How Much Would You Spend On Defense?

Discussion in 'Military' started by PoliticalChic, Jan 9, 2011.

  1. PoliticalChic
    Online

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,725
    Thanks Received:
    15,609
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,860
    On January 7, 2011, Hillsdale’s Kirby Center sponsored a lecture by Brian Kennedy, President of Claremont Institute, and Ballistic Missile Defense Project Director. It was carried on C-Span. The following notes are from that sobering lecture.

    1. One of the unspoken dangers of the times in which we live is that our leaders rarely admit to or discuss the capabilities and intent of our enemies. In fact, the boilerplate assurances that we most frequently hear are
    a. Islam is a religion of peace
    b. We will never go to war with China, or them with us, because our economic interests are so intertwined
    c. We won the cold war and Russia is no longer our enemy.
    We would like to believe these myths of the left and the right, because without them we would be forced to face the reality that we have enemies that seek our destruction or
    subjugation.

    2. Existential threats from abroad include Iran, whose beliefs include the necessity of destroying the infidel. They have developed advanced missiles that could destroy an American city, or if it could deliver the warhead as an electromagnetic pulse weapon, it could destroy the electronic infrastructure of the United States, causing hundreds of millions of United States deaths.

    a. The pulse would destroy transformers, so that your lights won’t work, your refrigerator nor would the pumps that bring water to your home. Without transportation, food stores could not be restocked. The Electromagnetic Pulse Commission has estimated that after such an attack, the United States could support life for about 30 million people. The report makes for interesting reading: http://www.empcommission.org/docs/empc_exec_rpt.pdf

    b. Such an attack requires that that a warhead be exploded in the high atmosphere, rather than reentering as in a missile attack. The Iranians have twice practiced such an attack in the Caspian Sea, exploding a dummy warhead in the high atmosphere to simulate a pulse bomb. How difficult would it be for them to position a ship off our coast?

    c. We do not currently have a missile defense to counter these weapons. The American people should be informed of this.

    3. China is openly anti-American, and write in their military journals about the use of unrestricted warfare using a combination of military warfare, economic warfare, cyberwarfare, atomic war, and terrorism. They have shown a desire to improve landbased and space based military options.

    a. “China Deploys World’s First Long-Range, Land-Based ‘Carrier Killer’ DF-21D Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile (ASBM)” China Deploys World?s First Long-Range, Land-Based ?Carrier Killer?: DF-21D Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile (ASBM) Reaches ?Initial Operational Capability? (IOC)|Andrew S. Erickson We do not have a missile defense against this.

    b. “The Soviets succeeded: by developing several supersonic anti-ship missiles, one of which, the SS-N-22 Sunburn, has been called "the most lethal missile in the world today." The Sunburn - Iran's Awesome Nuclear Anti-Ship Missile This missile has been deployed by the Chinese and the Iranians, and presents a problem due to its Mach-3 speed.

    c. The subject of the intent of the Chinese should include a discussion of the ‘Red-Guard’ generation of generals, 55-60 years old, having grown up during the Cultural Revolution, and who will not be satisfied with China as a secondary power. “…Lt. Gen. Xiong Guang Kai, a senior Chinese official, made an implicit nuclear threat against the U.S., warning our government not to interfere because Americans "care more about Los Angeles than they do Taipei." The Claremont Institute - Protecting Our Nation:The Urgent Need for Ballistic Missile Defense

    4. Americans have been raised to misread superpower conflicts. Policy leaders have taught that we must understand a balance of power between the US and Russia, and that if we seek strategic superiority over other nations, we will create strategic instability. This is the view propounded by universities, think tanks, and schools of foreign service. President Obama: “…"no single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons…"

    a. And there are those who hold the view that America is hardly worth defending, or, that our military power is fundamentally suspect.

    b. Conservatives seem to feel that it was good enough to have won the Cold War...but fail to appreciate that we did not disarm the Russians of their nuclear arsenal, nor curtail their active efforts to undermine the US and the West, nor create a democracy in Russia. We have not tested a nuclear weapon since 1992, nor created more tactical nuclear weapons. And the new START treaty? “The new treaty came at the time of Obama's new nuclear posture statement which promised America won't perform nuclear tests or build new nuclear weapons.” Jed Babbin: Inside the Obama Doctrine for American decline | Washington Examiner

    5. Our economic problems limit our ability to face these problems, so deficits become a national security issue. How much should we spend on defense? The answer: what ever is necessary to protect the United States. It is as simple as that.
     
  2. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,520
    Thanks Received:
    5,898
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,931
    At a minimum 20 percent of the Budget on ACTUAL defense. Not including retirement payments or such.
     
  3. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    40,948
    Thanks Received:
    7,964
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,686
    I don't really know. We waste far too much money in our defence programs. The Pentagon wants hardware for a war that will no longer happen and screws over the soldiers and squanders good people while ignoring our borders. Granted the politicians are the most guilty of that particular myopia but the military spent 700 million bucks for a Littoral Combat Ship that is radar resistant but they want it to go in close to shore where the basic Mark I eyeball can see it just fine. Instead they should have built a shallow draft vessel that was armed to hilt and armored against the best anti tank weaponry available.

    The same goes for aircraft. The USAF spent 2 billion dollars on each B-2 and the capability of those is less than a Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate at less than half the cost fully equipped and manned. And they can be brought down by a bird strike. Simply stupid.
     
  4. cduebelhoer
    Offline

    cduebelhoer Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2011
    Messages:
    45
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    Bloomington, IN
    Ratings:
    +6
    On actual defense, I think we're at 19% of the total budget right now (could be wrong, my apologies if so), to me 14-16% seems reasonable. It keeps a large resource pool there, but helps to do one of two things: 1) lowers the overall debt or 2) allows allocation of more funds to areas struggling/always struggling (ie, education).
     
  5. Modbert
    Offline

    Modbert Daydream Believer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Messages:
    33,178
    Thanks Received:
    2,957
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +2,962
    Everyone's definition of "whatever it takes" to defend this country can be different. Some people for example feel we need to have bases in over 140 countries in order to be "safe". I don't believe that to be the case. I don't believe that we should waste money on projects that the Pentagon is trying to cut, but members of Congress want to keep in order to be seen as Pro-Troops and because the weapons are made in their district.

    Anyone who wants to talk about cutting the deficit and doesn't want to have a serious discussion about cutting the military budget should not be taken seriously.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. psikeyhackr
    Offline

    psikeyhackr VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2010
    Messages:
    745
    Thanks Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings:
    +71
    200,000,000 Americans would die because the electronics went out?

    Is it even possible to produce an EMP strong enough to affect the entire country?

    psik
     
  7. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    40,948
    Thanks Received:
    7,964
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,686



    Yes it is. It involves four to five nukes depending on yield and location of detonation in the atmosphere.
     
  8. MajinLink
    Offline

    MajinLink Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    145
    Thanks Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +17
    How much does Chuck Norris cost?
     

Share This Page