Obama to Disarm America-

Ratical2 · 05-12-2008, 08:34 PM

I just got this email today! I guess this is the change that Obama thinks that we need.
It is the same mentality that "if you take everyone's guns away then everyone will get along."
That worked well in DC. Can you imagine that on a Global Scale???
Obama at his finest!!! Is this the kind of change that you want?
--------------------------------------------

Click here: Obama plans to disarm America by Macsmind

Uninterrupted 51 second video of Obama speaking - telling us exactly what he will do to the military. Everyone should watch it, This Man has no clue as to what he is doing!!! This is not the words of a man who wants our country to stay strong, he is going to tear it apart if does what he is saying in this Video!!

Mopar Steve · 05-13-2008, 05:47 AM

He should have plenty of time for that since he doesn't salute the flag, sing the national anthem, or pledge alligance to the flag.

Chuck 98 RT/10 · 05-13-2008, 07:41 AM

He can't be serious about a world without nukes. Like it or not nukes are here to stay. And if we have more than anybody else I consider that a good thing.

None of the candidates are saying what I wanna hear. I'm thinking of moving to Sweeden.

Bobpantax · 05-13-2008, 08:13 AM

He is dangerously naive and sounds like Jimmy Carter all over again. He does not understand that we live in a hypercompetitive world regardless of his views. Any sign of weakness is utilized to gain an advantage. Slowing the development of advanced weapons systems will just allow our competitors to catch up. As to having a goal of reducing nuclear weapons, there is nothing new about this goal. However, the rules of the game have long been to leave everything "as is" until everyone has agreed on what is going to happen; when it is going to happen; how it is going to be implemented; and, a foolproof method of verification is in place. Lastly, since Seantor obama has announced his hostility to the military, I am sure that the Defense Department and the various defense contractors have already started their contingency planning for an Obama administration which will probably include alot of Congressional arm twisting. Obama's proposals will be doomed from the start. The fact that he said what he said the way he said it shows a lack of experience. But, as we all know, he has little experience. What could he have said? How about this:

I intend to continue the important bipartisan efforts started decades ago to reduce the number of nuclear weapons existing in the world and avoid further nuclear proliferation. In this regard, soon after I am elected, I intend to convene a bipartisan study group which will include members of Congress, Departments of Defense and State officials, and representatives from the intelligence community for the purpose of determining what course of action might be available to me given existing conditions. Rest assured that I will proceed slowly and carefully without compromising the national security of the United States.

I also intend to call on a team of bipartisan seasoned experts to review all currently proposed advanced weapons systems. With the budget so far out of balance it is very important that we not invest in a weapons system unless it is effective. While I have the utmost respect for the Department of Defense, I do not think that a second look outside the box will damage our defense posture. I will also closely consult with the Department of Defense regarding any findings provided to me by the team before I make any final decisions.

I am no candidate and I thought of the above in a few moments. Why didn't he? because he is not qualified to be President.

Chuck 98 RT/10 · 05-13-2008, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobpantax

He is dangerously naive and sounds like Jimmy Carter all over again. He does not understand that we live in a hypercompetitive world regardless of his views. Any sign of weakness is utilized to gain an advantage. Slowing the development of advanced weapons systems will just allow our competitors to catch up. As to having a goal of reducing nuclear weapons, there is nothing new about this goal. However, the rules of the game have long been to leave everything "as is" until everyone has agreed on what is going to happen and a foolproof method of verification is in place. Lastly, since he has announced his hostility to the military, I am sure that the Defense Department and the various defense contractors have already started their contingency planning for an Obama administration which probably includes alot of Congressional arm twisting. Obama's proposals will be doomed from the start. The fact that he said what he said the way he said it shows a lack of experience. But, as we all know, he has little experience.

Well said.

musicncars · 05-13-2008, 04:53 PM

he doesnt respect our country enough to salute the flag? and he wants to be president. he lost me. i could never vote for someone who wants to rule this country but will not salute this country. what kind of crap is that?

Bobpantax · 05-13-2008, 05:04 PM

Bump. The video is important. Perhaps more important than anything else we have been discussing about Obama.

black mamba1 · 05-13-2008, 05:15 PM

Before I would make sweeping statements I would like to hear the entire speech in its entire context. The fact of the matter is that for decades there have been billions of dollars wasted in the military on pork projects disguised as "military needs" when in fact unde 8 yrs of Bush the Army went into Iraq under armed and under prepared, while we spend billions on questionable systems for payback to powerful Senators.

So, we justify spending hundreds of billions to keep the world from "catching up"? There is no end to that argument. if that is the justification, why not spend say...$2 trillion on advanced weapons to make sure we stay ahead of the Chines and Russians...no, make that $4 trillion. Where does it end? What is your gage?

There is no need to weaponize space. In fact it was against several treaties as far back as the early 70's.

We are spending about $4.4 billion for each Seawolf sub, although we are only going to make 3 of them. It was designed to counter a cold war threat that no longer exists, which is why we stopped construction at 3 (where is the thread on Bush stopping Navys Seawolf program!). The Bush administration cancelled the next attack class of subs, the Virginia class, citing it not being needed as well. But there are several more cold war era defense programs (like a nuclear shield, every single engineer in this forum knows that will never work) that cost hundreds of billions that also need to be cut, but cannot due to powerful Senators. There is NO NEED for the Seawolf, it is not advanced enough and we dont have enough of them to make a difference, and too advanced for any competitor to deal with.

Just b/c a program is cancelled does not mean it cannot be resurrected at a later date if it is needed. But like the B1 Bomber that Reagan resurrected, it really has no special task. It is greatly outperformed by the B2, and can be shot down just like the B-52. Carter cancelled siting stealth technology on the horizon, Reagan brought it back...its neat looking...but has given us no real advantage. It was a waste of money.

The problem of what you guys "think" experience does, is that you assume people learn from it, when in fact experience in Washington has not proved that anyone has learned anything about anything. Why do we still have a WW2 policy of fighting on two major fronts? Just b/c we had to do that 70 yrs ago does not mean we will have to do that again...if so, why not 3 enemies? or 4 enemies all at once? Experience says we had to fight the Japs (formal military) and the Krouts (formal military) at the same time. Modern history says we will fight more guerella type battles w/ small non uniformed insurgents using small very powerful weapons, like road side bombs. Are we prepared and spending billions to counter that? Over half of our deaths in Iraq are from road side bombs set off by some 12 yr old kid w/ a cell phone. A $2 trillion space missile will not prevent that.

Bush 1 and Bush 2 authorized the closing of numerous military bases and the downsizing of the Army to be as Rumsfeld says, leaner and meaner. All that has succeeded in doing is overstretching our military and units being deployed 3 and 4 times. Rumsfeld was the most experienced Sec Def we have ever had. And look at the quagmire (even the generals disagree with his tactics) he has created. Also, I am sure you all started a web on the Bush boys criticizing that disarming decision to close over 25% of our army and air force bases too....

Naa....I am sure you did not.

black mamba1 · 05-13-2008, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobpantax

Bump. The video is important. Perhaps more important than anything else we have been discussing about Obama.

The sky is falling the sky is falling!! Run for cover!! Here come the Russians!! Duck and Cover!!

We have cut military spending 12 years in a row before Bush 2 increased it to $12 billion per month in a losing cause in a little country. If you did not think the most important thing you have ever said about Bush was that he authorized the closing of several bases and cancelled several military programs, if you do not define Bush that way, you should see how ridiculous it is to define Obama that way.

black mamba1 · 05-13-2008, 05:45 PM

Nothing like some facts to counter dogma
The Russian Naval Threat Is Overrated
The threat posed by the Russian submarine fleet has been dramatically overstated by supporters of the Seawolf. As it currently stands, and for the foreseeable future, the Russian submarine fleet poses no significant challenge to the U.S. Navy. Two main factors contribute to this. First, only the "Improved Akula / Akula II and the new Severodvinsk SSNs have capabilities comparable with the U.S. Los Angeles and Seawolf attack submarines. All other Russian subs possess significantly weaker capabilities. (Source: Jane's Fighting Ships, 1996-1997)
Current Russian Attack Submarine FleetClassTypeNumber
(1996)Number
(2006 est.)Avg.
AgeWeaponsStatusCharlie IISSGN2016SS-N-9; SS-N-15; 6
torpedo tubes (18
torpedoes)no more
plannedEcho IISSGN2029SS-N-12; 8 torpedo
tubes (20 torpedoes)no more
plannedOscar ISSGN2014SS-N-9; SS-N-15;
SS-N-16; 6 torpedo
tubes (24 torpedoes)no more
plannedOscar IISSGN11+2136SS-N-9; SS-N-15;
SS-N-16; 6 torpedo
tubes (24 torpedoes)building
1 / yearAkula ISSN1266SS-N-21; SS-N-15;
SS-N-16; 8 torpedo
tubes (40 torpedoes)no more
plannedAkula II/
Improved
AkulaSSN1+451SS-N-21; SS-N-15;
SS-N-16; 14 torpedo
tubes (40 torpedoes)building
1-2 / yearSeverodvinskSSN/
SSGN0+2 (5)5N/ASS-CX-5 Sapless
Sub Harpoon type; 8
VLS; SS-N-15;
SS-N-162 under
construction,
5 plannedSierra ISSN2010SS-N-21; SS-N-15;
SS-N-16; 8 torpedo
tubes (40 torpedoes)no more
plannedSierra ISSN205SS-N-21; SS-N-15;
SS-N-16; 8 torpedo
tubes (40 torpedoes)no more
plannedVictor ISSN20226 torpedo tubes
(18 torpedoes)no more
plannedVictor IISSN3021SS-N-15; SS-N-16;
6 torpedo tubes
(24 torpedoes)no more
plannedVictor IIISSN26813SS-N-21; SS-N-15;
SS-N-16; 6 torpedo
tubes (24 torpedoes)no more
plannedYankee
NotchSSN,
ex-SSBN30N/ASS-N-21; 6 torpedo
tubes (18 torpedoes)no more
plannedFoxtrotSS603110 torpedo tubes
(22 torpedoes)no more
plannedKiloSSK24248SA-N-5/8; 6
torpedo tubes
(18 torpedoes)building 2-3/
year for
exportTangoSSK1616186 torpedo tubes
(18 torpedoes)no more
planned
Classes: SSGN:Guided missile submarine, nuclear-powered; SSN:Attack submarine, nuclear-powered; SSBN: Ballistic missile submarine, nuclear-powered; SS:Submarine, conventionally-powered; SSK: Submarine, ASW capability, conventionally-powered.
Number is given in format of # Active + # Building (Total # Planned).
(Source: Jane's Fighting Ships, 1996-1997; Fleet size and composition for 2006 is Author's estimate.)
And second, a large portion of the Russian sub fleet is approaching block obsolescence, and will have to be retired early next century. As an example, the Victor III class currently makes up a major portion of the Russian SSN fleet. The Navy has, in past projections, assumed a service life of 25 years for the Victor III. A more realistic service life estimate is 20-22 years. Ten of the current 26 Victor IIIs were built before 1980, and 21 were built by 1985. By 2003, at most eight Victor IIIs will still be in service (possibly as few as five). (Source: International Center for Technology Assessment estimate) Given current Russian financial trends, it seems very unlikely that these losses can be replaced. Further cuts in the Russian defense budget are inevitable. These cuts will undoubtedly affect both the force structure and future procurement in the submarine fleet.

SSN-23 Is Not Needed to Preserve the Industrial Base
SSN-23 is not needed to preserve the nuclear submarine industrial base until the next class of nuclear submarines can be built for several reasons. First, General Dynamic's Electric Boat Division in Groton, Connecticut has already been awarded contracts for the first two Seawolf class, two Los Angeles class, and four Ohio ballistic missile submarines. The construction of these vessels could be "drawn out" until FY98, when construction of the first NSSN will begin.
Second, given current and near-term Navy procurement needs, preserving two shipyards (at both Groton and Newport News) is unrealistic. There simply is insufficient new construction to support two shipyards. This redundancy does not currently provide competition because Tenneco's Newport News Shipbuilding is not being allowed to compete for NSSN contracts until well into the next century when (and if) two NSSNs are produced annually. Newport News has the capacity to produce four nuclear subs per year. With an average service life of 30 years, Newport News could support a fleet of 120 subs, well above the 45-55 attack subs called for in the "Bottom Up Review." And, the Navy has been content to allow a single shipyard to produce nuclear aircraft carriers. A similar policy for nuclear submarines should be adopted. (Source: Statement of Cindy Williams, Assistant Director of the National Security Division, Congressional Budget Office, on Attack Submarine Programs, before the Subcommittee on Seapower, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, 16 May 1995.)
And third, it is not true that most of the skills needed for nuclear submarine construction would "wither away" and have to be reconstituted if no more subs were produced until construction on the NSSN begins. Overhauls and repair work on existing subs, along with "drawing out" existing sub construction, could provide much of the practice and experience needed in these critical skills. In addition, nearly 80% of the skills needed for working on nuclear subs can be found in nuclear aircraft workers.

Seawolf's Missions and Capabilities Are Not in Line with the Navy's Current Needs
Seawolf is a weapons platform that will be performing missions and facing threats it was not designed for. Seawolf was conceived and designed during the Cold War for deep water ("blue") confrontations with the Soviet Navy.
The Navy's ...From the Sea White Paper recognizes that the strategic landscape in the post-Cold war era has changed, and that the Navy will be increasingly involved in operations in the littoral or "near land" areas of the world, like the Persian Gulf. The littoral is characterized by a number of unique challenges: shallow, congested waterways, well-known to the adversary; mines; coastal missile and artillery batteries; sea-skimming cruise missiles; and tactical ballistic missiles. As ...From the Sea states, these littoral threats "tax the capabilities of our current systems and force structure. Mastery of the littoral should not be presumed. It does not derive directly from command of the seas."
The Seawolf has not been designed to operate in this environment, nor was it designed to perform against small, advanced diesel subs in these difficult conditions. Seawolf is not the kind of submarine that should be designed in the post-Cold War era for post-Cold War missions. It is, instead, an expensive relic that has little place in the modern U.S. submarine fleet.

Alternatives for Enhancing the U.S. Sub Fleet
The Bottom Up Review called for an attack submarine force of 45-55 vessels. To achieve this force level, the Navy will retire all pre-Los Angeles class subs, and will retire the first ten Los Angeles class subs when they are due for their first overhauls, at about the 15 year mark of their 30 year service life cycles. Thereafter, Los Angeles class subs will be retired early, and the Seawolf and NSSN classes will be constructed, to maintain the attack fleet at approximately 55 vessels.
Current U.S. Attack submarine FleetClassNumberUnit CostAvg. AgeWeaponsStatusLos Angeles57+1 (62)$741
Million10Harpoon & Tomahawk
missiles; Mk 48 torpedoes; 4
torpedo tubes, VLS1 under construction, 4 more plannedSturgeon18$584
Million25Harpoon & Tomahawk
missiles; Mk 48 torpedoes; 4
torpedo tubesno more plannedNarwhal1$944
Million27Harpoon & Tomahawk
missiles; Mk 48 torpedoes; 4
torpedo tubesno more plannedBenjamin
Franklin2$712
Million30Mk 48 torpedoes; 4 torpedo
tubesno more planned
(SEAL special
operations)Seawolf1+2 (3)$4.3 BillionN/AHarpoon & Tomahawk
missiles; Mk 48 torpedoes; 8
torpedo tubes2 more under
constructionNSSN0+4 (4)N/AN/AHarpoon & Tomahawk
missiles; Mk 48 torpedoes;
torpedo tubes; VLS4 planned
Number is given in format of # Active + # Building (Total # Planned).
Unit costs are given in FY95 Dollars.
(Source: Jane's Fighting Ships, 1996-1997; unit costs are given in Department of Defense Selected Acquisition Reports Program Acquisition Cost Summaries and by Sue Philly, U.S. Navy Public Affairs.)
There are other, more readily available, and less expensive options for enhancing the size and capabilities of the attack submarine fleet, without building the third Seawolf. The Los Angeles class is, arguably, the best and most cost-effective nuclear attack sub in the world, and relying on this proven technology for a few more years would not decrease U.S. sub superiority. The Navy should, first, use the Los Angeles vessels for their entire life cycles, instead of retiring them after they have served only half of their useful service lives, and constructing SSN-23 and the NSSNs. Defering production of SSN-23 and the NSSNs while retaining all the Los Angeles for their full service lives (or even extending the service lives of the Los Angeles class) would save the Navy billions of dollars without sacrificing U.S. submarine superiority.
Research and development for the next generation of attack subs should continue. New submarine hulls are not needed now. Theses can be developed early in the next century when the Los Angeles class is approaching block obsolescence. In effect, a generation of submarine technology (SSN-23 / the NSSN) can be "skipped," with little detriment to U.S. sub superiority. When that next generation of sub is designed, the Navy must seek a sub design that is smaller, cheaper, and geared more toward littoral warfare than either the Seawolf or the NSSN. The Navy cannot continue to design and produce subs that cost more than $4 billion each.
The Navy should seriously consider designing an inexpensive, diesel-powered class of attack subs that would be dedicated to littoral operations. With the emergence of the so-called "air-independent propulsion" (AIP) systems now being developed, the main military objection to conventionally-powered subs will soon disappear. These AIP systems will allow nonnuclear subs to remain submerged for long periods of time without snorkeling. (Conventionally-powered subs are easily detectable by ASW techniques while they are snorkeling.) A diesel-powered AIP class of subs would provide a low-cost sub that is specifically designed for the operations that the Navy is most likely to be involved in.

CDI Conclusion: Seawolf Is a Prime Example of Excessive and Wasteful Spending
Seawolf is an excellent example of a Cold War weapons system that is not currently needed. It is not justified militarily, given the threats that the U.S. will be facing in the foreseeable future. Neither is it necessary to maintain the nuclear submarine industrial base. Without SSN-23, the proposed U.S. attack submarine fleet will consist of two Seawolf class and 57 Los Angeles class. Five more Los Angeles class subs are currently in production, and the lead vessel in the class need not be retired until 2006. A third Seawolf is unnecessary to maintain U.S. submarine superiority. The U.S.' submarine fleet is, by far, the most powerful in the world, and it will continue to be, even without the third Seawolf.

radta7 · 05-13-2008, 05:47 PM

BM,

what are you talking about? Virginia class subs are not cancelled. Production through 2012 at least from what is on the books... They are actually producing more in 2012 than 2011. So rather than deflect blame to the Bush admin, explain why your candidate said the above bc it's pretty damn scary. Bush is irrelevant. The Seawolf is actually more advanced for ship fighting than the Virgina class subs. The Virginia class is better suited for littoral fighting which is what the US will face in the future hence the cancellation.

You clearly know very litle about the B1 as well. Stick to defending your candidate and stay out of military affair of which you have made several mistakes.

Japs? Krouts? Did you really use those terms? Try this for formal military: Imperial Japanese Army and Navy and SS, Nazi, panzer forces...

Geez.

Bush this, Bush that... Focus on what Obama said in the video. Find out what McCain would say...

Here's a hint: That dumbass wants to cancel the F22 Raptor.

Bobpantax · 05-13-2008, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by black mamba1

Before I would make sweeping statements I would like to hear the entire speech in its entire context. The fact of the matter is that for decades there have been billions of dollars wasted in the military on pork projects disguised as "military needs" when in fact unde 8 yrs of Bush the Army went into Iraq under armed and under prepared, while we spend billions on questionable systems for payback to powerful Senators. LISTEN TO THE VIDEO AGAIN. HE TALKS ABOUT SLOWING THE DEVELOPMENT OF ADVANCED WEAPONS SYSTEMS ON A BLANKET BASIS.

So, we justify spending hundreds of billions to keep the world from "catching up"? There is no end to that argument. if that is the justification, why not spend say...$2 trillion on advanced weapons to make sure we stay ahead of the Chines and Russians...no, make that $4 trillion. Where does it end? What is your gage? I SUGGEST TO YOU THAT DATA CONCERNING ANY SUCH GAUGE WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE HIGHEST SECURITY CLEARANCE. YOU ARE NOT THINKING THIS SUBJECT THROUGH. WE DON"T TELL OUR ENEMIES AND COMPETITORS WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THEIR CAPABILITIES OR HOW WE KNOW IT AND THEY DO NOT TELL US. YOU ARE TOO YOUNG TO REMEMBER IT BUT WHEN THE SOVIETS LAUNCHED SPUTNICK TO THE SURPRISE OF THE WORLD, WE LIVED IN FEAR FOR MONTHS BEFORE WE LAUNCHED OUR OWN SATELLITE.

There is no need to weaponize space. In fact it was against several treaties as far back as the early 70's. SPACE WAS WEAPONIZED A LONG TIME AGO. WHAT DO YOU THINK THE CHINESE BLOWING UP THEIR OWN SATELLITE WAS ABOUT. IF THEY CAN DO IT TO THEIR OWN, THEY CAN DO IT TO OURS. WHAT DO YOU THINK THE SOVIETS BLINDING OUR SATELLITES WITH LASERS WAS ABOUT? WHY DO YOU THINK THE CHINESE WANT TO GO TO THE MOON? THE SPACE WEAPONS RACE STARTED YEARS AGO. ITS JUST A BIT MORE SUBTLE.

We are spending about $4.4 billion for each Seawolf sub, although we are only going to make 3 of them. It was designed to counter a cold war threat that no longer exists, which is why we stopped construction at 3 (where is the thread on Bush stopping Navys Seawolf program!). The Bush administration cancelled the next attack class of subs, the Virginia class, citing it not being needed as well. But there are several more cold war era defense programs (like a nuclear shield, every single engineer in this forum knows that will never work) that cost hundreds of billions that also need to be cut, but cannot due to powerful Senators. There is NO NEED for the Seawolf, it is not advanced enough and we dont have enough of them to make a difference, and too advanced for any competitor to deal with. NO ONE IS SAYING WEAPONS PROGRAMS SHOULDN"T BE SCRUTINIZED. BUT THEY SHOULD NOT BE SLOWED ACROSS THE BOARD. TO DO SO IS IRRESPONSIBLE.

Just b/c a program is cancelled does not mean it cannot be resurrected at a later date if it is needed. But like the B1 Bomber that Reagan resurrected, it really has no special task. It is greatly outperformed by the B2, and can be shot down just like the B-52. Carter cancelled siting stealth technology on the horizon, Reagan brought it back...its neat looking...but has given us no real advantage. It was a waste of money. AND YOUR MILITARY AUTHORITY FOR THE FOREGOING STATEMENT IS WHAT? THE MISSION OF THE B1, WHICH HAS SUPERSONIC CAPABILITY, IS CONSIDERABLY DIFFERENT FROM THE MISSION OF THE B52 AND THE B1. IT IS PRIMARILY A LOW LEVEL, LONG RANGE, TERRAIN HUGGING PENETRATOR. THE B52 AND B1 ARE SUBSONIC HIGH ALTITUDE BOMBERS. THE F117 STEALTH FIGHTER BOMBERS ARE ABOUT TO BE RETIRED FROM SERVICE.

The problem of what you guys "think" experience does, is that you assume people learn from it, when in fact experience in Washington has not proved that anyone has learned anything about anything. Why do we still have a WW2 policy of fighting on two major fronts? Just b/c we had to do that 70 yrs ago does not mean we will have to do that again...if so, why not 3 enemies? or 4 enemies all at once? Experience says we had to fight the Japs (formal military) and the Krouts (formal military) at the same time. Modern history says we will fight more guerella type battles w/ small non uniformed insurgents using small very powerful weapons, like road side bombs. Are we prepared and spending billions to counter that? Over half of our deaths in Iraq are from road side bombs set off by some 12 yr old kid w/ a cell phone. A $2 trillion space missile will not prevent that. I THINK YOU ARE A BIT BEHIND THE CURRENT STATE OF MILITARY PLANNING. OUR LESSON FROM THE VIETNAM WAR WAS THAT WE HAD TO LEARN THE TECHNIQUES OF SPHERICAL WARFARE. THE CURRICULA OF OUR MILITARY ACADAMIES WERE CHANGED TO INCLUDE SAME. WE HAVE TO BE PREPARED FOR BOTH TYPES OF WAR. AMONG OTHER REASONS IS THE NEED TO BE ABLE TO FULFILL OUR JOINT DEFENSE OBLIGATIONS UNDER APPLICABLE TREATIES. We HAVE SAME WITH TAIWAN, ISRAEL, AND OTHERS. G-D FORBID A WAR WITH CHINA. IT WOULD A CATASTROPHE FOR BOTH SIDES. BUT WE CANNOT IGNORE THEIR SABRE RATTLING.

Bush 1 and Bush 2 authorized the closing of numerous military bases and the downsizing of the Army to be as Rumsfeld says, leaner and meaner. All that has succeeded in doing is overstretching our military and units being deployed 3 and 4 times. I am sure you all started a web on the Bush boys criticizing that disarming decision too.... THE USUAL DEBATE DIVERSION TACTIC IS NOT GOING TO WORK THIS TIME. WE ARE NOT WRITING ABOUT BUSH. WE ARE WRITING ABOUT OBAMA. IF YOU WANT TO DEBATE A TOPIC ON BUSH, START A SEPARATE THREAD. I'M GAME. I MIGHT EVEN AGREE WITH YOU A LITTLE. LOL.

Naa....I am sure you did not.

SEE ABOVE INTERLINEATIONS

Bobpantax · 05-13-2008, 06:43 PM

By the way, among other countries, China also has submarines. Our fast attack submarines have many missions including but not limited to SEAL mission delivery, anti terrorism patrols, intelligence gathering and monitoring activities, fleet protection, and strategic defense. Many missions are classified and not known to the public. You also need to keep in mind that the bear has recently started to flex its muscles again. It appears that you, lile Obama, have very little experience in these matters. I am not trying to insult you. You need to step back and ask yourself do you really know what you are writing about? Would you entrust the safety of your children to someone with the same level of knowledge about this subject as you? I ask because Obama seems to have less knowledge than you.

black mamba1 · 05-13-2008, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by radta7

BM,

what are you talking about? Virginia class subs are not cancelled. Production through 2012 at least from what is on the books... They are actually producing more in 2012 than 2011. So rather than deflect blame to the Bush admin, explain why your candidate said the above bc it's pretty damn scary. Bush is irrelevant. The Seawolf is actually more advanced for ship fighting than the Virgina class subs. The Virginia class is better suited for littoral fighting which is what the US will face in the future hence the cancellation.

You clearly know very litle about the B1 as well. Stick to defending your candidate and stay out of military affair of which you have made several mistakes.

Japs? Krouts? Did you really use those terms? Try this for formal military: Imperial Japanese Army and Navy and SS, Nazi, panzer forces...

Geez.

Bush this, Bush that... Focus on what Obama said in the video. Find out what McCain would say...

Here's a hint: That dumbass wants to cancel the F22 Raptor.

The Virginia class of fast attack subs were to enhance the Seawolfs capability, but were rushed into production after the Seawolf was cancelled. The first block of Virginia class subs are smaller and cheaper, but offer no real advantage in technology or stealthiness...this would be the block 1 subs. Block 2 will be built with better manufactureing, and block 3 will have enhanced electronics and electromagnetic countermeasures that will greatly enhance stealth. Block 1 subs are cancelled after 2010, blocks 2 and 3 will both be capable of the new technology, not block one, which should have never been built.

The B1 fighter has no specific role. It is just a bigger FB-111. At first the Air Force was going to try to come in low and fast to reach targets b/c they knew it wold be shot down. But after the Brits and Italians lost several Tornados in Gulf War 1 coming in low an fast, and we had numerous A-10's shot up, they sermised that would not be a good tactic. So, now its back to flying in high. Just like our current F-15E's and D's. But they can only do that after the (now retired F-117's) and HARM missiles have cleared the way and destroyed the AAA. So, you basically have no benefit like the B2 which can come in right up the enemies gut and drop a missile down an airshaft, the B1 has to wait just like the Big Ole B-52's. Yes it is another platform, but that is all it is. At its price, its not worth it. A fleet of f-35's and B-2's can annihilate an entire city. And they dont need AAA supression like the B1 does.

I am against cancelling the F-22 Raptor. But several Presidents have toyed with cancelling it. My point is that Bush 1 and Bush 2 cancelled programs and reduced the military...so stay on issue, and the issue is not Obama this and Obama that....that is personal, not issue related.

black mamba1 · 05-13-2008, 07:28 PM

Bob, I will get to you in a minute, the wife is calling me to dinner...and she is gonna drop a bomb on me if I dont go downstairs and eat...but I will get to you after!