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/2...Strong-Defense

[dillo]

Sorry but if we don't have enough "defense" with that monster they call a budget then we are $#@!ed. 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 $#@!ing 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 $#@!.

[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/showthr...rld-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/showthr...rld-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.

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.

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-Te...92/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/2014/0...ts-103579.html

These are the same guys tasked to replace the Tomahawk.

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



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,

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-Te...92/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!