> Doug: > IMO the administration needs to define just what kind of war we are > fighting and how we win. I'm not happy with the idea that we will > be fighting some indeterminate entity indefinitely. If we really > want to end terrorism, we need to wipe out the disease rather than > swatting at the symptoms. > > Gautam again: > That's a very nice thing to say. It's a little harder to actually do, you > know. The hijackers were all educated upper-middle class products of Arab > societies. So I guess that the best way to cure the disease would be to > eliminate economic prosperity in the Arab world. No? I don't feel like > doing that either, actually. So saying "wipe out the disease" is really > awfully simplistic. The disease is - they hate us because we are > what they > are not. The West Wing said it best today - they'll like us when we win. > Show strength, show power, show resolve, show determination, and they will > like us when we win. _That's_ how you cure the disease.
No, no, no. Whip a horse a lot and it will do what you want. But it will never want to do what you want. Hearts and minds is always cheaper than force, it just might take longer. Why are so many middle class Saudis so virulently anti-Western? Answer that question and you can then formulate some answers. Then, maybe, you can also ask if an overwhelming military force is the appropriate answer to the problem. I mean, a squadron of B2s is an awful expensive piece of material if what you really need is a SEAL team or two, or a few hospitals. Yes, I agree with Doug and many of the commentators he highlighted: define the requirement first, then formulate the plan. Better yet, get it discussed. Maybe even hold off a second and study what worked and what didn't in Afghanistan and see if something better can be done to allocate the right resource for the job at hand. At the moment it looks like suddenly everyone's christmas has come at once. Like Marvin said about the space hotel: stick a couple of guns on it and it'll get the funding. > > Gautam: > Yes, there are lots of people who think the Administration is > spending too much on the military... snip >There are lots of people who > believe every damn fool thing you can imagine. Many of them are > journalists. .. there is no defense spending increase > that wouldn't draw criticism from lots of the media. > snip > To assert otherwise is to pretty much define > yourself as a member of the very far left. Here you are using anecdotal evidence. What Dan wrote is about spot on to me: US media, particularly since September is very conservative and is very pro-government. So why can't they start questioning things now? That is what the media should be doing. What seems to be happening IMO is that Bush's agenda has been extremely opportunistic. For example, National Missile Defence: largely a Republican agenda, a torch that's been carried for over a decade. Do any of the Axis of Evil have intercontinental ballistic missiles? No. Are any of them likely to get them? No. Who currently has ICBMs? US, Britain (all US Polaris), Russia, China. All Russian missiles accounted for under arms treaties (unfortunately GW Bush has just unilaterally changed terms of treaty). China believed to have at most 100 ICBMs. Britain can be treated as an ally of US. What missile programs do the Axis of evil have? - Iraq: SCUD based missiles, range max 1000 miles (if they get them to work) - N Korea: SCUD based missiles, range max 1000 miles BTW: 500 miles is about as far as any Iraqi or N Korean missile has been fired. I'm allowing for development. Who else has missile development programs? Iran: SCUD based, likely ex-N Korea assistance, see above. India: can launch small payloads into orbit. For military use, max range probably about 2000 miles, unless try for orbital/reentry but only 4 ICBM powers have that technology Attempt to get cryogenic rocket engines from Russia to allow development of full ICBM stopped in 1994 Pakistan: SCUD based, probably ex Korean/Chinese Libya: Scud B max 500 miles range Japan: can launch small payloads into orbit, no sign of military use Argentina: can't afford the match to light the blue touch paper Brazil: ahah!! and Alberto works there too! Does NMD suit battlefield deployment against short/medium range missiles? No. Therefore, is NMD a pressing post September reaction? No. > > Gautam: > The Administration is proposing a $379B defense budget. The total > budget is, I believe, approximately $2.2 Trillion. The total GDP is > in the range of $10 Trillion. Which means we are spending less than > 4% of the GDP on defense. In the 1980s we routinely spent more than > 6%. Given that 3000 Americans just got killed by agents of a > hostile country - a striking demonstration of the violent > potential of the modern world - spending more doesn't seem like a > bad idea. Total spent by Al Qaeda. 20 x salaries of terrorists for approx 3 years = $3,000,000 (tops) Flying lessons = $ 100,000 (tops) 20 x Box cutters = $ 80 US response $379,000,000,000 (est) > Gautam again: > Bravo. I'm all in favor of it. The militaries of the next 15 > countries are > quite ineffective. (snip) We, > on the other hand, need to be able to fight 7000 miles away on a moment's > notice. Which we just did. It's not cheap. The force structure > is smaller > because it is more capital intensive. That's a good thing. I'd rather > spend money than blood. We have global responsibilities. No one > else does. The US has global responsibilities, yes. Does it have to do it all by itself? No. Really, why does the US have to spend more than the next 15 highest defence-spending nations on Earth? It doesn't have to. There is this thing called cooperation. There are things called treaties. The US would get far more bang for its buck if it actually built alliances around the world, rather than wandering around as at present declaring that treaties don't matter if they infringe on any part of US unilateralism. When Iraq invaded Kuwait did the US have to do it alone? No. Did the US have to do it alone in Iraq? No. Could the US have defeated the Taliban/Al Qaeda by spending less money? You bet. For example, how economic is it to have B52, B1 and B2 missions flying out of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean? Not very, and you ended up losing a B1 in the process (crew OK, thankfully). Yet Diego Garcia was the closest airfield the US was using. B1 and B2 bombers were flying from the US for godsakes and most of the time dropping ordinary old Mk84 iron bombs. And for every B-bomber mission, add in at least 3 KC10/KC135 tankers, plus an AEW/AWACS. Were B1, B2 and B52 aircraft the optimum aircraft? Probably not, but you got rid of your F111s a few years ago. Coulda used ours, they were offered and they can carry almost all the current generation of precision weapons, but you didn't want more than a token effort from anyone else. Coulda used RAF or Luftwaffe Tornadoes, but didn't want them. F111s and Tornadoes could have safely flown out of Pakistan or Kazakhstan, and could've been flown from within Afghanistan once airfields were captured. F15Es could carry the same smart bombs as the B-bombers, as probably could F/A-18s. Only a few F/A-18s ended up being used, all of them off carrier groups. No Harriers or A10s were used. Afghanistan was an overwhelming example of US might and power, without doubt. It was also done with an absolutely blank cheque. It was a war requiring tactical airpower that actually employed strategic airpower resources. It was the famed $5000 hammer used to crack a walnut. > > Gautam: > Given the rapid pace of change in military technology, spending a > lot on R&D seems like a good idea. Given the incredible tempo of > military operations in the last 15 years - one likely to increase - > spending a substantial amount on procurement seems like a good idea. > And gee, you know, when we ask American soldiers to fly off on a > moment's notice to every God-forsaken corner of the planet to get > shot at over and over and over again, it doesn't exactly seem unfair > to pay them a bit more. > Pay them better, OK. Do they have to fly all over the world? Not necessarily. As I see it, the US is currently in a complete "Let's do it alone" mode. Oh, an effort is made to have a few allies cheering on from the sidelines and some expressions of help are also accepted. But very much on US terms. I'm afraid it all sounds a lot like how MacArthur treated the Australian Forces in WW2. Just stand over there, do some mopping up, but let me go for glory here, OK? Let's face it. If the US decides to park a Carrier Task Group just outside anyone's territorial waters (except maybe for Britain, China, Germany, Russia and France) you've already got air superiority. Australia could put up a reasonable fight, mind you. > Doug: > Note that I do not and have not reflexively condemned all military > expenditures. Please don't put words in my mouth. None of the > articles condemned all military spending, reflexively or otherwise. > They called for fiscal responsibility when dealing with military > expenditures. > > Gautam again: > But they strikingly failed to define it. Do you oppose Crusader? > Why? Looks an awfully expensive way to deliver a few kilos of explosive, even if it is over 40 km. Maybe precision guided stand-off weapons have taken most of the requirement away from the artillery? And somehow the fully automated system to me doesn't really look like a practical battlefield system. Things go wrong in battle, machines break down. Look, yes it will probably end up working. But remember it took an awful long time to get the M1 Abrams workable, and most of the rest of the world has in the meantime gone for the much more reliable, equally capable and cheaper Leopard tank. And I think the Germans already have a comparable system to Crusader. (Let's face it, if you want a really good tank, Germany's a pretty good place to start looking for one.) And the idea that one C17/C5 will carry one Crusader plus resupply seems a bit excessive. Those planes are scarce as hen's teeth when the shooting starts, so I spose there'll be an immediate need for a whole lot more of them, too. At least Lockheed will like that. Maybe a towed 155mm gun system might be operationally more practical. Even if someone still has to pull the lanyard and yell "BANG" Probably a bit more flexible, too. >The > F-22? Why? The JSF? Why? Super Hornet looks to do much of what F22 would do, plus more. And F35 (JSF) is pretty damn close on the horizon as well. F22 looks like it will only be in service a few years - it could be cut pretty easily. Now, F15 has been around for 25 years, F/A-18 has been around for 15. Both have a good decade left in them. Go with the bloody ugly JSF, which at least isn't the hideous Boeing version, and let Super Hornet and some fleet upgrades cover the rest. What are the threats? MiG29, MiG31, SU-32/35?. All very good aircraft, but the US aircraft carry the better missiles (AMRAAM, etc). Really, you shouldn't get into a dogfight very often cos your AA missiles already include over the horizon, lookdown/shootdown capabilities. Plus Western training and tactics are FAR better than anyone else's. Then you've got the AWACS etc as well. China's best is effectively a reworked MiG 21, don't forget. >The Comanche? Why? Australia's just chosen the Eurocopter Tiger. Maybe you could look at it. And there are zillions of Mil-24 and Mil-28 helicopters about, cheap. >The Seawolf? Why? Isn't Seawolf a British missile? Or is this something else, like a hunterkiller sub? Jane's can't tell me anything on it. > Centurion? Why? I can get you a Centurion with spare motor for $20,000AUD. Now there's a tank! ;-) If you're talking about the Global Hawk UAV, please do buy them cos the RAAF would love to buy a couple. > The Ronald Reagan? Why? I assume this'll be another nuke Carrier? How many have you got and what will it replace? Does the budget include the carrier group to go with it? (FFGs, DDGs etc). Wouldn't mind if we had a carrier, although we sure don't need one that big. God I miss the Melbourne. :-( Do you know one of our old Oberon subs sank a US carrier (Kittyhawk, I think) in an ANZUS exercise a few years back? Your skipper refused to accept the referee's judgement until the Oberon surfaced beside him. Have you seen the British trimaran design for a carrier? Way cool, and really fast. >You agree with increased R&D > spending and a pay increase. What specific programs do you oppose? Just > saying "It's too much" is meaningless. What is it that they are spending > too much on? Exactly what strategic situations have been elaborated for the expenditure, or is everything a wish list that doesn't have any overall coherance? I think that sort of thing is what people are starting to ask about. > Gautam: > you might want to point out what, exactly, you disagree with. > Then maybe I can debate with you. But saying that you think a > hysterical screed like Krugman's is exactly right makes me think > that it's not the defense increase you oppose - it's the > Administration in anything that it does. Hysterical? Certainly didn't sound hysterical to me. Sounded quite sound and rational. It MAY be misdirected, it MAY be wrong, but it doesn't seem to be hysterical. > > He (Krugman) actually argued that the Administration was using 9/11 to > reward its supporters. That's contemptible. Do you believe those things? > If so, why? And if not, construct for us a comparable foreign > policy and we > can talk about how it's better or worse than the one currently > being carried > out by the US. 1. Republican funds were not provided by the defence industry? Do tell! 2. See above for some hints.
