Rand Paul: Obama Cutting Tomahawk Missile Makes No Sense

[GunnyFreedom]

Gunny, feel free to educate. My understanding is that the Tomahawk may be moving past it's prime. Countries like Russia already employ STA anti-cruise missile systems and India is supposed to be developing the most advanced yet. From what I understand the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) will be receiving the funding that was originally supposed to be spent on the Tomahawks and that the next gen are needed to thwart the STA systems that have been developed to combat the Tomahawks. Am I wrong on any of this. I admit I haven't really kept current. So if my understanding is lacking then I would appreciate your input.

Oh no, you are mostly correct. Tomahawk is indeed past it's prime. But, at this point the kinds of nations that have an effective defense against it (Russia, China) are the kinds of countries that if we go to war with it's pretty much over for the planet, so it doesn't much matter which weapons systems are deployed. The one part that IS wrong is the idea that the money spent on future tomahawks will cover the development of the new system. That is probably the rhetoric that Lockheed Martin is spreading, and warhawk congress critters are parroting it, so it's reasonable to pick up, but that notion does not survive close scrutiny.

In order to develop a missile, you have to do lots of testing. Destructive testing. Just launching the things at nothing and letting them crash into the empty desert will cost more than the Tomahawk maintenance and replacements over the next 10-20 years, nevermind the development and engineering staff, facilities, R&D work.

Remember, Lockheed Martin is also responsible for the F-35 boondoggle. What are we at now, 100....times....the original cost estimate?

 

[green73]

aaaaand we've got like 5000 active nuclear missiles that are not Tomahawks. If that is really your primary concern, then they should have started THERE and not the Tomahawk. The only thing that can come from cutting Tomahawks and Hellfires is going to be MORE spending and MORE war. Because no sooner than we replace those systems, neocons left and right will get itchy trigger fingers to try out their new toys and make sure they work in a real war.

If more spending and more war is what you want, then you are right to cheer the dismantling of these programs.

I, for one, want less spending and less war. But then I'm not prone to knee-jerk reactions without a thorough understanding of the situation at hand.

So you are saying that Rand is being most humane by keeping intact these weapon systems that have been used exclusively in the evil invasions on 3rd world countries, because any cuts to these arsenals will not be cuts overall but redistributions of the same funds to the same military industrial complex for other assorted productions of evil. Well, then I guess we should keep the tomahawks. Freedom!

So am I. If US policy was driven by people who refuse to educate themselves on the nature and the substance of the issues before them, we'd end up with a country that looks a lot like the United States circa 2014.

Is that so? Hmmm. I challege you to watch the link to technowars I made above. It's gripping stuff. Here's the book:
http://www.amazon.com/Perfect-War-Technowar-Vietnam-Military/dp/0871137992/lewrockwell

 

[GunnyFreedom]

"The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is $163 billion over budget, seven years behind schedule, and will cost taxpayers about twice as much as sending a man to the moon."

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/f-35-fighter-plane-costs-103579.html

These are the same guys tasked to replace the Tomahawk.

If I can do my best Carnak the Magnificent impression...

The year is 2026, the new anti-ship missile is plagued by failures and overruns, and now it is expected it may be 2035 before the missile is operational. The aging Tomahawk fleet that stopped receiving parts and replacements a decade previously is now defunct and not operational. Some kind of war pops up (legitimate or illegitimate who knows) and we discover that we actually need cruise missiles. So we sink $690 Billion dollars in to reviving the Tomahawk program we know works, while continuing the develop the new anti-ship missile that we know doesn't work.

End of the day, all we've really managed to accomplish is to throw away a few extra Trillion dollars for no real reason.

 

[green73]

You've convinced me, Gunny. We need the Tomahawks. Now, if we could just find the next country to use them on!

 

[specsaregood]

Randal proposes cutting $70Billion of identified wasteful non-defense spending in the "defense budget" instead of a 124Million on a proven technology that is arguably constitutional in the realm of national defense. He further proposes auditing the pentagon in order to cut more spending, ending nation building and policing overseas. And yet he gets criticized by the peanut gallery.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

So you are saying that Rand is being most humane by keeping intact these weapon systems that have been used exclusively in the evil invasions on 3rd world countries, because any cuts to these arsenals will not be cuts overall but redistributions of the same funds to the same military industrial complex for other assorted productions of evil. Well, then I guess we should keep the tomahawks. Freedom!

Yes, because more war and more spending is clearly the best way to express peace and freedom,

If there ever was a legitimate war against the United States, where the US Military were legitimately used in the defense of this nation, then the Tomahawk would be one of the most important weapons in our arsenal. We could eliminate the enemies weapon production facilities within days or weeks, would would make the defense of the United States go a lot better.

Not that you seem to care about actual truth and facts and such inconvenient things.

A standoff long range missile capability is absolutely required for 21st century warfare. Eliminating the only weapon system we have to provide that capability will inevitably lead to more spending on another system to fill that gap. That's just reality, like "the Earth orbits the sun." You can like the reality or hate the reality, it's not going to affect it in any way.

What you are advocating leads to MORE spending, MORE debt, and MORE bloodshed.

What Rand is advocating leads to LESS spending, LESS debt, and LESS bloodshed.

Just because you can't wrap your mind around it doesn't change the basic fact of how it works.

Is that so? Hmmm. I challege you to watch the link to technowars I made above. It's gripping stuff. Here's the book:
http://www.amazon.com/Perfect-War-Technowar-Vietnam-Military/dp/0871137992/lewrockwell

If they reason anything like you do, then I will pass, thank you. I gave up knee-jerking for lent.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

You've convinced me, Gunny. We need the Tomahawks. Now, if we could just find the next country to use them on!

That's horrible. Why would you do that?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Rand proposes cutting $70Billion of identified wasteful non-defense spending in the "defense budget" instead of a 124Million on a proven technology that is arguably constitutional in the realm of national defense. He further proposes auditing the pentagon in order to cut more spending, ending nation building and policing overseas. And yet he gets criticized by the peanut gallery.

Best I can tell is 'radical anarchist' will hate any political action that does not lead to "no government." This action by Rand does not lead to "no government" therefore it is evil, and should be demonized. Even if we have to divorce ourselves from truth to do it.

 

[willwash]

Love 'em or hate 'em, Gunny, but the old guard Ron Pauliticians are what got this movement started and they are frankly anti-military and that's never going to change. It's an irrational overreaction to the corruptions and excesses of our current military.

I think their argument is identically analogous (and flawed for the same reasons) to that of atheists pointing to the Spanish Inquisition and Salem witch trials as justification for their non belief.

 

[green73]

If they reason anything like you do, then I will pass, thank you. I gave up knee-jerking for lent.

Yeah and you're brilliant at missing my points. Keep your head in the sand, remained fixed to outdated and sentimental notions of US defense. God forbid, but if the US ever goes to war with Russia or Chinia, I will be glad that they will have their Tomahawk missiles. You win!

 

[idiom]

Tomahawks are ridiculously over-priced. But they do allow you to reach out and touch someone without all those moral qualms.

Cut the NSA for a strong Defense! Stop the NSA from poking holes in America's National Defenses.

 

[green73]

Love 'em or hate 'em, Gunny, but the old guard Ron Pauliticians are what got this movement started and they are frankly anti-military and that's never going to change. It's an irrational overreaction to the corruptions and excesses of our current military.

I think their argument is identically analogous (and flawed for the same reasons) to that of atheists pointing to the Spanish Inquisition and Salem witch trials as justification for their non belief.

Deep, deep analysis.

 

[dannno]

Beef jerky makes ME strong, Rand

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Love 'em or hate 'em, Gunny, but the old guard Ron Pauliticians are what got this movement started and they are frankly anti-military and that's never going to change. It's an irrational overreaction to the corruptions and excesses of our current military.

I think their argument is identically analogous to that of atheists pointing to the Spanish Inquisition and Salem witch trials as justification for their non belief.

I may not have been a member of RPF's until November, but I was actively pushing Ron Paul by March of 2007. I'm pretty sure I qualify as 'old guard.' My experience is totally different from yours.

Nearly ALL Ron Paulers from the beginning have been radical non-interventionists and anti-aggressionists, myself included; but if I had to guess...less than 1/3 of 1% of Paulers -- even from the very beginning -- have been radical anti-military types. Now, they make enough noise like they are 10% of us, but that noise belies their actual numbers. IMHO they certainly did not get this movement started, rather they are among the factors that have been holding this movement back.

I have no doubt that noninterventionism would have gained far more ground by now, if we had not been beset by whack-job lunatics calling every man and woman what strapped on a uniform baby killers and such.

I by and large agree with your assessment in the 2nd half, except that to a legitimate anarcho-capitalist it is not really 'irrational' at all. It may be wrong to be sure, but at least it's reasoned out and internally consistent.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Yeah and you're brilliant at missing my points. Keep your head in the sand, remained fixed to outdated and sentimental notions of US defense. God forbid, but if the US ever goes to war with Russia or Chinia, I will be glad that they will have their Tomahawk missiles. You win!

LMAO talk about missing points. Rand Paul's point flew over your head like a U-2 at cruise, as well as mine clearly are also.

You do what Obama has suggested, what YOU are backing, and more people die in foreign lands. I get that you just can't see it. Rand Paul is saving the lives of foreign babies by taking the position he is taking here. I get that you do not understand how that works.

In this thread, YOU are advocating the position that will lead to more spending and more war. RAND is advocating the position that leads to less spending and less war.

I have explained to you several times why that is so, and you appear to have chosen to overlook it, or you do not have the background to understand the line of reasoning in context.

So I will try and make this easier.

If you take Barack Obama's side of this, then you are pushing for more spending and more war.

If you take Rand Paul's side of this, then you are pushing for less spending and less war.

Just because you cannot conceive how the micro leads to the macro does not give you the right to insinuate that Rand or anybody else here is a warmonger. When you do, all you are doing is pointing out your own ignorance.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Tomahawks are ridiculously over-priced. But they do allow you to reach out and touch someone without all those moral qualms.

Cut the NSA for a strong Defense! Stop the NSA from poking holes in America's National Defenses.

Oh they sure are overpriced! You know what's even more over-priced? Developing a whole new cruise missile from scratch, by the same company that brought us the F-35.

And yeah, there are $70 to $100 Billions to cut from the annual budget easily before you even look at the stuff that actually works and WOULD have a legitimate use if the military actually defended the US.

 

[fr33]

Tomahawks and hellfires seem to be 2 of the most effective weapons to wreak havok in unconstitutional pre-emptive wars. I'm no expert but have they ever been used in anything but that? (not including training)

 

[Rudeman]

Tomahawks and hellfires seem to be 2 of the most effective weapons to wreak havok in unconstitutional pre-emptive wars. I'm no expert but have they ever been used in anything but that? (not including training)

Just because something is used in a wrong/immoral way doesn't mean that thing is bad. That's basically the argument Democrats use to ban guns.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Rand proposes cutting $70Billion of identified wasteful non-defense spending in the "defense budget" instead of a 124Million on a proven technology that is arguably constitutional in the realm of national defense. He further proposes auditing the pentagon in order to cut more spending, ending nation building and policing overseas. And yet he gets criticized by the peanut gallery.

His proposed budgets increase defense spending in year one. He can say he wants to cut spending all he wants, his policy proposals state something else.

Yes, because more war and more spending is clearly the best way to express peace and freedom,

If there ever was a legitimate war against the United States, where the US Military were legitimately used in the defense of this nation, then the Tomahawk would be one of the most important weapons in our arsenal. We could eliminate the enemies weapon production facilities within days or weeks, would would make the defense of the United States go a lot better.

Not that you seem to care about actual truth and facts and such inconvenient things.

A standoff long range missile capability is absolutely required for 21st century warfare. Eliminating the only weapon system we have to provide that capability will inevitably lead to more spending on another system to fill that gap. That's just reality, like "the Earth orbits the sun." You can like the reality or hate the reality, it's not going to affect it in any way.

What you are advocating leads to MORE spending, MORE debt, and MORE bloodshed.

What Rand is advocating leads to LESS spending, LESS debt, and LESS bloodshed.

Just because you can't wrap your mind around it doesn't change the basic fact of how it works.



If they reason anything like you do, then I will pass, thank you. I gave up knee-jerking for lent.

Speaking of knee jerking...

Here's what will happen if the Tomahawk program isn't cut. The new programs are already set to be funded, and a huge mess will be made about how our defenses are going to be weakened if the Tomahawk program is cut, so the Tomahawk's funding will be restored, and an outdated missile system will continue to be produced and maintained at insane markups. In addition to the new one, which will also be produced and maintained at insane markups.

 

[fr33]

Just because something is used in a wrong/immoral way doesn't mean that thing is bad. That's basically the argument Democrats use to ban guns.

No it's not the same. Guns are used in a moral way every day for centuries. Name the day when when tomahawks and hellfires were.