I would just like to hear a Van Gundy State of the Union speech all about how our effort isn't there, our defense stinks and we can't execute.
SDI does not give further capability says who?...Slowing "Future Development System" does not scale back the capability of the military? I don't buy it.
Says logic and reason. SDI is a program designed for the Cold War, when there was actually the possibility that the USSR might launch their missiles at us. Today, the chances of either Russia or China (the only countries with the ability to hit us with nukes) launching their missiles at us is so remote that it might as well be nil. The $8.8 billion will be much better spent taking care of the veterans who return from Iraq. No, slowing the Future Combat System simply slows development of a single program in the military. Obama is not talking about closing military bases, reducing the size of the military, or anything else that could logically be interpreted as "scal[ing] back" the military. OK, so you don't buy logic and reason. That is common for Bush supporters, so no surprise here.
In case one of them get launched accidentally at us,...or a rogue general pushes the button. They don't operate under the same safeguards as the U.S. ...I would think the capability has merit...Insurance is often expensive, but I peronally want that capability... So development is slowed and this does not scale back the capability of the program? No logic and no reason from you...This is common from drug users I guess...
For me, it is the cost versus risk issue. I would rather spend that money seeing that our returning veterans have the best when it comes to healthcare, education, and other benefits. The risk of a "rogue general" is so remote that it is hardly measurable, but our veterans are definitely going to need that care when they come home. The "insurance" isn't worth it any more than buying comet insurance on my home would be. The program, yes, but the issue I was talking about was t_j's assertion that Obama wants to scale back the entire military. He does not and that point has been borne out by what Obama has said in his speeches and written in his position papers. You keep making apparently disparaging remarks about drugs and your assumption that I use them. If you would like to have a debate on that subject, I will be happy to (see the SF vs. t_j thread for my open challenge), but here it is wildly off topic.
In 1998, William Cohen, Secretary of Defense under the great, Bill Clinton, thought enough of the risk of possible attack from North Korea, or accidental launches from China or Russia to propose 6.6 BILLION DOLLARS (and that's in 1998 dollars!) on ballistic missle defense programs...that's a lot of money and a testamont to taking the issue much more serious...
I think that money is better spent elsewhere rather than pie in the sky SDI programs when the risk is so negligible. Our veterans deserve it more than the defense contractors.
I think it best to trust bi-partisan agreement by defense secretaries to protect the American people first and foremost...
Obama desires to scale back the military's capability, and regardless of the side benefit, that is NOT acceptable!...SDI was a great concept...
scale back : to reduce the size or amount of something. capability Noun pl -ties :the ability or skill to do something http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/scale+back http://www.thefreedictionary.com/capability Actually, moon, your use of "SDI" is incorrect as it stands today...maybe you like the idea it sounds like a drug, (ok I'll stop... ) But you bring up a fair question.... Do we need SDI technology, or what has it ever done? Good question moon...Why do we need it? How has it enabled the capability of the military? Well... One day a long, long time ago,....came a program called SDI...in 1983...Crazy idea, but the implication was a need to address and enhance capabilities of space technology against missles (namely the Soviets)...There was money and research focused on this program.... Then in 1993, the great Bill Clinton changed the strategic valued focus, and renamed it the BMDO...It certainly held attention though to extra-atmospheric importance such as the 6.6 Billion dollars proposed 5 years later I spoke about... In 2002, it was renamed the Missle Defense Agency....as it stands now... So what has happened from the evolution of SDI to the MDA we have now?...Well, we know the concept, and research of the SDI helped spawn some anti-ballistic missle systems of today...That is contribution to today's military capability...Specifics?...ok, well...Due to the research and development of SDI, an offshoot was the ERINT program which made succesful gains in missle defense,...and further research and develpoment refined this program into something you may have heard about:....The PAC-3...Otherwise known as the Patriot Advanced Capability-3...i.e. the Patriot missle.... The MIM 104 Patriot missle has replaced both the Nike Hercules and Hawk intercept systems with much greater precision, capability, and results...It is now the primary HIMAD platform used by the U.S. Army as well as the primary ABM platform (it's primary mission)... There has been so much direct decendent capabilities derived from SDI that it would be too much to cover... To answer your great question,...We don't need "SDI" today, but we DO need the evolution of SDI as it is today: the MDA...As far as what has SDI ever done,...well,. lots...The advancement of the patriot missle ABM platform has been tested, tried, and proven...It IS the Army's ABM theater platform of choice.... ...and it wouldn't be where it is today without the concept of the SDI....and Obama wants to cut the lineage of the R&D, which has led to tremendous military capabilities?... that's no good...No good at all... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative
Thank you for making my point for me. Obama is not talking about reducing the size of the military, nor reducing the amount of funding for the military. He is cutting programs that are not as important for the needed benefits to our soldiers returning from the battlefield. It shows fiscal restraint and the ability to set priorities, which convinces me that he will be a better leader than McCain, who seems to believe that we can continue to print money as we have for the last 7.5 years.
Well, since you really didn't make a point, but understand "scale back" is also defined as reducing the amount of "something".... and that something is precisely the "capability", defined as the ability to do something... the troops and the American people deserve a military that is not scaled back in capability concerning the types of threats...9/11 taught us to imagine the unimaginable and be prepared... Terminating the lineage of R&D which has led to a major weapon system that is tried, proven, and obviously effective is crazy... SDI is no more...it has evolved into something greater, and it has left a legacy of R&D which has spawed a the legendary PAC-3 system, among other areas...My hope is the legacy continues.
