Truthfully, I considered Reagan slightly less moderate than Bush, though I think he was certainly the greatest president in my lifetime. He missed the mark on many levels. DOE being a big one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.