Skip to comments.I have not heard the real error in Obama's military budget argument pointed out - 12 hours later
Posted on 10/23/2012 9:50:12 AM PDT by PieterCasparzen
Obama's response regarding cutting the "military budget" last night was insanely wrong.
But one has to a) have been involved with or seen technology "projects" and b) not been asleep and c) pinched oneself last night to engage one's brain while Obama was talking so one could remember a little place I like to call 'realityland".
Instead being in realityland, many are getting wrapped up in Obama's sarcastic bayonet remarks. Sensible, informed people know that bayonets - and even horses - are still in use, while leftists experience a mental "whiteout" from glee whenever anything sarcastic or vile is said by anyone. Their minds turn off as they laugh about their faux "victory".
Obama did not explicitly say, but he implied, that it was possible to cut military spending because today's military uses "high-tech" weaponry instead of simple manual weapons. Of course, he's wrong that simple manual weapons are not used - on both counts. The typical leftist "make a sarcastic implication then celebrate victory" tactic, as always, is defeated by highlighting the implication and it's falsehood.
The real shocker to me is that a sitting President would have to be either a moron not in realityland - or a subsversive who had been elected to the Presidency - in order to publicly state that significant across-the-board cutting of military spending in these modern times is possible without seriously degrading our capabilities. While there certainly will eventually be reductions in what is spent in the occupying forces tasked with pretending that our enemy is our friend, the core of our military expenditure is simply the price of having the capability to respond to the worst scenarios where America is attacked militarily by another nation.
Please remind everyone you know that "high-tech" systems are not "cheaper" than "low-tech" systems. The whole premise of dear leader's argument is dead wrong.
High-tech projects are not initiated and completed in months, rather, because of their nature they must go on for decades, with the learning of prior projects being essential to carry forward in future projects. High tech development, let alone research, is an ongoing process, and a very expensive one. Even with a major focus of every project being how to not waste money (resources) and get the most out of the resources expended on the project, it's always expensive. And this is especially true for military technology, where every subsystem and component has the engineering constraint of needing an ability to reliably perform under combat conditions.
Every system highlights the fact that high-tech is not cheap. Consider the B-2 bomber program, where a single plane costs in the area of a Billion dollars. For the naval arena - today's cruisers and destroyers look oddly lacking in traditional guns poking out from their decks. The guns have been replaced by weapon systems that are far more expensive and complex than guns. And as to the idea that one cruiser can now have much more destructive force than it's traditional gun-wielding counterpart; surprise, surprise, today's cruisers are not up against guns, but missiles and torpedos whichm, of course, have similarly advanced technology - and come with similarly elevated price tags that run in the millions per unit. So Mr. Obama is, once again, dead wrong if he's trying to peddle the idea that a naval force projection can be accomplished without an adequate number of ships. At some point, a naval battle group that has vessels eliminated becomes unable to carry out it's missions, either because of the size of the area they are tasked with securing is too large for them to handle, or there are not enough of them in the group to allow the group to successfully defend itself from a worth adversary. A sitting President should know these simple facts and it is their duty to ensure that our military gets budget priority over every other Federal expenditure.
Since every nation continues to increase their technological capabilities, if a nation is to remain militarily relevant, such spending is the price that must be paid. What our would-be challengers would like to see most is for America to give up and walk away from military cababilities, cutting our military spending in favor of spending on welfare for working-age, able-bodied leeches and political crony businesses that bill the government for everything from bridges to medicine.
Only the militarily and technologically ignorant who have been completely politically misled, once they are reminded of these simple facts, will not see the deception Obama employed in order to belittle his challenger. Since WWII, our economic prosperity has been an essential element in ensuring our safety as it enabled America to afford a significant military technological advantage - all the while America's middle class and poor enjoyed the highest relative standard of living in the world along with the greatest potential for upward mobility. It's becoming obvious, especially to independent and undecided voters, that Obama and many other leftists in America philosophically fly in the face of American sovereignty not out of ignorance, but because of their leftist ideology.
That, substantially, has been the question du jour for some time now.
It all gets back to one thing: we need to get a handle on education and media so that it is taken from the propaganda wing of the Democrat party.
Forget the fact that he is a moron. The real reason he didn’t help our embassy is because America will never go to war against Islam. f it does he will side with his Muslim brothers. Which is why we haveh four dead Americans.
so it really doesn’t matter about our technology now does it Mr. Chicago thuggee?
Not to mention that everyone glommed onto the idiocy of the one-liner and forgot that Romney’s statement began with the fact that the Navy says it is now 30+ ships short of what it needs to meet present committments and is on the way becoming 130 ships short if sequestration hits . . .not very hard to understand if one is paying attention.
YOU, YOU DESERVE POST OF THE YEAR!