Apart from the noisy, unserious children, reductions in military spending are a serious matter from more than one perspective. Let's recall that in defeating the Third Reich we relied on the technology of the day to bury Germany. The Nazis created systems that represented eye popping advances: V-1, V-2, ME 262, Type XXI Electroboot, but they arrived too late and in insufficient numbers to make a difference.
Now it is the United States which relies on technology to defeat potential adversaries. Prompt Global Strike is a system under development which would give POTUS the ability to strike any target in the world within an hour. It will require the creation of a hypersonic vehicle which would be launched from CONUS and put no American lives at risk. In a hypothetical confrontation with DPRK, where they are threatening us or our allies with a new missile, and they've rolled that sucker out to a launch pad and appear to be fueling it, wouldn't it be nice to take it out with a conventional warhead, launched from our territory, without exposing any US personnel to death or injury? Cruise missiles would be effective, but too slow.
We are making tremendous progress in cyber-warfare. Think about the attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities. And we have to be prepared for attacks by China and others. We must constantly look for ways to increase accuracy, stealthiness and effectiveness. All of which reduce the risk to GI's. And that ain't cheap. Think about the giant penetrator we've developed that will make deeply buried sites (Iran) vulnerable to annihilation.
Over the years conflicting domestic interests have caused us to spend too much on some weapons systems, occasionally on systems we don't even need. And we all have our favorite "3 thousand dollar toilet paper dispenser" stories. However, we should remember that DOD is the only department in the business of acquiring things, and very high tech things at that. And these systems require extensive testing. And the training of hundreds/thousands in their use and maintenance. That ain't cheap, either. And many systems which were controversial in the early days, have served us well for decades. Take the C-5A cargo plane, for instance. Cost overruns, failures, whistle blower testimony before congress. Yet, the Galaxy has been part of our inventory for many years and has more than justified its cost. Take the B-52. This plane has been in service since the 50's yet can still deliver lethal, butt kicking ordinance anywhere in the world, with extreme accuracy. It's life has been extended and mission changed, but the BUFF ("big ugly fat ********r") is still the greatest most feared bomber ever and is scheduled to remain in service another 30 or 35 years!
The threats are changing. We no longer expect Soviet tanks to come rolling through the Fulda Gap. Now we must focus on the growing threat from China as well as the continuing threat from Islamism, to name two. We must constantly upgrade and tweak both tactics and strategy. The extensive training and exercises are very expensive, but designed to make our forces ready to go and effective at a moment's notice.
All my life, some Americans have worried about the United States being the "policeman of the world." And have opposed our military at every opportunity. How many times have you heard the refrain: "I support a strong military, but. . ." And with far too many of us, there's always a "but." Always. Yet there can be no serious argument that the world is a safer, better place with the United States as the hyperpower.
Military planning on the scale that we engage in, is highly technical, hugely expensive and requires trying to anticipate what threats we'll face ten and twenty years down the road. We've made mistakes, but on balance our successes vastly outnumber our failures.
We cannot afford to get this wrong. And my suggestion is that instead of retreating to our default positions, we analyze the changes being suggested with an eye toward making good decisions and not scoring partisan points. Pete Seeger used to sing a tune about Andorra, which spent "four dollars and ninety cents on armaments for their defense. Did you ever hear of such confidence? Andorra, hip hurrah." As attractive as that may be to some of us, it's a prescription for disaster.
