[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 15, 12:15*pm, ScottW wrote:
On May 15, 9:48*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On May 15, 11:34*am, ScottW wrote:

On May 15, 7:47*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
...so consistently? LOL!

"Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates issued a clear warning to the
military and its industrial partners on Tuesday that expensive, new
conventional weapons must prove their value to current conflicts,
marked by insurgency and terrorism, if they hope for a place in future
budgets."

“Overall, the kinds of capabilities we will most likely need in the
years ahead will often resemble the kinds of capabilities we need
today,” he added."

[i.e. The cold war is over, 2pid. Just like I said. LOL!]

"Those comments are certain to alarm advocates of the newest
generations of high-tech and high-cost weapons programs, in particular
the Army’s Future Combat Systems and the Air Force’s F-22 advanced
warplane. Both have come under the scrutiny of Pentagon budget
officers questioning whether either would be required for missions
similar to the current operations in Iraq or Afghanistan."

"The defense secretary also criticized a budget process that he said
results in the production of fewer, but more expensive, warships,
warplanes and armored vehicles."

[i.e. So we'll need more A-10s and AH-64 Apache Longbows, and larger
quantities of less-expensive weaponry, kind of almost exactly like
I've been saying all along, 2pid. The F-22 is an anachronism from the
cold war.]

"To be sure, the defense secretary is set to step down at the end of
the Bush administration, and thus is not expected to be in a position
to write his strategic view into any but the next budget. Thus, the
services and industry may seek to push through the programs Mr. Gates
said should be scrutinized."

[i.e. There is no shortage of boneheads such as yourself. LOL!]

"The military, he declared, “has ample and untapped combat power in
our naval and air forces, with the capacity to defeat any — repeat,
any — adversary who committed an act of aggression, whether in the
Persian Gulf, on the Korean Peninsula or in the Straits of Taiwan.
There is a risk — but a prudent and manageable one.”

* Nothing is static. *How long will the risk in the Gulf, the Taiwan
Strait and the Korean Peninsula be "prudent and manageable"?

Until our overstretched forces are out of Afghanistan and Iraq, 2pid.
That's the reason there's any risk at all. Can't you read? LOL!

BS, the forces that are in play in Afghanistan are hardly the forces
that will be needed to operate in the Taiwan strait. *

Um, 2pid, the fighting forces are *always* the smallest part of the
deal. Think "logistics". If we're logistically tied up with a large
effort elsewhere, it very much limits our abilities elsewhere. Duh.

Further, if one of the three scenarios Gates mentioned played out, are
you saying there would be no ground component? Duh.

You're on crack.

I'm not on crack, but apparently you think the chairman of the JCOS
and the SEDEF are.

Duh.

How long will it take to make it prudent and manageable again should
we let that apparently acceptable status slip away?

It's "prudent and manageable" *now*, 2pid. There is no "again".
Nothing has "slipped away".

*It inevitably will if we stand pat. *Nothing is static.

So how is fielding a larger amount of less-expensive weapons "standing
pat"? Learn how to read:

"The defense secretary also criticized a budget process that he said
results in the production of fewer, but more expensive, warships,
warplanes and armored vehicles."

Duh.