John Kerry voted against most of the weapons programs

[smashp]

considering the Patriot missle system has less than a 10% effectiveness (unless its our aircraft) this is a moot point.

 

[maluckey]

Let's see,

The M1, in it's various flavors, has proven to be the finest MBT in existence. Battle tough, and almost indestructible. It can engage and neutralize the enemy from distances that are beyond beyond their range of effectiveness. Yup, a waste of money, what with the M-60 being able to go almost 30 MPH downhill, and can most likely survive a T-64 attack.

The F-15 Strike Eagle. It's maximum range is out of the dreams of it's contemporaries. It is the workhorse of the Air Force, and still undefeated in air to air combat. Yup, a waste of money, when the F-4 still can fly, and can likey take being shot at until the pilot can eject. Toughness was it's forte.

The sarcastic point I'm making here is that some of these systems (in all honesty a few suck) are better than most anything else offered in the world. To cut them would leave the U.S. lagging.

The Russians have arguably the best aircraft and possibly the best armor (the Chiorny Oriole). They have not forgotten lessons learned in past wars, that to sit on your accomplishments only makes your ass sore. Someone eventually comes along with better and faster equipment to blow you away.

Not being prepared for what your enemies may have, leaves you at their mercy. That's why Kennedy won the standoff in the Cuban Missile Crisis. We had more, and better nukes, and faster ways of getting them from point a to point b. We were the Overdogs, and the outcome was clear.

 

[GoPackGo]

So here is the list:

The B-1 bomber.
The B-2 bomber.
The F-15 Eagle tactical fighter
The F-14D Tomcat fighter
The AH-64 Apache Helicopter
The AV-8B Harrier "jump" jet
The Patriot Missile
The Aegis air-defense system
The Trident missile

The M1 Abrams tank
The Bradley Fighting Vehicle
The Tomahawk cruise missile
The F-16 Falcon fighter/attack

and the one that is least accurate is the Patriot system so that is the one that everyone jumps on.

Lets get rid of all of these the day after Kerry is elected and see how "his" military does with them...oh wait he is an anti-war leftist communist loving liberal....so instead in a war, as president he will turn over the country to our enemies.

 

[chess9]

It's not about defense, it's about toys for boys. The army is worse by a factor of at least 1000 than the geekiest guy on Anandtech. They suck up technology like a massive black hole. Maybe worse.

We could get by with Chevies instead of the fleet of Mercedez the Pentagon Porkers must have every year.

Sheezh....

-Robert

 

[CaptnKirk]

This fits in nicely with Kerry's past voting record on Military Defense spending :
(From the Washington Post's 'Media Notes' editorial)

'After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bomber. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper [MX] missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles. . . . The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next five years. By 1997 we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office.'

"The speaker was President George H.W. Bush, the current president's father, in his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, 1992.

"They should also have looked up some testimony by Dick Cheney, the first President Bush's secretary of defense (and now vice president), three days later, boasting of similar slashings before the Senate Armed Services Committee:

'Overall, since I've been Secretary, we will have taken the five-year defense program down by well over $300 billion. That's the peace dividend. . . . And now we're adding to that another $50 billion . . . of so-called peace dividend.'"

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
This fits in nicely with Kerry's past voting record on Military Defense spending :
(From the Washington Post's 'Media Notes' editorial)

'After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bomber. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper [MX] missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles. . . . The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next five years. By 1997 we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office.'

"The speaker was President George H.W. Bush, the current president's father, in his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, 1992.

"They should also have looked up some testimony by Dick Cheney, the first President Bush's secretary of defense (and now vice president), three days later, boasting of similar slashings before the Senate Armed Services Committee:

'Overall, since I've been Secretary, we will have taken the five-year defense program down by well over $300 billion. That's the peace dividend. . . . And now we're adding to that another $50 billion . . . of so-called peace dividend.'"

Let's hope the Dems rolls this out when Bush & Co. start trying to smear Kerry on this.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
This fits in nicely with Kerry's past voting record on Military Defense spending :
(From the Washington Post's 'Media Notes' editorial)

'After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bomber. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper [MX] missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles. . . . The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next five years. By 1997 we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office.'

"The speaker was President George H.W. Bush, the current president's father, in his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, 1992.

"They should also have looked up some testimony by Dick Cheney, the first President Bush's secretary of defense (and now vice president), three days later, boasting of similar slashings before the Senate Armed Services Committee:

'Overall, since I've been Secretary, we will have taken the five-year defense program down by well over $300 billion. That's the peace dividend. . . . And now we're adding to that another $50 billion . . . of so-called peace dividend.'"

Let's hope the Dems rolls this out when Bush & Co. start trying to smear Kerry on this.

there is a bit of differnce between completely unnecessary nuclear deterence forces and standard conventional forces such as tanks and troop carriers designed to replace aging systems which are becoming increasing more expensive to maintain while also falling behind the curve, so to speak. not everything that kerry voted against was necessary, but most of it was. in comparison, the mx missle was basically completely unneeded to begin with and seems to be more to get the russians to bargain on nuclear arms control.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
there is a bit of differnce between completely unnecessary nuclear deterence forces and standard conventional forces such as tanks and troop carriers designed to replace aging systems which are becoming increasing more expensive to maintain while also falling behind the curve, so to speak. not everything that kerry voted against was necessary, but most of it was. in comparison, the mx missle was basically completely unneeded to begin with and seems to be more to get the russians to bargain on nuclear arms control.

Sure, but that's a level of detail difficult to exploit in a campaign ad, just as Kerry will find it difficult to explain in an ad how this Republican smear is taken completely out of context, that it is based on a single vote, and that Kerry undoubtedly voted for these same weapons systems many times in many other bills. If Bush takes the low road with dishonest attacks, Kerry will respond in kind.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ElFenix
there is a bit of differnce between completely unnecessary nuclear deterence forces and standard conventional forces such as tanks and troop carriers designed to replace aging systems which are becoming increasing more expensive to maintain while also falling behind the curve, so to speak. not everything that kerry voted against was necessary, but most of it was. in comparison, the mx missle was basically completely unneeded to begin with and seems to be more to get the russians to bargain on nuclear arms control.

Sure, but that's a level of detail difficult to exploit in a campaign ad, just as Kerry will find it difficult to explain in an ad how this Republican smear is taken completely out of context, that it is based on a single vote, and that Kerry undoubtedly voted for these same weapons systems many times in many other bills. If Bush takes the low road with dishonest attacks, Kerry will respond in kind.

last i checked, ghwbush isn't running for pres.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ElFenix
there is a bit of differnce between completely unnecessary nuclear deterence forces and standard conventional forces such as tanks and troop carriers designed to replace aging systems which are becoming increasing more expensive to maintain while also falling behind the curve, so to speak. not everything that kerry voted against was necessary, but most of it was. in comparison, the mx missle was basically completely unneeded to begin with and seems to be more to get the russians to bargain on nuclear arms control.

Sure, but that's a level of detail difficult to exploit in a campaign ad, just as Kerry will find it difficult to explain in an ad how this Republican smear is taken completely out of context, that it is based on a single vote, and that Kerry undoubtedly voted for these same weapons systems many times in many other bills. If Bush takes the low road with dishonest attacks, Kerry will respond in kind.

last i checked, ghwbush isn't running for pres.

No kidding?!? Last I checked, there is a Republican running for President, a Republican with close ties to GHWB and Cheney, A Republican who can't get too indignant about defense cuts when he's vulnerable through guilt by association.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
No kidding?!? Last I checked, there is a Republican running for President, a Republican with close ties to GHWB and Cheney, A Republican who can't get too indignant about defense cuts when he's vulnerable through guilt by association.

actually gw and ghw don't see eye to eye on a lot of things. budgeting, for example. and cheney isn't a lock for veep. guilt by association is a logical fallacy

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
No kidding?!? Last I checked, there is a Republican running for President, a Republican with close ties to GHWB and Cheney, A Republican who can't get too indignant about defense cuts when he's vulnerable through guilt by association.

actually gw and ghw don't see eye to eye on a lot of things. budgeting, for example. and cheney isn't a lock for veep. guilt by association is a logical fallacy

Since when does logic have anything to do with political campaigning? That is my point.

 

[razor2025]

Have anyone even considered the history and purpose of these weapon systems? Almost ALL of these weapon systems were designed and built pre-Soviet Collapse (1990).

The B-1 and B-2 bombers were designed to take out Soviet radar and critical comm. facilities in case of war. - Late 1980's
F-15, F-14, F-16 were designed to counter the Soviet Su/Mig series. F-14 to give US Navy an aerial superiority against Soviet Navy (they barely had carrier force). - From Late 1960's to 1980's
AH-64 Apache was to be part of European defense against Soviet tank armada. Late 1980's
Aegis was for fleet defense against barrage of Soviet naval missles. Around 1970's
Trident was part of the MAD scheme against Soviet SLBMs. (Sub Launch Nukes). Around 1970's
M1 Abrams was succesor to M-60 Patton. Army wanted a new tank because they were afraid of Soviet T-72 and onwards. Late 1980's

I'm not too sure about Bradley, Patriot and Tomahawk, but as you can see, almost all of these weapon systems were designed with mind of COUNTERING SOVIET MILITARY. Hello? Have everyone forgot about the Cold War? I'm sure Kerry had voted for these programs to defend our country from Soviet invasion. It's fortunate that our weapon advancements have given our military edge against the enemies, however these weapons were designed to counter Soviet military. This is the reason why we're moving to a more "smart" weapon against small and sparse military targets (Al Qaeda).

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Iraq launched no Scuds in Gulf-2, they were only used in G-1.

They were designed to put up a debris field that aircraft were
flying into and for ingestion of that debris to FOD-Out an engine.

It was only through serendipity that they could be used against missles,
more of an afterthought - just to see if they could get close enough to alter
the flight course of the missle in the later stages of flight just before impact.
In G-1 nearly half of the Scuds 'Broke-up' just because they were junk.

You really have no idea what you're posting about, do you? A surface to air missile designed to "FOD-Out" an engine? Where in the hell did you get that one, degree- and experience-less John Pike? If you don't know, don't post details -- they expose ignorance.

Of course, ignorance seems rampant in this discussion with all sorts of uninformed monkeys jumping on the "Patriot is bad" bandwagon. The Patriot is the finest land-based SAM system in the world, bar none. Intercepting 8 small ballistic missile warheads in OIF is far from an easy feat, one which any other SAM would be exceptionally hard pressed to do. As for the fratricide kills, if anyone has anything which specifically blames the Patriot system for the mistakes which led to the kills, please do post it. I haven't read any reports, but they could have been caused by faulty IFF or failure to follow the ACO procedures.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ElFenix
there is a bit of differnce between completely unnecessary nuclear deterence forces and standard conventional forces such as tanks and troop carriers designed to replace aging systems which are becoming increasing more expensive to maintain while also falling behind the curve, so to speak. not everything that kerry voted against was necessary, but most of it was. in comparison, the mx missle was basically completely unneeded to begin with and seems to be more to get the russians to bargain on nuclear arms control.

Sure, but that's a level of detail difficult to exploit in a campaign ad, just as Kerry will find it difficult to explain in an ad how this Republican smear is taken completely out of context, that it is based on a single vote, and that Kerry undoubtedly voted for these same weapons systems many times in many other bills. If Bush takes the low road with dishonest attacks, Kerry will respond in kind.

last i checked, ghwbush isn't running for pres.

No kidding?!? Last I checked, there is a Republican running for President, a Republican with close ties to GHWB and Cheney, A Republican who can't get too indignant about defense cuts when he's vulnerable through guilt by association.

You have got to be kidding. Guilt by association? So, we should pin all sins of Democrats past and present on Kerry because, after all, he's a Democrat.

Kerry is to blame for the Bay of Pigs and getting us into Vietnam!

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
No kidding?!? Last I checked, there is a Republican running for President, a Republican with close ties to GHWB and Cheney, A Republican who can't get too indignant about defense cuts when he's vulnerable through guilt by association.

actually gw and ghw don't see eye to eye on a lot of things. budgeting, for example. and cheney isn't a lock for veep. guilt by association is a logical fallacy

Since when does logic have anything to do with political campaigning? That is my point.

it doesn't. don't mean i have to like it any. (the lack of logic, not necessarily your point)


no one should be salivating about who can burn who with what, tho