The insanity of sequestration

[Jos Heyman]

Whilst not directly relevant to secret projects, the Air Force Magazine for September 2013 has a disturbing article on the sequestration ploy of the US Congress.
Have a read at http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2013/September 2013/0913edit.aspxhttp://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2013/September%202013/0913edit.aspx.

It is truly a sorry state of affairs.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Actually, sequestration isn't "insane," it's quite brilliant. In response to a vital need to make massive cuts in government spending, sequestration provides minimal cuts to the growth of government spending, but does it in ways that not only provide minimal actual financial value, but do it in a way that causes maximum pain/harm. This idea is to make the smallest, tiniest slowdown in the rate of government growth so painful that people and/or politicians will scream for it to end, thus going back to the prior system of maximum spending growth.

It's akin to how when there are local spending cuts, the first ones cut are nurses and firefighters and such. Cut what is vital and visible first, and the people will soon demand that the cuts stop.

So in this particular case, the politicians have managed to game the system so that the very tiniest "cut" means dead soldiers and airmen. Thus, if you don't want dead soldiers and airmen, you *must* support unrestricted growth in government spending.

Genius. Evil, but genius.

 

[sublight_]

....
So in this particular case, the politicians have managed to game the system so that the very tiniest "cut" means dead soldiers and airmen. Thus, if you don't want dead soldiers and airmen, you *must* support unrestricted growth in government spending.
.....

The politicians are the secondary problem. The primary is all the citizens who are too busy with Jersey Shore, McDonalds, Starbucks, Facebook, Honey Boo Boo, Call of Duty part 99, and what the hell ever else, to take part in the management of their own country....

 

[sferrin]

....
So in this particular case, the politicians have managed to game the system so that the very tiniest "cut" means dead soldiers and airmen. Thus, if you don't want dead soldiers and airmen, you *must* support unrestricted growth in government spending.
.....

The politicians are the secondary problem. The primary is all the citizens who are too busy with Jersey Shore, McDonalds, Starbucks, Facebook, Honey Boo Boo, Call of Duty part 99, and what the hell ever else, to take part in the management of their own country....

This. "Oh I don't have a gun so it's okay if they butcher the 2nd Amendment." As long as an individual isn't impacted directly, in a very visible way, they aren't likely to do anything. And of course at that point it's far too late to do anything about it.

 

[Bill Walker]

Surely the real insanity is that sequestration is not working, but carries on anyway. The military funding has been cut, perhaps to dangerous levels, but the political process has not responded by either eliminating sequestration and getting back to overspending (which may or may not be sustainable), or by addressing the fundamental income versus expenditure issue. From an outsider's point of view, you have moved from one bad situation to another slightly different but still bad situation. This is not progress.

 

[SOC]

This is not progress.

And the opposite of progress is...? ;D

 

[Orionblamblam]

And the opposite of progress is...? ;D

Progressivism.

 

[bobbymike]

Surely the real insanity is that sequestration is not working, but carries on anyway. The military funding has been cut, perhaps to dangerous levels, but the political process has not responded by either eliminating sequestration and getting back to overspending (which may or may not be sustainable), or by addressing the fundamental income versus expenditure issue. From an outsider's point of view, you have moved from one bad situation to another slightly different but still bad situation. This is not progress.

As most here know I am a ultra-hawk and would double DOD spending, re-open F-22 production, build 500 NextGen bombers, rebuild to START I levels of nukes, etc. BUT due to the severity of the deficit and massive debt I would have been for some defense cuts IF the rest of the budget got hit including entitlements BUT it is ALWAYS defense that gets hit so hard that's what ticks me off to no end especially when even Clinton's former budget director said a few months ago, 'Entitlements will drive 99% of future deficits and growth in the national debt'

Like I have said many times we have the highest ego to least capable politicians in the nation's history.

 

[SOC]

"Mandatory" entitlements cover at least half of the total federal budget. That's Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Unemployment. Here's an idea: get rid of them all, completely. Leave the funding in the budget for four years and apply it directly to the defecit, then reduce taxes to accommodate the 50% reduction in spending. Everyone is supposed to have health insurance, so the medical programs should be irrelevant, right? How about some personal responsibility for planning towards your own retirement? And unemployment? Why should the government have to pay for it? More accurately, why should I have to pay (taxes) for your inability to work? You are not my problem. If they so desire, let the states handle it, while they're searching for the million jobs Obama promised years ago.

If you wanted me to go even further into how we can recover from our asinine financial situation, we can discuss fun ideas like making credit illegal.

 

[sferrin]

"Mandatory" entitlements cover at least half of the total federal budget. That's Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Unemployment. Here's an idea: get rid of them all, completely. .

I could get behind that except for social security (unless you're just talking about eliminating it for those who never paid into the system, or have used more than they put in).

 

[Abraham Gubler]

"Mandatory" entitlements cover at least half of the total federal budget. That's Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Unemployment. Here's an idea: get rid of them all, completely. Leave the funding in the budget for four years and apply it directly to the defecit, then reduce taxes to accommodate the 50% reduction in spending. Everyone is supposed to have health insurance, so the medical programs should be irrelevant, right? How about some personal responsibility for planning towards your own retirement? And unemployment? Why should the government have to pay for it? More accurately, why should I have to pay (taxes) for your inability to work? You are not my problem. If they so desire, let the states handle it, while they're searching for the million jobs Obama promised years ago.

If you wanted me to go even further into how we can recover from our asinine financial situation, we can discuss fun ideas like making credit illegal.

Ahh America... Its not a country its a business.

Spoiler/Profanity Warning:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UzPdUzygvE

When many Americans get their dream state of small government, individual responsibility we in Australia can export to you our greatest political leader and he can sort out all your problems:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfL4xKQeSfo

 

[Orionblamblam]

Ahh America... Its not a country its a business.

There might have been a time when that was true, but no longer. We can only *dream* of an America run so as to make a profit!


The Brad Pitt clip you posted contains the line (paraphrasing): "In America you're on your own." This is a commonly expressed sentiment by certain political leaders and talking heads, but when you consider that *trillions* are spent on social welfare and wealth redistribution programs, it's not only a flawed sentiment, it's a damnable lie.

 

[circle-5]

In the time it took for you to read this, the Federal Government spent $360,000.00. Thank goodness for sequestration.

 

[Orionblamblam]

In the time it took for you to read this, the Federal Government spent $360,000.00. Thank goodness for sequestration.

Good news! When you read this, you hear it in my voice!

 

[Rickshaw]

Perhaps it's time the US realised that "small government" cannot run a large country? Nor a large military force... :

 

[Orionblamblam]

Perhaps it's time the US realised that "small government" cannot run a large country?

That's *exactly* the fraudulent, dishonest lesson that those who want massive government are touting here. It is, of course, not a lesson that sequestration actually teaches.

Following is a list of the Federal spending per financial year. At what spending level was the US government able to "run a large country?" Current spending is $3.8 trillion. If sequestrations' cut of about $0.084 trillion is so fundamentally damaging, please explain how the US was able to get along in 2010 with $0.2T less, and in 2007 was able to get along with $1T less, and at the end of the Clinton Golden Age in 2000 was able to get along with $2T less.

• 2013 United States federal budget – $3.8 trillion (submitted 2012 by President Obama)[129]
• 2012 United States federal budget – $3.7 trillion (submitted 2011 by President Obama)
• 2011 United States federal budget – $3.8 trillion (submitted 2010 by President Obama)
• 2010 United States federal budget – $3.6 trillion (submitted 2009 by President Obama)
• 2009 United States federal budget – $3.1 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush)
• 2008 United States federal budget – $2.9 trillion (submitted 2007 by President Bush)
• 2007 United States federal budget – $2.8 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush)
• 2006 United States federal budget – $2.7 trillion (submitted 2005 by President Bush)
• 2005 United States federal budget – $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush)
• 2004 United States federal budget – $2.3 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush)
• 2003 United States federal budget – $2.2 trillion (submitted 2002 by President Bush)
• 2002 United States federal budget – $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by President Bush)
• 2001 United States federal budget – $1.9 trillion (submitted 2000 by President Clinton)
• 2000 United States federal budget – $1.8 trillion (submitted 1999 by President Clinton)
• 1999 United States federal budget – $1.7 trillion (submitted 1998 by President Clinton)
• 1998 United States federal budget – $1.7 trillion (submitted 1997 by President Clinton)
• 1997 United States federal budget – $1.6 trillion (submitted 1996 by President Clinton)
• 1996 United States federal budget – $1.6 trillion (submitted 1995 by President Clinton)

As for what sequestration really is:
The reductions in spending authority are approximately $85.4 billion (versus $42 billion in actual cash outlays[note 2]) during fiscal year 2013,[2](p14) with similar cuts for years 2014 through 2021. However, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the total federal outlays will continue to increase even with the sequester by an average of $238.6 billion per year[2](p3) during the next decade, although at a somewhat lesser rate.

Sequestration does not even stop the *growth* of the FedGuv budget, just slows it down by a *tiny* amount.

 

[sublight_]

Doesn't inflation account for roughly 44% of the increase from 1996 to 2012? Yes, the increase is crazy, but factoring inflation in accounts for some of it at least....

 

[Rickshaw]

Perhaps it's time the US realised that "small government" cannot run a large country?

That's *exactly* the fraudulent, dishonest lesson that those who want massive government are touting here. It is, of course, not a lesson that sequestration actually teaches.

Perhaps it isn't but perhaps the point is you have a large country therefore you need a large government to run it properly?

 

[Archibald]

can someone please explain the basis of sequestration to an european soul that doesn't understand anything to that situation ?

 

[sublight_]

The population numbers:

267 million 1996
316 million 2013

A roughly 18% growth.

In 1996 dollars the current budget is 2.2 trillion, which is a 38% growth during the listed budget years. This does not track with the population growth, but might track with the GDP or another indicator. I didn't look that far.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Perhaps it isn't but perhaps the point is you have a large country therefore you need a large government to run it properly?

And if you cut the US FedGuv expendatures *in* *half,* wouldn't that still be a "large government?"

Realistically, the DoD budget (currently 19% of total) could, if done wisely, be cut in half without destroying the US's ability to defend itself and lay smackdowns all over the world (largely by eliminating lots and lots of waste). And the Social Security budget (21%) could and should be privatized; Medicare (13%), Medicaid (7%) and "Other Mandatory Programs" (18%) should be zero-funded. That right there would cut 58.5% of the current budget, while leaving in place everything the government is *supposed* to be doing.

 

[sublight_]

Here is a really detailed breakdown:


And as usual the Marines really are the best bang for the buck here....
Let the beer bottles fly.....

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Perhaps it's time the US realised that "small government" cannot run a large country?

In the US we have city government, county government, state government, and finally Federal government.

Why? Because we learned a long time ago that one giant government can't run a large country. We have government at all levels already. why the federal government has to be huge when there are already 3 levels of government already in place all the way up to the state level is beyond me. its redundant.

Nor a large military force... :

Privatize the military then? BTW today's US military pales in comparison to its size in the past, and I don't recall there being any problems of control...

 

[Orionblamblam]

Privatize the military then?

Many good arguments in favor of that. Issue letters of marque and reprisal. Hire the likes of Blackwater to achieve specific military objectives, and let them choose the forces and weapons to use. Advantages include the ability to be hands-off (any troops that get captured are like as not going to be non-US citizens), as well as being economically more efficient, while not expending any actual US troops or armament.

If you lay out specifics in the contract (they only get the funds when certain goals are achieved; violations of human rights cost certain dollar penalties, etc.), you should be able to get quite efficient mercenary operations with minimal collateral damage. Heck: simply offer, say, $50 million (or whatever) per enemy fighter aircraft delivered to some friendly air field, you could strip an enemy of their ability to wage air war in short order, with minimal bloodshed, and likely gain you a pile of aircraft you can refurb and sell, all at lower cost than actual air operations. Contemplate the chaos on Syrain airfields if leaflets offering $50M/fighter, $20M/attack chopper, $20M/cargo plane were dropped.

 

[Rickshaw]

Perhaps it's time the US realised that "small government" cannot run a large country?

In the US we have city government, county government, state government, and finally Federal government.

Why? Because we learned a long time ago that one giant government can't run a large country. We have government at all levels already. why the federal government has to be huge when there are already 3 levels of government already in place all the way up to the state level is beyond me. its redundant.

Perhaps the point is that those lower levels of government are inefficient and wasteful because of over duplication of effort? Why have 50 governments doing the job that one government can do? That one government through economies of scale can offer greater efficiencies.

Nor a large military force... :

Privatize the military then? BTW today's US military pales in comparison to its size in the past, and I don't recall there being any problems of control...

Privatise? Again, that would result in massive inefficiencies and disjointed direction of effort.

I always find it remarkable the belief that smaller government will be better. It is IMHO a very immature utopian attitude.

 

[bobbymike]

You really believe Washington DC could run localities across a massive nation with huge demographic differences from DC or would the federal government just be replacing local bureaucrats? Then what's the difference? I believe there are many, many economic studies that show local governments provide much more bang for the tax payer dollar. You should really read de Tocqueville.

The history of the world has been filled with utopian dreams of government, huge all encompassing governments that have the power to provide everything to the masses, including hauling tens of millions of them away to death camps when the 'state' no longer needed them or believed them to be 'trouble'.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Perhaps the point is that those lower levels of government are inefficient and wasteful because of over duplication of effort?

You have it backwards. For obvious reasons the state governments know what their states need rather than a massive government sometimes thousands of miles away.

The Federal government does not have the infrastructure and ability to directly control 50 states. Its why armies are not composed of just lowly privates, and high ranking generals. There are captains and sgts and corporals and colonels. Delegation is critical in any system. its too much for one person.

Why have 50 governments doing the job that one government can do? That one government through economies of scale can offer greater efficiencies.

because one government can't do it?

because the 50 governments are doing the job for 50 states. to each their own in fact. Hawaii isn't managing Maine, for example. So its not 50 governments doing the job of one federal government in the first place. if you think of a state government as a "person", and the sate is their "job", we have 50 different people doing their own job, but for the same "boss" (boss being the federal government) your proposal would be either eliminating those people and having the boss do things one at a time, or simply making them all "bosses" that then go off and try to do whatever job that pops up that they don't, if ever understand.

That's no way to run anything. plus its not democratic.

And the federal government has almost never been capable of greater efficiency, even with state govs running their own states. You really think the federal government which can barely keep its own economic affairs in order will suddenly be able to make 50 separate economies run better than the states that were running them? State governments pass laws. Laws that may work for their state but not another as well. What is legal in one state is illegal in another. along with a different set of standards. Example? minimum wage is different in Washington ($9.19) than it is in Texas ($7.25) The standard of living is more expensive. There is a federal minimum set, but states will offer more due to the unique circumstances of that state. I have even live in a state where it varied by city. the minimum wage was $5.50, while only 60 miles north it was almost double that at $12 because that city was tourist haven so everything was hellaciously over priced. If you expect the federal government to have that kind of nuance and knowledge I have bad news for you.

There is also the danger of under representation. If you are a small state by population, you will be paying federal taxes while getting very little federal help. Lets say I have a pot hole outside my apartment. Do I call Washington DC to fix it or do I call the local government? Is there a Federal Bureau of Potholes? and if so, when I call am I put on a "to do list" behind 20,000 other people in 50 states who also need their potholes fixed? When 6 months have gone by and nothing is fixed because I am being ignored, who do I complain to? I have no representation. Who do I threaten to oust by not voting for them? Where is City Hall? Do I have to fly to DC to plead my case if so, am I the 22,567,234 in line to be heard? Do we really need a giant government to even fix a pot hole in the first place? Maybe he has other bigger problems to solve? I just end up fixing the pothole myself a year later. Eventually myself and others decide we are tired of paying huge taxes so we can fill out our own potholes anyway and decide we are no longer going to pay for service we are not receiving. We will have a local tax to fix local problems based on what we feel is most necessary by a majority vote of local citizens. IE a local government.

In short beyond just the impossibility of the suggestion, there are philosophical reasons as to why it is a bad idea. The US is built to be anti-Tyrant. One giant unwieldy government is how tyrants are made, as the only way to get anything done is to strictly curtail and control the population and make them as single minded as possible. Its the same reason why there isn't "Just one big Europe" the populations though sometimes similar are not homogeneous enough to work toward the same end. Economically Germany is a powerhouse, Greece a disaster, etc.

 

[bobbymike]

TT - much better said than my post thank you!

 

[F-14D]

can someone please explain the basis of sequestration to an european soul that doesn't understand anything to that situation ?

Since no one else addressed your question directly, let me try:

The US, like much of Europe, is spending far more than it takes in, in fact far more than it could possibly take in. And, like much of Europe, simply can't bring itself to practice fiscal restraint or austerity. The Administration didn't seem to be willing to cut anything large scale other than Defense, NASA and a few politically out of favor programs, and Congress didn't want to accept responsibility for anything.

So, the Administration came up with an idea: Have Congress pass an alternative if the issue isn't resolved by a certain date that is so odious that they'd be forced to do something, either go along with the way the Administration wanted to spend more money, or come up with something on their own instead of just kicking the can down the road because the sequestration would be so bad they couldn't possibly not do something. Unfortunately, everyone underestimated the ability of Congress to not do something. So sequestration hit.

Sequestration imposes mandatory, blanket funding "reductions" (actually mostly reductions in the rate of growth) on the budget but only on the "discretionary" side and specifies that half of all those cuts for the entire budget must come from Defense. The most Congress was able to come up with after it hit was an offer to allow agencies to determine where they could efficiently cut to meet their targets rather than have it be arbitrary, on offer originally spurned by the Administration (some say because they wanted it to "hurt") , but later embraced when some of the political heat got too hot. That's pretty much sequestration in a nutshell.



Although I take issue with Orionblamblamm's contention that you could cut the Defense budget by 50% (a scary thought: as wasteful as DoD is, it's one of the more efficient departments in the gov't), his much appreciated chart is particularly illuminating. One thing though, there are any number of things that are considered "off budget" and don't show up in the regular numbers.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Although I take issue with Orionblamblamm's contention that you could cut the Defense budget by 50% (a scary thought: as wasteful as DoD is, it's one of the more efficient departments in the gov't),

Not sure why that would be a scary thought. Simply withdraw US troops and bases back to the US. Instead of, say, military actions against regimes we don't like, sell tactical weapons to their opponents. Instead of running wars like the Persian Gulf War or the Iraq War, run them like the Iran-Iraq War: make money by selling arms (preferably to both sides), and use one country we don't like to slaughter another country we don't like. Restore American manufacturing capability by cranking out vast arsenals of cheap weapons made specifically for export... tanks, guns, planes, choppers, designed to compete with and undersell Chinese and Russian weapons. This would be a net *bonus* for the DoD financially, while reducing the need to spend.

Use the actual budget for R&D on advanced strategic weapons and global-range strike capabilities. Someone decides to screw with us, space-based system light 'em up.

 

[F-14D]

Although I take issue with Orionblamblamm's contention that you could cut the Defense budget by 50% (a scary thought: as wasteful as DoD is, it's one of the more efficient departments in the gov't),

Not sure why that would be a scary thought. Simply withdraw US troops and bases back to the US. Instead of, say, military actions against regimes we don't like, sell tactical weapons to their opponents. Instead of running wars like the Persian Gulf War or the Iraq War, run them like the Iran-Iraq War: make money by selling arms (preferably to both sides), and use one country we don't like to slaughter another country we don't like. Restore American manufacturing capability by cranking out vast arsenals of cheap weapons made specifically for export... tanks, guns, planes, choppers, designed to compete with and undersell Chinese and Russian weapons. This would be a net *bonus* for the DoD financially, while reducing the need to spend.

Use the actual budget for R&D on advanced strategic weapons and global-range strike capabilities. Someone decides to screw with us, space-based system light 'em up.

The scary thought is that with all the waste in DoD, almost everything else is worse.

 

[bobbymike]

Although I take issue with Orionblamblamm's contention that you could cut the Defense budget by 50% (a scary thought: as wasteful as DoD is, it's one of the more efficient departments in the gov't),

Not sure why that would be a scary thought. Simply withdraw US troops and bases back to the US. Instead of, say, military actions against regimes we don't like, sell tactical weapons to their opponents. Instead of running wars like the Persian Gulf War or the Iraq War, run them like the Iran-Iraq War: make money by selling arms (preferably to both sides), and use one country we don't like to slaughter another country we don't like. Restore American manufacturing capability by cranking out vast arsenals of cheap weapons made specifically for export... tanks, guns, planes, choppers, designed to compete with and undersell Chinese and Russian weapons. This would be a net *bonus* for the DoD financially, while reducing the need to spend.

Use the actual budget for R&D on advanced strategic weapons and global-range strike capabilities. Someone decides to screw with us, space-based system light 'em up.

I agree with the premise of increasing R&D on strategic weapons, global strike weapons and space weapons. Also I think it is time to close about 100 overseas bases and build about 20 SSGN's and or 500 NextGen Bombers a new ICBM with a 100 Mt warhead doubling as a prompt global strike weapon with about a 25 ton payload. I would convert an old heli-carrier to hold about 500 IRBM's that could hit any target in the MEast from far outside the range of any of their weapons. One ship could patrol near Diego Garcia and hit anywhere.

The Army/Marines would be cut back to elite special forces units that would soon resemble Heinlein's MI but have the ability to personally call in the hellfire from our new long range prompt hit anywhere on earth weapons previously mentioned.

Then I would issue a warning, privately, to leaders of the Middle East 'If we get attacked and we trace the attack back to jihadist's from your country we wipe you off the face of the earth.

 

[RanulfC]

Although I take issue with Orionblamblamm's contention that you could cut the Defense budget by 50% (a scary thought: as wasteful as DoD is, it's one of the more efficient departments in the gov't),

Not sure why that would be a scary thought.

Maybe because historically, every time we've had major cuts in "Defense" we get hammered in the "next" war to follow?

Simply withdraw US troops and bases back to the US.

Because Isolationism and inability to project power has always worked so well for us in the past?

Instead of, say, military actions against regimes we don't like, sell tactical weapons to their opponents. Instead of running wars like the Persian Gulf War or the Iraq War, run them like the Iran-Iraq War: make money by selling arms (preferably to both sides), and use one country we don't like to slaughter another country we don't like.

Ah, yes that was such a success wasn't it? Now remind me WHICH "enemy" state we managed to "wipe-out" during that conflict?

Restore American manufacturing capability by cranking out vast arsenals of cheap weapons made specifically for export... tanks, guns, planes, choppers, designed to compete with and undersell Chinese and Russian weapons. This would be a net *bonus* for the DoD financially, while reducing the need to spend.

And of course meaning that in our own self interest of course we have to put money and resources into stirring up and keeping going wars all over the world so we can sell our weapons to them. Hey it worked for the Soviets didn't it?

Use the actual budget for R&D on advanced strategic weapons and global-range strike capabilities. Someone decides to screw with us, space-based system light 'em up.

Why waste the money when we can simply have one of our "surrogate" militaries go kill them all instead? Just threaten to cut off their cheap arms sales if they don't do what we say? If they refuse, then get another one of the countries we're "supporting" with cheap arms to go after them. After all what can they do if we cut off our arms sales and put out factories out of business by cutting back on exports? Isn't is all saving us tons of money anyway?

Oh and I like the idea of privitizing the military too, after all that worked so well for the Romans didn't it?

Randy

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Then I would issue a warning, privately, to leaders of the Middle East 'If we get attacked and we trace the attack back to jihadist's from your country we wipe you off the face of the earth.

To be fair we can do that right now. We choose not to.

 

[sferrin]

Then I would issue a warning, privately, to leaders of the Middle East 'If we get attacked and we trace the attack back to jihadist's from your country we wipe you off the face of the earth.

To be fair we can do that right now. We choose not to.

Yeah, after 9/11 I was hoping we'd use a dozen or two B53s over Afghanistan to drive the point home.

 

[carsinamerica]

Yeah, after 9/11 I was hoping we'd use a dozen or two B53s over Afghanistan to drive the point home.

I'm sorry to help derail this thread, and yours is just one of several similar comments I'm replying to, but hardly anyone is challenging this line of thinking.

B53s. You wanted to drop nine-megaton bombs on Afghanistan, with their 6-mile radius of near-total destruction. Against whom, exactly? And what point are you trying to drive home? They're ridiculous overkill and a waste of firepower for even the deepest of Afghan caves; they can't kill anything in that country that we couldn't kill with a W80, or frankly with a GBU-28 and a bit of patience. If we used them in the hinterlands of Afghanistan, we'd poison the entire region. The only thing that they'd be efficient against would be Kabul, Kandahar, and Mazari Sharif.

Is this your point? "If people -- none of whom were from your country, but were trained there -- attack us and kill 3,000 people, we will retaliate by killing hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people who are equally innocent as those we lost." Enlighten me as to who is the terrorist in that scenario.

I believe in retaliation. I believe in the balance of assured destruction. But you're talking about punishing states for the actions of non-state actors (the collusion of whom can never be entirely clear), and more alarmingly, you're talking about holding civilian populations hostage in countries where the citizenry don't have much power over the government.

If the US had done what you're proposing, we would have been the worst monsters in world history since Hitler and Stalin, a true force for evil. Vaporizing, maiming, or poisoning hundreds of thousands of people who probably couldn't even find America on a map? Dear God. It would have been a catastrophe for American interests, and it would have made us much, much worse than al-Qaeda.

I love military science, I love this forum, and I'm in awe of the things you guys know. But please, let's be a little less blase about what the use of our military power means, and who exactly gets hurt when we use its full power. Especially the nukes.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Because Isolationism and inability to project power has always worked so well for us in the past?

In fact, yes. Look at WWII: While the US sat back, European powers pounded themselves into the stone age. When we finally came rolling in, we wound up masters of the world. I'd call that a win for us. Isolationism gave us time for everybody else to beat the tar out of each other.

Instead of running wars like the Persian Gulf War or the Iraq War, run them like the Iran-Iraq War: make money by selling arms (preferably to both sides), and use one country we don't like to slaughter another country we don't like.

Ah, yes that was such a success wasn't it?

Pretty much, yeah. Millions of Iranians died in revenge for their act of war against the US embassy, at extremely little cost to the US. Woo!

And of course meaning that in our own self interest of course we have to put money and resources into stirring up and keeping going wars all over the world so we can sell our weapons to them. Hey it worked for the Soviets didn't it?

They're still making buckets of money in the arms market. Their big problem was they tried to match the US defense budget.

Why waste the money when we can simply have one of our "surrogate" militaries go kill them all instead?

Because sometimes it's important to have the Hand Of God (i.e. the USAF, USMC, whatever) come in and erase a place.

Oh and I like the idea of privitizing the military too, after all that worked so well for the Romans didn't it?

Yeah, for around a millenium. Let me know when the US lasts that long.

 

[Orionblamblam]

B53s. You wanted to drop nine-megaton bombs on Afghanistan, with their 6-mile radius of near-total destruction. Against whom, exactly? And what point are you trying to drive home?

The Tora Bora region, when we knew OBL & Co. were trapped there. Instead we let our "allies" deal with it by letting them slip through. If, instead, we had knocked down a few mountains and turned them into Biblical/Koranical lakes of fire... that's one hell of a message. The point: "you mess with the Holy Land of the USA, God His Own Self will come and turn your vicinity into a suburb of Hell."

Is this your point? "If people -- none of whom were from your country, but were trained there -- attack us and kill 3,000 people, we will retaliate by killing hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people who are equally innocent as those we lost." Enlighten me as to who is the terrorist in that scenario.

*WE* are. And that's the point: someone wants to play terrorist, they'd have to realize there's someone far, far more terrifying out there.

. But you're talking about punishing states for the actions of non-state actors

A: The government of Afghanistan was allied with and protecting these non-state actors
B: Afghanistan wasn't much of a state anyway. Blowing up the Tora Bora region would be kinda like blowing up Death Valley or a few square miles of North Dakota or Detroit... nobody would notice for *days.*

If the US had done what you're proposing, we would have been the worst monsters in world history since Hitler and Stalin,

You forgot Carter.

a true force for evil. Vaporizing, maiming, or poisoning hundreds of thousands of people who probably couldn't even find America on a map?

Yeah, yeah, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo. Boo fricken hoo.

Dear God. It would have been a catastrophe for American interests,

Just like firebombing Japan was?

let's be a little less blase about what the use of our military power means, and who exactly gets hurt when we use its full power. Especially the nukes.

If the US had demonstrated that it was ready, able and *willing* to use overwhelming force to crush our enemies into subatomic particles, where do you think we'd be with, say, Syria today? Instead of the whole world laughing at the paper tiger the US has become, making threats about "red lines" and not backing them up thus proving ourselves weak and opening the door for more and more and worse and worse atrocities, the world would know that if the US said "I'm'a gonna smack you," they'd mean it and it would *hurt.* Iran would know that any use of nukes on their part would mean instant ruination of theior entire nation. Even North Korea might get the point.

 

[sferrin]

^----What he said.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Once again, people:

A Realistic Plan for World Peace
a.k.a
Nuke the Moon