Barack Obama Commander in Chief

[Navy1960]

Two influential liberal groups have sent the presumptive Democratic nominee a letter pressing him to support cuts to defense programs to pay for universal preschool, relief for Americans facing foreclosure on their homes and expanded benefits for military veterans.


Now Obama must balance tough talk on national security with the desires of many Democrats to slim American military power.


Liberal groups and lawmakers have targeted the Department of Defense’s largest acquisition program: the Joint Strike Fighter program, which will provide more than 2,000 aircraft to the Navy, Marines and Air Force.


The Black Leadership Forum and LULAC wrote that cutting the program “would free up $1 trillion in the federal budget.”


“America could fund years of universal healthcare at $120 [billion] a year; we could fund universal preschool with $35 billion.”


Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), co-chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said the rapid growth of defense spending compared to domestic spending in recent years is “outrageous.” She wants to slim defense programs and boost education and healthcare funding.


TheHill.com - Left presses Obama to cut defense


To cut a program like the JSF or some of the programs listed here, will not only harm this countrys defense posture for years to come, it would put the United States in a position where existing systems would not be able to compete with the ever expanding technologies of the adversaries that the US Military will face.

WASHINGTON, March 3, 2008 – China not only is a rising international economic power, but also is a rising military power with new and developing capabilities that have global implications, according to the 2008 China Military Power Report released today.

David Sedney, deputy assistant secretary of defense for East Asia, announces the release to Congress of the 2008 Defense Department Report on the Military Power of the People's Republic of China, during a March 3,

The annual report mandated by Congress analyzes China’s military development and strategy and says that the country spent as much as $139 billion, more than three times its announced defense budget, modernizing its military forces last year.

That amount dwarfs the military budgets of Russia, Japan and South Korea, and has been the driving force behind the country’s military transformation, fueled by the acquisition of advanced foreign weapons and far-reaching organizational and doctrinal reforms.

DefenseLink News Article: China Military Expansion Could Have Global Implications

In come cases , US Military personnel are operating aircraft developed in the 1940's in the case of the B-52, and in the case of the US Navy's latest fighter the F-18 E/F your talking about a 4th generation fighter developed in the early 90's. In the sad case of the USAF , just now, F-22's are comming online to replace aircraft developed in the 1970's. To look at the DoD as this big potential cash cow to fund and ever growing list of social programs, shows a fundamental lack of knowledge about this nations defense posture. To even suggest making cuts in these programs while US Military forces are deployed in two different combat zones is not only short sighted, it suggests that an Obama Administration would place the US Military in a position of weakness when it desperatly needs to rebuild after years of neglect.

 

[Larkinn]

I know...it would be terrible if instead of spending more than the rest of the world combined on our military we would only pay, by far, the most.

 

[Navy1960]

I know...it would be terrible if instead of spending more than the rest of the world combined on our military we would only pay, by far, the most.

I'm glad you agree with me Larkinn, but it is not a question of how much money we spend, it how that money is spent. The DoD has for years spent money on programs that have gone no where and after many years and many billions spent in development costs they were simply cancelled. Take the Crusader Artillery Unit, or the Comanche Scout Helicopter, just those two programs cost the tax payer billions of dollars , want to know that we have to show for it? Two Comanches in storage and two Crusaders on display in Kansas. If the DoD were managed properly and programs were managed properly then perhaps the Air Force would not be flying a tanker that is over 50 years old, and perhaps American companies that employ American workers would not have to lay of thousands of workers because the 767 line is due to shut down because the DoD keeps bouncing the contract and has for many years. So now to suggest that we keep flying 50 year old technology for another 10 years or so then redevelop new systems after that, your talking about a Military that will have little Air capability compared to it's advasaries that have given the green light to a massive build up of 5th generation aircraft like the SU-47.

 

[Annie]

I'm glad you agree with me Larkinn, but it is not a question of how much money we spend, it how that money is spent. The DoD has for years spent money on programs that have gone no where and after many years and many billions spent in development costs they were simply cancelled. Take the Crusader Artillery Unit, or the Comanche Scout Helicopter, just those two programs cost the tax payer billions of dollars , want to know that we have to show for it? Two Comanches in storage and two Crusaders on display in Kansas. If the DoD were managed properly and programs were managed properly then perhaps the Air Force would not be flying a tanker that is over 50 years old, and perhaps American companies that employ American workers would not have to lay of thousands of workers because the 767 line is due to shut down because the DoD keeps bouncing the contract and has for many years. So now to suggest that we keep flying 50 year old technology for another 10 years or so then redevelop new systems after that, your talking about a Military that will have little Air capability compared to it's advasaries that have given the green light to a massive build up of 5th generation aircraft like the SU-47.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Navy1960 again.

 

[Red Dawn]

"This world in arms is not spending money alone.

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway. We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron." --DWIGHT EISENHOWER, 1953

Military-Industrial Complex Speech

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together".

-Dwight Eisenhower, 1960

World Military Spending:

 

[rayboyusmc]

What is needed is to eliminate no bid contracts and look at cutting waste from the DOD budget.

We need to get rid of all the civilian support functions taking over what used to be normal military support functions. The food was just fine when I was in and we had military cooks. We are spending far more with this type of civilian contractors and aren't getting any better service. Civilian drivers don't have to go into dangerous zones.

We pay more for the Haliburton's and other civilian support functions than if we used our own troops.

Among other things, my dad was a military cook in WW II and he was proud of it.

This privatizing everything only guarantees more money for friends of the privatizers.

 

[WillowTree]

We don't need no durn military. We gotta make sure that fat lady gets fed.

 

[Navy1960]

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has announced a comprehensive modernization of Russia's armed forces and its nuclear arsenal. The plans call for a complete overhaul of the country's nuclear deterrant, including a new generation of nuclear submarines and cruise missiles, as well as spy satellites and an improved missile defense system. The upgrade would be completed by 2020. Earlier this month, Moscow said it was boosting its defense budget by 25 percent to 96 billion dollars.
Russia announces major military expansion | World News | Deutsche Welle | 27.09.2008

Now oppose that with Barack Obama's position on Missile defense;

Obama Position Paper: “Missile Defense Requires Far More Rigorous Testing To Ensure That It Is Cost-Effective And, Most Importantly, Will Work.” “In a world with nuclear weapons, America must continue efforts to defend against the mass destruction of its citizens and our allies. But past efforts were both wasteful and ineffective, pursued with neither honesty nor realism about their costs and shortfalls. We must seek a nuclear missile defense and demand that those efforts use resources wisely to build systems that would actually be effective. Missile defense requires far more rigorous testing to ensure that it is cost-effective and, most importantly, will work. Barack Obama has been a leader to ensure that we are investing in sound defenses not merely against missiles, but also against the more likely scenarios of attack, via ‘loose nukes’ and the terrorist delivering a weapons of mass destruction to the United States. Finally, our deployment of missile defense systems should be done in a way that reinforces, rather than undercuts, our alliances, involving partnership and burdensharing with organizations such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.” [Obama Defense Position Paper]

Barack Obama and Joe Biden: The Change We Need | Monica Coleman's Blog - Crew Chief Turf #29: OBAMA CAMPAIGN RESPONSE AND FACT CHECK: MCCAIN FALSE ATTACK ON DEFENSE SPENDING

Overall Test Record:
• Across all programs, 35 of 43 “Hit-to-Kill” intercept attempts have been
successful since 2001
• 11 of 11 “Hit-to-Kill” intercepts have been successful since 2007
Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense: 15 of 17 intercept attempts, 2 failures
• Includes two SM-2 blast fragmentation, non hit-to-kill intercepts
• Failures:
FM-5 interceptor divert control malfunction;
FTM-11 fire-control malfunction
Ground-based Midcourse Defense: 7 of 12 intercept attempts, 1 “no-test”
• Failures:
IFT-4 kill vehicle infrared sensor cooling malfunction;
IFT-5 kill vehicle failed to separate from booster;
IFT-10 kill vehicle failed to separate from booster;
http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/pdf/testrecord.pdf

Unproven?, again this shows a lack of knowledge on Barack Obama's as to the abilities of new systems. It would again be a mistake to assume that Missile Defense is one of those programs you just chop up given the current climate in the world.

 

[WillowTree]

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has announced a comprehensive modernization of Russia's armed forces and its nuclear arsenal. The plans call for a complete overhaul of the country's nuclear deterrant, including a new generation of nuclear submarines and cruise missiles, as well as spy satellites and an improved missile defense system. The upgrade would be completed by 2020. Earlier this month, Moscow said it was boosting its defense budget by 25 percent to 96 billion dollars.
Russia announces major military expansion | World News | Deutsche Welle | 27.09.2008

Now oppose that with Barack Obama's position on Missile defense;

Obama Position Paper: “Missile Defense Requires Far More Rigorous Testing To Ensure That It Is Cost-Effective And, Most Importantly, Will Work.” “In a world with nuclear weapons, America must continue efforts to defend against the mass destruction of its citizens and our allies. But past efforts were both wasteful and ineffective, pursued with neither honesty nor realism about their costs and shortfalls. We must seek a nuclear missile defense and demand that those efforts use resources wisely to build systems that would actually be effective. Missile defense requires far more rigorous testing to ensure that it is cost-effective and, most importantly, will work. Barack Obama has been a leader to ensure that we are investing in sound defenses not merely against missiles, but also against the more likely scenarios of attack, via ‘loose nukes’ and the terrorist delivering a weapons of mass destruction to the United States. Finally, our deployment of missile defense systems should be done in a way that reinforces, rather than undercuts, our alliances, involving partnership and burdensharing with organizations such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.” [Obama Defense Position Paper]

Barack Obama and Joe Biden: The Change We Need | Monica Coleman's Blog - Crew Chief Turf #29: OBAMA CAMPAIGN RESPONSE AND FACT CHECK: MCCAIN FALSE ATTACK ON DEFENSE SPENDING

Overall Test Record:
• Across all programs, 35 of 43 “Hit-to-Kill” intercept attempts have been
successful since 2001
• 11 of 11 “Hit-to-Kill” intercepts have been successful since 2007
Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense: 15 of 17 intercept attempts, 2 failures
• Includes two SM-2 blast fragmentation, non hit-to-kill intercepts
• Failures:
FM-5 interceptor divert control malfunction;
FTM-11 fire-control malfunction
Ground-based Midcourse Defense: 7 of 12 intercept attempts, 1 “no-test”
• Failures:
IFT-4 kill vehicle infrared sensor cooling malfunction;
IFT-5 kill vehicle failed to separate from booster;
IFT-10 kill vehicle failed to separate from booster;
http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/pdf/testrecord.pdf

Unproven?, again this shows a lack of knowledge on Barack Obama's as to the abilities of new systems. It would again be a mistake to assume that Missile Defense is one of those programs you just chop up given the current climate in the world.

Oh no, Obamalama's right, we don't need no durn defense, we just need to feed that fat lady.

 

[Annie]

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has announced a comprehensive modernization of Russia's armed forces and its nuclear arsenal. The plans call for a complete overhaul of the country's nuclear deterrant, including a new generation of nuclear submarines and cruise missiles, as well as spy satellites and an improved missile defense system. The upgrade would be completed by 2020. Earlier this month, Moscow said it was boosting its defense budget by 25 percent to 96 billion dollars.
Russia announces major military expansion | World News | Deutsche Welle | 27.09.2008

Now oppose that with Barack Obama's position on Missile defense;

Obama Position Paper: “Missile Defense Requires Far More Rigorous Testing To Ensure That It Is Cost-Effective And, Most Importantly, Will Work.” “In a world with nuclear weapons, America must continue efforts to defend against the mass destruction of its citizens and our allies. But past efforts were both wasteful and ineffective, pursued with neither honesty nor realism about their costs and shortfalls. We must seek a nuclear missile defense and demand that those efforts use resources wisely to build systems that would actually be effective. Missile defense requires far more rigorous testing to ensure that it is cost-effective and, most importantly, will work. Barack Obama has been a leader to ensure that we are investing in sound defenses not merely against missiles, but also against the more likely scenarios of attack, via ‘loose nukes’ and the terrorist delivering a weapons of mass destruction to the United States. Finally, our deployment of missile defense systems should be done in a way that reinforces, rather than undercuts, our alliances, involving partnership and burdensharing with organizations such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.” [Obama Defense Position Paper]

Barack Obama and Joe Biden: The Change We Need | Monica Coleman's Blog - Crew Chief Turf #29: OBAMA CAMPAIGN RESPONSE AND FACT CHECK: MCCAIN FALSE ATTACK ON DEFENSE SPENDING

Overall Test Record:
• Across all programs, 35 of 43 “Hit-to-Kill” intercept attempts have been
successful since 2001
• 11 of 11 “Hit-to-Kill” intercepts have been successful since 2007
Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense: 15 of 17 intercept attempts, 2 failures
• Includes two SM-2 blast fragmentation, non hit-to-kill intercepts
• Failures:
FM-5 interceptor divert control malfunction;
FTM-11 fire-control malfunction
Ground-based Midcourse Defense: 7 of 12 intercept attempts, 1 “no-test”
• Failures:
IFT-4 kill vehicle infrared sensor cooling malfunction;
IFT-5 kill vehicle failed to separate from booster;
IFT-10 kill vehicle failed to separate from booster;
http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/pdf/testrecord.pdf

Unproven?, again this shows a lack of knowledge on Barack Obama's as to the abilities of new systems. It would again be a mistake to assume that Missile Defense is one of those programs you just chop up given the current climate in the world.

Calm down. President Obama will meet with them. Then they will realize we mean them no harm. They will back off and dismantle. We'll pave the way, dismantling our old nukes too. Soon, you'll see, we'll teach the world to sing...

 

[dilloduck]

What is needed is to eliminate no bid contracts and look at cutting waste from the DOD budget.

We need to get rid of all the civilian support functions taking over what used to be normal military support functions. The food was just fine when I was in and we had military cooks. We are spending far more with this type of civilian contractors and aren't getting any better service. Civilian drivers don't have to go into dangerous zones.

We pay more for the Haliburton's and other civilian support functions than if we used our own troops.

Among other things, my dad was a military cook in WW II and he was proud of it.

This privatizing everything only guarantees more money for friends of the privatizers.

Without no bid contracts things will be a lot cheaper--we can have China making weapons for us !

 

[Shattered]

Calm down. President Obama will meet with them. Then they will realize we mean them no harm. They will back off and dismantle. We'll pave the way, dismantling our old nukes too. Soon, you'll see, we'll teach the world to sing...

Aren't we supposed to buy them Coke's first, or something?

 

[Navy1960]

I submit the following, rather than cut the DoD, manage the DoD bid process in a professional manner and take the graft out of the system. When you do this and provide the war fighter with the proper tools to defend this country, such as cutting edge, aircraft, ships, and battlefield equipment then you will find that the DoD functioning as properly that the funds available for those schools that you say one bomber can finance will be available. One note here, the U.S. has not built a bomber since the last B-2 rolled off the line in 2000. The bulk of the US Air Force bomber mission is still carried out by the B-52 which by way is an airframe that is over 50 years old and due to it's age in order to secure parts the Air Force has to go to it's own junk yard if you will at AMARG to secure those parts.

 

[Annie]

Aren't we supposed to buy them Coke's first, or something?

the government will provide. Calm down, the Obama administration has Michelle, they'll give us discounts at Sally's and Ulta.

 

[Shattered]

the government will provide. Calm down, the Obama administration has Michelle, they'll give us discounts at Sally's and Ulta.

I'd do better with discounts at William-Sonoma. That shits expensive.

 

[Navy1960]

Calm down. President Obama will meet with them. Then they will realize we mean them no harm. They will back off and dismantle. We'll pave the way, dismantling our old nukes too. Soon, you'll see, we'll teach the world to sing...

Wasn't that an old coke commercial? All this time, it was in an old commercial and I couldn't see it. Oh I'm very calm actually, the one thing thats a real shame here, and runs very contrary to the Barack Obama mantra of jobs here in the United States is the sheer number of jobs in the defense sector this kind of policy will end up costing.

 

[Annie]

Wasn't that an old coke commercial? All this time, it was in an old commercial and I couldn't see it. Oh I'm very calm actually, the one thing thats a real shame here, and runs very contrary to the Barack Obama mantra of jobs here in the United States is the sheer number of jobs in the defense sector this kind of policy will end up costing.

If the jobs lost meant a gain for US, I'd say, "Hooray"! In this case though I think we may well be lamenting those jobs and the contracts lost. I agree Navy.

 

[Navy1960]

If the jobs lost meant a gain for US, I'd say, "Hooray"! In this case though I think we may well be lamenting those jobs and the contracts lost. I agree Navy.

In September, the US Department of Defense intends to pick one of them to be its Joint Strike Fighter, a uniquely designed craft that can be built in three similar versions for use by the Air Force, the Navy, and the Marine Corps, as well as by Britain's Royal Air Force and Navy. It is a winner-take-all battle between the world's largest maker of commercial jetliners and the most legendary name in high-performance military airplanes, for what is potentially the largest defense contract in history. If fully funded, the program could produce some 6,000 airplanes: 1,763 for the Air Force, 480 for the Navy, 609 for the Marines, 90 for the British Royal Air Force, 60 for the Royal Navy, and possibly 3,000 more for export to other US allies. The company that prevails may be awarded a contract ultimately worth as much as $750 billion, and enough work for two generations of aerospace workers. For either company, that would mean worldwide employment of up to 10,000 people over the 20-year life of the project. The loser might cease to exist, at least in its present form.

Wired 9.07: The X Wars

Thats just one program, that Barack Obama is being asked to cut. the F-22 he is being asked to cut and the LCS employ thousands more. If you add programs like THAD, and all the others, your looking a very large number of defense employee's. I find it very interesting that someone who is the champion of labor and is proposing the increase if US forces by 65,000 is willing to entertain cutting the very technology needed to sustain these forces as well as the American jobs that build it.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Navy, I think we agree on cutting out the waste. Just like any large governement organization, DOD has put on too much fat from contracts to freinds as opposed to contracts for the best with the best.

Eliminating no bid contracts has nothing to do with taking the cheapest product. It may just be the other way that we get nothing to little for what we are paying.

Oh no, Obamalama's right, we don't need no durn defense, we just need to feed that fat lady.

Fuck stupid remarks.

You might want to look and see that Obama has supported more of the Vets bills in the past than John McCommonman, who happens to be worth 60 mill.

 

[Red Dawn]

In September, the US Department of Defense intends to pick one of them to be its Joint Strike Fighter, a uniquely designed craft that can be built in three similar versions for use by the Air Force, the Navy, and the Marine Corps, as well as by Britain's Royal Air Force and Navy. It is a winner-take-all battle between the world's largest maker of commercial jetliners and the most legendary name in high-performance military airplanes, for what is potentially the largest defense contract in history. If fully funded, the program could produce some 6,000 airplanes: 1,763 for the Air Force, 480 for the Navy, 609 for the Marines, 90 for the British Royal Air Force, 60 for the Royal Navy, and possibly 3,000 more for export to other US allies. The company that prevails may be awarded a contract ultimately worth as much as $750 billion, and enough work for two generations of aerospace workers. For either company, that would mean worldwide employment of up to 10,000 people over the 20-year life of the project. The loser might cease to exist, at least in its present form.

Wired 9.07: The X Wars

Thats just one program, that Barack Obama is being asked to cut. the F-22 he is being asked to cut and the LCS employ thousands more. If you add programs like THAD, and all the others, your looking a very large number of defense employee's. I find it very interesting that someone who is the champion of labor and is proposing the increase if US forces by 65,000 is willing to entertain cutting the very technology needed to sustain these forces as well as the American jobs that build it.

Unbelievable.

I guess we're all socialists now!

When did conservatives become in favor of massive government spending, to boost employment? Sounds like FDR communism to me!

I have a better idea. If you think massive government spending to boost employment is a good idea, how about we cut unneccessary defense programs and redirect that money to building and upgrading highways, bridges, alternative energy, and electronic infrastructure. Those are things that actually improve the quality of life.