Rand Paul: Obama Cutting Tomahawk Missile Makes No Sense

[green73]

I'm surprised this hasn't been posted yet...


Exclusive–Rand Paul: Obama Cutting Tomahawk Missile Makes No Sense, Leaves Real Waste Untouched
by Sen. Rand Paul

National Defense is the most important job of the Federal Government, one that can't be done elsewhere.

I believe in a strong national defense. I believe in Ronald Reagan’s policy of "Peace through Strength." I believe there are many ways to achieve savings in all aspects of our budget, including the Pentagon. But for America to remain strong and at peace, we must cut smartly and from the right places.

In the current budget, the Obama Administration called for the elimination of the Tomahawk missile. This missile protects our troops and allows us to avoid much direct person-to-person combat. Our navy has depended heavily on them.

Now President Obama wants to get rid of them rather than do the harder work of finding the waste and fraud in our bloated Pentagon bureaucracy. This is a mistake and will weaken our defenses.

Obama’s fiscal year budget for 2015 would make significant cuts to the Tomahawk program and would eliminate it completely by 2016. There are reportedly no plans to replace it with another comparable weapon, or any weapon, for that matter.

If President Obama had plans for next-generation weaponry that might take the place of Tomahawks that would be one thing, but giving up such an essential combat tool without such a plan is dangerous and quite frankly, baffling.

Nobody wants to cut spending, including Pentagon waste and abuse, more than me. I agree with former Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen who has said that the greatest threat to our national security is the national debt.

But I don’t want to cut weapons that have been integral to maintaining a strong military.

We should retain our strength and strategic advantages while looking for ways to reform the Pentagon and cut waste.

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) has identified nearly $70 billion in waste--everything from studying flying dinosaurs to making beef jerky--that somehow qualifies as Department of Defense spending. The $128 million President Obama plans to cut next year from the Tomahawk program could easily be replaced by cutting some of this $70 billion we are wasting right now.

Tomahawk missiles keep us strong, while beef jerky does not.

I’ve also sponsored an Audit the Pentagon bill. Not just to cut needless spending, but because dollars allocated for defense purposes should actually be used to defend our country.

We can have a better military and a better defense, including all the weaponry our armed forces need, if we learn how to cut waste, fraud, and abuse, and end our nation building overseas.

Our priority should be defending our country, not policing others.

President Obama refuses to confront both waste and bad strategic choices of recent years, and instead focuses on a weapons program with a proven track record. It just doesn’t make sense.

America should be a country that is always reluctant to go to war and that only goes to war constitutionally through a declaration by Congress. But if the time comes when our security or interests are threatened, the United States must always be ready to fight and win, decisively and quickly.

You would expect the President of the United States to understand this, but in jettisoning the Tomahawk program, he clearly doesn’t.

I have chastised those in my party who treat Pentagon spending as sacrosanct in the same way many Democrats view domestic spending as untouchable. With a $17 trillion national debt, both parties must give up the notions that any spending is sacrosanct.

But those cuts must be smart cuts. Reckless Washington spending shouldn’t now be replaced by reckless cuts.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/03/25/Tomahawk-Strong-Defense

[dillo]

Sorry but if we don't have enough "defense" with that monster they call a budget then we are fucked. The defense budget could be cut in half and we wouldn't see any greater threat to national security, except for the MIC that would probably false flag an attack to show what a mistake weve made. This super military policy is the same attitude that has perpetuated to our local law enforcement, and its fucking sickening.

[fr33]

Can't cut anything can we? We can just talk about it but when the time comes to do it, can't do shit.

[TaftFan]

And it looks like his point is already flying over peoples heads...

[asurfaholic]

Wow this is perfect

[GunnyFreedom]

I am a pretty extreme noninterventionist, but I am also a military veteran...and not just a "my own half acre" guy. Rand is right, Tomahawks and hellfires are pretty much the last projects you want to cut if you are a fiscal conservative. The ROI is enormous on these systems. If Obama cuts these, then he will be saving 1/100 of 1% just to later make a 5% increase to replace these weapons systems.

Just because you, individually, oppose aggression does not make it hypocritical for you, personally, to own a gun. Cutting the DOD budget is absolutely critical. Starting those cuts here is pretty stupid.

Either Obama wants to increase spending in the development of NEW missile systems, OR he is intentionally cutting programs that ought to be LAST on the list rather than FIRST, because he knows they won't pass and he ultimately doesn't actually want cuts, or in an attempt to distance people like Rand from his noninterventionist base on the (apparently correct) presumption that noninterventionists by and large will not have a working knowledge on system priorities.

As for me, I think DOD budget needs to be cut by about half. That's not a joke. And in that 50% cut, I would NOT touch tomahawks and hellfires. These programs are already paid for, and they fulfill roles that are not filled by other systems. If Obama gets his way it means we either lose certain capabilities, or ultimately increase spending to replace those systems.

[green73]

We've all seen how important Tomahawks are to our national defense in places like Iraq and Libya.

[GunnyFreedom]

We've all seen how important Tomahawks are to our national defense in places like Iraq and Libya.

aaaand I can use a pistol to mug and murder. That doesn't mean that mugging and murdering are the proper use for a pistol.

[phill4paul]

I believe there are two different missiles now in the works, but at least a decade away. The "Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM)" and the X51.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?447370-U-S-Hypersonic-Missile-Designed-To-Strike-Anywhere-In-World-In-3-Hours

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/LRASM.html

[specsaregood]

Either Obama wants to increase spending in the development of NEW missile systems, OR he is intentionally cutting programs that ought to be LAST on the list rather than FIRST, because he knows they won't pass and he ultimately doesn't actually want cuts

Probably both.

[GunnyFreedom]

Let me put it another way that maybe folks can understand.

I want to save money. Spark plugs cost money and they have to be replaced occasionally. So I remove the spark plugs from my car and throw them away. YAAAY! I just saved money.

Only not really. Now I either have to walk, which means I am late for work and get fired, take the bus or a taxi, which ends up costing more than the gas for my car did, or buy a new and different set of spark plugs to make my car run again.

Just because someone recognizes THIS cut as stupid, does not make them a war hawk.

[green73]

aaaand I can use a pistol to mug and murder. That doesn't mean that mugging and murdering are the proper use for a pistol.

The US showed in WW2 that they have no compunction in mass murdering civilians writ large. So why are Tomahawks needed, other than to make bigger profits for the MIC in evil and inane conflicts with the 3rd world?

[GunnyFreedom]

Probably both.

I think that is accurate.

[GunnyFreedom]

The US showed in WW2 that they have no compunction in mass murdering civilians writ large. So why are Tomahawks needed, other than to make big profits for the MIC in evil and inane conflicts with the 3rd world?

Are you accusing me of supporting the mass murder of civilians, or are you claiming that we used Tomahawk missiles in WW2?

The Tomahawk program is already paid for. Scrapping it means that now there will be a new program, and a new Defense Contractor will get new Trillions of dollars.

[GunnyFreedom]

I believe there are two different missiles now in the works, but at least a decade away. The "Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM)" and the X51.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?447370-U-S-Hypersonic-Missile-Designed-To-Strike-Anywhere-In-World-In-3-Hours

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/LRASM.html

Right. The point exactly. You want to save money then keep the Tomahawk and scrap THIS boondoggle.

[phill4paul]

And as an addendum to my earlier post I believe that we probably have enough in our arsenal now to last 10 years. As long as we don't waste any in any enterprise that is not directly related to the legitimate defense of the U.S.

[green73]

Are you accusing me of supporting the mass murder of civilians, or are you claiming that we used Tomahawk missiles in WW2?

No, sir. I'm simply saying the US would be all to happy to nuke a "bona fide" threat. Tomahawks are simply money makers for techno-wars (http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/u-s-military-defeated-in-vietnam/).


The Tomahawk program is already paid for. Scrapping it means that now there will be a new program, and a new Defense Contractor will get new Trillions of dollars.

I'm just glad Rand is on the case.

[GunnyFreedom]

No, sir. I'm simply saying the US would be all to happy to nuke a "bona fide" threat. Tomahawks are simply money makers for techno-wars (http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/u-s-military-defeated-in-vietnam/).

aaaaand we've got like 5000 active nuclear missiles that are not Tomahawks. If that is really your primary concern, then they should have started THERE and not the Tomahawk. The only thing that can come from cutting Tomahawks and Hellfires is going to be MORE spending and MORE war. Because no sooner than we replace those systems, neocons left and right will get itchy trigger fingers to try out their new toys and make sure they work in a real war.

If more spending and more war is what you want, then you are right to cheer the dismantling of these programs.

I, for one, want less spending and less war. But then I'm not prone to knee-jerk reactions without a thorough understanding of the situation at hand.


I'm just glad Rand is on the case.

So am I. If US policy was driven by people who refuse to educate themselves on the nature and the substance of the issues before them, we'd end up with a country that looks a lot like the United States circa 2014.

[phill4paul]

Gunny, feel free to educate. My understanding is that the Tomahawk may be moving past it's prime. Countries like Russia already employ STA anti-cruise missile systems and India is supposed to be developing the most advanced yet. From what I understand the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) will be receiving the funding that was originally supposed to be spent on the Tomahawks and that the next gen are needed to thwart the STA systems that have been developed to combat the Tomahawks. Am I wrong on any of this. I admit I haven't really kept current. So if my understanding is lacking then I would appreciate your input.

[lib3rtarian]

ah, Rand-can't-mention-anything-less-than-the-complete-dismantling-of-all-900-military-bases-overnight-or-he-is-a-neocon crowd. For heaven's sake, read the article. So couple of things:

1) This is typical Obama stuff. Ask him to cut anything, and he puts the most efficient and least expensive item on the chopping block, which sends everyone into a tizzy.

"Imagine a government agency with only two tasks:
(1) building statues of Benedict Arnold and (2) providing life-saving medications to children. If this agency's budget were cut, what would it do?

The answer, of course, is that it would cut back on the medications for children. Why? Because that would be what was most likely to get the budget cuts restored. If they cut back on building statues of Benedict Arnold, people might ask why they were building statues of Benedict Arnold in the first place." - Thomas Sowell.

2) Rand needs some cover to battle the isolationist label, and this is a good one.

3) Rand does say that the Pentagon budget needs to be cut and points out $70 BILLION of stupid stuff you can actually cut first.

[GunnyFreedom]

Gunny, feel free to educate. My understanding is that the Tomahawk may be moving past it's prime. Countries like Russia already employ STA anti-cruise missile systems and India is supposed to be developing the most advanced yet. From what I understand the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) will be receiving the funding that was originally supposed to be spent on the Tomahawks and that the next gen are needed to thwart the STA systems that have been developed to combat the Tomahawks. Am I wrong on any of this. I admit I haven't really kept current. So if my understanding is lacking then I would appreciate your input.

Oh no, you are mostly correct. Tomahawk is indeed past it's prime. But, at this point the kinds of nations that have an effective defense against it (Russia, China) are the kinds of countries that if we go to war with it's pretty much over for the planet, so it doesn't much matter which weapons systems are deployed. The one part that IS wrong is the idea that the money spent on future tomahawks will cover the development of the new system. That is probably the rhetoric that Lockheed Martin is spreading, and warhawk congress critters are parroting it, so it's reasonable to pick up, but that notion does not survive close scrutiny.

In order to develop a missile, you have to do lots of testing. Destructive testing. Just launching the things at nothing and letting them crash into the empty desert will cost more than the Tomahawk maintenance and replacements over the next 10-20 years, nevermind the development and engineering staff, facilities, R&D work.

Remember, Lockheed Martin is also responsible for the F-35 boondoggle. What are we at now, 100....times....the original cost estimate?

[green73]

aaaaand we've got like 5000 active nuclear missiles that are not Tomahawks. If that is really your primary concern, then they should have started THERE and not the Tomahawk. The only thing that can come from cutting Tomahawks and Hellfires is going to be MORE spending and MORE war. Because no sooner than we replace those systems, neocons left and right will get itchy trigger fingers to try out their new toys and make sure they work in a real war.

If more spending and more war is what you want, then you are right to cheer the dismantling of these programs.

I, for one, want less spending and less war. But then I'm not prone to knee-jerk reactions without a thorough understanding of the situation at hand.

So you are saying that Rand is being most humane by keeping intact these weapon systems that have been used exclusively in the evil invasions on 3rd world countries, because any cuts to these arsenals will not be cuts overall but redistributions of the same funds to the same military industrial complex for other assorted productions of evil. Well, then I guess we should keep the tomahawks. Freedom!


So am I. If US policy was driven by people who refuse to educate themselves on the nature and the substance of the issues before them, we'd end up with a country that looks a lot like the United States circa 2014.

Is that so? Hmmm. I challege you to watch the link to technowars I made above. It's gripping stuff. Here's the book:
http://www.amazon.com/Perfect-War-Technowar-Vietnam-Military/dp/0871137992/lewrockwell

[GunnyFreedom]

"The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is $163 billion over budget, seven years behind schedule, and will cost taxpayers about twice as much as sending a man to the moon."

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/f-35-fighter-plane-costs-103579.html

These are the same guys tasked to replace the Tomahawk.

If I can do my best Carnak the Magnificent impression...

http://reho.st/http://dharmatown.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/QA.jpg

The year is 2026, the new anti-ship missile is plagued by failures and overruns, and now it is expected it may be 2035 before the missile is operational. The aging Tomahawk fleet that stopped receiving parts and replacements a decade previously is now defunct and not operational. Some kind of war pops up (legitimate or illegitimate who knows) and we discover that we actually need cruise missiles. So we sink $690 Billion dollars in to reviving the Tomahawk program we know works, while continuing the develop the new anti-ship missile that we know doesn't work.

End of the day, all we've really managed to accomplish is to throw away a few extra Trillion dollars for no real reason.

[green73]

You've convinced me, Gunny. We need the Tomahawks. Now, if we could just find the next country to use them on!

[specsaregood]

Randal proposes cutting $70Billion of identified wasteful non-defense spending in the "defense budget" instead of a 124Million on a proven technology that is arguably constitutional in the realm of national defense. He further proposes auditing the pentagon in order to cut more spending, ending nation building and policing overseas. And yet he gets criticized by the peanut gallery.

[GunnyFreedom]

So you are saying that Rand is being most humane by keeping intact these weapon systems that have been used exclusively in the evil invasions on 3rd world countries, because any cuts to these arsenals will not be cuts overall but redistributions of the same funds to the same military industrial complex for other assorted productions of evil. Well, then I guess we should keep the tomahawks. Freedom!

Yes, because more war and more spending is clearly the best way to express peace and freedom, :rolleyes:

If there ever was a legitimate war against the United States, where the US Military were legitimately used in the defense of this nation, then the Tomahawk would be one of the most important weapons in our arsenal. We could eliminate the enemies weapon production facilities within days or weeks, would would make the defense of the United States go a lot better.

Not that you seem to care about actual truth and facts and such inconvenient things.

A standoff long range missile capability is absolutely required for 21st century warfare. Eliminating the only weapon system we have to provide that capability will inevitably lead to more spending on another system to fill that gap. That's just reality, like "the Earth orbits the sun." You can like the reality or hate the reality, it's not going to affect it in any way.

What you are advocating leads to MORE spending, MORE debt, and MORE bloodshed.

What Rand is advocating leads to LESS spending, LESS debt, and LESS bloodshed.

Just because you can't wrap your mind around it doesn't change the basic fact of how it works.


Is that so? Hmmm. I challege you to watch the link to technowars I made above. It's gripping stuff. Here's the book:
http://www.amazon.com/Perfect-War-Technowar-Vietnam-Military/dp/0871137992/lewrockwell

If they reason anything like you do, then I will pass, thank you. I gave up knee-jerking for lent.

[GunnyFreedom]

You've convinced me, Gunny. We need the Tomahawks. Now, if we could just find the next country to use them on!

That's horrible. Why would you do that?

[GunnyFreedom]

Rand proposes cutting $70Billion of identified wasteful non-defense spending in the "defense budget" instead of a 124Million on a proven technology that is arguably constitutional in the realm of national defense. He further proposes auditing the pentagon in order to cut more spending, ending nation building and policing overseas. And yet he gets criticized by the peanut gallery.

Best I can tell is 'radical anarchist' will hate any political action that does not lead to "no government." This action by Rand does not lead to "no government" therefore it is evil, and should be demonized. Even if we have to divorce ourselves from truth to do it.

[willwash]

Love 'em or hate 'em, Gunny, but the old guard Ron Pauliticians are what got this movement started and they are frankly anti-military and that's never going to change. It's an irrational overreaction to the corruptions and excesses of our current military.

I think their argument is identically analogous (and flawed for the same reasons) to that of atheists pointing to the Spanish Inquisition and Salem witch trials as justification for their non belief.

[green73]

If they reason anything like you do, then I will pass, thank you. I gave up knee-jerking for lent.

Yeah and you're brilliant at missing my points. Keep your head in the sand, remained fixed to outdated and sentimental notions of US defense. God forbid, but if the US ever goes to war with Russia or Chinia, I will be glad that they will have their Tomahawk missiles. You win!

[idiom]

Tomahawks are ridiculously over-priced. But they do allow you to reach out and touch someone without all those moral qualms.

Cut the NSA for a strong Defense! Stop the NSA from poking holes in America's National Defenses.

[green73]

Love 'em or hate 'em, Gunny, but the old guard Ron Pauliticians are what got this movement started and they are frankly anti-military and that's never going to change. It's an irrational overreaction to the corruptions and excesses of our current military.

I think their argument is identically analogous (and flawed for the same reasons) to that of atheists pointing to the Spanish Inquisition and Salem witch trials as justification for their non belief.

Deep, deep analysis.

[dannno]

Beef jerky makes ME strong, Rand :rolleyes:

[GunnyFreedom]

Love 'em or hate 'em, Gunny, but the old guard Ron Pauliticians are what got this movement started and they are frankly anti-military and that's never going to change. It's an irrational overreaction to the corruptions and excesses of our current military.

I think their argument is identically analogous to that of atheists pointing to the Spanish Inquisition and Salem witch trials as justification for their non belief.

I may not have been a member of RPF's until November, but I was actively pushing Ron Paul by March of 2007. I'm pretty sure I qualify as 'old guard.' My experience is totally different from yours.

Nearly ALL Ron Paulers from the beginning have been radical non-interventionists and anti-aggressionists, myself included; but if I had to guess...less than 1/3 of 1% of Paulers -- even from the very beginning -- have been radical anti-military types. Now, they make enough noise like they are 10% of us, but that noise belies their actual numbers. IMHO they certainly did not get this movement started, rather they are among the factors that have been holding this movement back.

I have no doubt that noninterventionism would have gained far more ground by now, if we had not been beset by whack-job lunatics calling every man and woman what strapped on a uniform baby killers and such.

I by and large agree with your assessment in the 2nd half, except that to a legitimate anarcho-capitalist it is not really 'irrational' at all. It may be wrong to be sure, but at least it's reasoned out and internally consistent.

[GunnyFreedom]

Yeah and you're brilliant at missing my points. Keep your head in the sand, remained fixed to outdated and sentimental notions of US defense. God forbid, but if the US ever goes to war with Russia or Chinia, I will be glad that they will have their Tomahawk missiles. You win!

LMAO talk about missing points. Rand Paul's point flew over your head like a U-2 at cruise, as well as mine clearly are also.

You do what Obama has suggested, what YOU are backing, and more people die in foreign lands. I get that you just can't see it. Rand Paul is saving the lives of foreign babies by taking the position he is taking here. I get that you do not understand how that works.

In this thread, YOU are advocating the position that will lead to more spending and more war. RAND is advocating the position that leads to less spending and less war.

I have explained to you several times why that is so, and you appear to have chosen to overlook it, or you do not have the background to understand the line of reasoning in context.

So I will try and make this easier.

If you take Barack Obama's side of this, then you are pushing for more spending and more war.

If you take Rand Paul's side of this, then you are pushing for less spending and less war.

Just because you cannot conceive how the micro leads to the macro does not give you the right to insinuate that Rand or anybody else here is a warmonger. When you do, all you are doing is pointing out your own ignorance.

[GunnyFreedom]

Tomahawks are ridiculously over-priced. But they do allow you to reach out and touch someone without all those moral qualms.

Cut the NSA for a strong Defense! Stop the NSA from poking holes in America's National Defenses.

Oh they sure are overpriced! You know what's even more over-priced? Developing a whole new cruise missile from scratch, by the same company that brought us the F-35.

And yeah, there are $70 to $100 Billions to cut from the annual budget easily before you even look at the stuff that actually works and WOULD have a legitimate use if the military actually defended the US.

[fr33]

Tomahawks and hellfires seem to be 2 of the most effective weapons to wreak havok in unconstitutional pre-emptive wars. I'm no expert but have they ever been used in anything but that? (not including training)

[Rudeman]

Tomahawks and hellfires seem to be 2 of the most effective weapons to wreak havok in unconstitutional pre-emptive wars. I'm no expert but have they ever been used in anything but that? (not including training)

Just because something is used in a wrong/immoral way doesn't mean that thing is bad. That's basically the argument Democrats use to ban guns.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Rand proposes cutting $70Billion of identified wasteful non-defense spending in the "defense budget" instead of a 124Million on a proven technology that is arguably constitutional in the realm of national defense. He further proposes auditing the pentagon in order to cut more spending, ending nation building and policing overseas. And yet he gets criticized by the peanut gallery.

His proposed budgets increase defense spending in year one. He can say he wants to cut spending all he wants, his policy proposals state something else.


Yes, because more war and more spending is clearly the best way to express peace and freedom, :rolleyes:

If there ever was a legitimate war against the United States, where the US Military were legitimately used in the defense of this nation, then the Tomahawk would be one of the most important weapons in our arsenal. We could eliminate the enemies weapon production facilities within days or weeks, would would make the defense of the United States go a lot better.

Not that you seem to care about actual truth and facts and such inconvenient things.

A standoff long range missile capability is absolutely required for 21st century warfare. Eliminating the only weapon system we have to provide that capability will inevitably lead to more spending on another system to fill that gap. That's just reality, like "the Earth orbits the sun." You can like the reality or hate the reality, it's not going to affect it in any way.

What you are advocating leads to MORE spending, MORE debt, and MORE bloodshed.

What Rand is advocating leads to LESS spending, LESS debt, and LESS bloodshed.

Just because you can't wrap your mind around it doesn't change the basic fact of how it works.



If they reason anything like you do, then I will pass, thank you. I gave up knee-jerking for lent.

Speaking of knee jerking...

Here's what will happen if the Tomahawk program isn't cut. The new programs are already set to be funded, and a huge mess will be made about how our defenses are going to be weakened if the Tomahawk program is cut, so the Tomahawk's funding will be restored, and an outdated missile system will continue to be produced and maintained at insane markups. In addition to the new one, which will also be produced and maintained at insane markups.

[fr33]

Just because something is used in a wrong/immoral way doesn't mean that thing is bad. That's basically the argument Democrats use to ban guns.

No it's not the same. Guns are used in a moral way every day for centuries. Name the day when when tomahawks and hellfires were.

[GunnyFreedom]

Tomahawks and hellfires seem to be 2 of the most effective weapons to wreak havok in unconstitutional pre-emptive wars. I'm no expert but have they ever been used in anything but that? (not including training)

We have not had a legitimate Constitutional war since these weapons were invented. However, missiles were used in legitimate wars back to the American Revolution. If we had a legitimate Constitutional war of defense, then Tomahawks and hellfires would be a huge, and legitimate part of that defensive war.

[GunnyFreedom]

No it's not the same. Guns are used in a moral way every day for centuries. Name the day when when tomahawks and hellfires were.

You are begging the question. Americans have never used assault rifles in a Constitutional war either, therefore let's ban them.

[WD-NY]

Rand proposes cutting $70Billion of identified wasteful non-defense spending in the "defense budget" instead of a 124Million on a proven technology that is arguably constitutional in the realm of national defense. He further proposes auditing the pentagon in order to cut more spending, ending nation building and policing overseas. And yet he gets criticized by the peanut gallery.

This! (X 1000)

Do the grumblers amongst us honestly/seriously not grok how rhetorically & politically difficult it is to successfully come off as sounding/being "tough on defense" after spinning making the case for cutting defense spending by $70B in return for $124M in continued spending (on a entirely legitimate use of federal dollars)??

There are probably less than half a dozen politicians in the last half century capable of this level of political judo/jujitsu, and 3 of them = Reagan, Clinton & Obama :cool:

For comparison, here's how Ron made the case:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOKAdFzioZc

[messana]

The Tomahawk program is already paid for. Scrapping it means that now there will be a new program, and a new Defense Contractor will get new Trillions of dollars.

Rand Paul said something different.


Obama’s fiscal year budget for 2015 would make significant cuts to the Tomahawk program and would eliminate it completely by 2016. There are reportedly no plans to replace it with another comparable weapon, or any weapon, for that matter.

[alucard13mm]

Cut the F35. Done.

[GunnyFreedom]

Rand Paul said something different.

Except there IS already such a program as a matter of public record as already covered in this thread, and as a US Senator, I am pretty sure Rand knows it. And even if there weren't, I can all but guarantee you that the US DOD will not let a decade go by without having a cruise missile capability.

[GunnyFreedom]

Cut the F35. Done.

This. Times a million. The F35 is just about the worst if not the absolute worst boondoggle in US military history. The F22 was already paid for when it was scrapped and replaced with the F35 starting from scratch....... oh wait where have I heard that before?

[Feeding the Abscess]

This! (X 1000)

Do the grumblers amongst us honestly/seriously not grok how rhetorically & politically difficult it is to successfully come off as sounding/being "tough on defense" after spinning making the case for cutting defense spending by $70B in return for $124M in continued spending (on a entirely legitimate use of federal dollars)??

There are probably less than half a dozen politicians in the last half century capable of this level of political judo/jujitsu, and 3 of them = Reagan, Clinton & Obama :cool:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOKAdFzioZc

Rand Paul used restoring sequester cuts in his budget (as part of increasing DoD spending) as a talking/selling point in his budget. Why didn't he propose cutting waste from his budget?

[GunnyFreedom]

This! (X 1000)

Do the grumblers amongst us honestly/seriously not grok how rhetorically & politically difficult it is to successfully come off as sounding/being "tough on defense" after spinning making the case for cutting defense spending by $70B in return for $124M in continued spending (on a entirely legitimate use of federal dollars)??

There are probably less than half a dozen politicians in the last half century capable of this level of political judo/jujitsu, and 3 of them = Reagan, Clinton & Obama :cool:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOKAdFzioZc

Thank you, that clip brings back tears of joy! :)

[GunnyFreedom]

Rand Paul used restoring sequester cuts in his budget (as part of increasing DoD spending) as a talking/selling point in his budget. Why didn't he propose cutting waste from his budget?

Because that rhetoric hasn't been working in the last 30 years, so he used different rhetoric to describe his proposed $70Bn in cuts?

[Feeding the Abscess]

Because that rhetoric hasn't been working in the last 30 years, so he used different rhetoric to describe his proposed $70Bn in cuts?

He writes in an op ed that he proposes $70 billion in cuts, and his actual budget increased DoD spending, while rhetorically attacking meager reductions in the rate of increase as harming defense.

Freedom?

[fr33]

You are begging the question. Americans have never used assault rifles in a Constitutional war either, therefore let's ban them.

No. Americans have defended themselves and put food on the table by using assault rifles. Until you and I have access to tomahawks and hellfires then your argument will not hold water. Until that happens it is not comparable to make the gun/missile argument. We're not even talking about banning something like guns. We're talking about cutting spending for something only the government uses.

I would expect you to understand how the MIC works. Right now they lobby for war hawk politicians because they "need" to replace the stockpiles of missiles in order to make money. It is effective because of how monopolies on violence work. Drastic cuts are desperately needed in order to fix this situation.

[GunnyFreedom]

No. Americans have defended themselves and put food on the table by using assault rifles. Until you and I have access to tomahawks and hellfires then your argument will not hold water. Until that happens it is not comparable to make the gun/missile argument. We're not even talking about banning something like guns. We're talking about cutting spending for something only the government uses.

I would expect you to understand how the MIC works. Right now they lobby for war hawk politicians because they "need" to replace the stockpiles of missiles in order to make money. It is effective because of how monopolies on violence work. Drastic cuts are desperately needed in order to fix this situation.

Nations have used rockets for defensive wars since ancient China. It's only when they get fancied up and turned into assault rockets that you have a problem with them. Assault rifles are illegal in the United States, the only people who hunt with them are shooting critters in a war zone for sport. Therefore let's keep the regular rockets that have been used for legitimate defense for thousands of years and ban assault rockets because they are creepy.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I'm fine with this. Between the Pacific/Atlantic, Canada/Mexico, and our Nuclear arsenal, not to mention Naval presence, we're not in any danger of imminent or feasible invasion for....any foreseeable future. Americans are cowardly, paranoid, paternalistic and bellicose. All those together create a thousand fold danger than ever existed. Frankly, the media is far more deleterious to our safety than any so-called foreign power. Now, can we have our taxes cut by apportioned to the hundreds of millions that is being saved by axing the Tomahawks?

[GunnyFreedom]

He writes in an op ed that he proposes $70 billion in cuts, and his actual budget increased DoD spending, while rhetorically attacking meager reductions in the rate of increase as harming defense.

Freedom?

You sure do have a talent for spin. Any budget cuts that start longer than 2 years out are questionable at best. Any cuts that start 5 years out are illegitimate. Rand's budget frontloads DOD spending into year 1 and then starts the cuts in year 2. That's 12 months before the cuts start. Even Ron Paul's standards for future cuts works with that plan.

[fr33]

Nations have used rockets for defensive wars since ancient China. It's only when they get fancied up and turned into assault rockets that you have a problem with them. Assault rifles are illegal in the United States, the only people who hunt with them are shooting critters in a war zone for sport. Therefore let's keep the regular rockets that have been used for legitimate defense for thousands of years and ban assault rockets because they are creepy.

If I was "begging the question" like you accused then you are BEGGING the question even moreso.

You are now defining the assault rifle differently than the Clinton ban did. It's a dumb way to define something though. Every rifle is an assault rifle.

A better solution than you, Rand, or Obama has come up with would be to make it legal for all of us to own rockets. If "shall not be infringed" had not be interpreted to mean "infringe this", we wouldn't even be having this discussion and many wars would not have happened. This has been my whole point even though I didn't explain it thoroughly before. Until that happens I support cutting spending for every weapon of war that I cannot legally own.

[Feeding the Abscess]

You sure do have a talent for spin. Any budget cuts that start longer than 2 years out are questionable at best. Any cuts that start 5 years out are illegitimate. Rand's budget frontloads DOD spending into year 1 and then starts the cuts in year 2. That's 12 months before the cuts start. Even Ron Paul's standards for future cuts works with that plan.

And do you really think Congress would let those cuts go through, or do you think they'd take an emergency vote shortly before they were to take place and restore the funding to previous year's levels plus 7%?

Current year cuts are all that matter.

[GunnyFreedom]

If I was "begging the question" like you accused then you are BEGGING the question even moreso.

Absolutely not. There would appear to be a blind spot in your perception here. "Begging the question" is the name of an informal fallacy in logic where the user presumes the conclusion as a component of their premises.


You are now defining the assault rifle differently than the Clinton ban did.

Absolutely. I do not destroy the English language the way Clinton and Feinstein do.


It's a dumb way to define something though. Every rifle is an assault rifle.

Absolutely not. An "Assault Rifle" is a very specific kind of rifle that has been extensively defined from it's conception with the German sturmgewehr, all the way up until Clinton decided to muddle the language for his personal agenda.

Taking your logic, every rocket is a cruise missile. Does not compute.


A better solution than you, Rand, or Obama has come up with would be to make it legal for all of us to own rockets. If "shall not be infringed" had not be interpreted to mean "infringe this", we wouldn't even be having this discussion and many wars would not have happened. This has been my whole point even though I didn't explain it thoroughly before. Until that happens I support cutting spending for every weapon of war that I cannot legally own.

I am on record on these very forums since 2007 advocating that citizens should be able to own tanks, rockets, and missiles. Where have you been?

[fr33]

I am on record on these very forums since 2007 advocating that citizens should be able to own tanks, rockets, and missiles. Where have you been?
The first step is to defund the monopoly they have.

[GunnyFreedom]

The first step is to defund the monopoly they have.

I have seriously sat here and tried, and I can not see any logical process that starts with "ending a DOD weapon program" and ends with "Joe Citizen is allowed to own one of these."

[fr33]

Absolutely not. There would appear to be a blind spot in your perception here. "Begging the question" is the name of an informal fallacy in logic where the user presumes the conclusion as a component of their premises.


But it's you who have compared my support of cutting government funding to banning firearms. A fallacy in logic indeed.

[GunnyFreedom]

But it's you who have compared my support of cutting government funding to banning firearms. A fallacy in logic indeed.

Ending a DOD weapons program is effectively identical to banning that weapon from the DOD's use. That weapon will no longer exist. That weapon can no longer be used. Soldiers will not be allowed to deploy it. It is effectively banned.

And your statement of "cutting government funding" is disingenuous. Rand's proposal which I support and am herein defending cuts 40-fold more money from the DOD budget than Obama's plan, and you are defending Obama's plan over Rand's. Therefore it is I who am defending budget cuts, while you are defending the higher spending from Obama's plan in order to specifically eliminate the Tomahawk.

[phill4paul]

Oh no, you are mostly correct. Tomahawk is indeed past it's prime. But, at this point the kinds of nations that have an effective defense against it (Russia, China) are the kinds of countries that if we go to war with it's pretty much over for the planet, so it doesn't much matter which weapons systems are deployed. The one part that IS wrong is the idea that the money spent on future tomahawks will cover the development of the new system. That is probably the rhetoric that Lockheed Martin is spreading, and warhawk congress critters are parroting it, so it's reasonable to pick up, but that notion does not survive close scrutiny.

In order to develop a missile, you have to do lots of testing. Destructive testing. Just launching the things at nothing and letting them crash into the empty desert will cost more than the Tomahawk maintenance and replacements over the next 10-20 years, nevermind the development and engineering staff, facilities, R&D work.

Remember, Lockheed Martin is also responsible for the F-35 boondoggle. What are we at now, 100....times....the original cost estimate?

I have highlighted a piece of your post that I believe bears some consideration. The point being, what other country would threaten us enough that we would have a need for more Tomahawk missiles? I do not see a threat the scale of which we would need 3500 Tomahawks.
That said, given the planned upgrades to the Tomahawk, I believe, from additional research, that as far as the budget is concerned the Tomahawk would be the most conservative approach.
Interesting to note, also, is that I have yet to see a quote regarding the above mentioned next-gen cruise missiles is if they are submarine launch capable.

[Anti-Neocon]

Yawn... Rand going for "conservative" cred. He's powerless anyway so let him do it. As far as I know, the Tomahawk has been on the way out for a long time, and its no radical idea that originated with Obama.

[specsaregood]

Yawn... Rand going for "conservative" cred.

He is going for "conservative" cred by proposing auditing the pentagon, cutting $70billion immediately from the DOD budget, stopping policing the world and stopping nation building? Which conservatives are you speaking of?

[Christian Liberty]

I am a pretty extreme noninterventionist, but I am also a military veteran...and not just a "my own half acre" guy. Rand is right, Tomahawks and hellfires are pretty much the last projects you want to cut if you are a fiscal conservative. The ROI is enormous on these systems. If Obama cuts these, then he will be saving 1/100 of 1% just to later make a 5% increase to replace these weapons systems.

Just because you, individually, oppose aggression does not make it hypocritical for you, personally, to own a gun. Cutting the DOD budget is absolutely critical. Starting those cuts here is pretty stupid.

Either Obama wants to increase spending in the development of NEW missile systems, OR he is intentionally cutting programs that ought to be LAST on the list rather than FIRST, because he knows they won't pass and he ultimately doesn't actually want cuts, or in an attempt to distance people like Rand from his noninterventionist base on the (apparently correct) presumption that noninterventionists by and large will not have a working knowledge on system priorities.

As for me, I think DOD budget needs to be cut by about half. That's not a joke. And in that 50% cut, I would NOT touch tomahawks and hellfires. These programs are already paid for, and they fulfill roles that are not filled by other systems. If Obama gets his way it means we either lose certain capabilities, or ultimately increase spending to replace those systems.

I don't know, this sort of thing strikes me as a "the troops come before the rest of us" sort of thing. That said, I guess I can't really expect Rand to start mimicking Laurence Vance and Tom DiLorenzo on these issues.

[AuH20]

You've convinced me, Gunny. We need the Tomahawks. Now, if we could just find the next country to use them on!

Getting angry about inanimate objects isn't any way to go through life. The antis use the same reasoning to disparage gun ownership. With that said, you should save your ridicule for those selecting the targets.

[AuH20]

He is going for "conservative" cred by proposing auditing the pentagon, cutting $70billion immediately from the DOD budget, stopping policing the world and stopping nation building? Which conservatives are you speaking of?

The noise on both sides is deafening and entertaining. The neos state Rand is a hopeless peacenik that refuses to defend America from any threat and then we have some in our stead who are absolutely paranoid about some weapon programs and their function in our arsenal.

[erowe1]

What in the world?

Rand?!

[erowe1]

Here's what Rand should do: propose a compromise, where the federal government eliminates any allocation of tax dollars to the Tomahawk, and they set up a fund that people who want to keep the Tomahawk can donate their own money to for that purpose. And if the fund gets enough money, then they keep the Tomahawk and use that money for it.

[Christian Liberty]

What in the world?

Rand?!

Don't tell me you're actually surprised:)

[georgiaboy]

Are Tomahawks usable on drones?

[Anti-Neocon]

He is going for "conservative" cred by proposing auditing the pentagon, cutting $70billion immediately from the DOD budget, stopping policing the world and stopping nation building? Which conservatives are you speaking of?
The ones that don't think beyond FOX "News" headlines.

[mad cow]

Here's what Rand should do: propose a compromise, where the federal government eliminates any allocation of tax dollars to the Tomahawk, and they set up a fund that people who want to keep the Tomahawk can donate their own money to for that purpose. And if the fund gets enough money, then they keep the Tomahawk and use that money for it.

Yeah,and do the same for school funding,social security,the NSA,CIA,FBI,OSHA,EPA....That'll get him elected. :rolleyes:

[specsaregood]

The ones that don't think beyond FOX "News" headlines.

I have found that Ron Paul supporters are often found to be in the not reading past the headlines group.

[Origanalist]

I have to go with Gunny (and Rand)on this. This is just going to cost more in the long run, there is no way in hell they aren't going to replace them with something much more expensive and unnecessary.

[erowe1]

Yeah,and do the same for school funding,social security,the NSA,CIA,FBI,OSHA,EPA....That'll get him elected. :rolleyes:

The guy he's railing against, the one who apparently wants to cut the Tomahawk without the compromise I suggested... that guy got elected.

[MRK]

Sounds like Rand really wants to be president.

[mad cow]

The guy he's railing against, the one who apparently wants to cut the Tomahawk without the compromise I suggested... that guy got elected.

You should send Rand an email with your suggestion.

[phill4paul]

Are Tomahawks usable on drones?

I believe that would be the Hellfire that is used by drones. A Tomahawk is pretty much the size and double the weight of a drone.

[Origanalist]

Cut the F35. Done.

Speaking of which, I came across this video. Time for a new roll of toilet paper.......


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S95uKJtEa4s

[georgiaboy]

I believe that would be the Hellfire that is used by drones. A Tomahawk is pretty much the size and double the weight of a drone.

yeah, I did a little searching and it seemed to agree with you. I just wondered if the upsurge in drone usage would in any way reduce the need for Tomahawks.

[specsaregood]

I believe that would be the Hellfire that is used by drones. A Tomahawk is pretty much the size and double the weight of a drone.

We took his comment to mean opposite things. I thought he was asking if you could shoot drones down with a tomahawk,

[Brett85]

Great article by Rand. He needs to do more of this; making it clear that you can support a strong national defense without supporting a belligerent foreign policy.

[AuH20]

The guy he's railing against, the one who apparently wants to cut the Tomahawk without the compromise I suggested... that guy got elected.

Progs are a protected species. They can do and say what they want.

[georgiaboy]

We took his comment to mean opposite things. I thought he was asking if you could shoot drones down with a tomahawk,

Oops! ha, yeah, I see how you could interpret that way. phill's interpretation was my intent -- I was trying to figure out if drones could utilize Tomahawks as ordnance.

Since it seems the drones can't carry Tomahawks, maybe that lends support for why they're on the list for cutting, esp. given the rise in drone usage. I'll defer to the experts in this thread, though.

The other interpretation of my question provides counterpoint, though -- if Tomahawks can shoot down drones, why wouldn't we want to keep them?

[AuH20]

risky and wasteful

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obama-Tomahawk-Hellfire-missiles/2014/03/25/id/561604/


The Free Beacon reported that the Tomahawk cuts are shifting money from acquiring the missiles and instead investing in "an experimental missile program that experts say will not be battle-ready for at least 10 years."

[phill4paul]

Oops! ha, yeah, I see how you could interpret that way. phill's interpretation was my intent -- I was trying to figure out if drones could utilize Tomahawks as ordinance.

Since it seems the drones can't carry Tomahawks, maybe that lends support for why they're on the list for cutting, esp. given the rise in drone usage. I'll defer to the experts in this thread, though.

The other interpretation of my question provides counterpoint, though -- if Tomahawks can shoot down drones, why wouldn't we want to keep them?


yeah, I did a little searching and it seemed to agree with you. I just wondered if the upsurge in drone usage would in any way reduce the need for Tomahawks.

Not really. A Predator is basically just a platform to launch from. The Predator works best in a situation were the airspace is controlled. The Tomahawk is a sub-sonic missile designed to penetrate airspace defenses. Though it is becoming less likely to be able to do so. As far as I know and I am no expert.
My initial reaction was that they are becoming dated and new defenses are just around the corner against them. So why not phase them out and apply the monies spent upgrading them towards newer technology. However, it looks like, with upgrades, that they can be viable until 2030 (in most cases).
If this is the case then I have to agree with Rand. Keep what we have. Upgrade it. Slash waste in the meantime and develop the nex-gen a little further down the road after reducing waste costs. I think this is a pragmatic approach.

[GunnyFreedom]

Oops! ha, yeah, I see how you could interpret that way. phill's interpretation was my intent -- I was trying to figure out if drones could utilize Tomahawks as ordinance.

Since it seems the drones can't carry Tomahawks, maybe that lends support for why they're on the list for cutting, esp. given the rise in drone usage. I'll defer to the experts in this thread, though.

The other interpretation of my question provides counterpoint, though -- if Tomahawks can shoot down drones, why wouldn't we want to keep them?

Problem is that drones and cruise missiles are different weapons with totally different purposes. A cruise missile is used against fixed, extremely hardened targets, while a hellfire (drones) are used against mobile and light to medium armored targets. A cruise missile (loaded with conventional warhead) has 10 to 30 times the power of a drone launched missile, and it's concentrated into a single impact. Therefore it can take out things like bunkers and hardened factories.

A drone launched hellfire can take out a tank, but would just leave scorch marks and an easily repairable hole in a tank factory.

A whatever-launched Tomahawk can take out the whole tank factory, but could not be targeted against something mobile like a tank.

They are two totally different weapon systems with completely different purposes. From a military operational and strategic perspective, it would be equivalent to, "I've got plenty of transmission fluid, therefore I don't need to get brake fluid anymore."

[GunnyFreedom]

Not really. A Predator is basically just a platform to launch from. The Predator works best in a situation were the airspace is controlled. The Tomahawk is a sub-sonic missile designed to penetrate airspace defenses. Though it is becoming less likely to be able to do so. As far as I know and I am no expert.
My initial reaction was that they are becoming dated and new defenses are just around the corner against them. So why not phase them out and apply the monies spent upgrading them towards newer technology. However, it looks like, with upgrades, that they can be viable until 2030 (in most cases).
If this is the case then I have to agree with Rand. Keep what we have. Upgrade it. Slash waste in the meantime and develop the nex-gen a little further down the road after reducing waste costs. I think this is a pragmatic approach.

This matches my assessment. Rand's approach is not only more pragmatic, it also saves a metric pluck-ton of money.

[georgiaboy]

Problem is that drones and cruise missiles are different weapons with totally different purposes. A cruise missile is used against fixed, extremely hardened targets, while a hellfire (drones) are used against mobile and light to medium armored targets. A cruise missile (loaded with conventional warhead) has 10 to 30 times the power of a drone launched missile, and it's concentrated into a single impact. Therefore it can take out things like bunkers and hardened factories.

A drone launched hellfire can take out a tank, but would just leave scorch marks and an easily repairable hole in a tank factory.

A whatever-launched Tomahawk can take out the whole tank factory, but could not be targeted against something mobile like a tank.

They are two totally different weapon systems with completely different purposes. From a military operational and strategic perspective, it would be equivalent to, "I've got plenty of transmission fluid, therefore I don't need to get brake fluid anymore."

thanks, G! I figured something like what you describe here was part of the story, but hadn't read it yet in the thread.

[KingNothing]

Are you accusing me of supporting the mass murder of civilians, or are you claiming that we used Tomahawk missiles in WW2?

The Tomahawk program is already paid for. Scrapping it means that now there will be a new program, and a new Defense Contractor will get new Trillions of dollars.

I'm an anarchist. I hate government. I want no government. I want no taxes. I want no military industrial complex. I want no state-sponsored destruction, and I want even less state-sponsored death.

Having said all of that, of all things our federal government spends money on, procuring these missiles is potentially the very last expense that should be cut.

[Feeding the Abscess]

risky and wasteful

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obama-Tomahawk-Hellfire-missiles/2014/03/25/id/561604/

Far from being a stupid, naive, non-forward-thinking neandertal who can't see two inches in front of him, I understand how government works. Keeping the cuts in place leaves the government with thousands of Tomahawk missiles, and no weakened defense capabilities. Restoring the cuts continues a military boondoggle while starting a new one. If the government can't cut an outdated missile system because of national security concerns, what are the chances of an improved system getting the axe? How are you going to pull that one off? Unicorns and rainbows? Fairy dust? Hopes and prayers?

[Brett85]

I'm an anarchist. I hate government. I want no government. I want no taxes. I want no military industrial complex. I want no state-sponsored destruction, and I want even less state-sponsored death.

I'm not trying to criticize you here and get into an argument, but weren't you saying before that we weren't doing enough to try to control the situation in Russia/Ukraine? How does intervention in Ukraine square with anarchism? I just got the impression because of the views that you've advocated that you're not an anarchist.

[Christian Liberty]

I may not have been a member of RPF's until November, but I was actively pushing Ron Paul by March of 2007. I'm pretty sure I qualify as 'old guard.' My experience is totally different from yours.

Nearly ALL Ron Paulers from the beginning have been radical non-interventionists and anti-aggressionists, myself included; but if I had to guess...less than 1/3 of 1% of Paulers -- even from the very beginning -- have been radical anti-military types. Now, they make enough noise like they are 10% of us, but that noise belies their actual numbers. IMHO they certainly did not get this movement started, rather they are among the factors that have been holding this movement back.

I have no doubt that noninterventionism would have gained far more ground by now, if we had not been beset by whack-job lunatics calling every man and woman what strapped on a uniform baby killers and such.

I by and large agree with your assessment in the 2nd half, except that to a legitimate anarcho-capitalist it is not really 'irrational' at all. It may be wrong to be sure, but at least it's reasoned out and internally consistent.

How could a radical non-interventionist and anti-aggressor have anything but contempt for the modern US Military?

Now, I understand that not every person in the military is killing babies, so let's not go there. I'm not saying that. But certainly, joining the military you have to know you MIGHT be deployed to a foreign country and MIGHT have to kill people who are no threat to the US, right?

Why would any libertarian/voluntarist support that?

[Anti Federalist]

Oh...this again.

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view3/4898027/grandpa-simpson-walks-in-then-walks-out-o.gif

[Occam's Banana]

Oh...this again.

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view3/4898027/grandpa-simpson-walks-in-then-walks-out-o.gif

You are wrong, AF! Wrong, wrong, wrong!
You've got it completely bass-ackwards.
It is, in actual fact, this again ... (man! SMH ...)

http://randomgifs.com/images/gsimpson.gif

:p;)

[gusbaker]

I think this is where we seperate the non-interventionist with the fairytale believing pacifists. I agree many things in the military should be scaled back, but I see no reason to cut this, it's just a cheap ploy by Obama, Rand is right. Yes, I know I'm new here, but I have been part of Ron Paul's crowd since 2011, now I'm starting to see where some of those smears against RP supporters come from, some of you are dilusional about the world, we don't need to be aggressive with the world, but we do need to have a strong military.

[kcchiefs6465]

Here's what Rand should do: propose a compromise, where the federal government eliminates any allocation of tax dollars to the Tomahawk, and they set up a fund that people who want to keep the Tomahawk can donate their own money to for that purpose. And if the fund gets enough money, then they keep the Tomahawk and use that money for it.
What a reasonable compromise.

[phill4paul]

I think this is where we seperate the non-interventionist with the fairytale believing pacifists. I agree many things in the military should be scaled back, but I see no reason to cut this, it's just a cheap ploy by Obama, Rand is right. Yes, I know I'm new here, but I have been part of Ron Paul's crowd since 2011, now I'm starting to see where some of those smears against RP supporters come from, some of you are dilusional [sic] about the world, we don't need to be aggressive with the world, but we do need to have a strong military.

Second post and you insult forum members. Nice.

[kcchiefs6465]

I wonder how many have seen the bodies of Al Majalah.

Peace through strength, huh?

They couldn't separate the goat from the children so they buried them all in a mass grave.

http://i.imgur.com/mr7Ri2S.jpg

Pay for that shit yourself.

[gusbaker]

Second post and you insult forum members. Nice.

What does my post count have to do with anything? If I say the sun is shining does my post count make it any more or less true? Sorry, I don't spend my life hanging out here. If I was rude it's because I've spent the last 3yrs fighting against the "isolationist" "pacifist" meme thinking it was just political hacks taking cheap shots at RP supporters, reading the few topics I have here maybe those attacks weren't so far off, but hey, if this is another one of those sites that judge the value of someone's statement on how much time they spend on the internet, you can always ban me, but I speak my mind.

[phill4paul]

What does my post count have to do with anything? If I say the sun is shining does my post count make it any more or less true? Sorry, I don't spend my life hanging out here. If I was rude it's because I've spent the last 3yrs fighting against the "isolationist" "pacifist" meme thinking it was just political hacks taking cheap shots at RP supporters, reading the few topics I have here maybe those attacks weren't so far off, but hey, if this is another one of those sites that judge the value of someone's statement on how much time they spend on the internet, you can always ban me, but I speak my mind.

Meh, not my site. I can't ban shit. I just think it a bit rude to jump on a new forum and start insulting members. That's just me though. Carry on.

[jtstellar]

What does my post count have to do with anything? If I say the sun is shining does my post count make it any more or less true? Sorry, I don't spend my life hanging out here. If I was rude it's because I've spent the last 3yrs fighting against the "isolationist" "pacifist" meme thinking it was just political hacks taking cheap shots at RP supporters, reading the few topics I have here maybe those attacks weren't so far off, but hey, if this is another one of those sites that judge the value of someone's statement on how much time they spend on the internet, you can always ban me, but I speak my mind.

do speak your mind

[Vanguard101]

I think this is where we seperate the non-interventionist with the fairytale believing pacifists. I agree many things in the military should be scaled back, but I see no reason to cut this, it's just a cheap ploy by Obama, Rand is right. Yes, I know I'm new here, but I have been part of Ron Paul's crowd since 2011, now I'm starting to see where some of those smears against RP supporters come from, some of you are dilusional about the world, we don't need to be aggressive with the world, but we do need to have a strong military.
This^



We have anarchists on this website?


Meh, not my site. I can't ban shit. I just think it a bit rude to jump on a new forum and start insulting members. That's just me though. Carry on.

If you a mod and you banned him, I would consider you a statist

[phill4paul]

If you a mod and you banned him, I would consider you a statist

This is my concerned face.

[Crashland]

What does my post count have to do with anything? If I say the sun is shining does my post count make it any more or less true? Sorry, I don't spend my life hanging out here. If I was rude it's because I've spent the last 3yrs fighting against the "isolationist" "pacifist" meme thinking it was just political hacks taking cheap shots at RP supporters, reading the few topics I have here maybe those attacks weren't so far off, but hey, if this is another one of those sites that judge the value of someone's statement on how much time they spend on the internet, you can always ban me, but I speak my mind.

Hey welcome to the forum. As you can see we are a very diverse group. If you hang around you will learn to embrace the frustration. Hit em hard if you want but try to keep it reason-based and not personal if you can. I sometimes disagree strongly with some people here on some issues but half the time in the next topic we could be on the same side.

On the topic at hand, I don't think tomahawk missiles would be the first thing I would cut from the military, but I would gladly scale back the missiles if it came with other cuts and not policing the world.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

I'm an anarchist. I hate government. I want no government. I want no taxes. I want no military industrial complex. I want no state-sponsored destruction, and I want even less state-sponsored death.

Having said all of that, of all things our federal government spends money on, procuring these missiles is potentially the very last expense that should be cut.

http://ofmusingsandwonderings.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/you-keep-using-that-word1.jpg

[NIU Students for Liberty]

we don't need to be aggressive with the world, but we do need to have a strong military.

Then you pay for it.

[mad cow]

Then you pay for it.

If you want schools,You pay for them.
See how that works?

[gusbaker]

Then you pay for it.

I will, but if you think you're just going to sit here and hide behind the protection of the military I pay for you're mistaken, doesn't work that way.



Hey welcome to the forum. As you can see we are a very diverse group. If you hang around you will learn to embrace the frustration. Hit em hard if you want but try to keep it reason-based and not personal if you can. I sometimes disagree strongly with some people here on some issues but half the time in the next topic we could be on the same side.

On the topic at hand, I don't think tomahawk missiles would be the first thing I would cut from the military, but I would gladly scale back the missiles if it came with other cuts and not policing the world.

Thank you, and OK, I will apologize, my post may have been a bit rude, I guess a better question to ask then for those who say we should get rid of the tomahawk because it has been used improperly: Tell me, what weapon hasn't our military used improperly? Which one's do you want to keep, which do you want to get rid of? Or are you suggesting the military should go altogether?

Do you honestly believe that without Tomahawks our govt will stop it's aggression? Do you really think there aren't a laundry list of weapons at the govts disposal that could do just as much if not more damage? How many of you have fired and M-60? I don't mean to steal another posters thunder but I completely agree with the person who said this argument is the same as the liberals who think banning assault weapons will stop gun crime.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

If you want schools,You pay for them.
See how that works?

And where did I say I was against privatizing education?

[Cabal]

If you want schools,You pay for them.
See how that works?

Are you assuming he wouldn't be willing to pay for his own education, or that of his friends/family; or that he wouldn't be willing to voluntarily contribute to a school in his community?


I will, but if you think you're just going to sit here and hide behind the protection of the military I pay for you're mistaken, doesn't work that way.

So, instead you will support taking money by force to pay for what military you deem necessary to those who you would take money from?

[NIU Students for Liberty]

I will, but if you think you're just going to sit here and hide behind the protection of the military I pay for you're mistaken, doesn't work that way.

Haha please. If I'm going to be hiding behind protection, it's because I'm going to be as far away from the military as possible.

[mad cow]

And where did I say I was against privatizing education?

Good,although you don't seem to mind eating at the trough in the meantime.

I am also for privatizing all schools,but I'm not an Anarchist.I'm a strict Constitutionalist,like Ron Paul,and I think not only is National Defense Constitutional,it is one of the Federal Government's most important duties under the Constitution.

And BTW,I think Federal spending for education is UNConstitutional.

[gusbaker]

So, instead you will support taking money by force to pay for what military you deem necessary to those who you would take money from?

Haha, wording is something isn't it? I would support people paying for something they receive the benefits of. I don't approve of most of what our military does but if you think other nations wouldn't swoop in and conquer us and kill or oppress you without our military, well, I'll go back to my first comment, you are delusional, you don't want a military or to live under it's protection, fine, you guys save up, buy yourselves an island and leave your fate to the mercy of the rest of the world, let me know how that works for ya.

Hey, I'm up to 5 posts, this goes quick.

[AuH20]

Haha, wording is something isn't it? I would support people paying for something they receive the benefits of. I don't approve of most of what our military does but if you think other nations wouldn't swoop in and conquer us and kill or oppress you without our military, well, I'll go back to my first comment, you are delusional, you don't want a military or to live under it's protection, fine, you guys save up, buy yourselves an island and leave your fate to the mercy of the rest of the world, let me know how that works for ya.

Hey, I'm up to 5 posts, this goes quick.

So comes reality like a brick to the face. I hate the entire government structure, but let's cut to the chase. Without any military capabilities, we'd be colonized and exploited rather quickly. Trading one master for another. That's not to say that you write a blank check to the MIC either.

[Crashland]

Do you honestly believe that without Tomahawks our govt will stop it's aggression? Do you really think there aren't a laundry list of weapons at the govts disposal that could do just as much if not more damage? How many of you have fired and M-60? I don't mean to steal another posters thunder but I completely agree with the person who said this argument is the same as the liberals who think banning assault weapons will stop gun crime.

I'm inclined to agree. Whether we have money going to the tomahawk missiles is basically irrelevant compared to the way the military is actually *used*, but it makes for a convenient talking point for Rand to help guard against the isolationism/no military attacks, I guess. Although when you consider the sheer numbers on how much we spend on our military...we could cut the military budget in half and still be spending twice as much money as the next highest military spender which is China.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Good,although you don't seem to mind eating at the trough in the meantime.

What the fuck are you talking about? I graduated from college and paid for tuition myself.

[Feeding the Abscess]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa_Rica

[mad cow]

What the fuck are you talking about? I graduated from college and paid for tuition myself.

Are you not a public school teacher?

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Haha, wording is something isn't it? I would support people paying for something they receive the benefits of. I don't approve of most of what our military does but if you think other nations wouldn't swoop in and conquer us and kill or oppress you without our military, well, I'll go back to my first comment, you are delusional, you don't want a military or to live under it's protection, fine, you guys save up, buy yourselves an island and leave your fate to the mercy of the rest of the world, let me know how that works for ya.

Hey, I'm up to 5 posts, this goes quick.

So I take it you're a big fan of Obamacare since after all, you should be forced to pay for something you receive the benefits of (health insurance).

And who are these nations that are going to swoop in and conquer us? If Afghan "freedom fighters" could bring down the Soviets and the U.S. military, as well as their economies, I'm pretty sure the American gun culture can hold its own.

Oh, and please elaborate on your "If you don't like it, you can giiit out" argument! I haven't heard that one before :rolleyes:

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Are you not a public school teacher?

Yes but according to your logic, I should just hold my breath and wait for the government to end its monopolization on education. Oh wait, I guess I can breathe come August since I will be teaching at a private school.

And in the grand scheme of things, don't compare tax-funded teachers to tax-funded war mongers.

[mad cow]

Yes but according to your logic, I should just hold my breath and wait for the government to end its monopolization on education. Oh wait, I guess I can breathe come August since I will be teaching at a private school.

And in the grand scheme of things, don't compare tax-funded teachers to tax-funded war mongers.

No,according to my logic,if one is an Anarchist,one could get one of the millions of jobs that don't envolve public school teaching.You might have to give up some of your toys,of course.

Who in this entire thread,let alone me,say they were in favor of war mongers?

[Cabal]

Haha, wording is something isn't it? I would support people paying for something they receive the benefits of. I don't approve of most of what our military does but if you think other nations wouldn't swoop in and conquer us and kill or oppress you without our military, well, I'll go back to my first comment, you are delusional, you don't want a military or to live under it's protection, fine, you guys save up, buy yourselves an island and leave your fate to the mercy of the rest of the world, let me know how that works for ya.

Hey, I'm up to 5 posts, this goes quick.

I'm not sure why you're straw manning here. I didn't deny that foreign threats to the U.S. exist, nor did I suggest that I did or did not want a military (or some form of security, or defense), nor did I comment on whether or not the U.S. needs military defenses. So, setting the straw man aside, I think my point still stands. You have apparently come to a determination about what military defenses (or offenses) you believe are necessary and you seem to think it's perfectly acceptable to force other people to pay for them, whether they agree with your determination or not, lest they be 'free riders' of a sort. Isn't that correct? And your basis for this seems to revolve around some possible future. What other demands and aggression might also be rationalized by the same logic?

What island would you suggest someone buy? Isn't this just a version of the "love it or leave it" mentality? Isn't this a mentality that often extends from social contract theory? Why are my only options to conform and comply to your demands or leave? Why isn't not being forced to pay for things you want one of my options? What authority do you believe yourself to have over me, or anyone else to make such ultimatums and demands?

[NIU Students for Liberty]

No,according to my logic,if one is an Anarchist,one could get one of the millions of jobs that don't envolve public school teaching.You might have to give up some of your toys,of course.

Who in this entire thread,let alone me,say they were in favor of war mongers?

Why would I have to quit my job and find something else? Am I a strong arm for the government, pushing their propaganda? Nope.

There is absolutely nothing in any society that is untouched by government, so technically, everyone here is a hypocrite for criticizing the government, including Ron Paul.

And who here is in favor of war mongers you ask? Those who want to force me to pay for a military that destroys societies, not protects them.

[mad cow]

There is absolutely nothing in any society that is untouched by government, so technically, everyone here is a hypocrite for criticizing the government, including Ron Paul.

And who here is in favor of war mongers you ask? Those who want to force me to pay for a military that destroys societies, not protects them.

Ron Paul and I are not Anarchists,we are Strict Constitutionalists.We have no problem with Constitutionally authorized and Federally financed jobs such as Member of the House of Representatives or Air Force Officer,for instance,both of which I guess you think destroy societies.

[Brett85]

This is one of the better things Rand has said recently. He's finally making it clear that he wants to replace an interventionist/belligerent foreign policy with a policy of simply having a strong national defense. He needs to keep presenting alternatives to foreign intervention, to show that you can be in favor of a strong national defense without supporting overseas intervention.

[jtstellar]

This is one of the better things Rand has said recently. He's finally making it clear that he wants to replace an interventionist/belligerent foreign policy with a policy of simply having a strong national defense. He needs to keep presenting alternatives to foreign intervention, to show that you can be in favor of a strong national defense without supporting overseas intervention.

but that's not what the trolls are saying.. so who is right? i wonder, i wonder..

[jtstellar]

something mods may want to consider is that when argument level stoops to such, rather than engaging people it will disengage. it ends up trolls taking up most of the talk volume and it may feel daunting 'making space' for others, but sometimes the occupation of such space is why useful talk doesn't happen in the first place.

[Vanguard101]

This is one of the better things Rand has said recently. He's finally making it clear that he wants to replace an interventionist/belligerent foreign policy with a policy of simply having a strong national defense. He needs to keep presenting alternatives to foreign intervention, to show that you can be in favor of a strong national defense without supporting overseas intervention.
I never understood why people honestly think our national security is at risk if we aren't overseas with foreign intervention. If we have the bigger weapon, which we do, no entity is going to attack us.

[kcchiefs6465]

I never understood why people honestly think our national security is at risk if we aren't overseas with foreign intervention. If we have the bigger weapon, which we do, no entity is going to attack us.
To be clear, the Tomahawk Cruise missile is not the bigger weapon of which you refer.

Spending some 55% of the world's total on defense (offense), close to a trillion dollars yearly when it's all said and done, to provide the means for psychopaths and terrorists the ability to incinerate Bedouin villages, funerals, and weddings. We are not safer for that. People are, and the children who've lived through such tragedy, will take up arms against us on an unprecedented level. It is and will further become perpetual war. It won't be some country that declares war. It will be individuals taking up arms.

Six of the Cruise Missiles launched towards Al Majalah. The government of Yemen taking the responsibility. Undeniable proof that the weapons were American (and violating of Arms Conventions). A journalist imprisoned. Mediators Hellfired. War crimes. Rand Paul must think he'll be president forever or that the people are suddenly going to up and educate themselves.

No, we do not need the Tomahawk Cruise Missile. No, it is not National Defense. This thread is evidence of why nothing will ever be cut.

As Abscess has already mentioned, they are going to build the new missiles regardless. Some of those here would be wise to pick up a book on the military industrial complex and their welfare schemes.

[KingNothing]

I'm not trying to criticize you here and get into an argument, but weren't you saying before that we weren't doing enough to try to control the situation in Russia/Ukraine? How does intervention in Ukraine square with anarchism? I just got the impression because of the views that you've advocated that you're not an anarchist.

I'm absolutely an anarchist. But we have a government right now, and so does Russia. While we do have a government, those who dictate policy within it should maneuver morally, economically, and politically to isolate potential threats and to limit the potential actions of foreign governments that do not have our best interest in mind. In almost every case, I would take that to mean minding our own business. Had we done that from the jump, the situation in Crimea would probably be entirely different. Instead, however, our president did absolutely nothing after pumping millions of dollars into the nation to up-end it politically. There are so many things that could have been done without any military involvement whatsoever to prevent this from happening, had Obama acted quickly and intelligently, but he didn't, as is usually the case when he is forced to act geopolitically.

[kcchiefs6465]

In almost every case, I would take that to mean minding our own business. Had we done that from the jump, the situation in Crimea would probably be entirely different. Instead, however, our president did absolutely nothing.
That is the most mind blowing thing I've ever read.

[KingNothing]

That is the most mind blowing thing I've ever read.

Why? We spent millions of dollars in an attempt to install a puppet government then had our bluff called and simply said "ehh, you got me!" It was a lousy, immoral, weak, stupid, half-measure. Obama played this horrifically. And now we'll have to see what happens to Estonia, Latvia, Azerbaijan, and Poland as time goes on. It is not difficult at all to imagine them eventually being annexed by Putin.

I'd prefer to not revisit the Cold War. Humanity being on the brink of nuclear annihilation is not something to take lightly.

[KingNothing]

Best I can tell is 'radical anarchist' will hate any political action that does not lead to "no government." This action by Rand does not lead to "no government" therefore it is evil, and should be demonized. Even if we have to divorce ourselves from truth to do it.

I hate all political action that doesn't lead immediately to "no government," but I don't hate all political action equally. There are stupid, wasteful, immoral things that our government can do, and there are some pragmatic and useful things our government can do. Hacking away at the few pragmatic things our government does first is just ridiculous. Let's end the wars. Let's bring our troops home. Let's stop bailing out corporations. Let's stop giving handouts to billionaires. Let's put an end to the prison-industrial complex and call off the War on Drugs. Let's do ALL of those things before we decide to cut our budget on missiles.

I don't understand why we can't be principled AND utilitarian at the same time. Let's stop doing the awful things first. Not only are they what is hurting us the most, but we have to expend the least political capital in those areas. Then, once we've made gains there, focus on the other stuff. We aren't getting to an anarchist utopia overnight, but if we go about this intelligently, we could get there in a generation or two!

[KingNothing]

http://ofmusingsandwonderings.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/you-keep-using-that-word1.jpg

I will never advocate for increased spending, I will never advocate for increased taxes, and I will never advocate for increased regulation. I will always advocate for spending cuts, I will always advocate for tax cuts, and I will always advocate for deregulation. I will also, however, target my criticisms and narrow my focus to the worst things our government does, first. Purchasing Tomahawk missiles is not even close to the worst thing our government does. It isn't even in the top 1,000 bad-things our government does!

[AuH20]

I hate all political action that doesn't lead immediately to "no government," but I don't hate all political action equally. There are stupid, wasteful, immoral things that our government can do, and there are some pragmatic and useful things our government can do. Hacking away at the few pragmatic things our government does first is just ridiculous. Let's end the wars. Let's bring our troops home. Let's stop bailing out corporations. Let's stop giving handouts to billionaires. Let's put an end to the prison-industrial complex and call off the War on Drugs. Let's do ALL of those things before we decide to cut our budget on missiles.

I don't understand why we can't be principled AND utilitarian at the same time. Let's stop doing the awful things first. Not only are they what is hurting us the most, but we have to expend the least political capital in those areas. Then, once we've made gains there, focus on the other stuff. We aren't getting to an anarchist utopia overnight, but if we go about this intelligently, we could get there in a generation or two!

There are too many 'whole enchilada' types. With that said, politics can only accomplish so much, given the manner in which the system is constructed. Ironically, there have been checks and balances set in place to make sure it cannot be disassembled so easily.

[gusbaker]

So I take it you're a big fan of Obamacare since after all, you should be forced to pay for something you receive the benefits of (health insurance).

And who are these nations that are going to swoop in and conquer us? If Afghan "freedom fighters" could bring down the Soviets and the U.S. military, as well as their economies, I'm pretty sure the American gun culture can hold its own.

Oh, and please elaborate on your "If you don't like it, you can giiit out" argument! I haven't heard that one before :rolleyes:

Seeing as how Govt Healthcare is not in the Constitution and a military for defense is, I'd say your argument is quite silly. Likewise what benefit do I receive from Obamacare? My premiums when UP $300. If you are an anarchist, well, sorry friend, America was not founded to be an anarchist society, so yeah, the "giiiit out" argument is quite relevant here.

Sorry, but you and your shotgun could not defeat the Soviet or Chinese military. Geography and will of the people had much to do with the success in Afghanistan, not to mention "victory" is a relative term, many Afghans died (continue to die) and suffered in those wars, I'd rather a nuclear threat prevent a war than have to win one the hard way personally.



I'm not sure why you're straw manning here. I didn't deny that foreign threats to the U.S. exist, nor did I suggest that I did or did not want a military (or some form of security, or defense), nor did I comment on whether or not the U.S. needs military defenses. So, setting the straw man aside, I think my point still stands. You have apparently come to a determination about what military defenses (or offenses) you believe are necessary and you seem to think it's perfectly acceptable to force other people to pay for them, whether they agree with your determination or not, lest they be 'free riders' of a sort. Isn't that correct? And your basis for this seems to revolve around some possible future. What other demands and aggression might also be rationalized by the same logic?

What island would you suggest someone buy? Isn't this just a version of the "love it or leave it" mentality? Isn't this a mentality that often extends from social contract theory? Why are my only options to conform and comply to your demands or leave? Why isn't not being forced to pay for things you want one of my options? What authority do you believe yourself to have over me, or anyone else to make such ultimatums and demands?

Lol, Ok, so you agree we need a military, but you don't want to pay for it? I'm not asking you to conform to MY demands, I would say that if you are an American citizen, the rules set forth in America were dictated in the Constitution which clearly lists one of the functions of govt is to have a military and also the ability to tax for said military, if you want to call paying for a service "force" so be it. Is our military being used in unconstitutional ways, of course, isn't that what we're trying to change? My "love it or leave it" as you put it was is nowhere near the Social Contract argument since 1. there is no social contract in the Constitution 2. I receive no benefit from the social contract the way in which you receive the benefit of protection from the military.

[Cabal]

Lol, Ok, so you agree we need a military, but you don't want to pay for it?

.........Do you read before you reply?



I'm not asking you to conform to MY demands, I would say that if you are an American citizen, the rules set forth in America were dictated in the Constitution which clearly lists one of the functions of govt is to have a military and also the ability to tax for said military, if you want to call paying for a service "force" so be it.

You're right, you're not asking, but then I never said you were asking. You're expecting, and demanding. Asking would be far too voluntary and cooperative for your tastes, it seems.

"Dictated by the Constitution"? You seem to have the Constitution confused with an animate entity that is capable of action. What does the Constitution matter, really? If the Constitution 'dictated' that all first born sons must be sacrificed on the alter of Zool, would that mean we should sacrifice first sons on the alter of Zool? I don't ever recall granting the piece of parchment known as the Constitution any authority over me--see Lysander Spooner for further reading.

This isn't about paying for a service. If I want my car washed, I choose when I want it washed, where I want it washed, how I want it washed, who I want to wash it, and how much money I'm willing to pay for the wash. That is paying for a service. Taxation to fund military is not at all similar. Rather, it's the State demanding money from me at gun point to spend as they see fit. They don't ask me for my money, they take it. They don't care what I'd like to spend that money on, they decide what they spend my money on. They don't shop around for the most satisfying deal according to my preferences, they use my money to grease the hands of special interests according to their preferences. And to top it all off, people are usually dying in the meantime because of my money. This isn't a "service" I'm "paying for," it's a homicidal scam I'm being robbed for.


My "love it or leave it" as you put it was is nowhere near the Social Contract argument since 1. there is no social contract in the Constitution 2. I receive no benefit from the social contract the way in which you receive the benefit of protection from the military.

....Are you serious right now? You just got through arguing from the basis of social contract, and now you're going to sit there and deny it? Lol.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Seeing as how Govt Healthcare is not in the Constitution and a military for defense is, I'd say your argument is quite silly. Likewise what benefit do I receive from Obamacare? My premiums when UP $300. If you are an anarchist, well, sorry friend, America was not founded to be an anarchist society, so yeah, the "giiiit out" argument is quite relevant here.

Sorry, but you and your shotgun could not defeat the Soviet or Chinese military. Geography and will of the people had much to do with the success in Afghanistan, not to mention "victory" is a relative term, many Afghans died (continue to die) and suffered in those wars, I'd rather a nuclear threat prevent a war than have to win one the hard way personally..

Ok fine. Now you're forced to fund coverage for someone who previously did not have insurance. What's the problem? That person gets to benefit from a service that the government is now forcing everyone to have! And according to the Supreme Court, it's constitutional.

You're a "constitutionalist" so sorry "friend", America wasn't founded on a bullshit social contract theory, seeing as how the Constitution was forced onto the people in 1789. The difference between people like you and anarchists like me is that you want to use force to get your way. Under anarchy, you're allowed to form your own "constitutional republic" so long as everyone in your realm consents.

And yes, me and millions of gun owners could defeat the Soviets or the Chinese (again, why are they invading?) seeing as how the geography of the U.S. is more advantageous than Afghanistan (surrounded by oceans on both sides, varied climates and landscape). What would nuking us accomplish? The Chinese and Soviets would not only destroy their labor supply but also natural resources that they'd profit off of (assuming they're planning on colonizing what used to be the U.S.). Not to mention the fact that their economic resources would be drained if they invaded. If a significantly smaller and poorer region like Afghanistan could take down two economic superpowers, I like our chances when it comes to guerrilla warfare.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

I will never advocate for increased spending, I will never advocate for increased taxes, and I will never advocate for increased regulation. I will always advocate for spending cuts, I will always advocate for tax cuts, and I will always advocate for deregulation. I will also, however, target my criticisms and narrow my focus to the worst things our government does, first. Purchasing Tomahawk missiles is not even close to the worst thing our government does. It isn't even in the top 1,000 bad-things our government does!

Didn't you just bash Obama for not intervening enough in Ukraine? You are not an anarchist.

[kcchiefs6465]

Why? We spent millions of dollars in an attempt to install a puppet government then had our bluff called and simply said "ehh, you got me!" It was a lousy, immoral, weak, stupid, half-measure. Obama played this horrifically. And now we'll have to see what happens to Estonia, Latvia, Azerbaijan, and Poland as time goes on. It is not difficult at all to imagine them eventually being annexed by Putin.

I'd prefer to not revisit the Cold War. Humanity being on the brink of nuclear annihilation is not something to take lightly.
Well, your post is less contradictory after your edit. How do you reconcile your anarchism with advocating for a top down authoritarian approach to things such as economics, and even politics? Why should a group of self-interested plunderers decide with whom I can or cannot do business with? Why do you assume them to be wise enough to speak for all?

What is NATO? And why is it still here? Why are American missile defense systems in Poland? To protect us from the Iranians? Why do we spend seven times more on our military than Russia? Why are our bases surrounding that country? Why do we antagonize their allies? Why do we antagonize them? Why does the NSA spy the world over? Why are we funding a coup in Ukraine? The sanctions, war rhetoric, war games, and positioning of our Navy aside.

Yet I am to believe that Russia is the problem. They do not concern me. At all. Afghanistan would be child's-play compared to the shear logistics of launching an attack on America. What do people think, we are all going to be speaking Russian? Here? Die a free and moral man, if that is the case. But I can assure you, that it is not. This propaganda is only used as a means to enrich a select few.

It's absurd.

[gusbaker]

.........Do you read before you reply?



You're right, you're not asking, but then I never said you were asking. You're expecting, and demanding. Asking would be far too voluntary and cooperative for your tastes, it seems.

"Dictated by the Constitution"? You seem to have the Constitution confused with an animate entity that is capable of action. What does the Constitution matter, really? If the Constitution 'dictated' that all first born sons must be sacrificed on the alter of Zool, would that mean we should sacrifice first sons on the alter of Zool? I don't ever recall granting the piece of parchment known as the Constitution any authority over me--see Lysander Spooner for further reading.

This isn't about paying for a service. If I want my car washed, I choose when I want it washed, where I want it washed, how I want it washed, who I want to wash it, and how much money I'm willing to pay for the wash. That is paying for a service. Taxation to fund military is not at all similar. Rather, it's the State demanding money from me at gun point to spend as they see fit. They don't ask me for my money, they take it. They don't care what I'd like to spend that money on, they decide what they spend my money on. They don't shop around for the most satisfying deal according to my preferences, they use my money to grease the hands of special interests according to their preferences. And to top it all off, people are usually dying in the meantime because of my money. This isn't a "service" I'm "paying for," it's a homicidal scam I'm being robbed for.



....Are you serious right now? You just got through arguing from the basis of social contract, and now you're going to sit there and deny it? Lol.

You are a riot. So we're back to my point, you don't like America, but you want to live in America and enjoy the benefits that being in this society provides, kinda silly isn't? You didn't write or sign the Constitution that much I give you, but that's tough luck for you, it's what this nation you were so unfortunate to be born in was intended to be governed by, don't think you're going to find your ideal society ever, anywhere on this planet.

Sorry friend, that's life, there will always be rules you don't like, no society will ever be 100% what you want or what I want, the only options you have is to get your own island or move out in to the woods as I said, and there you will subjected to the harshest rules of all: Mother Nature. Really this argument is pointless, what you're advocating will NEVER happen, people have always formed societies, they've drawn boundaries, and built up defenses for those boundaries, you will never have your Utopia. You can work towards something practical or sit around with your pie in the sky dreams. Have fun.

[gusbaker]

Ok fine. Now you're forced to fund coverage for someone who previously did not have insurance. What's the problem? That person gets to benefit from a service that the government is now forcing everyone to have! And according to the Supreme Court, it's constitutional.

You're a "constitutionalist" so sorry "friend", America wasn't founded on a bullshit social contract theory, seeing as how the Constitution was forced onto the people in 1789. The difference between people like you and anarchists like me is that you want to use force to get your way. Under anarchy, you're allowed to form your own "constitutional republic" so long as everyone in your realm consents.

And yes, me and millions of gun owners could defeat the Soviets or the Chinese (again, why are they invading?) seeing as how the geography of the U.S. is more advantageous than Afghanistan (surrounded by oceans on both sides, varied climates and landscape). What would nuking us accomplish? The Chinese and Soviets would not only destroy their labor supply but also natural resources that they'd profit off of (assuming they're planning on colonizing what used to be the U.S.). Not to mention the fact that their economic resources would be drained if they invaded. If a significantly smaller and poorer region like Afghanistan could take down two economic superpowers, I like our chances when it comes to guerrilla warfare.

OK there drama queen. Obamacare is nothing like the Constitution, that's wrong for so many reasons. As for you not wanting the Constitution, see my reply to your friend above. Yes, I will use force on you to make you pay for services you receive, I receive no services from Obamacare so your argument is just plain stupid. Look, I understand, I was 16 once full of angst, but you'll grow out of it and realize living in society will never be perfect for anyone, there are always tradeoffs, you don't like it, I'll once again say, go make your own country but you are living fantasy world if you think anarchism will ever see the light of day, conservatives will never agree to getting rid of the military, and the liberals will slam the door in your face the moment you mention the word "privatize", so I will wish you much luck in beating your head against the wall with your absurd philosophy.

Oh, as for foreign invaders, hmmm, I don't know, why did the Europeans invade America? Why didn't the Cherokee and Lakota stop them? The Soviets invaded, or excuse me, committed "police actions" all around the world at the height of their power, why would anyone trade with us when we have no Army and they could just take it by force? But then again, who is "us", who will be fighting this war of yours? You want no borders, no countries, no govt, no military. Likewise, apparently you didn't read, I didn't say guerrilla warfare couldn't work, I was very clear that it would be extremely difficult and cost millions of lives, the Afghans may "win" but at a terrible price, sorry, but I don't think you would want to live in the kind of conditions found in Afghanistan.

[Cabal]

You are a riot. So we're back to my point, you don't like America, but you want to live in America and enjoy the benefits that being in this society provides, kinda silly isn't? You didn't write or sign the Constitution that much I give you, but that's tough luck for you, it's what this nation you were so unfortunate to be born in was intended to be governed by, don't think you're going to find your ideal society ever, anywhere on this planet.

Sorry friend, that's life, there will always be rules you don't like, no society will ever be 100% what you want or what I want, the only options you have is to get your own island or move out in to the woods as I said, and there you will subjected to the harshest rules of all: Mother Nature. Really this argument is pointless, what you're advocating will NEVER happen, people have always formed societies, they've drawn boundaries, and built up defenses for those boundaries, you will never have your Utopia. You can work towards something practical or sit around with your pie in the sky dreams. Have fun.

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/9e/9ee1cfb8a4fc259d6ead995189273b85f059c4773614283a94 553ef7363dffc7.jpg

I'm embarrassed for you right now.

[kcchiefs6465]

OK there drama queen. Obamacare is nothing like the Constitution, that's wrong for so many reasons.
Obamacare was found to be Constitutional. A majority, somewhere, though they can't be named individually, nor are they liable for actions undertaken at their supposed behest, agreed to it. And with that, it is the law.

Are you aware of the Three/Fifth's Clause? The Fugitive Slave Clause?

What is like the Constitution? They ignore the most of it and dance around the rest. Not to mention it was flawed since its inception. If you look into the matter more deeply and with an unbiased eye, I can assure you that you will draw the same conclusion.



As for you not wanting the Constitution, see my reply to your friend above.
Most aren't against the Constitution, but be aware that you are obligated to pay for past debts. We are talking over a hundred thousand dollars per working American. That is before the further sinking of another generation with unpayable, soon to be collapsing, debt.

Who does the money go to, I wonder?



Yes, I will use force on you to make you pay for services you receive, I receive no services from Obamacare so your argument is just plain stupid.
I can appreciate how frankly you speak. Some here do agree with you but they side step and avoid coming right out and stating it as bluntly as you have. I often inform them that the same will be done to them. That is, they'll, as well as you or I will be forced to pay for things that we do not want or need simply through majority decree. They'll use, or rather advocate their agents to use, force all the same.

And the SCOTUS will approve of it. If not now then in due time. Words are bastardized and the Framer's original intent ignored or explained away as old fashioned or antique.



Look, I understand, I was 16 once full of angst, but you'll grow out of it
You do your arguments no favors with this sort of rhetoric. Especially here, where most are well read and educated.



[....] and realize living in society will never be perfect for anyone, there are always tradeoffs, you don't like it, I'll once again say, go make your own country but you are living fantasy world if you think anarchism will ever see the light of day,
And as much, true freedom will never see the light of day. I'll refrain from Biblical prophecy and simply remind all of the facts. One specific fact, Iraq is poisoned for eternity. The two-headed babies and anancephalic horrors, you'd be wise not to state what will not see the light of day. After all, it is your global entrenched plunderers who were the culprit when uranium dust clouds poisoned a people's offspring.



[...] conservatives will never agree to getting rid of the military,
They are often not conservative. And the people you are speaking of are dying off.



[...] and the liberals will slam the door in your face the moment you mention the word "privatize",
Their collectivism is as tyrannous as any becomes. I wonder what your solution is, considering that you are stuck on the same sailed boat. (that is, absent a total collapse and economic calamity, this is not going to change.. After all, "conservatives will never agree to getting rid of the military" and, "liberals will slam the door in your face the moment you mention the word 'privatize'")



[....] so I will wish you much luck in beating your head against the wall
As I do to you.


[...] with your absurd philosophy.
It is not absurd to feel that people do not need a master. Perhaps people are wired differently, though.



Oh, as for foreign invaders, hmmm, I don't know, why did the Europeans invade America? Why didn't the Cherokee and Lakota stop them?
Because they didn't have high capacity magazines.



The Soviets invaded, or excuse me, committed "police actions" all around the world at the height of their power, why would anyone trade with us when we have no Army and they could just take it by force?
The pot shots from the mountains, trees, slopes, etc. would be devastating to any army. Let them try.

Have you read War is a Racket by Smedley Butler? How much fuel do you figure it would take for Russia to launch an invasion here of any meaningful significance?



But then again, who is "us", who will be fighting this war of yours?
First, private defense, militias and the sort are not advocated against. A standing army is.

"Us" would be everyone who wanted to, or had an interest in, defending their property and this land.



You want no borders, no countries, no govt, no military.

The Framers were for open borders and no standing army. They understood both led to peace and prosperity.

As to no government, there is always governance. Voluntary would be the key aspect necessary for righteousness and freedom. Hey, if it's such a good thing, you won't have a problem getting people to voluntarily pay for it, right?

It's uncanny how it is the best thing since sliced bread, yet everyone must be forcibly stolen from to fund it.



Likewise, apparently you didn't read, I didn't say guerrilla warfare couldn't work, I was very clear that it would be extremely difficult and cost millions of lives, the Afghans may "win" but at a terrible price, sorry, but I don't think you would want to live in the kind of conditions found in Afghanistan.
It didn't cost the Afghans millions of lives. Sure, many were made refugees and many did die, but 'millions' dead is a blatant exaggeration.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

OK there drama queen. Obamacare is nothing like the Constitution, that's wrong for so many reasons. As for you not wanting the Constitution, see my reply to your friend above. Yes, I will use force on you to make you pay for services you receive, I receive no services from Obamacare so your argument is just plain stupid. Look, I understand, I was 16 once full of angst, but you'll grow out of it and realize living in society will never be perfect for anyone, there are always tradeoffs, you don't like it, I'll once again say, go make your own country but you are living fantasy world if you think anarchism will ever see the light of day, conservatives will never agree to getting rid of the military, and the liberals will slam the door in your face the moment you mention the word "privatize", so I will wish you much luck in beating your head against the wall with your absurd philosophy.

Oh, as for foreign invaders, hmmm, I don't know, why did the Europeans invade America? Why didn't the Cherokee and Lakota stop them? The Soviets invaded, or excuse me, committed "police actions" all around the world at the height of their power, why would anyone trade with us when we have no Army and they could just take it by force? But then again, who is "us", who will be fighting this war of yours? You want no borders, no countries, no govt, no military. Likewise, apparently you didn't read, I didn't say guerrilla warfare couldn't work, I was very clear that it would be extremely difficult and cost millions of lives, the Afghans may "win" but at a terrible price, sorry, but I don't think you would want to live in the kind of conditions found in Afghanistan.

How is Obamacare nothing like the Constitution? The mandate was upheld on the grounds that since it was a tax (if you forgo purchasing insurance, you pay a fine to the IRS), it falls within the power of Congress to tax, granted by none other than the Constitution. Oh, and if you don't like the Supreme Court's decision, you know what you can do? Leave.

You can make all the arguments you want about how the Supreme Court misinterpreted it but as it stands, the Constitution, this document that you champion, has done nothing to restrain government. In fact, it has only strengthened the scope and power of the federal government since its implementation. If American society as a whole was to be "governed", we were better off under the Articles of Confederation. And you never responded to my previous point that although you personally do not stand to benefit from Obamacare, someone else who previously could not afford coverage can now. It's the same premise as the military. I don't benefit from its services seeing as how it steals from me in order to destroy whole societies. But you sound like a liberal who supports universal health care. You may not be sick now but you never know, so you should be forced to pay for insurance that you MAY need in the future.

Moving onto the topic of the European conquest of the Americas, tribes failed to stop them because of two things: germs and steel (immune deficiencies being the number one killer). I'm fairly certain that medical technology has improved since the 1500s. And once again, how would these superpowers stand to benefit from using force instead of relying on free trade? They would waste more money and manpower trying to invade and maintain control rather than allowing their own private businesses to interact freely. The system you support relies on killing and theft. Anarchy isn't a utopia but it certainly brings human beings closer to peace than a 200 year old piece of paper that might as well be collection of ad-libs that the government uses to fit its vision of which party is in control at that time.

[fr33]

Having said all of that, of all things our federal government spends money on, procuring these missiles is potentially the very last expense that should be cut.
Why? Please explain why.

Every single missile launched by the US military in my lifetime was a complete waste of our money.

When it was done in training, we had to pay for the munitions, the land it was used on, and all the salaries of those pushing buttons and giving orders. When it was done in war, we not only had to pay for those things, but also sacrificed our safety to people and their descendants that hate us for doing it. No missile in my life was ever launched for a moral reason. Every one of them built in my life was nothing but a drain on my well-being.

[mad cow]

Why? Please explain why.

Every single missile launched by the US military in my lifetime was a complete waste of our money.

When it was done in training, we had to pay for the munitions, the land it was used on, and all the salaries of those pushing buttons and giving orders. When it was done in war, we not only had to pay for those things, but also sacrificed our safety to people and their descendants that hate us for doing it. No missile in my life was ever launched for a moral reason. Every one of them built in my life was nothing but a drain on my well-being.

Every bullet fired,bomb dropped,artillery,mortar or tank round or missile launched in anger overseas in my lifetime has been a complete waste of money and Unconstitutional IMO,and I'm a lot older than you are.

However,I've got no problem with practice rounds expended for training the various troops who might have to know how to use them if and when,God forbid, a just Constitutional war declared by Congress erupts.

I feel the same way about my many self-defense weapons,Please Lord,don't ever make me have to use them.
But meanwhile, I'm going to practice.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Every bullet fired,bomb dropped,artillery,mortar or tank round or missile launched in anger overseas in my lifetime has been a complete waste of money and Unconstitutional IMO,and I'm a lot older than you are.

However,I've got no problem with practice rounds expended for training the various troops who might have to know how to use them if and when,God forbid, a just Constitutional war declared by Congress erupts.

I feel the same way about my many self-defense weapons,Please Lord,don't ever make me have to use them.
But meanwhile, I'm going to practice.

You paid for your weapons. How did the State acquire its weapons?

[KingNothing]

Why? Please explain why.

Every single missile launched by the US military in my lifetime was a complete waste of our money.


I agree. But that is the same as blaming a glock for gun crime! The problem is our foreign policy and the people running it. Not the weapons we have to defend ourselves.

[gusbaker]

@NIU and Cabal: I get the feeling you guys would argue this to infinity if you could, I didn't bother reading your replies (except the Jackie one, pretty cool) as I imagine it's just more of the same, here is a video featuring anarchy vs constitutional govt, he pretty much argues my point, I also list a quote below from one of the comments on that video. There's my stance, you don't agree with it, fine, you promote things how you wish, I'll do the same but this the last I have to say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DTwWYUyBxU

"every human government started out with anarchy, and then they chose government. humans choose government again and again and again. whether we need the government or not is a different issue, but humans ALWAYS choose it.

question for anarchists: in the system of anarchy, what is to stop people from simply creating their own governments (people always do) even if they don't call it a government, someone always rises to power in a community. either they are a good person and rule the best they can and still royally screw it up, or they are a bad person and lead through fear and intimidation and make things worse.

people want leaders, they demand leaders, and psychopathic leaders (1% of the population is psychopathic) know how to lead through intimidation, or rise to power even if the people don't want it through manipulation.

can someone explain how this seemingly unavoidable course of events can be avoided in an anarchist system without initiating force?"

[gusbaker]

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/9e/9ee1cfb8a4fc259d6ead995189273b85f059c4773614283a94 553ef7363dffc7.jpg

I'm embarrassed for you right now.


How dare you bring Jackie Chan into this.

[phill4paul]

How dare you bring Jackie Chan into this.

It's Buddhwin's Law. Similar to Godwin's Law. But, not.

[Occam's Banana]

How dare you bring Jackie Chan into this.


It's Buddhwin's Law. Similar to Godwin's Law. But, not.

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/002260503/1620742673_532dd66d_mind_blown_xlarge.jpeg

[Cabal]

@NIU and Cabal: I get the feeling you guys would argue this to infinity if you could, I didn't bother reading your replies

This isn't surprising, hence my previous question:


.........Do you read before you reply?

As far as I can tell, you've done nothing but ignore and straw man. Hence, Jackie Chan @ u.

[r3volution 3.0]

In my experience, most of my fellow non-interventionists have a very weak grasp on the nuts and bolts of military affairs. Question: do those of you criticizing Rand here have any idea about the relative costs and capabilities of different types of military forces? If the DoD budget were cut to $200 billion per year, for example, and you were given the power to decide how that money is spent, would you know what to do? Do you know the annual operating cost of a carrier battle group? How would you estimate the number of fighter squadrons required to defend US airspace? What is your opinion on AIP diesel submarines compared to the SSN? ...if you're drawing a blank here, you need to learn more about the concrete details of military affairs. I'm not trying to attack anyone, rather I'm pleading with you: please, learn more about military matters. Non-interventionism will never take root again in this country if the only plan offered by non-interventionists is "um, cut stuff, a lot of stuff." We will be rightfully laughed out of the debate. We need detailed plans, and that means we need to understand the details of how a modern military works.

[GunnyFreedom]

In my experience, most of my fellow non-interventionists have a very weak grasp on the nuts and bolts of military affairs. Question: do those of you criticizing Rand here have any idea about the relative costs and capabilities of different types of military forces? If the DoD budget were cut to $200 billion per year, for example, and you were given the power to decide how that money is spent, would you know what to do? Do you know the annual operating cost of a carrier battle group? How would you estimate the number of fighter squadrons required to defend US airspace? What is your opinion on AIP diesel submarines compared to the SSN? ...if you're drawing a blank here, you need to learn more about the concrete details of military affairs. I'm not trying to attack anyone, rather I'm pleading with you: please, learn more about military matters. Non-interventionism will never take root again in this country if the only plan offered by non-interventionists is "um, cut stuff, a lot of stuff." We will be rightfully laughed out of the debate. We need detailed plans, and that means we need to understand the details of how a modern military works.

My plan cuts between 40-50% of DOD spending overall, and leaves us with a higher readiness, faster response time, better capability for force projection, and eliminates personnel equipment and material fatigue. That's actual, not rhetoric. When I talk to a Defence Hawk Conservative, I lead with the higher readiness and faster response time.

[r3volution 3.0]

My plan cuts between 40-50% of DOD spending overall, and leaves us with a higher readiness, faster response time, better capability for force projection, and eliminates personnel equipment and material fatigue. That's actual, not rhetoric. When I talk to a Defence Hawk Conservative, I lead with the higher readiness and faster response time.

I've appreciated your comments in this thread Gunny, and I got the distinct impression that you're one of the minority of us who understands the details.

I have a plan as well, to cut the budget to ~$150 billion per year. We should compare our plans sometime. :-)

P.S. Actually, let's just do that here and now (compare plans).

What does the USN look like in your plan? Do you retain any of the carriers? If so, why? (I scrap 'em all)

[Cabal]

~$150 billion per year.

Where does your plan intend to receive this money from?

[r3volution 3.0]

Where does your plan intend to receive this money from?

If your point is that all taxation is illegitimate, I agree.

[kcchiefs6465]

In my experience, most of my fellow non-interventionists have a very weak grasp on the nuts and bolts of military affairs. Question: do those of you criticizing Rand here have any idea about the relative costs and capabilities of different types of military forces? If the DoD budget were cut to $200 billion per year, for example, and you were given the power to decide how that money is spent, would you know what to do? Do you know the annual operating cost of a carrier battle group? How would you estimate the number of fighter squadrons required to defend US airspace? What is your opinion on AIP diesel submarines compared to the SSN? ...if you're drawing a blank here, you need to learn more about the concrete details of military affairs. I'm not trying to attack anyone, rather I'm pleading with you: please, learn more about military matters. Non-interventionism will never take root again in this country if the only plan offered by non-interventionists is "um, cut stuff, a lot of stuff." We will be rightfully laughed out of the debate. We need detailed plans, and that means we need to understand the details of how a modern military works.
By all means, lay out your plan.

What does ~ 150B look like with regards to America?

You'd probably alleviate some concerns.

Also, what do you do about the wounded veterans? Their care alone is going to cost more than 150B (though I understand that it is not tallied in the DOD budget).

[r3volution 3.0]

Also, what do you do about the wounded veterans? Their care alone is going to cost more than 150B (though I understand that it is not tallied in the DOD budget).

The $150 billion I cited doesn't include the VA.

Last fiscal year the VA cost $140 billion.

I'm not sure how/if that can be cut, I just haven't looked into it.


By all means, lay out your plan.

What does ~ 150B look like with regards to America?

You'd probably alleviate some concerns.

This is a summary, ask me for further details/justification.


Total Cost = $152.344 billion per year

US Navy

Force


242 SSN
189 SSK
9 SSGN
14 SSBN
4 LSD

various surveillance aircraft (see below)



Cost


O&M + procurement/life per Virginia-Class SSNGN/BN = $132M x 265 = $34.98B
O&M + procurement/life per AIP SSK = $40M x 189 = $7.56B
O&M + procurement/life per dock landing ship = $53M x 4 = $212M
per E-6 = $56.613M total cost x 16 = $906M
per P-3/P-8 = $27.676M total cost x 167 = $4.621B
132 crew SSN/GN/BN, 27 crew SSK, 413 crew LSD, 1:3 tooth:tail = 121,901 personnel
current personnel total is 432,000 with budget of $29.021B
new personnel cost = 28% x $29.021B = $8.125B
USN MILCON FY14 baseline = $1.565 billion
USN R&D FY14 baseline = $10.016 billion (FY14 less items clearly not submarine-related)

Total = $67.985B/year



US Air Force

Force


17 F-22 squadrons (of 25 each)

6 A-10 squadrons (25 each)
90 C-5 (capable of lifting 3 divisions 4000nm in 4 days)
various surveillance aircraft (see below)


Cost


O&M + procurement/life + crew and support personnel per F-22 = $16.248M x 425 = $6.905B

O&M + procurement/life + crew and support personnel per A-10 = $4.784M x 150 = $717M

O&M + procurement/life + crew and support personnel per C-5 = $26M x 90 = $2.34B

per E-3 = $66.792M x 32 =$2.137B

per E-4 = 56.452M x 4 = $226M

per RC-135 = $66.792M x 22 = $1.469B

per WC-135 = $66.792M x 2 = $134M
per U-2 = $3.5M x 26 = $91M
USAF MILCON FY14 baseline = $1.156B
USAF R&D FY14 baseline = $25.702B
Total = $40.877B



US Army

Force


6 reserve divisions



Cost


US ARNG FY14 baseline = $15.415 billion (includes personnel, O&M, MILCON)

US Army FY14 baseline procurement (for its 18 divisions) = $15.961B / 3 = $5.32B

US Army FY14 army baseline R&D = $7.989B

Total = $28.724B/year




US Marine Corps

Force


21 infantry battalions with support (equivalent of 1.75 divisions)



Cost


USMC Green FY14 baseline (for its 3 divisions) = $25.3B / 3 x 1.75 = $14.758B

MILCON and R&D within naval budget

Total = $14.758B



--P.S. Just noticed an error. Under "Navy" and "Cost" the first line is wrong, it says 265, it should read 242, meaning the estimate is slightly higher than it should be. The personnel cost a few lines down is therefore also a little higher than it should be.

[kcchiefs6465]

Thanks for posting that, Revolution.

Interesting, as I'd never really considered what I'd prefer to keep and what I would not. Not as detailed as you have, anyways.

My $150B figure came from the CATO Institute, who was sourced in a book I'd read. There was also a study conducted in '97 or '98 that concluded an adequate military budget, to fight a war twice as large as Desert Storm, was around $275B (my reference isn't handy but I don't think I'm too far off on that source). I also looked at the 1996 budget, which wasn't too long ago when I was considering my position, and I generally assume that at least 50% of a given budget is wasted away in bureaucracy, embezzlement, and fraud.

You are correct though, I should look into the matter more deeply. I don't encounter many who could even tell me what the B-2 is, let alone how much the total cost is per aircraft, but on the off chance I do, I'd rather have a more detailed analysis of what to keep and what to ax as well as specific reasoning why.

Of course, it all should be voluntarily funded and the people who do not wish to pay for it should not be extorted to pay for it. If it doesn't get funded, it doesn't get funded. I'm not particularly worried about another country invading here. The countries close haven't the means and the countries far would not have the means for long (it would be a quagmire the likes to make Afghanistan look 'winnable'). Aside from how devastating it would be for them. It's just nonsensical.

And as well, spending as they've been spending, we ought to be good for a while (I guess if we ever truly find out the magnitude of their crimes, we can determine that for sure). Encouraging free trade and acting from a sense of humility would benefit the world enough. Us being the beacon of hope and freedom would also cause limitations on what dictators and tyrants are able to do to their people. Perhaps their people would not take it. Perhaps the tyrants could be justly overthrown without US complicity in the propping up of them.

This authoritarianism is incompatible with the sustainability of this planet.

[phill4paul]

The $150 billion I cited doesn't include the VA.

Last fiscal year the VA cost $140 billion.

I'm not sure how/if that can be cut, I just haven't looked into it.



This is a summary, ask me for further details/justification.


Total Cost = $152.344 billion per year

US Navy

Force


242 SSN
189 SSK
9 SSGN
14 SSBN
4 LSD

various surveillance aircraft (see below)



Cost


O&M + procurement/life per Virginia-Class SSNGN/BN = $132M x 265 = $34.98B
O&M + procurement/life per AIP SSK = $40M x 189 = $7.56B
O&M + procurement/life per dock landing ship = $53M x 4 = $212M
per E-6 = $56.613M total cost x 16 = $906M
per P-3/P-8 = $27.676M total cost x 167 = $4.621B
132 crew SSN/GN/BN, 27 crew SSK, 413 crew LSD, 1:3 tooth:tail = 121,901 personnel
current personnel total is 432,000 with budget of $29.021B
new personnel cost = 28% x $29.021B = $8.125B
USN MILCON FY14 baseline = $1.565 billion
USN R&D FY14 baseline = $10.016 billion (FY14 less items clearly not submarine-related)

Total = $67.985B/year



US Air Force

Force


17 F-22 squadrons (of 25 each)

6 A-10 squadrons (25 each)
90 C-5 (capable of lifting 3 divisions 4000nm in 4 days)
various surveillance aircraft (see below)


Cost


O&M + procurement/life + crew and support personnel per F-22 = $16.248M x 425 = $6.905B

O&M + procurement/life + crew and support personnel per A-10 = $4.784M x 150 = $717M

O&M + procurement/life + crew and support personnel per C-5 = $26M x 90 = $2.34B

per E-3 = $66.792M x 32 =$2.137B

per E-4 = 56.452M x 4 = $226M

per RC-135 = $66.792M x 22 = $1.469B

per WC-135 = $66.792M x 2 = $134M
per U-2 = $3.5M x 26 = $91M
USAF MILCON FY14 baseline = $1.156B
USAF R&D FY14 baseline = $25.702B
Total = $40.877B



US Army

Force


6 reserve divisions



Cost


US ARNG FY14 baseline = $15.415 billion (includes personnel, O&M, MILCON)

US Army FY14 baseline procurement (for its 18 divisions) = $15.961B / 3 = $5.32B

US Army FY14 army baseline R&D = $7.989B

Total = $28.724B/year




US Marine Corps

Force


21 infantry battalions with support (equivalent of 1.75 divisions)



Cost


USMC Green FY14 baseline (for its 3 divisions) = $25.3B / 3 x 1.75 = $14.758B

MILCON and R&D within naval budget

Total = $14.758B



--P.S. Just noticed an error. Under "Navy" and "Cost" the first line is wrong, it says 265, it should read 242, meaning the estimate is slightly higher than it should be. The personnel cost a few lines down is therefore also a little higher than it should be.

Slide the role of the Air Force back to the Dept. of the Navy. The Navy pilots are better anyway, just ask Danke. Get rid of the standing Army. Get rid of regulations barring citizens from arming themselves. Easily reduced by half.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

I agree. But that is the same as blaming a glock for gun crime! The problem is our foreign policy and the people running it. Not the weapons we have to defend ourselves.

Except I can control who I'm aiming for with a Glock.

[fr33]

I agree. But that is the same as blaming a glock for gun crime! The problem is our foreign policy and the people running it. Not the weapons we have to defend ourselves.

No it really isn't. It would be more like blaming the cost of bullets in target practice for a shooter's poverty. In any case I shouldn't have to fund his hobby. I have no problem with tomahawk missiles themselves. I just have a problem with being forced to pay for someone else's stockpile of them.

[GunnyFreedom]

My proposal is first and fundamentally an operational and policy transformation. It incorporates a proper noninterventionist foreign policy with an upgrade in operational strength. It also provides a structure from which, if we choose so someday, America can reconstitute the Popular Militia. It starts with an upgrade in operational response.

Build a network of secret, semi-secret, honeypot, and public military installations in CONUS, at strategic points along our borders, and on multiple locations within all our possessions and territories. Build a specialized 'structure' of military installation and call it a 'launch pad.'


Each installation having space enough for three battalions of any kind of infantry mechanized and specialized, or combat engineers. One battalion is "in the chamber" for a month, one stays at the ready, the other is off duty and on stand-by. When you are "in the chamber" you are basically at war. You can have a full battalion of men airborne and ready to land in force in an hour and on a hair trigger. Basically poised with bayonet fixed. The reserve relaxed to a ten hour fix, and the stand-by at 36 hours to deploy. Run four units through the process. One is always "completely off" for a month.

Network these installations and transport units like data packets. Build Brigades Regiments, Corps and Armies "in the static" of these installations, with a mobile HQ that skips from pad to pad at 6-month breaks. These secret, semi-secret, honeypot, and public military installations being in some cases wide open to the public and in others so hidden the NSA doesn't know about it. Some are crazy camouflage and out in the open somewhere to thrill the conspiracy people too. You don't have to actually move battalions through them, you can host companies, or just platoons in the three 'cells' at each launchpad.

When you do exercises, you get the launchcall and land at 29 stumps or wherever, a formed brigade or whatever.

Actively treat all units as data packets in a large computer network, and comm traffic them around like lightening. Have 5-10 super-launchpads that can hold whole divisions and use them as router switches for the information flow of the personnel and equipment around these launchpads.

The end result being the ability to assemble 10-12 Armed Divisions of any kind of force, anywhere on the planet, in 18-24 hours.

Fill out that structure with the personnel, equipment, and unit structure already existing. Pull all US Army presence back to US, possessions and territories. Deploy US Navy Ships or re-purpose Aircraft Carrier (group) to accomplish the same process with Marines afloat. Acclimate soldiers, sailors, Marines, and command to the new process, and then start opening things like national guard armory posts, retire much of the active duty to the citizens militia, and have the members vote the chain of command.

Over 14 years draw the active portions down to a skeleton of elite super-elite warrior machines; but keep an enormous public action --- similar to "Civil Air Patrol" but grounded to the County and a popular election for County militia commander. Maybe a vote of officers for District, and a vote of commanders for State?

Open high-speed low-drag training tactical training to the public. Basically say Joe the plumber get a weed up his ass and wants to go to Ranger School. Let him. Let him flunk out or pass. WHatever. Apparently an Angel carried him through because now he wears a green beret around his local militia post. Airborne, whatever, any training the military offers. And make a structure like Civil Air Patrol but with real guns.

Now, you put your bean counters on top of this to develop a 'readiness' metric, and tune the transition down from active to militia as 'readiness' increases from a popular availability to immediate war.

Having pared the salaried manpower down by some 70%, and spending MORE on training and militia services, uniforms equipment devices weapons etc you effectively triple the size of your Army while paying half as much.

NOW you start running militia units through launchpads on a volunteer basis to make later integration simple in the event of war. The militia then makes a small skeleton of personnel who are basically "full time" and embed with the skeleton of "Active Duty" and in the event of a Real Freakin War these active militia filter back home and help create the transition into active units of war.

At the end of the day, you have....faster and more coordinated response....More force concentration in more places at a faster rate...a more immediate response time.....an exponentially larger reserve....and a public militia of sovereign men and women that will not be conquered by any government, foreign or domestic.

NOW you are stronger and faster in every way, and you are paying maybe 40% of what you were, and the American Public is better off, with any Joe Schmo being able to take any military school they want at any freakin time they want it. (Member of the public militia depending)

And here we solve even more problems. Say homelessness and hunger. Eat a meal brother, just stand watch on this barracks for 8 hours and we'll give you a cot and a locher that's all yours, and showers and whatnot. It basically eliminates involuntary homelessness and hunger too.

Imagine, every Joe a Rambo, and a meal for every belly and a roof for every head that wants one. From a free-market Constitutionalist paradigm. A national defense in the trusted hands of the best citizens militia ever imagined by the mind of man. The ultimate power over martial force back in the hands of the People where it belongs.

Including militia costs you are less than half current DOD. And you end of stronger and faster and a better America.

[GunnyFreedom]

Slide the role of the Air Force back to the Dept. of the Navy. The Navy pilots are better anyway, just ask Danke. Get rid of the standing Army. Get rid of regulations barring citizens from arming themselves. Easily reduced by half.

No, I think I would pass a Constitutional Amendment for the Air Force, and fund them similar to the Navy. Make them smaller, and integrate them also with a militia model to form an air militia. It would not be as complete as the ground militia already described, and the active component would be way larger, BUT one of the keys of Air Power is also bandwidth. A more elite group of "Civil Air Patrol" works more closely with the active component of the USAF. Maybe actually the current Civil Air Patrol itself tweaked heavily.

[GunnyFreedom]

No it really isn't. It would be more like blaming the cost of bullets in target practice for a shooter's poverty. In any case I shouldn't have to fund his hobby. I have no problem with tomahawk missiles themselves. I just have a problem with being forced to pay for someone else's stockpile of them.

And what if you were friends and drinking buddies with the commander of the local public militia Tomahawk battalion? Would that make the justice work?

[GunnyFreedom]

Yes, my method would take a little more spending up front, an investment into the infrastructure and training of a 'new kind of Army' that is both better and stronger, and 65% cheaper too. and 100% more American.

[GunnyFreedom]

Commander of County is a Bird Colonel. The County Commander of militia is voted for on the public ballot alongside the Sheriff. Everybody who votes, votes for the commander of the County Militia.

A one-star general is friendly with several counties and executive structure and interfaces/coordinates trains with facilitates things.

All of the County Colonels vote for a two-star District Commander

All Colonels and Two-Stars then vote for State Commander who wears four stars.

Three Stars appropriated to staff and divisions and macro-structure command.

Militia posts are public property and paid out of the federal and State treasuries.

Set up like National Guard posts, but more elaborate.

Make a public "Civil Air Patrol" organization for adults with real weapons.

Make it a REAL public militia of sovereign and free public persons according to popular will.

------------------

DOD spending transition to militia and retire out active to civilian to build the thing

Grow the free volunteer militia to 3x current manpower of armed forces. Draw down salaried Battalions, Retain the names of Divisions and Armies and Corps and Battalions and even companies. Maybe a Company is ten of the most elite soldiers what ever marched under the American flag. It is still a Company. It's purpose is to "dock with" an incoming Militia Company in a time of catastrophic war.

A Captain is a liaison with the local militia; helps coordinate and organize structures into larger and more strategic forces for more powerful foes.

Training between these and militia with regularity, but never in continuity. Twice a year on exercises, preferably, and maintain a friendly remote relation by phone and data.

Staff and Master-sergeants the best soldiers science and money can produce on this durn planet. Say 5 to 10 of them in a 'company' and they embed with local militia to spread their combat expertise.

Draw real units down to skeletons without retiring actual units and commands. They exist even if they are only a few persons. Make those FEW persons the absolute best soldiers the planet Earth has ever produced, and by-gum mean it.

Retire your real trained soldiers out to the free popular militia of sovereign persons. Have the County elect the commanders. Run the program like Civil Air Patrol for adults

Pay for it with federal money.

Pay for weapons, training, tactical uniforms, equipment. Share the cost with the State. Turn your free volunteer unpaid militia into a real by-gum 21st Century Army hand of death.

Once this process is working, then (continue to) shrink your active component down to about 20% of it's peak size.

In another 20 years, if the process is working very well, reduce active component to 10% and maintain there in perpetuity.

Federal funds are still totally funding the adult civil air patrol like public militia, open and free to all citizens legal to bear arms.

Any US Citizen can participate. Or even stay on pst.

And a homeless person can stand an 8 hour watch, and have a safe place to sleep, a locker to keep his worldly goods, showers, and a hot meal. Gain trust, go up in rank, build relationships, clean up, gain employment, prosper and so on.

And you are still way under half current US DOD spending.

And if China invaded, we'd raise up the biggest and strongest Army the world has ever seen, virtually overnight. Already spread throughout the land by County. It's literally the best of all possible worlds.

[GunnyFreedom]

Oh yeah, and sorry Mrs Feinstein, Joe the Plumber gets a machine gun. And yes, it has the shoulder thing that goes up.

[fr33]

And what if you were friends and drinking buddies with the commander of the local public militia Tomahawk battalion? Would that make the justice work?
Probably not while considering the reasons for it (or lack thereof).


*edit: well after thinking about it, I think you've attempted to catch me in the contradiction where I'm willing to make donations to the local volunteer fire department.

But there is some important factors missing. Never has there been a need for me to donate to missile launchers unlike with the fire department who opposes a real enemy of mine. Funding the current tomahawk program, like Rand says to do, has never benefited me. It's been nothing but a waste that has led to me being more despised than I've earned. That's why it's easy to oppose it.

[56ktarget]

According to the anti-MIC paulites:

Obama cuts bloated military- bad
Rand supports more useless missiles- good


LOL?

[kcchiefs6465]

According to the anti-MIC paulites:

Obama cuts bloated military- bad
Rand supports more useless missiles- good

LOL?
That's just a generalization. A perhaps errant one at that.

I am for ending the entirety of corporate welfare.

Cut the DOD's budget to a level that is able to be paid via donation, lottery, or other voluntary methods. Allow people to opt out.

This is a diverse crowd. One might see some strategic advantage in Cruise missiles, other may see a tool for war criminals and profiteers to commit more war crimes/atrocities while bilking the general public out of millions of dollars, while some others might pragmatically argue that Rand Paul has to pander to a certain base to ever have a realistic chance at nomination. I guess it just depends on how you look at it.

By the way, I'm not sure if you've forgotten, or simply haven't had the time to respond, but when you get a chance, I am sure many would like to hear/debate your responses. I am curious myself as to your responses to Bryan's questions.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?441914-Why-did-the-economy-boom-during-the-1950-s-when-the-top-tax-rate-was-91
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?441916-Why-do-other-countries-with-quot-socialized-medicine-quot-have-better-health-care

etc.

[jmdrake]

No. Americans have defended themselves and put food on the table by using assault rifles. Until you and I have access to tomahawks and hellfires then your argument will not hold water. Until that happens it is not comparable to make the gun/missile argument. We're not even talking about banning something like guns. We're talking about cutting spending for something only the government uses.

I would expect you to understand how the MIC works. Right now they lobby for war hawk politicians because they "need" to replace the stockpiles of missiles in order to make money. It is effective because of how monopolies on violence work. Drastic cuts are desperately needed in order to fix this situation.

FYI it is possible to build your own cruise missile for about $5,000 in COTS parts. http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/