[citation][nom]Hellbound[/nom]In a world where Islamic radicals seek to kill Americans simply for being American, cutting military funding is not a smart idea.[/citation]
However, one must recognize that of the vast array of tools at the military's disposal, hardly all of them are suitable for a given task; in fact, no tool is really suitable for all tasks, and there is no task where all tools are suitable for it.
Hence, it's logical to find which tools are not needed for any of the tasks that the military will be facing now or in the future. The vast majority of the current arsenal was designed for the task of deterring and/or halting a massive army and air force that would sweep into Europe from the East. Since the USSR collapsed in 1991, this is a task that the military won't have to face. Hence, the tools designed to fight the USSR lack a purpose; it is best to re-direct resources (including funds) from there to other tools best suited for the current and future tasks on hand; the USSR is by no means remotely similar an adversary to terrorist organizations.
Likewise, cutting of overall military spending could hence be done without impairing America's ability to fight terrorism whatsoever, provided all the cuts were done to programs that had no role in the War on Terrorism, like, say, the MKV or the F-22. It's like overall welfare; if social welfare payment programs are cut, that doesn't pose a threat to Social Security.
[citation][nom]Hellbound[/nom]So much about this president is wrong. Killing the MKV project while other countries seek to create nuclear weapons makes me wonder what his true goal is.[/citation]
From my guess, he's trying to make a half-hearted stab toward balancing the budget in the future, or at least, to attempt to curb these massive budget deficits. Whether Mr. President follows through with them in the future remains to be seen; I must say I wasn't pleased with his proposed budget projecting that deficits would stop shrinking after a few years, rather than keep on shrinking until vanishing and becoming budget surpluses like we had happen in the late 90s.
As for nuclear weapons, there's a huge difference between making a nuclear bomb, and making a nuclear missile. A government's initial nuclear weapons will be massive; "Little Boy" weighed almost 4.5 tons, and "Fat Man" weighed 5.1. These masses are simply too high to place on a missile, and too weak the be sure that, once the high error level of crude ballistic missiles is taken into account, that their blast radius will even graze the intended target, making such ideas highly useless.
Hence, for now, by and far the best way of preventing nuclear threats to America is to make sure no threatening entities get the technology to threaten American in the first place. While a suicide bomber safely some distance from you with you shooting at them isn't a huge threat, a suicide bomber without any bombs is no threat at all.
[citation][nom]Hellbound[/nom] I dont trust him.Btw, I'm not a Bush fan. But I believe Bush wanted to protect this country..no matter what.[/citation]
Actually, you contradict yourself there. As you are a self-admitted military person, that would indicate that to you, protecting America is a very big priority, if not #1. Hence, if you truly believed in Bush, then yes, you were a fan of him.
[citation][nom]Hellbound[/nom]If you are an American (and I hope you are not)... I'm a proud American.[/citation]
Those two don't exactly go together too well. Americans (of which I'm one of the few who, through years of study, understands what it means, AND is actually proud of it, rather than a pseudo-American illusion like most are) are supposed to be very open to other people. One of the core principles is the idea that, in time, liberty can be brought to all people. It's a true aspect of American pride to see millions of people from all walks of life look at America, and wish to be Americans themselves, from the countless refugees of the world's conflicts, to those of Latin America, to even our more prominent immigrants; (like Arnold Schwartzenegger) they all have a desire to be Americans, too. And it is selfish, un-patriotic, and un-American to think anything other than that it is possible for everyone in the world to gain the same liberty, to think that there's not enough to share.
[citation][nom]theangrygimp[/nom]That did look pretty pathetic. Seriously, if your just wanting to take out several hostiles in a given small area, then you would just use a frag grenade.[/citation]
If you bothered to read up in the subject, you'd find that the MKV is NOT AN UAV. It is a type of anti-missile countermeasure. It is, proverbially, a "bullet designed to hit a bullet;" unlike cruise missiles, which travel at sub-mach speeds, nuclear ballistic missiles are among the fastest projectiles humankind has ever produced, as they are essentially spacecraft, just designed to strike a certain spot on the Earth, rather than to achieve orbit. At such speeds, taking out an incoming nuclear missile is a daunting task; you're talking about something zipping toward you at upwards of 10,000 MPH. It's not something you can take out with a cheap UAV or rockets; this is what the RIM-161 Standard Missle-3 is designed for, but it only has a single "kinetic warhead." (read: rocket-launched bullet) Meanwhile, most ICBMs carry multiple nuclear warheads, and often a lot of "penetration aids" (decoys, usually in the form of metallic balloons and chaff) packed in with it. These all reduce the odds of a single missile hitting the warhead, so the MKV was designed to counter that by being a multi-warhead missile, too.
/www.northropgrumman.com/missiledefense/galleries/video.html
Welcome to the USA. The USA isn't pefect and it WAS the best country on the planet. I don't know what is, but theres a lot of problems here. And to be an "American" is to admit problems. Not blindly waving the flag like a moron.
Facebook
Twitter