On May 15, 10:59=A0am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
<artygu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 15, 12:15=A0pm, ScottW <Scott...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 15, 9:48=A0am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > <artygu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > On May 15, 11:34=A0am, ScottW <Scott...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > 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,
ne=
w
> > > > > conventional weapons must prove their value to current
conflicts,
> > > > > marked by insurgency and terrorism, if they hope for a place in
fu=
ture
> > > > > 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
partic=
ular
> > > > > the Army=92s Future Combat Systems and the Air Force=92s F-22
adva=
nced
> > > > > 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
sa=
id
> > > > > 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
larg=
er
> > > > > 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
posit=
ion
> > > > > to write his strategic view into any but the next budget. Thus,
th=
e
> > > > > services and industry may seek to push through the programs Mr.
Ga=
tes
> > > > > 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
repe=
at,
> > > > > any =97 adversary who committed an act of aggression, whether in
t=
he
> > > > > Persian Gulf, on the Korean Peninsula or in the Straits of
Taiwan.=
> > > > > There is a risk =97 but a prudent and manageable one.=94
>
> > > > =A0 Nothing is static. =A0How long will the risk in the Gulf, the
Ta=
iwan
> > > > Strait and the Korean Peninsula be "prudent and manageable"?
>
> > > Until our overstretched forces are out of Afghanistan and Iraq,
2pid.
> > > That's the reason there's any risk at all. Can't you read? LOL!
>
> > BS, the forces that are in play in Afghanistan are hardly the forces
> > that will be needed to operate in the Taiwan strait. =A0
>
> Um, 2pid, the fighting forces are *always* the smallest part of the
> deal. Think "logistics". If we're logistically tied up with a large
> effort elsewhere, it very much limits our abilities elsewhere. Duh.
The battle for Taiwan won't last longer than 5 days.
If logistics come into play, you'll have already lost.
>
> Further, if one of the three scenarios Gates mentioned played out, are
> you saying there would be no ground component? Duh.
I Chinese troops successfully cross the strait and we have a land
battle
on Taiwan, game over.
>
> > You're on crack.
>
> I'm not on crack, but apparently you think the chairman of the JCOS
> and the SEDEF are.
Sometimes.
>
> > > Duh.
>
> > > > How long will it take to make it prudent and manageable again
should=
> > > > we let that apparently acceptable status slip away?
>
> > > It's "prudent and manageable" *now*, 2pid. There is no "again".
> > > Nothing has "slipped away".
>
> > =A0It inevitably will if we stand pat. =A0Nothing is static.
>
> So how is fielding a larger amount of less-expensive weapons "standing
> pat"? Learn how to read:
>
> "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 said I agreed with this, you f'd it all up on your watch.
Maybe now, with your retirement, they can straighten it out.
ScottW
|
