header
Home  ::   Create Blog Entry  ::   Your Blog Entries  ::   View All Blogs

Thursday, April 9, 2009

Cutting The Budget And Our Throats

kempite
Hurray! During this period of troubling economic times, with increasingly poor economic indicators and concerns over deficit spending, President Obama’s new administration has proposed their first budget cuts.
Out of all the cuts that can be made, these proposed budget reduction measures are proposed in of all places, our defense budget

These proposed cuts came from one of the administrations few Republicans, the Secretary of Defense. The same Defense Secretary that was given the job by former President Bush.

I saw President Obama’s decision to keep Secretary Gates on, as a wise decision. I saw the perceived acceptance of continuity in the advice given in regards to our national defense as a prudent decision.

It is probably part of the reason why President Obama has not changed our approach to the war in Iraq. The advice and leadership of Secretary Gates has amounted to President Obama’s continuation of the Bush policy in Iraq and the time schedule set in motion by Secretary Gates under the direction of former President Bush. That is a bit ironic since President Obama campaigned on changing the Bush policy in Iraq and pulling out of there as soon as possible.

Yet the latest advice of Secretary Gates is a bit concerning.

He is the only cabinet official to have suggested budget cuts, at this point in time, but I am not sure that the defense of our nation is where I want the budget cut.

I am also not sure that I agree with the specific proposed reduction of national defense monies regarding the specific proposal he made.

Secretary Gates wants to cut back on air born laser anti missile development and technology or ABL. (see the video below to learn how ABL works)

Now, unless my short-term memory fails me, North Korea just fired off a rocket that scared the bejeezus out of the international community. The damn thing flew over Japan, an ally of ours, and an enemy to the crazed regime running the show in North Korea.

The North Koreans said they were putting a satellite up into orbit. That explanation didn’t really satisfy the powers that be. First of all, U.S. intelligence sees no evidence of a new satellite up there. Secondly with the scientific capabilities that North Korea possess, the only working technology that they could possible place into orbit is a transistor radio. And it would be an AM one at that.

So all this suggests nothing but ominous intentions on their behalf. They could be using their new found ability to raise much needed money for their faltering economy by selling this rocket to another upstanding, humanitarian minded nation like maybe Iran. Such a move will not exactly be an advance for the cause of peace in the world. Of course North Korea could intend to use it for transportation. They could want to transport a missile that is armed with the nuclear capabilities that they claimed to have stopped trying to obtain.

Either way, the fact that they fired a missile that can strike too many vulnerable American allies as well as the United States itself, makes me wonder how wise it is to reduce government spending by eliminating a technology that could shoot down the next Taepodong-2 multistage rocket.

According to Gates, his proposed budget is “the product of a holistic assessment of capabilities, requirements, risks and needs for the purpose of shifting this department in a different strategic direction.”

As for the laser technology that could be used to shoot down a future Taepodong-2 rocket, Gates stated “the ABL program has significant affordability and technology problems, and the program’s proposed operational role is highly questionable.”

That assessment and the decision to go through with halting use and study of the technology is beyond disappointing. In my view it is distressing.

ABL-like technology was first popularized back in the 80’s when President Ronald Reagan initiated studies for the military implementation of what he called a Strategic Defensive Initiative.

Back then, the left tried to ridicule Reagan for this pursuit. They tried to trivialize it by calling it Star Wars and defining it is imaginary capabilities dreamed up by a doddering old fool.

But while doing that, Ronald Reagan used SDI to win the Cold War and he used it to eventually bring about the collapse of the “evil empire”.

The last leader of the former Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev knew that his country could not spare enough of its own money to study SDI and try to compensate for America’s use of such potential technology. So in arms negotiations with Reagan, Gorbachev agreed to eliminate all of the Soviet empire’s nuclear arsenal if the United States promised to drop SDI.

Reagan said no.

He felt that that SDI was a new approach to the threat of nuclear weapons. It was a defensive tool and as such it posed no threat to anyone. The only offense it could be to our enemies would be the fact that, if it worked, it would render the missiles aimed at us, ineffective. Since it was not a threat to anyone, Reagan refused to negotiate it away.

The move proved to make it impossible for the Soviet Union to continue its arms race and it ultimately led to the transformation of a new Russia.

Years later SDI technology has continued to prove itself to be quite valuable and its continued development increases our ability to shoot down potential threats to America or allies.

The recent activities of North Korea and their promise to retaliate if the world community places any sanctions against them, helps to demonstrate the need for our increased use of, and study of, the type of technology that the Defense Secretary is proposing to abandon.

As President Obama returns homes from his tour of Europe and surprise visit to Iraq, I am more convinced than ever that we need to increase funding for capabilities such as ABL. After President Obama went abroad and promised to stop flexing America’s muscle in favor of going along with what the rest of the world wants, I believe that the ability to shoot down missiles aimed at us will become increasingly crucial to our security.

I believe that President Obama’s policies will do little to discourage our enemies from becoming bullies in their own right. His policies will do little to convince places like North Korea to stop their pursuit of nuclear capabilities or the need to produce rocket systems that can reach America.

His policies will help to increase the need for us to shoot such rockets down. Yet the means to do so is now being scrapped.

So I am glad to finally see our government attempt to cut the budget and to rid itself of a program but this is not the government program to cut.



http://politics247.wordpress.com/2009/04/08/cutting-the-defense-budgetand-our-throats/
Share
Post Comment:

Comments

They ordered enough planes to keep the line open for a bit. Now Gates sends his budget up to the hill where well you gussed it the Congress will decided the fate of the F-22.
So let's see, $150 million times 115 = $17.25 billion. Shit, we just coughed that up to hold GM and Chrysler up for 60 days. You might be right, the jobs factor - shovel-ready jobs, might save the program, but I thought the decision had already been made to discontinue, are you saying there is still a chance to keep it going?
If no more planes are ordered I think the number I last saw in Janes Defense Weekly was about 185 or so???
What will they have when the current contract ecpires?
they only want 300 some planes that way they have enough for training/combat that way when planes are on the ground for repair they have enough to keep up in the air.
You might be right, Erock, and it wouldn't be a bad thing I suppose.
Nope F&G Congress will have the final say on the F-22 and given the thousands of jobs it creates for so many Districts I bet even money against the plane being cut.
I favor development of anti-missile systems
Kempite, I was simply argueing about the discontinuance of the F22, I really don't disagree with you on the ABL system you wrote about here.
While the Air Force may want more F22's, they already tried during the Bush administration and were denied. I don't think anyone really expected more F22 production. It looks like we'll have to fight the Chinks with F35's
F&G the JSF is a great plane no doubt. But the F-22 is the high tech plane we need to deal with china and its growing tech advances. The US is in dire need of new planes. Further more the JSF is up for world wide sale to our allies while the F-22 is not for sale though Japan made inquiries into it last year.
FNG...Your hypotheses may have some validity, however, there is one major difference between you and I. You write "I'm sure they know what they are doing." I on the other hand, do not take it for granted. I do not have the same faith in governments bureaucracy that you apparently do. So I question the decision to scrap ABL. Those who are in power now were of the same thinking which called SDI a fantasy and a joke. Over twenty years later and the question is not can we develope that technology, it is how can we use that technology. I also know that in politics, the many of the decisions that are often made, are often based on factors that tend top be more personal than factual. So I do question this move and would be inclined with continuing its development
Well... well... well.... All sorts of room for speculation here, with the F22 fighter. I'm sure that it wasn't simply an arbitrary call. I'm sure that there was a need to set some priorities, etc. Perhaps the thinking is that we may not really need as much air superiority capability as we thought. Perhaps they've opted to go with more F35's as they will cost less and also cost less to maintain and have virtually the same air-to-air capability as the F22 plus some nifty adaptabilities that the F22 doesn't have (ie; VTOL). I'm sure they know what they are doing. Furthermore, these drones are really having some success and they may want to divert some resources to further development of them.
Defense budget plan a tough sell on Capitol Hill Members of Congress say biggest hurdle is loss of jobs during recession http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30095654/
Nope Gates hates the F-22 project with a passion last year he got ride of a large number of Air Force Officers the media reason was the misshap over the nuclear technology that landed in Tawain the real reason was that those officers all supported building over 300 some F-22 in stead of just 185 or so.
Wiz.......I have had the same sentiment. I cannoty help but wonder if Gates was given the directives that he was suppose to design his budget in accordance with.
Gates did it himself. He wants to gear the Miliatery towards low tech fighting. And he hates with a passion miliatery contracts and go on and on with out end and chew up money. Just letting you know his thoughts and what the DC gossip is. But as I said yesterday Capital Hill will have the final say on all of this.
I wonder if gates did this himself or has his hands tied. I chalk this up to losing high tech jobs and losing out on technology advancement that could change the battlefield. What if Clinton had done this to the B2 bomber of F117. Terrible call.
Here's one response this post got from someone. "As Obama is doing a fine job, I then would suggest that cutting your throat would also be a fine thing for you to do." Peoople are just pleasant. If I didn't know better, I would have sworn that bcame from Libby
wow, the fantasy land you wingnuts live in.
The CBC just returned home after a sit down with Fidel Castro. They loved him, said he was warm and inviting and then said we should model ourselves after Fidels Cuba. Great idea! In fact lets just put Fidel in charge! The left loves this guy so what the hell, we can make Fidel a co-president and then put Hugo in charge of the economy. That should fix everything!
Unfortunatley erock, right now I don't think anyone will.
Well if the GOP wont advocate tough spending cuts who will??? Also check out my comment board for a new op-ed piece about Kennedy Reagan vs. Obama Bush. It talks about tax cuts.
I don't think they want tougher. They see out of control spending and think anything under the Presidents budget is good, regardless of if a deficit still remains. They leave us with a deficit also, albeit a smaller one, and try to package it as cuts. Either way a deficit is still a deficit and we will all have to pay for it sooner or later.
Amen Smashey. I was really hoping that Ryan would have had something tougher.
In response to Mad's question.....It still doesn't cut enough.
I do agree that Gates has made some unwise choices such as slashing the F-22 program.
The problem is that as Gates has pointed out that its a system that has not proven its self. Despite billions spent on it. Also I would argue that most of our troops are right now facing short range misslie threats that we need to counter. Also I would dare point out that even if we build this system China and Russia and other nations will just simply build new nukes to beat it.
Kempite, while we're on the topic of budgets, how do you feel about the Republican Alternative budget proposal?

recent