Quadrennial Defense Review to Propose Killing Two Carriers, Cut JSF, Cancel EFV

[fskimospy]

That was because of the treaty of Versailles limited them to the number of units they could produce. So they built the best of everything. The law of unintended consequences strikes again.

But the bulk or NASA or dept of energy is not DoD related and is not going to come close to the additional 500B needed to get to a trillion.

I know it's not. Then we add in the counterterror resources that the FBI and CIA apply specifically to our military operations, then we add in the cost of medical care for the people mangled in our wars, then we add in the cost of interest paid specifically on the debt we've gone into due to war expenditures, war supplemental bills (remember, the war spending has been on top of DoD funding for years), etc... etc.

Like I said, it depends on where you draw the line. On the low end it's actually around $850 billion, on the high end a bit north of $1 trillion.

In addition the German industrial posture was not dictated by the treaty of Versailles. They actually had tanks that were in most ways inferior to the British and the French at the outset of the war, and a severe disadvantage in tank quality compared to the Russians at first. The change in their posture came after their encounter with the T-34 and the introduction of the Panther. It was a catastrophe.

 

[fskimospy]

That's right, we mass-produced the shit out of the Germans, and then gave all our excess production to our allies.

An irony here is the Charrison is supporting exactly the same kind of policies that got the Germans in trouble in the first place.

People always think that this time it will be different. *sigh*

 

[charrison]

In addition the German industrial posture was not dictated by the treaty of Versailles. They actually had tanks that were in most ways inferior to the British and the French at the outset of the war, and a severe disadvantage in tank quality compared to the Russians at first. The change in their posture came after their encounter with the T-34 and the introduction of the Panther. It was a catastrophe.

Go read up on your history, the versailles did in fact limit what they could have.

 

[fskimospy]

Go read up on your history, the versailles did in fact limit what they could have.

I know the history quite well thank you. Versailles most certainly did limit what they had, but your argument that this is what caused their excessively complicated tank designs doesn't hold water. Not only did Germany flagrantly disregard the limitations put on them to begin with, their true issues with difficult-to-manufacture tank designs vis a vis their enemies did not become a problem until 1941 and on, long after that treaty was dead and buried.

Regardless that's only a tangent to the original point that was the Germans chose highly effective but low output designs while the Soviets and us decided to make easy designs we could produce the shit out of. History showed which approach worked better. Hell just look at 1942's statistics. Germany's GDP was higher than the Soviet Union's, and yet the Soviet Union massively outproduced them. That should tell you something.

 

[Craig234]

Some say the 'nuke free world' is a 'pipe dream', that the 'genie is out of the bottle'.

They may want to add Robert McNamara, Ronald Reaga, and Mikhail Gorbachev to the list of pollyannas who just don't appreciate the real world that they are such experts on.

How well do these people understand the theoretical capabilities of the IEAE and similar groups, if the world signed on to the policy? Can they say as experts how not one stage of obtaining weapons can be reliably detected? The physics being out of the bottle is one thing, the process of creating a usable weapon is another. Or are they being lazy armchair commentators spewing what is the easy and commonly held assumption on the issue?

It's all easy to 'get used' to a status quo, to our having eapons and others not, not only ignoring any ongoing issues of justness and fairness but becoming com,placent that the proliferation is sable.

It's all too easy to simplistically say, 'sure it'd be nice, but if we got rid of them, the populous countries would get a big advantage, the loss of MAD would make war miore tempting, and someone might get them'.

No real substance behind those conclusions - they're just easy to say 'so, it's not practical, forget it'.

One, ending slavery was a pipe dream. Once, ending segregation in the South was a pipe dream.

Taking the easy route makes it all to easy to forget one important thing, the overriding massive damage of a nuclear explosion if it happens. Like a drunk driver who thinks he won't have an accident, people ignore it.

It was just the last administration who had policies to make nukes 'more usable', and their use has come up again and again. Vietnam? Many wanted it. Pakistan versus India?

McNamara was in charge of our nuclear weapons at the height of the cold war - he was familiar with the issues of deterrence. He saw that we are not making a priority of their danger.

What we need are not ignorant enemies of change on this policy throwing out ill-informed and wrong obstructions, but leadership to get rid of this danger.

I think the objectors might bristle at that label, as they think of themselves as pro-change because of their position on some other issue like the fed, but they're wrong.

We should be working on how to rid the world of these weapons. Address the issues of conventional deterrents, the political structures needed for it to work, the monitoring and enforcement.

When nukes are gone, the threat of nuclear attacks is gone.

That's not any peace, as wars before and after nukes show, but it is the removal of an insane risk.

And what is the basis for one nation to tell another, 'we can have nukes, and you can't'?

There's a lot more basis for compelling all nations to not have nukes, by threat of force, when there are no nations keeping theirs.

In the twentieth centuries, powers got comfortable with conventional armies, and used them in terrible wars. Now, man is comfortable with nukes.

Under what theory is the risk of nuclear attack low enough year after year after year to justify their remaining? How long does MAD work?

Look at the 50 million killed in WWII, the mtens of millions of civilians, the firebombing of cities, the use of mass rape as a weapon, and tell me how MAD is reliable for reatraining everyone who can get a nuke.

 

[charrison]

I know the history quite well thank you. Versailles most certainly did limit what they had, but your argument that this is what caused their excessively complicated tank designs doesn't hold water. Not only did Germany flagrantly disregard the limitations put on them to begin with, their true issues with difficult-to-manufacture tank designs vis a vis their enemies did not become a problem until 1941 and on, long after that treaty was dead and buried.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles#Military_restrictions

There were most certainly restrictions and yes, they had no problems violating the treaty.

Regardless that's only a tangent to the original point that was the Germans chose highly effective but low output designs while the Soviets and us decided to make easy designs we could produce the shit out of. History showed which approach worked better. Hell just look at 1942's statistics. Germany's GDP was higher than the Soviet Union's, and yet the Soviet Union massively outproduced them. That should tell you something.

Your right, Russia believed that quantity had its on quality. However quantity has its own problems.

 

[Mani]

The weakening of America continues. Pathetic.

If this guy's pissed off, this can't be a bad thing.

 

[Carmen813]

In terms of WW2 tanks, the T-34 was no slouch. It was significantly better than the American human sausage machine...I mean Sherman.

 

[Patranus]

Just returning to a pre 9/11 mentality by the Obama administration.

Pathetic.

 

[Vic]

In terms of WW2 tanks, the T-34 was no slouch. It was significantly better than the American human sausage machine...I mean Sherman.

Heh. The Russians probably had as many if not more of our Sherman tanks than we did.

 

[Vic]

Just returning to a pre 9/11 mentality by the Obama administration.

Pathetic.

Says the kneejerk dipshit.

Pal, take your unthinking partisan bullshit to some other forum. No one gives a fuck.

 

[Craig234]

Just returning to a pre 9/11 mentality by the Obama administration.

Pathetic.

Yes, we should let a few guys in Afghanistan completely change our nations'a principles. You know, the way we threw out our constitution and became a police state after WWi, and again after WWII.

On the day of 9/11, my reaction was, the one most important thing for the US to do was to not overreact to the event and screw things up. Unfortunately, the nation did not do what I suggested.

'Going back to a pre-9/11 mentality' - the type where civil rights and international cooperation count for something and we don't like rushing into war even while we do go after a threat like Al Queda as Clinton was in 2000 - is the best thing for our country. Becoming the Neocon nation of the Bush administration's ideologues is the wrong thing.

 

[garndawg]

I'll let ya'll fight out the politics ends of things.

However, if you want to talk technical, I'm your huckleberry...

The argument of "how much is too much" isn't about where the money could be better used, or what we have a right to (USA, World Police!), or even who the current/projected bad guy is/might be.

The real question is "What is our obligation?" You each have your opinion on that, however the USofA has established policies here State Department isn't willing to change. Start with Andy Jackson/"Monroe Doctrine"/Teddy's Big Stick. Wash with two world wars and a Cold one. Mix in some modern PC talk, and presto!

(Please note, I'm not defending/supporting politics, but you _must_ consider this when casually flipping about cutting carrier battle groups.)

To the technical discussion: There are treaties, there are economic interests, and there is response time.

Of the three, 'response time' is the key, methinks. Especially with the advent of the 24hr news cycle.

Troops in Italy/Germany/Japan are 'prepositioned', as are the carriers. In every crisis in modern history, the first question POTUS _always_ asks is "Where are the carriers?"

If you're going to honor your policies quickly/decisively, you've got to "get there Firstust with the Mostest." Carriers are the quickest power projection deployment that has existed to date. The selling point is "3 1/2 Acres of Sovereign US Territory, When it's needed. Where it's needed." So how many flattops are needed to be responsive to a crisis, anywhere, within 36hrs? And have crew rest, refit, overhaul reserves? Ergo, 12 carriers.

Want less? Then change your global commitments. And then gameplan possible good/bad guys reactions. Maybe easier (and cheaper) to maintain status quo, eh?

One last thought, and my personal opinion on this matter:

I work in the defense industry. As such, I have a fairly decent knowledge of how potent just the conventional technologies are. Both ours and everybody else on this dirtball.

Know This: If there is another major shooting war, it will be VERY lethal for a VERY short period of time.

For both sides.

If both sides deplete their hitech in this period, it will be followed by a very long period of attrition as hitech is not easily, or rapidly replaced. Otherwise, it'll look like SW Asia now, with the side with remaining tech in the catbird seat.

Further, if you reduce our standing forces (carriers/etc), others WILL step up to fill the void. That might be a good thing. It could very well be a BAD thing. History suggests one result is more likely than the other.

Last thought: I wonder if the historians will call this time the Pax Americana. Not sure it's been around long enough yet, however, it shares several traits of Pax Romano and Pax Britannia in that there was one world power, both economically and militarily, for a period of time. There's a rise, a "Pax" period and then a fall. Not sure if we're approaching the 'fall' period yet, but I don't think a Roman or an Englishmen could've seen their 'fall' either. Anyhow, each of these has good/bad that people have argued ad infinitum.

But I don't think anyone would prefer to live in the times in-between.

There be Chaos.

 

[werepossum]

In terms of WW2 tanks, the T-34 was no slouch. It was significantly better than the American human sausage machine...I mean Sherman.

I consider the T-34/85 as overall the best tank in general use in World War 2, showing that you can have quality and quantity. Our problem though is that we can't seem to adequately fund our military. We have too many bases, we've cut too many weapons programs, we cut too many troops for the level of commitment we seem to require politically, and we spend too much on research programs that are later cut. Bottom line, our military spending has become far too driven by politics rather than true military need and suffers from poor planning throughout.

Very good post, Garndawg. I saw a headline this weekend that permission had been given to develop a new long range bomber. Notwithstanding our current long range bombers, this new bomber will probably be canceled after spending billions or built in very small numbers, but even if it is built in massive numbers, a heavy bomber with a twenty+ hour sortie turnaround cannot compare as a deterrent to a carrier group that, although it takes longer to get there, can park off the nearest shore and be prepared to strike at any time. Carrier groups are also quite useful for other things like relief operations too. And yes, they are expensive.

We have comparatively very few of our advanced weapons, and in most cases the lines are now closed. Additionally we no longer have much of the kind of manufacturing that can be converted for use building these kinds of highly advanced weapons. So for us, any high-intensity war has to be short, win or lose.

 

[fskimospy]

I'll let ya'll fight out the politics ends of things.

However, if you want to talk technical, I'm your huckleberry...

The argument of "how much is too much" isn't about where the money could be better used, or what we have a right to (USA, World Police!), or even who the current/projected bad guy is/might be.

The real question is "What is our obligation?" You each have your opinion on that, however the USofA has established policies here State Department isn't willing to change. Start with Andy Jackson/"Monroe Doctrine"/Teddy's Big Stick. Wash with two world wars and a Cold one. Mix in some modern PC talk, and presto!

(Please note, I'm not defending/supporting politics, but you _must_ consider this when casually flipping about cutting carrier battle groups.)

To the technical discussion: There are treaties, there are economic interests, and there is response time.

Of the three, 'response time' is the key, methinks. Especially with the advent of the 24hr news cycle.

Troops in Italy/Germany/Japan are 'prepositioned', as are the carriers. In every crisis in modern history, the first question POTUS _always_ asks is "Where are the carriers?"

If you're going to honor your policies quickly/decisively, you've got to "get there Firstust with the Mostest." Carriers are the quickest power projection deployment that has existed to date. The selling point is "3 1/2 Acres of Sovereign US Territory, When it's needed. Where it's needed." So how many flattops are needed to be responsive to a crisis, anywhere, within 36hrs? And have crew rest, refit, overhaul reserves? Ergo, 12 carriers.

Want less? Then change your global commitments. And then gameplan possible good/bad guys reactions. Maybe easier (and cheaper) to maintain status quo, eh?

One last thought, and my personal opinion on this matter:

I work in the defense industry. As such, I have a fairly decent knowledge of how potent just the conventional technologies are. Both ours and everybody else on this dirtball.

Know This: If there is another major shooting war, it will be VERY lethal for a VERY short period of time.

For both sides.

If both sides deplete their hitech in this period, it will be followed by a very long period of attrition as hitech is not easily, or rapidly replaced. Otherwise, it'll look like SW Asia now, with the side with remaining tech in the catbird seat.

Further, if you reduce our standing forces (carriers/etc), others WILL step up to fill the void. That might be a good thing. It could very well be a BAD thing. History suggests one result is more likely than the other.

Last thought: I wonder if the historians will call this time the Pax Americana. Not sure it's been around long enough yet, however, it shares several traits of Pax Romano and Pax Britannia in that there was one world power, both economically and militarily, for a period of time. There's a rise, a "Pax" period and then a fall. Not sure if we're approaching the 'fall' period yet, but I don't think a Roman or an Englishmen could've seen their 'fall' either. Anyhow, each of these has good/bad that people have argued ad infinitum.

But I don't think anyone would prefer to live in the times in-between.

There be Chaos.

What treaty obligations are you referring to specifically?

I've spent a total of about 10 years between the military (specifically Navy) and other defense work, and once again I think you aren't painting the whole picture. We have numerous other tools of power projection that I suggest we use. An ARG is not the same thing as a CBG, but they have quite a lot in common. Also, we are not responsive to a crisis anywhere with a carrier in 36 hours or even close to that.

You can always use more military power, but there comes a point at which you get diminishing returns for your investment. That point is FAR below the place in which you spend more than the entire planet combined. We could easily meet our commitments minus a couple of carriers. Easily.

Finally, politics are not most stable in a unipolar hyperpower world. They are most stable when there are multiple poles that are balanced with one another. The US has engaged in more major wars in the last 20 years than it did in the 40 years before that, and I don't believe for a second that it's a coincidence.

 

[garndawg]

What treaty obligations are you referring to specifically?

A short start of defense-based treaties between the US and:
Republic of China (Tawain), Japan, Phillipines, ANZUS, UK, and most of the other EU nations.

A quick read:
http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/treaties/2009/index.htm

I've spent a total of about 10 years between the military (specifically Navy) and other defense work, and once again I think you aren't painting the whole picture. We have numerous other tools of power projection that I suggest we use. An ARG is not the same thing as a CBG, but they have quite a lot in common. Also, we are not responsive to a crisis anywhere with a carrier in 36 hours or even close to that.

All else aside, Thank you for your service. A Marine Expeditionary Force (MEU aka ARG) does have a lot to offer, but they're more coastal by nature. They have the advantage of persistence and can take/hold land. However, Harriers just aren't going to strike that far inland. JSF might help that some. Range of a carrier over a 36hr period is about 1k nautical miles (@ 30kts). Granted there can't be a carrier everywhere, but they can be positioned to respond within 1-2 days from potential troublespots. I feel safe betting my meager paycheck there is one constantly within a 36hr steam of the Taiwan Straits, for instance.

You can always use more military power, but there comes a point at which you get diminishing returns for your investment. That point is FAR below the place in which you spend more than the entire planet combined. We could easily meet our commitments minus a couple of carriers. Easily.

Using Dollars isn't really fair. "Requirements Creep" and Congressional District gilding prohibits this. Just look at the new brownwater class they're building, for instance. Count hulls (or a/c tails) then multiply by capability (which should account for MEU vs CVBG) for that picture.

Not to get stuffy, but if you argue that we can't respond to a crisis in a timely manner with what we have now (above), then why can we suddenly make do with less? Several studies (AF for crying out loud! Non-Navy!) suggest 15 carriers are required to meet current obligations.

Finally, politics are not most stable in a unipolar hyperpower world. They are most stable when there are multiple poles that are balanced with one another. The US has engaged in more major wars in the last 20 years than it did in the 40 years before that, and I don't believe for a second that it's a coincidence.

Heh, trying to get 'politics' to be 'stable', talk about your fruitless exercises...

I concede that just because someone labels it "PAX" doesn't mean there's peace/love/joy everywhere. There will always be wars, they're just over fairly quickly during these periods (ergo Smashed FLAT!) and don't affect/infect other regions. Romans were famous for this, Masada comes to mind quickly.

Hegemony has it's good and bad aspects, as alluded to previously.

We'll never know for sure how much is 'enough' until the balloon goes up...I think the IDF veterans circa '73 would agree. Especially the airdales.

I, for one, would prefer it not come to that. I think "Si vis pacem, parati para bellum" has served us well. (Latin loosely translated as, "If you wish for peace, prepare for war.")

 

[fskimospy]

Most of those treaties are not ones that carriers are required to enforce on short notice. Nobody is worried about a surprise invasion of Europe or the Phillipines. Japan and Taiwan are certainly an issue, but that's why we had the shitty kitty there for years and why we have the GW there now. So yes, there is always or very nearly always one near Taiwan, but that is just the one stationed in and around Japan, we don't dedicate other CBG resources to hanging out in that area. At best it gets a glance as we transit to and from the gulf. (with a stopover in Hong Kong, wheeee!)

1,000nm leaves the majority of the globe uncovered within 36 hours. My argument was that we can't cover the globe within 36 hours response and our policy has never been to accomplish such a thing, not that we had a policy to do so and were unable to meet it. I find that an unrealistic requirement and one we should not try to meet.

I think that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan show that the types of warfare that are most likely in a world with as many nuclear states as we have are the asymmetrical ones that we are currently engaged in. These wars not only are not over quickly, but both of them (Afghanistan in particular) have shown considerable danger of spreading and infecting other countries like Pakistan.

My only real point in all this is that our military policy seems to be severely overcompensating for what our actual economic and national security interests are. In my opinion we're spending a hideous amount of cash far and above what can be justified to enforce our interests.

 

[K1052]

If the real aim is to minimize response time I'd be in favor of retiring a couple carrier groups if the money can be spent on Prompt Global Strike.

 

[marincounty]

Most of those treaties are not ones that carriers are required to enforce on short notice. Nobody is worried about a surprise invasion of Europe or the Phillipines. Japan and Taiwan are certainly an issue, but that's why we had the shitty kitty there for years and why we have the GW there now. So yes, there is always or very nearly always one near Taiwan, but that is just the one stationed in and around Japan, we don't dedicate other CBG resources to hanging out in that area. At best it gets a glance as we transit to and from the gulf. (with a stopover in Hong Kong, wheeee!)

1,000nm leaves the majority of the globe uncovered within 36 hours. My argument was that we can't cover the globe within 36 hours response and our policy has never been to accomplish such a thing, not that we had a policy to do so and were unable to meet it. I find that an unrealistic requirement and one we should not try to meet.

I think that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan show that the types of warfare that are most likely in a world with as many nuclear states as we have are the asymmetrical ones that we are currently engaged in. These wars not only are not over quickly, but both of them (Afghanistan in particular) have shown considerable danger of spreading and infecting other countries like Pakistan.

My only real point in all this is that our military policy seems to be severely overcompensating for what our actual economic and national security interests are. In my opinion we're spending a hideous amount of cash far and above what can be justified to enforce our interests.

Much of our defense spending is driven by intelligence estimates-that are garbage.
Does the Iraq war ring a bell?
The Soviet experts (like Condi Rice) far overestimated the capabilities of the Soviet Union leading us to overspend by trillions on expensive military equipment.

When I worked for the DOD in the '80's they were always pushing the threat of the Russian aircraft carrier, they had nice satellite pictures of it at the dock, half finished. It still has not put to sea nor launched one aircraft in the last 20 something years. One of my coworkers said the best thing we could do for our security would be to give the Russians the plans for an aircraft carrier-it would bankrupt them, like 15 carriers has bankrupted America.

Most military spending is a complete waste.

 

[K1052]

Much of our defense spending is driven by intelligence estimates-that are garbage.
Does the Iraq war ring a bell?
The Soviet experts (like Condi Rice) far overestimated the capabilities of the Soviet Union leading us to overspend by trillions on expensive military equipment.

When I worked for the DOD in the '80's they were always pushing the threat of the Russian aircraft carrier, they had nice satellite pictures of it at the dock, half finished. It still has not put to sea nor launched one aircraft in the last 20 something years. One of my coworkers said the best thing we could do for our security would be to give the Russians the plans for an aircraft carrier-it would bankrupt them, like 15 carriers has bankrupted America.

Most military spending is a complete waste.

We only have 11 carriers and will be down to 10 in 2012 when the Enterprise is decommissioned. In all probability the carrier fleet will continue to shrink as Nimitz class carriers are retired and the Fords are bought more slowly.

 

[cwjerome]

If the real aim is to minimize response time I'd be in favor of retiring a couple carrier groups if the money can be spent on Prompt Global Strike.

I can agree with that...

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=297764&highlight=prompt+global+strike

 

[Jhhnn]

Further, if you reduce our standing forces (carriers/etc), others WILL step up to fill the void. That might be a good thing. It could very well be a BAD thing. History suggests one result is more likely than the other.

It's not like scaling back our military significantly would create a power vacuum- we'd still outclass any conceivable combination of forces excluding our allies.

Lowering the odds against successful aggression from 100:1 down to 90:1 doesn't really reduce the odds significantly- it's still a fool's move...

 

[Carmen813]

I consider the T-34/85 as overall the best tank in general use in World War 2, showing that you can have quality and quantity. Our problem though is that we can't seem to adequately fund our military. We have too many bases, we've cut too many weapons programs, we cut too many troops for the level of commitment we seem to require politically, and we spend too much on research programs that are later cut. Bottom line, our military spending has become far too driven by politics rather than true military need and suffers from poor planning throughout.

Very good post, Garndawg. I saw a headline this weekend that permission had been given to develop a new long range bomber. Notwithstanding our current long range bombers, this new bomber will probably be canceled after spending billions or built in very small numbers, but even if it is built in massive numbers, a heavy bomber with a twenty+ hour sortie turnaround cannot compare as a deterrent to a carrier group that, although it takes longer to get there, can park off the nearest shore and be prepared to strike at any time. Carrier groups are also quite useful for other things like relief operations too. And yes, they are expensive.

We have comparatively very few of our advanced weapons, and in most cases the lines are now closed. Additionally we no longer have much of the kind of manufacturing that can be converted for use building these kinds of highly advanced weapons. So for us, any high-intensity war has to be short, win or lose.

And yet we still spend like $650 billion a year on defense. Maybe if we spent a little more time/money analyzing what the hell it is we need, and a little less time developing really cool but ultimately useless weapon systems, we'd be better off.

 

[0marTheZealot]

I know the history quite well thank you. Versailles most certainly did limit what they had, but your argument that this is what caused their excessively complicated tank designs doesn't hold water. Not only did Germany flagrantly disregard the limitations put on them to begin with, their true issues with difficult-to-manufacture tank designs vis a vis their enemies did not become a problem until 1941 and on, long after that treaty was dead and buried.

Regardless that's only a tangent to the original point that was the Germans chose highly effective but low output designs while the Soviets and us decided to make easy designs we could produce the shit out of. History showed which approach worked better. Hell just look at 1942's statistics. Germany's GDP was higher than the Soviet Union's, and yet the Soviet Union massively outproduced them. That should tell you something.

A lot of it came down to strategy, not industrial output. Hitler should have left the war room after conquering Europe, as the OKC basically had the perfect plan to dismantle the USSR. It a straight blitz to Moscow, capture it, and divide the country into two manageable portions. Hitler changed the strategy by forcing the Army Groups to divide up and attack Stalingrad and the oil fields in the South as well as Moscow. This, plus arrogance, led to the collapse in the East.

Germany had everything in it's favor. Technology, expertise, and logistics. No other fighting force could compare to them. In terms of technology, the Panther and Tiger tanks were easily unmatched in the battlefield. The way you defeated either one of those tanks was to send 10 Shermans at it and hope one of them got close enough to flank it and kill it. Germany had over 20 tank commanders with over 100 kills. They had several fighter aces with more than 200 kills. It really came down to an ill-advised strategy and not Allied superiority.

 

[IGBT]

The weakening of America continues. Pathetic.

we don't need any of it. we got the obama.