Skip to main content

Let me get this straight.  The latest polls say three-quarters of the American people want a public option in health care, yet it's in question.  But, Congress is about to throw $369 million (on a down-payment of $2 billion) for a dozen F-22 fighter jets that even the Pentagon doesn't want.  Oh, and the money for it?  It's coming out of funds that were set aside to clean up dangerous nuclear waste in the U.S.

Only in Washington.

For those not familiar with the F-22 and why it's a waste, let me explain.  It's one of the most - if not the most advanced air-to-air fighters in the world.... To fight the Soviet Union's next generation fighters.  That's right, that's why it was developed.  The fighter has limited air-to-ground capabilities, which renders it pretty much useless in the wars we're fighting right now, and might be fighting well into the future.  President Obama and Secretary Gates have rightly decided to shift our procurement to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, which we could actually use, because of its air-to-ground and stealth capabilities.

Nevertheless, to play it safe, we've got 187 of the obsolete F-22s on-hand or in the pipeline already, just in case the Soviet Union ever comes through with their next-generation fighters.  Secretary Gates asked for only four more, to complete what the Pentagon said it could use.  After that, the military doesn't want any more of them.  Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz have publicly withdrawn support for it saying, "The time has come to move on."

Apparently not those looking out for defense contractors, though.  

And so, Congress is about to use the Defense Authorization Bill to pay for fighters we don't need from Lockheed-Martin, while taking money from cleaning up nuclear waste.  Six decades of U.S. nuclear weapons research, testing, and production activities have left dozens of Department of Energy sites contaminated by radioactive and hazardous waste. The contamination threatens workers, communities, and the environment, including major water supplies.  

Now, other veterans and I aren't for cutting the Pentagon budget in a way that would hurt our troops in the field, or hurt our ability to defend America now or in the future.  But, our money is best spent on equipment that is so desperately needed in Iraq and Afghanistan - items like the Stryker armored vehicle, which the troops and veterans of have almost unanimously raved about, for its ability to maneuver while protecting them from IEDs.  That helps us a lot more than planes sitting idle somewhere.

So, a warning.  To any in Congress who vote to keep this money for the F-22 in, don't try to present it as a pro-military vote.  The military doesn't want it.  Troops can't use it.  Most veterans would say they're not for it.  And none of us are for letting dangerous nuclear waste continue to seep into our land and water.  So don't try to tie this pork to troops and veterans.

In fact, those who really care about the military, troops, veterans, and America will vote to strip the money for the F-22 out.  We'll be watching.

Crossposted at

Originally posted to Jon Soltz on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 01:01 PM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  My understanding is that the AF really wanted it. (3+ / 0-)

      Just that they have no mission for it. . . at least not one that they can explain to the rest of us.

      Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
      I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
      -Spike Milligan

      by polecat on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 02:05:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't have a source, but (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ER Doc, last starfighter

        I've heard that the JSF (F35?) equals or exceeds the performance envelope of the F22 in every respect except air-to-air dogfighting, and even in that category is better than every other fighter jet in the world except the F22...

        There is no goal in the "War on Drugs" that couldn't be more effectively met by legalization & regulation.

        by EthrDemon on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 02:37:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, there's a mission alright. (3+ / 0-)

        Everyone in the AF, from Airman Basic up to 4-star General, has been indoctrinated with monthly showings of the movie "Top Gun". I assume it's worst with actual pilots, but even as a lowly desk warrior, my air force career was studded by constant references to dog fighting jets. Despite the fact that drones, over the horizon-missiles, and ever more sophisticated ground troops are slowly rendering people like Goose obsolete, the entire structure of the Air Force is still focused tightly around sending Maverick out to shoot down the enemy jets.
        It's not even slightly about fulfilling a mission that the country needs. It's entirely about the aviator sunglasses and the flightsuits. It is, to be blunt, a solely testosterone-fueled thing, this 'advanced' fighter jet mania.

    •  Thanks for the head's up. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Not being one with a particular interest in weaponry, this is very helpful.

      One of the really neat things about dKos... I learn so much!

      Whose marriage do we get to vote on next?

      by cany on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 10:12:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  but not all of what you may learn is correct or (0+ / 0-)

        even useful is also a problem.

        I'm not a huge fan of the F-22 but there is a case FOR purchasing a few of them.. the biggest part is that the program has already been mostly paid for.. where do you think Lockheed/Martin got the money to develop the sucker?  

        What is being talked about is how many of them we are going to buy and at what cost per unit.. the per unit price includes the development costs for the platform and those dev costs are going to be paid by you and me regardless of whether or not we see anything for it (the tragic truth of it.. if we don't pay for it L/M goes tits up and unlike Chrysler can't sell off shit in bankruptcy court because of national security concerns).  So the question is do you want to pay a little bit more then you are already going to shell out and actually have something that people can use?

        Because if you don't you have just flushed around $4billion down the toilet.. when for 5 you can have some aircraft.

        •  skippy, relax. (0+ / 0-)

          You assume that I, and others, take one post as the absolute fact and construct, minus personal experience.

          At least give a few of us more credit than that, would you?!

          Whose marriage do we get to vote on next?

          by cany on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 10:27:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Now wait one damn minute there!! The F-22 maybe (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      costly but obsolete it fucking ain't!

      It is THE most technically advanced air dominance fighter in the history of mankind.. it has the radar cross section of an anorexic sparrow and can cruise at greater then mach one.. and it can kill anything that the Russians have in service or in the production pipe deader then dogshit.

      Now why is that still important?

      Because the people that we just might be shooting at sometime in the future like North Korea.. Iran.. a few other actual NATIONS.. buy their planes from Russia or China.  And that is why it is still important to have a few of these ungodly expensive POS's around.

      Yes, you heard me right.. I think that they are too god damn expensive, but the program has already been mostly paid for so we may as well get a few squadrons of these things just in case.. because with our luck if we didn't we would end up in a war that would require them.

      The F-35 is also going to be a godawful expensive little sucker just so you know... and if the Brits back out of their purchase of some of them as well as a few of the other overseas buyers?  The price of the US version is going to climb like a rocket!

      Part of the reason the F-22 is so pricey is that there is ZERO prospect of export of it.. not even to our friends.

  •  Are you sure that they can't be retrofitted to (5+ / 0-)

    bomb civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan in place of those one-time-use predator missiles?

    It just makes sense to have something that's not just usable, but also re-usable . . .

  •  Well hell, why spend money on things Americans (23+ / 0-)

    desperately need and want when you can keep greasing the palm of the military industrial complex?


    If God had been a Liberal, we wouldn't have had the ten commandments. We'd have had the ten suggestions.

    by funluvn1 on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 01:04:23 PM PDT

  •  This seems really stupid (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ctsteve, wader, blue armadillo, ericlewis0

    in a world with drones and drone-fighters.

    "You Don't Do More With Less. You Do Less with Less. That's Why it's called Less." David Simon

    by Larry Madill on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 01:05:08 PM PDT

  •  Absolutely (10+ / 0-)

    Fighter jets are big bucks for the defense contractors that kick plenty back, and they're an accidental jobs program for districts that house bases or factories, all of which Congresspeople are eager to protect. They're also an integral part of the Pentagon's and especially the Air Force's conceptions of themselves as bulwarks against evil empires and their preferred method of fighting: itching for a high-tech and large-scale WWII-style war with enemies that don't exist anymore or never existed.

    That they're useless is completely irrelevant for all concerned.

    "When the people shall have nothing more to eat, they shall eat the rich." - Rousseau

    by Visceral on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 01:09:09 PM PDT

  •  some Air Force memebers call it the F-22 Craptor (12+ / 0-)

    that's enough for me to think it is a giant waste of taxpayer dollars. thanks for the diary. Cheers.

    Cheney tortured detainees to elicit false justifications for invading Iraq.

    by ericlewis0 on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 01:12:36 PM PDT

    •  Bottom Line (10+ / 0-)

      is that I keep getting emails from guys Afghan saying the up armored arne't enough and we are spending money on systems that aren't helping us now.


      Jon Soltz Iraq War Veteran Chairman of

      by Jon Soltz on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 01:26:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You are aware that the Su-33ski OWNS the F-15 (0+ / 0-)

        aren't you?

        And those are being deployed as well as other Su-3x  variants which are those "future Soviet" aircraft that the F-22 was designed to deal with.

        Hell the Indian air force using their 33 variant totally smoked the F-15 in exercises.. and India is not the only ones buying these things, nor are the Russians noted for their discretion when it comes to selling arms; if you have the cash they have no problem about giving you any conventional weapon, especially when it makes their deploying of similar and better systems cheaper and more easy to afford.

        Yes, we need better stuff on the ground in Forgotastan (how about we pick up a license for the CV-90 family of tracked IFV's?  They seem to be performing like gangbusters in Norwegian and Danish service); but we also need to have stuff on hand for the conflict yet to be fought.

        And if that one actually involves a nation?  With an air force with something in the Su-3x family we are going to lose a lot more money in downed aircraft and dead airmen then we are spending now to procure a few 22's NOW.

        Besides... we are still going to be spending a bunch of that money to pay for the development costs of the platform.. you know it, I know it, and every other defense nut knows it.  So we may as well pony up a few more bucks and SEE something solid for it.

  •  Where is the funding bill at? (4+ / 0-)

    If it is still in the Appropriations Committee, we need to contact the Defense Subcommittees and get that money redirected. If the bill is already on the floor, contact your Senators as they have more power than Representatives to make that change on the Floor.

    Rest in Peace, Stephen T. Johns.

    by Casual Wednesday on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 01:12:54 PM PDT

  •  Yeah what is the status of the bill? (3+ / 0-)
  •  Well if you're going to have useless jets.... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    epcraig, Bronx59, JeffW

    ...I'd rather they were "above America" than falling on us.  I mean, given the choice.

    Al que no le guste el caldo, le dan dos tazas.

    by Rich in PA on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 01:22:12 PM PDT

  •  This really stinks. (7+ / 0-)

    Usually the triangular money flow goes from the Pentagon to defense contractors to Congressional campaign accounts. Now Congress has cut out the Pentagon since the military is on record a denying the use of F-22 as a needed or even wanted weapon system. The simplified money flow now goes directly from the weapon builders directly to the pockets of Congressional campaigns.

    The military contractors are good at what they do. With malice aforethought, they have spread sub-contracting jobs for the F-22 over 40 states, daring Congress to lose those jobs. Besides the waste of taxpayers dollars, what is really insulting is that Congress assumes that American manufacturers haven't the imagination or technical knowhow to convert their factories away from the F-22 into production of something needed and useful.  

    •  gimme gimme gimme gimme (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HeyMikey, Simplify

      Changes in Costs and Quantities for Ten of the Highest Cost
      Acquisition Programs:

      Program: Joint Strike Fighter; +38%
      Program: Future Combat System; +45%
      Program: Virginia Class Submarine; +40%.
      Program: F-22A Raptor; +195%
      Program: C-17 Globemaster III +57%.
      Program: V-22 Joint Services Advanced Vertical Lift Aircraft +186%
      Program: F/A-18E/F Super Hornet; +33%
      Program: Trident II Missile; +50

      GAO report "Defense Acquisitions: Measuring the Value of DOD's Weapon Programs Requires Starting with Realistic Baselines" - April 1, 2009

      -7.25 -8.15 "May the IRS find that you deduct your pet sheep as an entertainment expense -Gian Hen Gian"

      by mydailydrunk on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 01:54:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Military Industrial Complex loves (8+ / 0-)

    to dangle jobs in front of Congress. It doesn't matter what crap they make, just that it is made in their district. Also MIC spreads the money around to Congress.

  •  Damn, ~30 million for something that's anemic (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    at ground support.  I enjoy blinding technology, but I just don't buy into the air superiority BS when wars still come down to the troops on the ground who actually do the work.

    How much did Faichild's A-10 cost?  About 1/10 of a fighter that is too fragile for ground support and has a mission that is not yet needed.  We gotta get AF spending out of the hands of flyboys and down to some sane level, like funding our troop removal from two useless wars and closing bases in developed, or wealthy, foreign nations.

    Distrust of authority should be the first civic duty. - Norman Douglas

    by Fossil on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 02:17:09 PM PDT

  •  Shock and Audit: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    imabluemerkin, ppl can fly

    The Hidden Defense Budget

    What the Pentagon really spends. Part 1 of a Mother Jones special report.

    The Defense Budget That Dare Not Speak Its Name

    Somewhere in the middle regions of Barack Obama's Herculean to-do list is a task that's defeated many of his predecessors: taming the runaway Pentagon budget. Earlier this year, to much fanfare, Obama and his defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, released a Defense Department budget proposal that slashed several troubled weapons programs and promised further reforms to combat rampant waste. But although the press touted the proposals as bold and ambitious, they sounded suspiciously like the basic budgeting tips a financial adviser would dispense if you'd lost total control of your personal expenses. The essential principles were:::::

    "The wise man points to the stars and the fool sees only the finger - and discusses it 24/7 on cable and am radio."

    by jimstaro on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 02:22:20 PM PDT

  •  Military Officials Plead Guilty (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bluesteel, epcraig, imabluemerkin, jayden

    to Felony Charges Over Afghanistan Defense Contracts

    Two U.S. military officials pleaded guilty to various bribery, fraud and conspiracy charges relating to Department of Defense (DOD) contracts in Afghanistan. A third military official pleaded guilty to receiving stolen property, which was obtained through the bribery conspiracy. In addition, four DOD contractors and four affiliated contracting companies were indicted for their roles in paying bribes to the military officials and otherwise defrauding the United States................

    Blood Wealth of the Hawks

    "The wise man points to the stars and the fool sees only the finger - and discusses it 24/7 on cable and am radio."

    by jimstaro on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 02:22:40 PM PDT

  •  C-Span had (0+ / 0-)

    an interesting segment, "America's Defense Meltdown" dealing with Winslow Wheeler's book America's Defense Meltdown: Pentagon Reform for President Obama and the New Congress (Stanford University Press; May 2009), which dealt pretty well with this same topic.

  •  I live in the F-22 Raptor's district. (3+ / 0-)

    Cobb County, GA. And even I think it's time to cut off the Raptor funds and spend them where they're really needed.

    "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

    by HeyMikey on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 02:44:17 PM PDT

  •  Actually, we could be fighting the next-gen sov.. (0+ / 0-)

    ...because China has them, and war with China is looking more and more certain sometime in the next two decades, especially once we sell out Taiwan to them. That is why they some are being based in Guam and I think Okinawa, and Taiwan itself asked for them.


  •  No. No. No. (0+ / 0-)

    F-22s are NOT obsolete.  They are air superiority interceptors, not fighter-bombers.  They can go sideways at almost Mach 1.  Do your homework on these planes.  There isn't a plane in the world that can survive an F-22.  End of story.

    "Have a beginner's mind at all times, for a beginner knows nothing and learns all while a sophisticate knows all and learns nothing." - Suzuki

    by dolfin66 on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 08:22:26 PM PDT

    •  And that matters exactly why? (3+ / 0-)

      F-22s are NOT obsolete.  They are air superiority interceptors, not fighter-bombers.  They can go sideways at almost Mach 1.  

      Just what we need to take out the al-Queda and Taliban air forces!

      Maybe you think we need to fund costal artillery units and a few horse cavalry brigades, as well?

      NEWSFLASH: the Cold War is over.

      And don't even bother mentioning China.  Go look at how much US debt obligation China holds, and what happens to our economy in the event of a complete rupture in relations with them.  The Chinese would not have to fire a shot for us to lose, horribly.

      •  News flash North Korea has some as well (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        to think that we won't at some point in the future face off against another nation with you know REAL weapons is folly of the most crack smoking kind.

        Got any idea how many hours are on your typical F-15 or F-16?  Have any idea how badly those birds faired in exercises against the Russian Su-33?

        Let me clue you in:  The hours are HIGH as in we are going to have start replacing them or watch them fall out of the sky semi frequently.. and you don't want to know the results of the exercises against the Indian air force Su-33's...

        You can either pay now or you can pay later.. later involves the high probability of including widows.

        And keep this in mind:  I freaking HATE the F-22!  But the case for having a few of them is just that compelling:  We will be paying the bulk of the development costs ANYWAY.. that is something like 3/4 or more of the amount talked about, so we can either flush that down the crapper or spend a little more and actually have a few squadrons of these things.

        Which seems like a better use of money?

        •  Thanks for making my point. (0+ / 0-)

          I know somebody who flies F-22s.  Loves it.  That airframe combined with another little bit of joy, the AMRAAM fire and forget missile and the other guy starts reaching for the D-ring when his ears start to warble.  

          "Have a beginner's mind at all times, for a beginner knows nothing and learns all while a sophisticate knows all and learns nothing." - Suzuki

          by dolfin66 on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 06:43:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Only 24 Su-33s in the world (0+ / 0-)

          It's a carrier-based fighter, designed for Russia's one and only carrier. And it looks like the Chinese won't be getting any anytime soon:

          On 10 March 2009, the Moskovsky Komsomolets newspaper reported that the talks to sell the aircraft to China had failed over fears that China would make a copy for export. China had previously obtained a manufacturing license for Su-27 production.

          And the NKs have no chance whatever of getting any.  At the rate they've been pissing off the Russians and Chinese, they'll be lucky to get spare parts for the handful of MiG-29s they have.

          The Air Force's existing 140+ F-22s can hold them until the F-35 is available. Any funding for more should be stripped and diverted to the Army and Marines to deal with real, current, and continuing threats for which air superiority fighters are utterly useless.  Under current circumstances, the Air Force doesn't get more shiny new toys to deal with maybe-someday-could-possibly-happen pseudo-threats.

          •  I use the 33 as a catchall for the 3x family (0+ / 0-)

            of Su-27 derivatives.. there are a lot more then 24 of those world wide because India has purchased over 72 of these kinds of aircraft, as they are essentially variants and permutations of the 33/35.

        •  Li'l Kim's aeropwanes (0+ / 0-)

          News flash North Korea has some as well

          But can they afford to put gas in them?

          Harry Reid couldn't stop a republican filibuster with 100 Democratic senators.

          by cybersaur on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 07:18:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Short-sighted. (0+ / 0-)

        Your view is way too short sighted to be relevant to my point.  Air superiority is necessary in this post-cold war period otherwise, you WILL have Chinese fighters and bombers overhead.  The so-called cold war is really NOT over.  We can thank George W. Bush and his mindless cadre of fools for making sure of that.  

        As far as coastal gun batteries and cavalry brigades go, well, I think you just leaped out of your brain into the cauldron of NOD.  You clearly know nothing of the subject being discussed otherwise you'd know what I was talking about.  Maybe this is an indicator as to why I don't deal with KOS much anymore.  There are just too many people who are blinded by their agenda and can't understand what they're even talking about.

        "Have a beginner's mind at all times, for a beginner knows nothing and learns all while a sophisticate knows all and learns nothing." - Suzuki

        by dolfin66 on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 06:48:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Chinese are in it for the $$$ (1+ / 0-)

          you WILL have Chinese fighters and bombers overhead.

          Uh huh. They wouldn't do that. If they did, who would buy all that cheap plastic shit they churn out by the boatload? Who would they sell all the melamine flavored pet food and lead toys too?
          Like others have stated, if China wanted to take out America they could destroy us economically overnight. It would make bush's economic disaster look like a lemonade stand went out of business.

          Harry Reid couldn't stop a republican filibuster with 100 Democratic senators.

          by cybersaur on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 07:24:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  They always have unless President stops it. (3+ / 0-)

    The military/industrial complex is alive and has been running the country for the last 30 years with Reagan, Newt and the Bushes.

    Our new latest DINO, Arlen Specter kept the V22 Osprey alive, costing the US billion$ of wasted dollars and forcing the turkey onto the Marines vs. reliable, cheaper helicopters.

  •  The Avro Arrow... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    In 1959 then Conservative Prime Minister John Diefenbaker of Canada cancelled the Avro Arrow program when it became apparent that the threat from Russia was not going to be bombers but ballistic missiles. The Arrow was - at the time AND for at least 20 years thereafter - the BEST fighter Interceptor the world had ever seen.

    When it was cancelled it destroyed the Canadian aerospace industry and many of the scientists that had designed and produced it moved to the US and began working in your aerospace industries. Many were crucially involved in your Space Program. (Google the "Avro Arrow" and have a look at it and read about its abilities - even today over 50 years after it was designed it is still BREATH-TAKENLY beautiful.)

    John Diefenbaker was an Imperialist Conservative Nut Job (like Bush and the Neocons) - HOWEVER - EVEN he was not prepared to have Canada waste a fortune on something so beautiful - but unnecessary as the Arrow.

    America - you've GOT to get your house in order - as this F22 boondoggle shows your system is flawed - hard decisions - like Heath Care for instance - just can't be made. Your Government fails because TOO MANY Americans believe Government Is The Enemy AND because your Government's system - like your society - is DESIGNED to have no CENTRAL AUTHORITY. You are 350 million loners looking out for number one - no matter the damage to your nation, your soul or your future.


    •  yes and instead you purchased American F-18's (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      which were and still are crap in comparison.

      And lost an entire industry in the doing.

      Not exactly the best example there...

      Given that the war never came at the time it was a foolish and I mean on the order of guano smoking crazy to cut that program!  Because you could not be positively sure... and besides the Russians bomber force really was the back bone of the striking power.. missiles are wicked vulnerable, the real killing, the really dangerous stuff was not the land based ICBM's, nor the SLBM's to a lesser degree.. no it was the bombers.

      Bombers are there to annihilate cities, bombers are the wings on which extinction flies.

      The missiles are rapid and precise means of taking out the other guys bombers and missiles.. not his cities.  They can be used to do that, but they are not targeted that way initially.  There is a rhythm built in to a possible nuclear war.. the missiles provide for a couple of rapid strikes from land and then there is a pause built in for the subs.. at that point you can shut down the war or carry on.. after the subs there is another pause at which point you can shut her down or drive on to the bitter smoking end with the bombers.

      So the PM screwed the pooch.  There is nothing IN Canada that is a primary target for missiles and to waste some of the first strike or second strike land based ICBMs on your population centers or your air bases is a waste when they could be targeting the US ICBM wings in the Midwest and our nuclear bomber bases.... the stuff that can rain death on the other guys.  The only thing that Canada had to fear other then the fall out from South of the border was the bombers!

      Bombers that would have had a much easier time taking "the grand tour" without the Arrow.

  •  Well, the JAS-39 Gripen shows (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    imabluemerkin, Izzy24

    A modern country like Sweden can afford both useless fighter jets and universal health-care.

    But yeah, US military spending is ridiculous and completely out-of-touch with all reality.

    Personally I think we're wasting way too much on aircraft carriers. The USA already has more of them than the rest of the world combined. And most of the rest belong to our allies! How many more could we possibly need?

  •  Bringing home the bacon (0+ / 0-)

    People living near one of the facilities where these monstrosities are going to be built/designed/tested/based see only more jobs and taxes and not waste. This is a national disease.

    I voted with my feet. Good Bye and Good Luck America!!

    by shann on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:35:38 AM PDT

  •  I knew there was more... (0+ / 0-)

    Watching Pete Sessions and reporting from the Taliban-controlled 32nd Congressional District of Texas.

    by CoolOnion on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:59:39 AM PDT

  •  Maybe the Chinese will field an advanced fighter (0+ / 0-)

    Or the Malasians, or somalia, Or Kim Jong freaking Ill.

    We must have some enemies out there.

    How many societies have failed throughout history due to bloated militaries and their" adventurism?"

    Washington, to the day room. Louise Fletcher as Nurse Ratched in Kesey's One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest.

    by Anthony Page aka SecondComing on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 09:53:43 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site