Author Topic: Gates readies big cuts in weapons (Read 3978 times)

TheSarge · « **on:** March 17, 2009, 10:43:39 AM »

WASHINGTON - As the Bush administration was drawing to a close, Robert M. Gates, whose two years as defense secretary had been devoted to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, felt compelled to warn his successor of a crisis closer to home.

The United States "cannot expect to eliminate national security risks through higher defense budgets, to do everything and buy everything," Gates said. The next defense secretary, he warned, would have to eliminate some costly hardware and invest in new tools for fighting insurgents.

What Gates didn't know was that he would be that successor.

Now, as the only Bush Cabinet member to remain under President Obama, Gates is preparing the most far-reaching changes in the Pentagon's weapons portfolio since the end of the Cold War, according to aides.

Two defense officials who were not authorized to speak publicly said Gates will announce up to a half-dozen major weapons cancellations later this month. Candidates include a new Navy destroyer, the Air Force's F-22 fighter jet, and Army ground-combat vehicles, the offi cials said.

More cuts are planned for later this year after a review that could lead to reductions in programs such as aircraft carriers and nuclear arms, the officials said.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/03/17/gates_readies_big_cuts_in_weapons/

Tess · « **Reply #1 on:** March 17, 2009, 11:14:32 AM »

Because they are outdated? Or because we need to focus on more advanced technology to fight other forms of war? Or because O has disdain for the military?

I'm just confused here.

NHSparky · « **Reply #2 on:** March 17, 2009, 11:20:50 AM »

Because the Zero thinks they're "unnecessary". Nevermind the fact that the F-22 is supposed to replace an airframe (F-15) which is pushing 40 years old. Nevermind the fact that the tankers scheduled for replacement are nearly 50 years old. Or that the ships we need are being decomissioned faster than they can be built.

We're down to 45 fast attacks in the Navy, a drop from nearly 100 when I hit my first boat. You CANNOT keep tabs on the bad guys and do all the other tasks we were expected to do with that few fast attack boats, but someone who has never spent day one at sea gets to make those decisions. Someone who has never faced the likes of the new Sukhois and MiG and Chinese fighters gets to make that decision.

Hollow force, here we come.

Baruch Menachem · « **Reply #3 on:** March 17, 2009, 11:34:52 AM »

the USSR just isn't there anymore.

We do need to reconfigure for a different threat. It just isn't good planning to keep on trying to deal with one threat when we have something totally different now.

TheSarge · « **Reply #4 on:** March 17, 2009, 11:41:49 AM »

Quote from: Baruch Menachem on March 17, 2009, 11:34:52 AM

the USSR just isn't there anymore.

We do need to reconfigure for a different threat. It just isn't good planning to keep on trying to deal with one threat when we have something totally different now.

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

Tess · « **Reply #5 on:** March 17, 2009, 12:04:02 PM »

Quote from: Baruch Menachem on March 17, 2009, 11:34:52 AM

the USSR just isn't there anymore.

We do need to reconfigure for a different threat. It just isn't good planning to keep on trying to deal with one threat when we have something totally different now.

True...but only to a point. When you have Russia coupled with smaller serious threats I just don't see how we can't be updating our force and the technology with regards to our weapons, fighters, ships, etc. And with China getting more and more aggressive I am thinking our biggest threat isn't going to be Russia as much as China. Not to mention The USSR has no clue as to how many Nuclear weapons they built up and therefore no one has any clue whether or not they all are accounted for. That is the scariest whole part of this. I can't see us having to fight one big power as much as us having to fight against several smaller but better equipped powers which decide to band together for the sake of defeating a common enemy.

My thoughts really have turned more toward the fact that Obama really has no clue about how much he not only appears weak but is actually making us weak with these kinds of decisions.

NHSparky · « **Reply #6 on:** March 17, 2009, 02:47:59 PM »

Quote from: Baruch Menachem on March 17, 2009, 11:34:52 AM

the USSR just isn't there anymore.

We do need to reconfigure for a different threat. It just isn't good planning to keep on trying to deal with one threat when we have something totally different now.

Try again. They're back!!!!

LINK

Crazy Horse · « **Reply #7 on:** March 17, 2009, 03:11:34 PM »

Quote from: Baruch Menachem on March 17, 2009, 11:34:52 AM

the USSR just isn't there anymore.

We do need to reconfigure for a different threat. It just isn't good planning to keep on trying to deal with one threat when we have something totally different now.

What should we build/reconfigure to defend against all the Diesel subs being bought by many countries not happy with us?

What should we build/reconfigue to defend against all these new generation fighters that China and Russia are building?

Missle defense?

Armor?

etc.

RightCoast · « **Reply #8 on:** March 17, 2009, 03:22:06 PM »

Quote from: Tess on March 17, 2009, 11:14:32 AM

Because they are outdated? Or because we need to focus on more advanced technology to fight other forms of war? Or because O has disdain for the military?

I'm just confused here.

barack needs to give that money to the poor, the homeless, and Acorn.

Eupher · « **Reply #9 on:** March 17, 2009, 03:26:25 PM »

Quote from: RightCoast on March 17, 2009, 03:22:06 PM

barack needs to give that money to the poor, the homeless, and Acorn.

And his buddies. (It's a Chicago thing.)

Attero Dominatus · « **Reply #10 on:** March 17, 2009, 08:49:06 PM »

Quote from: Tess on March 17, 2009, 11:14:32 AM

Because they are outdated? Or because we need to focus on more advanced technology to fight other forms of war? Or because O has disdain for the military?

I'm just confused here.

Obozo stupidly thinks that the military is unnecessary. I guess he has not noticed Russia's rearmament (or all the other threats facing us)

Attero Dominatus · « **Reply #11 on:** March 17, 2009, 08:51:13 PM »

Quote from: Baruch Menachem on March 17, 2009, 11:34:52 AM

the USSR just isn't there anymore.

We do need to reconfigure for a different threat. It just isn't good planning to keep on trying to deal with one threat when we have something totally different now.

Putin and Mevedev are intent on rebuilding Russia to its former power, and lets not forget about China or Iran or North Korea.

djones520 · « **Reply #12 on:** March 17, 2009, 08:56:24 PM »

Quote from: Baruch Menachem on March 17, 2009, 11:34:52 AM

the USSR just isn't there anymore.

We do need to reconfigure for a different threat. It just isn't good planning to keep on trying to deal with one threat when we have something totally different now.

As others have pointed out, Russia is on a blitz to remodernize it's military now, and China is also going apenuts on military spending.

Quite frankly, our leadership is focusing on the now, and not what we may be facing in the next 10-15 years. China moving militarily into Taiwan is not a forgone conclusion, and if that happens, we are in an all out war with them. Theres is still always the possibility that N. Korea could go again, and China can always jump into that again as well. Russia may push into one of it's old satellites to the point that we have no choice but to step in.

Insurgents are not the only threat we face. And they are not the only ones we should be preparing to fight. Scrapping a lot of these programs are a bad idea.

RightCoast · « **Reply #13 on:** March 17, 2009, 09:10:14 PM »

Quote from: djones520 on March 17, 2009, 08:56:24 PM

As others have pointed out, Russia is on a blitz to remodernize it's military now, and China is also going apenuts on military spending.

Quite frankly, our leadership is focusing on the now, and not what we may be facing in the next 10-15 years. China moving militarily into Taiwan is not a forgone conclusion, and if that happens, we are in an all out war with them. Theres is still always the possibility that N. Korea could go again, and China can always jump into that again as well. Russia may push into one of it's old satellites to the point that we have no choice but to step in.

Insurgents are not the only threat we face. And they are not the only ones we should be preparing to fight. Scrapping a lot of these programs are a bad idea.

Not to disagree but our leadership thinks it's 1960 and the US is the world's only aggreesor. To see the world through barack's eyes you must think of the US as a cancer. Not the cure.

Airwolf · « **Reply #14 on:** March 17, 2009, 09:56:09 PM »

This went so well when they did this to the military back in the 1930's

Lacarnut · « **Reply #15 on:** March 17, 2009, 10:30:52 PM »

Quote from: TxRadioguy on March 17, 2009, 10:43:39 AM

Now, as the only Bush Cabinet member to remain under President Obama, Gates is preparing the most far-reaching changes in the Pentagon's weapons portfolio since the end of the Cold War, according to aides.

Two defense officials who were not authorized to speak publicly said Gates will announce up to a half-dozen major weapons cancellations later this month. Candidates include a new Navy destroyer, the Air Force's F-22 fighter jet, and Army ground-combat vehicles, the offi cials said.

More cuts are planned for later this year after a review that could lead to reductions in programs such as aircraft carriers and nuclear arms, the officials said.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/03/17/gates_readies_big_cuts_in_weapons/

Gates has a pained look on his face. I don't think he will last the year out.

diesel driver · « **Reply #16 on:** March 18, 2009, 09:57:23 AM »

Quote from: Lacarnut on March 17, 2009, 10:30:52 PM

Gates has a pained look on his face. I don't think he will last the year out.

If you had to answer to Zero, would you want to stay?

thundley4 · « **Reply #17 on:** March 18, 2009, 10:27:40 AM »

Quote from: diesel driver on March 18, 2009, 09:57:23 AM

If you had to answer to Zero, would you want to stay?

The question should be : "If you knew there was a place under the bus reserved for you, would you stay?" As a holdover from the Bush administration, Gates is probably being set up to take the fall for some big nasty cluster**** in the military.

diesel driver · « **Reply #18 on:** March 18, 2009, 10:32:16 AM »

Quote from: thundley4 on March 18, 2009, 10:27:40 AM

The question should be : "If you knew there was a place under the bus reserved for you, would you stay?" As a holdover from the Bush administration, Gates is probably being set up to take the fall for some big nasty cluster**** in the military.

No doubt.

Zero always needs a lackey to take the heat for his own "Cluster Foxtrot", which seem to be happening on a more frequent basis....

Lacarnut · « **Reply #19 on:** March 18, 2009, 11:31:56 AM »

Quote from: diesel driver on March 18, 2009, 10:32:16 AM

No doubt.

Zero always needs a lackey to take the heat for his own "Cluster Foxtrot", which seem to be happening on a more frequent basis....

I would resign, give a news conference and tell the American people the truth that the O's policies will endager us in the future.

When he leaves, not if, he will be a good soldier and keep his mouth shut just like Prez Bush is doing. You might say that shows class but it also might result in another attack on this country by being silent.

News:

Author Topic: Gates readies big cuts in weapons (Read 3978 times)