Author Topic: Republicans idea of defense? (Read 1490 times)

jihad · « **on:** August 01, 2001, 06:20:00 AM »

http://www.military.com/Content/MoreContent?file=FL_pentagon_072901

Yeah...sure, lets just line the pockets of all our defense contractor buddys but not worry about the men in uniform, hell we don't need them anymore.

I'm sure the space bomber and missile defense sheild will be enough to save our bellybutton in the future.

Dubya really picked a winner for Secretary of Defense didn't he?

Eagler · « **Reply #1 on:** August 01, 2001, 08:01:00 AM »

sounds like they want to get out of the global police business.
I'm for that!

Yeager · « **Reply #2 on:** August 01, 2001, 08:05:00 AM »

We dont need a military!

We should all just grow flowers and love each other

Y

jihad · « **Reply #3 on:** August 01, 2001, 08:32:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Eagler:
sounds like they want to get out of the global police business.
I'm for that!

Same old slimey ratpublican tactics - try to divert attention by leading off on a tangent.

Explain this:

http://www.military.com/Content/MoreContent?file=FL_baseclose_073001

We don't need men or bases - just lots of high priced equipment...RIGHT?

Different Day..Same Old toejam from the ratpublicans, feed my election campaign..I'll pad your companys profits with exorbitant and unneccesary contracts/spending.

Eagler · « **Reply #4 on:** August 01, 2001, 08:40:00 AM »

the days of huge armies are gone. technology is the war of the future. How many fingers do you need to press a button? the article stated we'd be unable to maintain our global police force with the decreased body count.
I think Ryan in the Clancy novels is more "ratplican" than "handsomehunkcrat"

Yep Y, I'm all for growing flowers and living in peace. That day just ain't here yet....

Ripsnort · « **Reply #5 on:** August 01, 2001, 08:47:00 AM »

I read this proposal in 1998, its not a "W" admin idea, its been on paper in the Pentagon for quite some time now. Remember, I support the military division too here at work.

Fatty · « **Reply #6 on:** August 01, 2001, 09:35:00 AM »

Let me get this straight Jihad. You're extremely concerned this wild and crazy right wing wacko might reduce the size of the military?

jihad · « **Reply #7 on:** August 01, 2001, 09:54:00 AM »

technology is the war of the future. How many fingers do you need to press a button?

Spoken like someone who knows dick about what wins wars - it's the men in the field with guns who win wars, always has been, probably always will be.

Look at the Persian Gulf war, the air war smashed infrastructure and the enemys ability to affect the ground war, the armor and troops won it.

miko2d · « **Reply #8 on:** August 01, 2001, 10:13:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by jihad:
Look at the Persian Gulf war, the air war smashed infrastructure and the enemys ability to affect the ground war, the armor and troops won it.

Or rather once the air war smashed infrastructure and defences, the armor and troops rolled in and occupied territory.
You do not need that many grunts for that.

US is not planning on occupying anyone. If some large country declares war on us, smashing their infrastructure to stone age and leaving them alone would be our strategy - not ground war.

It is extremely unlkely that a huge foreign occupation army will ever disembark on our soil and need troops to repell it.

Half a million of well-trained professional soldiers backed by reserve is a lot of power in modern war.

miko

Eagler · « **Reply #9 on:** August 01, 2001, 10:24:00 AM »

sorry jihad
I believe we have the technology which allows us to win a war without ever setting foot in the country we would be fighting. Non nuclear bombing the infrastructure to dust. Once you set them back to the stone age, they'd surrender without troops and tanks rolling into town.

Of course the warm and fuzzy side would then want troops to go in and rebuild what we just destroyed - I say give that to private industry, if/when the defeated country can afford it..

Yoj · « **Reply #10 on:** August 01, 2001, 12:18:00 PM »

Ah! Shades of Drouhet and Billy Mitchell. We've been believing in winning wars with bombers as long as they've been around. So far nobody has figured out a way to do it, and I don't think we're there yet, by a long shot. The reason is that bombing people back to the stone age doesn't make them quit - it just makes them angry, bitter and fanatical. Maybe in the future it won't but there's no reason to believe it.

- Yoj

miko2d · « **Reply #11 on:** August 01, 2001, 01:00:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Yoj:
We've been believing in winning wars with bombers as long as they've been around. So far nobody has figured out a way to do it, and I don't think we're there yet, by a long shot.

Technically, you are correct. But if we change the goal from "winning war" or "defeating and occupying the enemy" to "not loosing war at the lowest expenditure of american lives", then pulverising the enemy's infrastructure, fleet and airforce may just work.
Unless of course we are attacked by Canada or Mexico who do not need ships or planes to invade us.

miko

Eagler · « **Reply #12 on:** August 01, 2001, 01:18:00 PM »

all a military would have to do is take out there commerce centers, electricity, communications, major bridges - roadways etc with "smart" bombs. Blockade any inbound aid... surrender is guaranteed. They may need to overthrown their current gov, but the ppl would demand it..

jihad · « **Reply #13 on:** August 01, 2001, 02:24:00 PM »

Ya know whats really funny about this?

Remember all the ratpooplican wailing and gnashing of teeth about Clinton/Democrats gutting the armed forces prior to the election?

Now look at what the slack jawed idiot in the White House wants to do.

[ 08-01-2001: Message edited by: jihad ]

Nashwan · « **Reply #14 on:** August 01, 2001, 02:49:00 PM »

How much would each space bomber mission cost? It's all well and good being able to take out bridges, communications centres, factories etc, but with the cost of space launches it's not going to be cost effective to do so. Seems to me it will destroy the American economy faster than it destroys the enemy's.

[ 08-01-2001: Message edited by: Nashwan ]