Obama's great foreign policy success

[finknottle]

I thought the meetings in Russia were irrelevant, an indication that his priorities are about 30 years out of date. An interesting NYP article points out that there is an impact in the here-and-now:

 

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07072009/posto...deal_177977.htm

 

By agreeing to cuts on our nuclear-capable delivery systems (bombers in particular), he has forced a reduction in our ability to project conventional power. One less B-2 bomber is one less bomber available for Iraq or wherever tomorrows crisis is. One less nuclear-armed submarine is one less submarine in the gulf available to fire Tomahawk missiles. In short, what the Russians did under the guise of nuclear arms reduction is whittle down our global conventional power towards theirs.

 

Score one for the One!

[/dev/null]

The loss of one B2 is negligible.

 

When America wants to project our force internationally, we don't send B2's off to bomb some bunker in the middle of the night. We park a carrier off the coast and give the natives a little

 

If Obama and the New World Order/Bilderbergs/Crab People really wanted to put a dent in America's international policy, they'd start decommissioning/selling the CVN's

[Alaska Darin]

You're right. We should continue to spend astronomical amounts of money on weapons we'll never use. Big win for the taxpayer there.

[finknottle]

The loss of one B2 is negligible.

 

When America wants to project our force internationally, we don't send B2's off to bomb some bunker in the middle of the night. We park a carrier off the coast and give the natives a little

 

If Obama and the New World Order/Bilderbergs/Crab People really wanted to put a dent in America's international policy, they'd start decommissioning/selling the CVN's

 

For the typical modern crisis, a B-2 is often much more effective an option for a timely response.

 

1. It takes weeks to position a carrier, and maintaining a presence in theater over extended times becomes a logistical problem. A B-2 can take off and get anywhere it needs to go within a day. Because of their quick response, and the fact that there is no coast to park off of anyway, they filled a critical need in Afghanistan after 9/11.

 

2. A B-2 can penetrate defended airspace more safely - that's why they were the choice for the Balkan missions, where we faced Russian-supplied air defenses.

 

3. A B-2 bomber can deliver 500lb bombs and heavy GPS-guided bombs. These are essential for surgical strikes against hardened targets.

[finknottle]

You're right. We should continue to spend astronomical amounts of money on weapons we'll never use. Big win for the taxpayer there.

 

That's just the point. Nuclear weapons are one thing. But nuclear-capable delivery systems are another - they are frequently dual use, and we do use them.

[finknottle]

Timely response to what? Even in the event of a real conflict, heavy bombers will be one of the last platforms on the scene. Youre not going to send in your large, heavy aircraft into an area before air superiority is established. The type of role you seem to be talking about is when these bombers were used to deliver nukes. And that tactic went the way of the do-do around the time the Rolling Stones put out their first album.

 

I love the B-2 as a weapons platform, but in terms of "projecting power", D/N is right. There is NOTHING like an aircraft carrier task force to carry out that role. Nothing.

 

How do you bring up a carrier group to, say Afganistan? And I understood that they were among the first on the scene in Kosovo and in Afganistan.

 

As for air superiority, sure - depending on what you mean exactly. The typical threat we face in the modern era is not from other planes (the customary meaning), but from sophisticated anti-aircraft defences. We didn't fear the Yugoslav or Iraqi Air Forces; we worried about their Russian-supplied air defences. Stealth bombers have the ability to fly and bomb from significantly higher altitudes, and better evade detection. They are what you use (along with long-range missiles) to knock out the radar and anti-aircraft installations so that tactical fighters can operate safely.

[indiragandhi'sthong]

How do you bring up a carrier group to, say Afganistan? And I understood that they were among the first on the scene in Kosovo and in Afganistan.

 

As for air superiority, sure - depending on what you mean exactly. The typical threat we face in the modern era is not from other planes (the customary meaning), but from sophisticated anti-aircraft defences. We didn't fear the Yugoslav or Iraqi Air Forces; we worried about their Russian-supplied air defences. Stealth bombers have the ability to fly and bomb from significantly higher altitudes, and better evade detection. They are what you use (along with long-range missiles) to knock out the radar and anti-aircraft installations so that tactical fighters can operate safely.

 

Finknoodle & friends ... I hear that FOX is looking for a military specialist to pair with their new political genius, Joe the plumber. Perhaps, you are overqualified with your wealth of knowledge. But hey, there is always the opening in Alaska ... I hear their governor "pulled out early" of her term (sounds like a bad Bill Clinton joke or Sen. Ensign or Sen. Sanford or Newt Gingrich).

 

Remember - Vote Palin in 2012 (- 2014)!

[DC Tom]

3. A B-2 bomber can deliver 500lb bombs and heavy GPS-guided bombs. These are essential for surgical strikes against hardened targets.

 

So can a carrier air wing.

 

In pure military terms, the B-2 is more cost-effective (it can strike as many targets at one time as a CAW, but do it more cheaply). But as a political measure, there's nothing like having a few acres of US flight deck parked off someone's coast.

 

And SSBNs do not go out and launch Tomahawk missiles at targets. Those are strictly missile platforms.

[finknottle]

Finknoodle & friends ... I hear that FOX is looking for a military specialist to pair with their new political genius, Joe the plumber. Perhaps, you are overqualified with your wealth of knowledge. But hey, there is always the opening in Alaska ... I hear their governor "pulled out early" of her term (sounds like a bad Bill Clinton joke or Sen. Ensign or Sen. Sanford or Newt Gingrich).

 

Remember - Vote Palin in 2012 (- 2014)!

 

Good rebuttal! Too bad the other posters wasted their time thinking about why they disagreed when they could have just adopted your amusing and sophisticated brand of repartee.

[swede316]

And SSBNs do not go out and launch Tomahawk missiles at targets. Those are strictly missile platforms.

I think he may have been refering to the SSBN's that have been converted to SSGNs....SSGN's have a whole lot of Tomahawks and SEAL delivery capabilities.

[finknottle]

I think he may have been refering to the SSBN's that have been converted to SSGNs....SSGN's have a whole lot of Tomahawks and SEAL delivery capabilities.

 

Thanks, but in the grand scheme of things I think DCTom's rebuttal re subs is correct. I was not thinking about anything so nuanced as conversion. My real argument was simply about the value of dual-use bombers.

[DC Tom]

I think he may have been refering to the SSBN's that have been converted to SSGNs....SSGN's have a whole lot of Tomahawks and SEAL delivery capabilities.

 

...which would not be covered under the agreement, since they're no longer strategic nuclear platforms. At least, they shouldn't be, since the Russians are smart enough to know the difference.

 

Minor point, really...just wanted to correct it. In truth, I dislike scrapping a B-2, as their conventional capability is considerable (equal to an entire CAW, as I think I said.) But an SSBN? A very expensive one-trick pony. I'm all for reducing the nuclear arsenal, since it's not the least bit cost-effective to maintain the ability to destroy the whole world twelve times over when three will do just as well.