Comments on: You want to make a political omlette?

By: Adeodatus

Adeodatus — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 15:30:56 +0000

Thanks guys. I actually don t disagree. I think we need a far larger navy than we have and increase the % of GDP we spend on defense. I took a contrarian view and threw up a trial balloon to get some perspectives for something I m working on.

Happy Thanksgiving.

By: Flatlander

Flatlander — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 12:42:29 +0000

Great point, Reg. The outnumbered Romans were after all famous for beating the barbarians with better weapons and tactics for centuries. They most definitely outspent them, and had the resource to do so. On a percentage basis, our spend on defense is modest and lower than it has been for any other war.

By: Reg Starling

Reg Starling — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 07:21:21 +0000

Thanks for posting this Lex– the “do-nothing, hide-in-my-office” attitude from DC needs to get publicized more often. It’s not even a partisan thing really, just a ducking of responsibilities by all of them that’d earn a departmental firing in any other career path.

Adeodatus, I’d like to point out that the next gen countermeasure is always more expensive than whatever it’s countering. This goes all the way back to the ancients, using various then-exotic specialized materials for their arms and armor. In the case of the IED, the most effective countermeasure isn’t even a physical piece of hardware it’s the knowledge of who’s up to what, where, and when; and the software used to piece that knowledge into a coherent picture. Information is now our best ammunition. As with all ammo, it’s going to cost proportionally to its value in the field.

By: Daveg

Daveg — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 00:01:44 +0000

can one F-22 fight off 10 otherwise obsolescent aircraft.

I’m betting not just yes, but hell yes. And I’m also betting it could do it without ever getting within 10 miles of lethal range of the others.

Further, once out of ammo I’m also betting it could make a very easy getaway without ever having been seen nor detected by the enemy.

By: Adeodatus

Adeodatus — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 19:53:37 +0000

SGT Jeff,
Say we had 100,000 IEDs in IZ and Afghanistan at $100 a pop. that would be $10 M. Yes I know we have to do everything to protect soldiers. My question was about the broader concept of warfare. If it costs us so far more to win, then at some point is there a diminishing return, not in terms of lives, but in terms of overarching and long-term victory. If we can only buy one F-22 for, say $200M, and the Chinese bought 100 old MiGs for a total of $10M, can one F-22 fight off 10 otherwise obsolescent aircraft. What about ships? If a $1B surface ship can be incapacited by a VBIED, at what point do you re-look at long-term programs and adjusting them?

By: badbob

badbob — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:04:06 +0000

Hell. Those pinheads are even affecting MY pay with their shenanigans…

However, I’ve got 200 hrs of leave to burn but them sumbiches better fund ops accounts soon…

Of course, I have the same opinion of ‘em this dude does (recommend low volume for sensitive ears):

http://www.theguyfromboston.com/playvideo2.asp?video=6BvNv7IkF3I