Redstate

"This man plainly lives in an alternate reality, one in which our enemies won't attack us if we just don't develop new weapons. "

Really? So if we slow our development of nuclear submarines, or divert production of F-22 fighter jets toward much cheaper F-15 fighter jets(which still possess air superiority over nearly all foreign aircraft), Russia will jump and attack us?

"New technology tends to help make wars easier to fight and win, in addition to reducing the amount of lives lost"

The "Combat systems" he was talking about, refers to wasteful multi-billion dollar air and naval superiority programs.

Plunking billions toward a new destroyer, or new fighter jet, does not help our troops, and does not further our military objectives. It does nothing but provide corporate welfare to defense contractors.

Obama has proposed shifting funds from the Air Force and Navy, where our dominance is unbelievably substantial(and any further spending would have marginal benefit), to the army.

Obama wants to massively increase our special forces program, and increase the total number of soldiers in our army.

This is in recognition that we will not fight a war with Russia or China(Though we would win either war, even if we didn't spend a cent on development for another 2 decades), but instead, we will likely be involved in rogue state rollback, peacekeeping missions, and counter-terrorism.

To win these wars, we do not need a more agile fighter jet(Since even our F-15's could outperform anything a rogue state could throw at us), nor do we need better and faster destroyers(Since our navy is currently more powerful than the rest of the world combined). We need boots on the ground, and highly trained boots on the ground, in order to protect our country from the threat of rogue states and terrorism.

And to do anything else is, I dare say, pre-9/11 thinking.

Plunking billions toward a new destroyer, or new fighter jet, does not help our troops, and does not further our military objectives. It does nothing but provide corporate welfare to defense contractors.


F117 Nope furthered our military objectives
B2 Ditto
Predator once again
Global Hawk still not working
Abrahms MBT Wince just doesn't seem to be going


Your hypothesis does not seem to be borne out.

On the naval side of things the newer generation of ships are meant to be cheaper to operate during peace time and require less crew.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

"F117 Nope furthered our military objectives"

Nope. I don't see which of it's counter-terrorism missions could not have been carried out by cheaper already developed aircraft.

"B2 Ditto"

Indeed, ditto. Please give me a scenario where we fight a nation with a sophisticated enough airforce and SAM capability such that a B2 wouldn't be overkill?

"Predator once again
Global Hawk still not working"

That's not trivial, most missions done by a drone could have been done by a F-15 or an missile.

Clearly, drones will be very useful some day, but it would have most likely been a better move to invest the money we have put toward production of these current drones, and instead put it toward developing truly useful drones.

"Abrahms MBT Wince just doesn't seem to be going"

That's part of the army, which Obama wants to expand.

Remember, we are dealing with opportunity cost here. If you had to choose between a new B2 bomber, or the 275 M1 Abrams you could buy for the same cost, what would better further our military objectives?

"On the naval side of things the newer generation of ships are meant to be cheaper to operate during peace time and require less crew."

Considering that these ships do not last forever, it's most likely the case that the labor savings will not pay for the huge upfront costs of procurement.

When the right says we support the troops it also means we value and are thankful for them. It pains us to see them wasted. Your lack of comprehension of that fact tells me what I need to know.

As for your individual rebuttals. Your first one is the perfect demonstration that you don't think about or even understand what you are saying

"F117 Nope furthered our military objectives"

Nope. I don't see which of it's counter-terrorism missions could not have been carried out by cheaper already developed aircraft.

Aside from your discounting the contribution the plane made in three wars now, You can't think of how a nearly undectable aircraft could be used for counter terrorism missions ?

If the facility is in enemy airspace It sure helps to be able to get there

So for any case where we don't want to have a full scale invasion or a massive air ware its pretty useful.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

"F117 Nope furthered our military objectives"

Nope. I don't see which of it's counter-terrorism missions could not have been carried out by cheaper already developed aircraft.

The F117 was a stealth technology test bed. You might not think the technology is worth much but I think the guys who flew over Baghdad in 91 and over Belgrade would disagree. The last F117s will be retired in April.

"B2 Ditto"

Indeed, ditto. Please give me a scenario where we fight a nation with a sophisticated enough airforce and SAM capability such that a B2 wouldn't be overkill?

Iraq in 1991. Serbia (one F117 shot down, one scrapped due to battle damage). North Korea. Iran. China, Syria, anywhere the Russians decide to sell or give away their air defense systems. The B2 is appropriate against any target which would also be appropriate for the B52 and the crew would be safer.

"Predator once again
Global Hawk still not working"

That's not trivial, most missions done by a drone could have been done by a F-15 or an missile.

Nonsense. The per unit cost of a predator is much superior to the per unit cost of a cruise missile when one considers they are reusable and much more flexible. Comparing the capabilities of a drone and an manned aircraft in the way you toss it out simply results in the imminently preventable heartbreak of a tragic self-beclowning.

Clearly, drones will be very useful some day, but it would have most likely been a better move to invest the money we have put toward production of these current drones, and instead put it toward developing truly useful drones.

Martian logic. This is one of the most stupid comments I've ever read on defense and I've been on the site for nearly 4 years.

"Abrahms MBT Wince just doesn't seem to be going"

That's part of the army, which Obama wants to expand.

The Abrams production line closed down around 1990.

Remember, we are dealing with opportunity cost here. If you had to choose between a new B2 bomber, or the 275 M1 Abrams you could buy for the same cost, what would better further our military objectives?

Crap. 275 Abrams brings with it several thousand troops at a cost of over $100K each, plus logistics, fuel, spare parts, ammunition, training areas, etc. Plus it would require building ships to get them to theater. Other than a full scale war, Abrams tanks have no role. The B2 can be used in war or for operations short of war, like bombing a weapons facility.

"On the naval side of things the newer generation of ships are meant to be cheaper to operate during peace time and require less crew."

Considering that these ships do not last forever, it's most likely the case that the labor savings will not pay for the huge upfront costs of procurement.

More Martian logic. During the life cycle of a warship the cost of the crew is a huge component. That's the primary reason the 4 Iowa-class battleships were retired.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

The bit about fissile material was just a bonus, really.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Fission is fission. The only difference between the fission in nuclear power plants, and the fission in nuclear bombs, is that the bombs have to have a higher density of fissile nuclei, in order to pack more of a punch, while power plants are designed to *reduce* the ability to flash out too much energy at once.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Iran's pursuit of nuclear technology and material and the ease of denying the goal of developing nuclear weapons.

run on the principle of nuclear fission, it would seem, at least to the lay person, to follow that the fuel is fissile and a material, ergo a fissile material. YMMV.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

B.O.: Of course I didn't mean fuel
Press: In a masterful delineation of the issue Barack Obama completely resolved it. Have you noticed McCain and Hillary are old ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

You're exactly right. Democrats get a free pass on their idiotic statements because "everybody knows" that their intentions are noble, pure and just; while McCain's "100 years in Iraq" statement gets taken way out of context and is "proof" that Republicans want to brutally occupy the country for an entire century, proving that their intentions are evil and horrible.

On the names of world leaders... I think I might be waiting a while on that.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I think weapons-grade material has a higher concentration of whatever radioactive substance it is, which increases the power of the reaction and therefore the force of the weapon.

Besides that, nuclear bombs look scarier than nuclear power plants.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
“You have enemies? Good! That means you have stood up for something sometime in your life.” ~Winston Churchill

In non-proliferation circles, a ban on fissile materials refers to a ban on military capable fissile materials.

The two materials require vastly different production methods, as one has a much higher purity than the other.

What Obama was specifically referring to, creating an international fissile bank, so as to decrease the chance of terrorism and prevent nuclear proliferation, was first proposed by president Eisenhower.

It's not such a radical position, you can find a good deal of right wing intellectuals who agree with him.

I'd also be interested in seeing some of these "good deal of right wing intellectuals" that agree with an unenforceable freeze on fissile materials. And I suppose these "right wing intellectuals" would be just fine scrapping our entire nuclear navy, since those reactors run off the same kind of highly enriched "fissile materials" you are talking about here.

No problem with that from the peacenik nuclear freeze crowd, though, I'm sure. It's the 1970s all over again. We're just an imperialist empire who is at the root of all the world's problems. Anything we can do to reduce the capabilities and effectiveness of the United States is a huge win for people everywhere.

Yea, that's a winning platform.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

"I'd also be interested in seeing some of these "good deal of right wing intellectuals" that agree with an unenforceable freeze on fissile materials."

You won't find any, because no body is talking about such a thing.

Please look up the idea of a international "Fuel bank", as first proposed by Republican president Eisenhower, and considered by Ronald Reagan. This is not a lefty idea, and I'm not sure how you can construe it as such.

"And I suppose these "right wing intellectuals" would be just fine scrapping our entire nuclear navy, since those reactors run off the same kind of highly enriched "fissile materials" you are talking about here."

No they don't. Nuclear reactors fun on Uranium that is roughly 25% U-235, 75% U-238.

The stuff used in weapons is roughly 85% U-235, 10% U-238 (the rest is doped with other stuff to make the explosion better).

The technology required to make weapons grade uranium is extremely sophisticated, and quite a bit more complicated then the stuff necessary to produce reactor-grade Uranium.

"No problem with that from the peacenik nuclear freeze crowd, though, I'm sure. It's the 1970s all over again. We're just an imperialist empire who is at the root of all the world's problems. Anything we can do to reduce the capabilities and effectiveness of the United States is a huge win for people everywhere."

Nice strawman you set up. Obama wants to increase army and homeland security spending, along with massive increases in the special forces. Don't paint him as a dove.

The technology required to make weapons grade uranium is extremely sophisticated,

Correct me if I'm wrong here but I think we made it in 1945, didn't we?

How sophisticated can it be?

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

So substitute what you wish Obama said for what he actually said. I've seen this before. Just about every time Obama opens his mouth. What level do you need to rise to in the Obama church before you can properly interpret what he is trying to say? Maybe you can point out what part of his statement translates to "fuel bank?" He said ban on production. How is that a "fuel bank?" Not that some international fuel bank is some fantastic or a remotely realistic idea, but it also isn't what he's talking about in the video.

No they don't. Nuclear reactors fun on Uranium that is roughly 25% U-235, 75% U-238.

Marine reactors are not the same as civilian reactors. They don't use the same fuel. A submarine needs to produce a lot of power from a very small core and doesn't need to be refueled in the useful span of the vessel. That is nothing like civilian power generation where you can make the core as big as you want (and run as many cores as you want) and you can refuel as often as necessary.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

The weapons grade stuff simply has to be more refined than the civilian power stuff. That's why Iran gets away with saying "It's just for energy! Seriously!" Their equipment can be used to refine past that level, but they claim they aren't doing that. When they test a bomb a couple miles over Tel Aviv we'll know they were lying.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I'll let you know, as a math major who has a pretty strong background in nuclear physics, that it is a lot more complicated then "just throw it back in there and refine it more".

If Iran began to move toward creating weapons grade uranium, we would know. (They might already have, and if they have, our intelligence agencies already know, but that is another discussion).

One of my pals tried to demonstrate the necessary and sufficient conditions to achieve a nuclear fission chain reaction using Oppenheimer's famous "K-Equation Criterion." The professor rejected it as a project because it wasn't of sufficient difficulty to challenge upper level undergraduate students.

"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.

There is a difference between deriving the conditions necessary for a fission, which indeed is fairly straight-forward, to actually achieving the conditions. There is a reason that the Manhattan Project was so expensive.

After all, the necessary and sufficient conditions for a black hole to form, could be derived by an undergraduate physics major. Just compress an object below the an easily derived radius, simple!.

that point here | here

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

As I said, it's pretty easy to tell if a country is trying to make HEU.

It's one of their favorite devil figures.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

mined uranium ore has to be processed extensively before it becomes fuel. So unless we are eliminating steel mills, aluminum smelting, etc. from being "production" there is production involved in uranium.

One hardly knows what is scarier, that he knows what he said or that he doesn't. I'm sort of rooting for ignorance.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

hasn't had much beyond basic high school physics. I think most people hear the word nuclear and think "bomb" anyway.

My husband worked on nuclear reactors-the kind that make our aircraft carriers and submarines go. We were married a good two years before my sister realized he worked on nuclear plants for power not bombs. She even told somebody he did something with bombs.

Oops I just had a thought, what Obama is going to do when he bans fissile material and any new development of weapons and military technology? Guess he will just scrub all our carriers and subs, since the world will love him so much, we won't need them anyway.

"Oops I just had a thought, what Obama is going to do when he bans fissile material and any new development of weapons and military technology?"

He was referring to the creation of an international fissile material bank, as first proposed by President Eisenhower. Do you have any objection to such a thing?

Don't paint Obama as a dove, he wants to massively increase funding for the army and special forces, as most independent analysts believe.

He just does not want to waste money on wasteful programs devoted to fighting an enemy that disappeared before I was born.

You need to free yourself from pre-9/11 thinking.

Much of our current proliferation problems can be traced back to it.

I like IKE but he wasn't perfect or infallible.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

people think just like her. I would tell them my husband was a nuke, and they would ask if had anything to do with bombs.

Although he has been out for 10 years now, so it has been a while since he made one go.

It's from this direct-to-progressives video that he made for the Caucus for Priorities, and that is the full quote. Your link aside - and, by the way, I apologize for the dark thoughts that I sent you before I realized that it was either the Boston Globe or this site that was messing up the hyperlinks - this is a different situation from the DePaul U speech.

Face it: your guy goofed up.

Moe Lane

PS: Oh, yes: Feel free to examine the group here, and tell me with a straight face that they like civilian nuclear power. We'll wait.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

The group might not, but Obama has repeatedly talked about his support of nuclear power.

'Course, we knew that already, thanks to the Canadian government's little revelation about his reassurances about NAFTA.

So, what else is he two-faced about, DavidShor?

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

because he doesn't mention nuclear power on his website.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

renewing the Bush tax cuts is going to result in enough windfall to pay for everything Obama is promising.

The money has to come from somewhere, and I agree that somewhere is going to be the US military. Obama seems very confident that we won't need a miltary defense structure that is capable, because the world is going to like him so much they won't attack us.

As you would say, the effectiveness of an education program is not measured by how much money is spent on it.

Obama wants to massively increase the size of the special forces, and increase army funding.

So how can we be sure?

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Considering that your candidate almost became a democrat earlier this decade, I'm not sure what your point is.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I'm not sure if our guys will fit in very well with the UN crowd though... we don't spend time training on things like setting up underage sex slavery rings as the regular UN peacekeeping forces seem to.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman