ForumsWEPRThe continuing budget-cutting of...

28 2664
Fiends
offline
Fiends
114 posts
595

The US military:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/25/obama-kill-navys-tomahawk-hellfire-missile-program/

Both of these missiles are the cornerstones of the military. Especially the hellfire (hey dip ****: No hellfire = no missiles for your drones).
Face it he is out to completely destroy this country one way or another.

  • 28 Replies
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
2,831 posts
18,480

I believe the correct term is Pyogenesis.

Fiends
offline
Fiends
114 posts
595

I believe the correct term is Pyogenesis.


Potato, Potato(puhtawtou)(I wish i could record my own **** and put it in here so you could understand me better).
pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,995 posts
3,285

I think the comments are what make that article.

But..after wading my way through the infestation of smut, I found this person who seems to actually know his stuff
"You are wrong. Not only is there a series of missile systems that are just as capable as the Tomahawk (ie: SLAM-ER, HARPOON), even the Hellfire has a direct replacement. The Dept. of Defense has recognized the Griffin missile system as the replacement for the Hellfire. The Dept. of Defense also recognizes the LRASM as the next generation replacement to the Tomahawk system. As for the SLAM-ER; like the Tomahawk, it's an all-weather, sub sonic, over the horizon cruise missile whith Land attack and anti-ship capabilities."

09philj
offline
09philj
2,880 posts
3,160

Face it he is out to completely destroy this country one way or another.


Why does the US need so much weaponry anyway?
Fiends
offline
Fiends
114 posts
595

Why does the US need so much weaponry anyway?


Because, we should have a huge standing army in place in preparation for the massive conventional war that we will not have to fight anytime in the near future no matter how much of an idiotic waste of money it is. After all, the only reason we won WWII is because we had a massive bloated military on standby before we even knew the war was going to take place.
Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,562 posts
4,140

We already have a bigger military budget than the next top 5 countries combined. I think we can cope with 125 million dollars of military cutting out of the 683.7 billion dollars we had in 2010.

we should have a huge standing army in place in preparation for the massive conventional war that we will not have to fight anytime in the near future no matter how much of an idiotic waste of money it is.


Should we tell him how silly this sounds?
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
2,831 posts
18,480

So, to summarize this entire thread, after more than a week of desperate searching, Fiends manages to locate an article which, to his distorted mind, looks as though it could make a case against the man he blames for his own insecurities. Siezing the opportunity, he forgoes the tedious process of actually looking into the matter in order to get right into making a ridiculous thread on AG. It is met with raucous laughter from all sides, prompting FishPreferred to declare it a success.

MattEmAngel
offline
MattEmAngel
7,746 posts
4,340

It is met with raucous laughter from all sides, prompting FishPreferred to declare it a success.


You are not a judge of WEPR success. Please stop assigning yourself as the decider of when an argument is over. After all, only one people (@Freakenstein) attacked the idea directly before you posted this (pang posted a quote and phil posted a side comment). Saying that it was "met with raucous laughter from all sides" is just as ridiculous and empty as his statements.

we should have a huge standing army in place in preparation for the massive conventional war that we will not have to fight anytime in the near future no matter how much of an idiotic waste of money it is.


I'm a Republican too, and I also think this is an incredibly bad idea (I hesitate to say "worst" because there is always something worse).
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
2,831 posts
18,480

You are not a judge of WEPR success. Please stop assigning yourself as the decider of when an argument is over.


To declare is not to decide. By my standards, it is a success, so I am free to declare as much. The rest is my own interpretation of the events surrounding the creation and reception of this thread and need not be accurate in every detail. Its being a third person narrative in present tense was meant to convey this idea.
TerminatorXM214
offline
TerminatorXM214
225 posts
2,555

Because, we should have a huge standing army in place in preparation for the massive conventional war that we will not have to fight anytime in the near future no matter how much of an idiotic waste of money it is. After all, the only reason we won WWII is because we had a massive bloated military on standby before we even knew the war was going to take place.


I'd say this is obvious sarcasm... but I have the feeling he's serious.


On the actual topic, I do believe that completely cutting the Tomahawk missiles is a mistake. BUT, are they really completely cutting them?
Because of how inflammatory and unsupported the OP's article was, though, I decided to do some other research:

[url]http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/04/tomahawk-cancellation-an-error-of-defense-strategy-and-alliance-policy[/url]
[url]http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/03/27/navy-seeks-next-generation-tomahawk/[/url]
[url]http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/block-iv-xgm-109-tomahawk-chopped-07423/[/url]

The first is anti-cut, the second appears pro-cut, the third is mostly information about the missile itself, and appears neutral.

It seems there is a definite new missile coming to replace the Tomahawk... in 2020 at earliest. Until then, we have the stockpile of one of the most popularized missiles to last us 5-9 years.
Another grievence is the lack of communication with Australia and the England, mainly because they are the only other 2 countries to use the Tomahawk missile (actually, Australia has not used it yet, but they recently set up 3 ships to be able to launch them). According to my first article, the British defense secretary was actually told that "any such suggestion must be speculation." Unfortunately, this part of the article contradicts my second article, which says "In 2016 we will revisit the question [Navy acquisition executive Sean Stackley]... "

Lastly, my third article, they have still, and are continuing to, update the Tomahawk missile, which pretty obviously means it's not going completely out of business.

So, my opinion:

As I said before, I think it would be a mistake to stop replenishing the Tomahawk missile supply. But, I don't know if it is going to stop, making this entire argument moot.
Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,562 posts
4,140

As I said before, I think it would be a mistake to stop replenishing the Tomahawk missile supply. But, I don't know if it is going to stop, making this entire argument moot.


Going back to that new missile idea (I saw it too when I looked at the comments section of the OP's article), what they're probably going to do is incrementally-reduce the amount of missiles to zero, and when the arms are depleted, start with a fresh, stockpiled supply of the new missiles within a year afterwards. Even with the standpoint of cutting arms, it's foolish to leave a section of weapon blank (for those rare what-if situations). Then there's the part I already talked about where this cutting of missiles is a paltry 100+ million dollars, something that the Navy, the highest-grossing military branch, can easily deal with and recover from.
MattEmAngel
offline
MattEmAngel
7,746 posts
4,340

Going back to that new missile idea (I saw it too when I looked at the comments section of the OP's article), what they're probably going to do is incrementally-reduce the amount of missiles to zero, and when the arms are depleted, start with a fresh, stockpiled supply of the new missiles within a year afterwards. Even with the standpoint of cutting arms, it's foolish to leave a section of weapon blank (for those rare what-if situations).


Excuse my ignorance (this isn't an argument for or against anyone), but what exactly does the military do with all those missiles they're going to replace? You can't just throw them away, you can't take them apart and re-build them (that would require a lot of research and work) and you can't just take them down to the local target range and basically set off a several-hundred-million-dollar fireworks show.

I understand the concept of halting production to create new ones, but then you still have a ton of the old ones on carriers and attached to jets, and an aircraft carrier isn't about to dump a load of missiles overboard, put them in the garage or transport them back to shore. I'm just curious. It's a billion dollars of high-explosive long-range weaponry, and you can't just make it "go away."
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
2,831 posts
18,480

I understand the concept of halting production to create new ones, but then you still have a ton of the old ones on carriers and attached to jets, and an aircraft carrier isn't about to dump a load of missiles overboard, put them in the garage or transport them back to shore. I'm just curious. It's a billion dollars of high-explosive long-range weaponry, and you can't just make it "go away."


They probably don't need to do anything with them. If it were a recall, they would have this problem, but a production halt simply means that what they have already is the last of them.
MattEmAngel
offline
MattEmAngel
7,746 posts
4,340

They probably don't need to do anything with them. If it were a recall, they would have this problem, but a production halt simply means that what they have already is the last of them.


Well they can't leave them wherever they are because they're going to put the new missiles wherever that is. I don't know how many Tomahawk missiles the military goes through in a week, but I doubt that they're going to quickly run out at their current rate because the number is most likely very low. Tomahawk missiles are for killing tanks and whatnot, and we aren't going through any open tank/heavy armor firefights to the best of my knowledge, so I doubt they're being used at all.

Let me attempt a metaphor.

Imagine a loaded assault rifle magazine, where the ammo is missiles, the gun is the U.S. military, the magazine is the U.S. military supply of missiles, and the gun safe is U.S. military armories and ammunition storage facilities. You decide to stop buying your current preferred brand and switch to newer and better cartridges. However, you don't use the ones you have now (not often, anyway). How would you go about changing them?
-You could unload the magazine one bullet at a time and reload it with the new rounds, but it would take a while, and you now have 30 live cartridges with nowhere to put them (assuming that the gun safe is already full of ammunition, which wouldn't be an understatement when it comes to the U.S. military).
-You could shoot all the rounds off to make room, but rifle cartridges are expensive and you'd be throwing away a chunk of money and perfectly good ammo.
-You could use them for target practice or competition, but you bought this to "defend yourself" from bad people (which is basically what missiles are used for) and you don't want to waste any more ammo than you have to.
-You could get rid of other ammo to make room for the cartridges, but all that ammo is still good and up-to-date, so throwing it away would be just as purposeless as throwing away the 30 cartridges you already have.

I'm not sure if this is a real discussion. I'll take any good answer. As of now I'm just curious. What do you do with all those missiles?
09philj
offline
09philj
2,880 posts
3,160

As of now I'm just curious. What do you do with all those missiles?


My guess is on selling them off.
Showing 1-15 of 28