Why is McCain not exploiting his advantage on military matters? Why not point out that all of our most effective weapons systems were "unproven" at one time and had we taken advice from liberals like Obama those systems would still be unproven and wartime casualties would be much higher/

 

How will slowing down "development of future combat systems" keep American civilians or our troops safer?

 

Having invested heavily in creating the most capable military force in the world, why should we surrender that advantage at the future cost of American lives?

 

Obama is very, very weak in this area and most Americans understand that advanced weapons systems minimize human casualties for the home team. This is not an area where we need to be seeking to level the playing field.

 

I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.

 

 

I will not weaponize space.

 

 

I will slow our development of future combat systems.

 

 

And I will institute an independent "Defense Priorities Board" to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.

 

 

Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals. - Obama Pledges Cuts in Missile Defense, Space, and Nuclear Weapons Programs

I tend to agree with his second and fourth points. I would not take weapons in space totally off the board. If someone else does it we have to be prepared to go also. His other points disturb me. We are still the biggest target in the world.

I tend to agree with his second and fourth points. I would not take weapons in space totally off the board. If someone else does it we have to be prepared to go also. His other points disturb me. We are still the biggest target in the world.

I would adopt a no first strike position on weaponizing space, but there is already evidence that China is working on systems to disable our communications and spy satellites already. Whether we are attacked by missiles launched from space or blinded by the destruction of satellites to leave us more susceptable to earth-based attacks does not make much difference.

 

The point that really disturbs me most is cutting development of advanced combat systems. Our technological edge saves lives of our own troops and it has also allowed us to target enemies more precisely and reduce civilian casualties as a result. Cutting advanced weapons development is contrary to the troop support claims that Obama and other liberals like to make while they pounce on every opportunity to undermine and underfund our military.

And I will institute an independent "Defense Priorities Board" to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.

I see instituting an independent "Defense Priorities Board" as unnecessary spending.

I see instituting an independent "Defense Priorities Board" as unnecessary spending.

Appointing commissions is also a common way to duck the responsibilities of elected office. Blame the commission for unpopular cuts.

Obama is from the Clinton school on how to balance the budget... Cripple the military...

Obama is from the Clinton school on how to balance the budget... Cripple the military...

The last 2 democrat presidents have all done the same thing. Carter and Clinton both made huge cuts to the military. LBJ is the only Democrat that I can recall increasing the defense budget.

 

Defense spending has been a problem for thousands of years. From early on, its been expensive to have a large standing army. But not having a prepared standing army can be even more costly. An army is a waste of money when you don't need it; just as not having an army is short-sighted when you do need it. Its a tough balance to maintain.

The communists always beleived we would destroy ourselves. The vechile that is taking us down that path are the liberals led by Obama. Look at history, the bad guys don't care if you want peace, they are more than willing to go along for the ride until you make yourself so weak, that defeating you is a walk in the park for them.

The communists always beleived we would destroy ourselves. The vechile that is taking us down that path are the liberals led by Obama. Look at history, the bad guys don't care if you want peace, they are more than willing to go along for the ride until you make yourself so weak, that defeating you is a walk in the park for them.

 

I guess who the bad guy is depends on what side of the fence you are on....

I guess who the bad guy is depends on what side of the fence you are on....

 

Nazis, communists, Islamic terroeists or anyone who seeks to destroy freedom and democracy.

Nazis, communists, Islamic terroeists or anyone who seeks to destroy freedom and democracy.

 

So wait a second...are you lumping liberals in the same category as those you mentioned just now?

The last 2 democrat presidents have all done the same thing. Carter and Clinton both made huge cuts to the military. LBJ is the only Democrat that I can recall increasing the defense budget.

 

Defense spending has been a problem for thousands of years. From early on, its been expensive to have a large standing army. But not having a prepared standing army can be even more costly. An army is a waste of money when you don't need it; just as not having an army is short-sighted when you do need it. Its a tough balance to maintain.

 

 

Judging by how much we are currently spending on the military (if you appropriately include the off-budget "emergency" appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan), it is hard to justify the position that we must continue this level of outlay indefinitely to maintain national security. There are those who will claim that every penny we are spending is absolutely vital to making sure that our children our safe from "terrorists", but those arguments are deaf to the chorus of experts from our own intelligence community who maintain that we have derived no security benefit from our costly involvement in Iraq. If Bush's 2009 budget is followed, we are on track to spend $515 billion in budgetted military spending and $145 billion as separate special line items for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (the vast majority of which is certainly Iraq). That is a total of $660 billion which, when adjusted for inflation ($594 billion in 2000 dollars), is substantially higher than peak annual military spending levels during either Korea or Vietnam. In fact, you have to go all the way back to 1945 (the final year of World War II) to find a year when more inflation-adjusted dollars were spent on the military. You can see the data for yourself in the the President's 2009 budget on pp 119-126 of the historical tables.

 

It is perfectly reasonable (and necessary, given the near-term crisis condition we face in the federal budget) that we pare back crippling military spending level in Iraq absolutely as soon as is feasible.

As our economy has grown, the proportion of our GDP spent on military spending has generally shrunk.

 

 

Just as liberal speak in terms of aggregate dollars when demonizing oil companies for making returns on investments much lower than companies in most industries, they prefer stating military spending in terms of expenditures without regard to the growth of the economy or other types of spending.

 

Defense spending looks much more reasonable when one looks at the big picture.

 

If Obama is elected, his successor will be required to rebuild a demoralized and underfunded military, just as the successors of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton had to do.

 

At least Obama is announcing his plans to gut the military in advance, just in case anybody is listening.

The communists always beleived we would destroy ourselves. The vechile that is taking us down that path are the liberals led by Obama. Look at history, the bad guys don't care if you want peace, they are more than willing to go along for the ride until you make yourself so weak, that defeating you is a walk in the park for them.

 

So how are those communists doing today? ?

 

In fact what happened to the largest communist group, the USSR? They spent themselves into oblivion.

 

I'm not a defender of slashing military spending but to give the money out because its says Defense budget and there is no accountability on how it's spent, that's what I have a problem with. (I feel the same way about social spending as well.)

If Obama is elected, his successor will be required to rebuild a demoralized and underfunded military, just as the successors of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton had to do.

 

At least Obama is announcing his plans to gut the military in advance, just in case anybody is listening.

 

Link to the bolded?