On May 15, 2:15=A0pm, ScottW <Scott...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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, =
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
i=
n the
> > > > > > years ahead will often resemble the kinds of capabilities we
nee=
d
> > > > > > 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
part=
icular
> > > > > > the Army=92s Future Combat Systems and the Air Force=92s F-22
ad=
vanced
> > > > > > warplane. Both have come under the scrutiny of Pentagon budget
> > > > > > officers questioning whether either would be required for
missio=
ns
> > > > > > 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
la=
rger
> > > > > > quantities of less-expensive weaponry, kind of almost exactly
li=
ke
> > > > > > I've been saying all along, 2pid. The F-22 is an anachronism
fro=
m the
> > > > > > cold war.]
>
> > > > > > "To be sure, the defense secretary is set to step down at the
en=
d of
> > > > > > the Bush administration, and thus is not expected to be in a
pos=
ition
> > > > > > 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
pow=
er in
> > > > > > our naval and air forces, with the capacity to defeat any =97
re=
peat,
> > > > > > any =97 adversary who committed an act of aggression, whether
in=
the
> > > > > > Persian Gulf, on the Korean Peninsula or in the Straits of
Taiwa=
n.
> > > > > > 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 =
Taiwan
> > > > > 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.
> =A0If logistics come into play, you'll have already lost.
We've already lost then, 2pid, as aircraft or naval forces cannot even
get there without logistics. We'd have to divert from our main effort,
which is Iraq.
Logistics wins or loses battles, 2pid. Ask anybody who knows something
about how it works. LOL!
> > Further, if one of the three scenarios Gates mentioned played out, are
> > you saying there would be no ground component? Duh.
>
> =A0 I Chinese troops successfully cross the strait and we have a land
> battle
> on Taiwan, game over.
We can't get more than a carrier group or two there in that time. That
F-22 better be a miracle worker! We have about 200. If they're *all*
there, we still won't win. They also have to refuel before even
entering the airspace, which is logistics. In a five-day battle,
Taiwan is primarily on its own. As I said. Several times, in fact. ;-)
> > > You're on crack.
>
> > I'm not on crack, but apparently you think the chairman of the JCOS
> > and the SEDEF are.
>
> =A0Sometimes.
I know, I know, only you, with your vast experience in such matters,
can see the light. LOL!
Four-star and other high-ranking military officers and high-ranking
civilian military personnel have much to learn from you, don't they.
They just don't have access to the information that you do, nor your
'superior' mental capabilities. That's my guess.
And if they don't agree with you, they're "on crack". LOL!
> > > > Duh.
>
> > > > > How long will it take to make it prudent and manageable again
shou=
ld
> > > > > 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."
>
> =A0 I said I agreed with this, you f'd it all up on your watch.
Um, no.
If you agreed with this, you'd be opposed to the F-22 and also to
investing a large sum in the next generation fighter. We all know
better than that.
> Maybe now, with your retirement, they can straighten it out.
What a dumb thing to say. Duh!
LOL!
|
