On May 15, 7:47=A0am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
<artygu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> ...so consistently? LOL!
>
> "Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates issued a clear warning to the
> military and its industrial partners on Tuesday that expensive, new
> conventional weapons must prove their value to current conflicts,
> marked by insurgency and terrorism, if they hope for a place in future
> budgets."
>
> =93Overall, the kinds of capabilities we will most likely need in the
> years ahead will often resemble the kinds of capabilities we need
> today,=94 he added."
>
> [i.e. The cold war is over, 2pid. Just like I said. LOL!]
>
> "Those comments are certain to alarm advocates of the newest
> generations of high-tech and high-cost weapons programs, in particular
> the Army=92s Future Combat Systems and the Air Force=92s F-22 advanced
> warplane. Both have come under the scrutiny of Pentagon budget
> officers questioning whether either would be required for missions
> similar to the current operations in Iraq or Afghanistan."
>
> "The defense secretary also criticized a budget process that he said
> results in the production of fewer, but more expensive, war****ps,
> warplanes and armored vehicles."
>
> [i.e. So we'll need more A-10s and AH-64 Apache Longbows, and larger
> quantities of less-expensive weaponry, kind of almost exactly like
> I've been saying all along, 2pid. The F-22 is an anachronism from the
> cold war.]
>
> "To be sure, the defense secretary is set to step down at the end of
> the Bush administration, and thus is not expected to be in a position
> to write his strategic view into any but the next budget. Thus, the
> services and industry may seek to push through the programs Mr. Gates
> said should be scrutinized."
>
> [i.e. There is no shortage of boneheads such as yourself. LOL!]
>
> "The military, he declared, =93has ample and untapped combat power in
> our naval and air forces, with the capacity to defeat any =97 repeat,
> any =97 adversary who committed an act of aggression, whether in the
> Persian Gulf, on the Korean Peninsula or in the Straits of Taiwan.
> There is a risk =97 but a prudent and manageable one.=94
Nothing is static. How long will the risk in the Gulf, the Taiwan
Strait and the Korean Peninsula be "prudent and manageable"?
How long will it take to make it prudent and manageable again should
we let that apparently acceptable status slip away?
This is the debate on advanced weapons systems.
Not do we need them to take out the Taliban.
As far as the procurement process being f'd up, that happenned while
you were in the military.
ScottW
|
