Rand Paul: Obama Cutting Tomahawk Missile Makes No Sense

[Origanalist]

Cut the F35. Done.

Speaking of which, I came across this video. Time for a new roll of toilet paper.......

 

[georgiaboy]

I believe that would be the Hellfire that is used by drones. A Tomahawk is pretty much the size and double the weight of a drone.

yeah, I did a little searching and it seemed to agree with you. I just wondered if the upsurge in drone usage would in any way reduce the need for Tomahawks.

 

[specsaregood]

I believe that would be the Hellfire that is used by drones. A Tomahawk is pretty much the size and double the weight of a drone.

We took his comment to mean opposite things. I thought he was asking if you could shoot drones down with a tomahawk,

 

[Brett85]

Great article by Rand. He needs to do more of this; making it clear that you can support a strong national defense without supporting a belligerent foreign policy.

 

[AuH20]

The guy he's railing against, the one who apparently wants to cut the Tomahawk without the compromise I suggested... that guy got elected.

Progs are a protected species. They can do and say what they want.

 

[georgiaboy]

We took his comment to mean opposite things. I thought he was asking if you could shoot drones down with a tomahawk,

Oops! ha, yeah, I see how you could interpret that way. phill's interpretation was my intent -- I was trying to figure out if drones could utilize Tomahawks as ordnance.

Since it seems the drones can't carry Tomahawks, maybe that lends support for why they're on the list for cutting, esp. given the rise in drone usage. I'll defer to the experts in this thread, though.

The other interpretation of my question provides counterpoint, though -- if Tomahawks can shoot down drones, why wouldn't we want to keep them?

 

[AuH20]

risky and wasteful

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obama-Tomahawk-Hellfire-missiles/2014/03/25/id/561604/

The Free Beacon reported that the Tomahawk cuts are shifting money from acquiring the missiles and instead investing in "an experimental missile program that experts say will not be battle-ready for at least 10 years."

 

[phill4paul]

Oops! ha, yeah, I see how you could interpret that way. phill's interpretation was my intent -- I was trying to figure out if drones could utilize Tomahawks as ordinance.

Since it seems the drones can't carry Tomahawks, maybe that lends support for why they're on the list for cutting, esp. given the rise in drone usage. I'll defer to the experts in this thread, though.

The other interpretation of my question provides counterpoint, though -- if Tomahawks can shoot down drones, why wouldn't we want to keep them?

yeah, I did a little searching and it seemed to agree with you. I just wondered if the upsurge in drone usage would in any way reduce the need for Tomahawks.

Not really. A Predator is basically just a platform to launch from. The Predator works best in a situation were the airspace is controlled. The Tomahawk is a sub-sonic missile designed to penetrate airspace defenses. Though it is becoming less likely to be able to do so. As far as I know and I am no expert.
My initial reaction was that they are becoming dated and new defenses are just around the corner against them. So why not phase them out and apply the monies spent upgrading them towards newer technology. However, it looks like, with upgrades, that they can be viable until 2030 (in most cases).
If this is the case then I have to agree with Rand. Keep what we have. Upgrade it. Slash waste in the meantime and develop the nex-gen a little further down the road after reducing waste costs. I think this is a pragmatic approach.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Oops! ha, yeah, I see how you could interpret that way. phill's interpretation was my intent -- I was trying to figure out if drones could utilize Tomahawks as ordinance.

Since it seems the drones can't carry Tomahawks, maybe that lends support for why they're on the list for cutting, esp. given the rise in drone usage. I'll defer to the experts in this thread, though.

The other interpretation of my question provides counterpoint, though -- if Tomahawks can shoot down drones, why wouldn't we want to keep them?

Problem is that drones and cruise missiles are different weapons with totally different purposes. A cruise missile is used against fixed, extremely hardened targets, while a hellfire (drones) are used against mobile and light to medium armored targets. A cruise missile (loaded with conventional warhead) has 10 to 30 times the power of a drone launched missile, and it's concentrated into a single impact. Therefore it can take out things like bunkers and hardened factories.

A drone launched hellfire can take out a tank, but would just leave scorch marks and an easily repairable hole in a tank factory.

A whatever-launched Tomahawk can take out the whole tank factory, but could not be targeted against something mobile like a tank.

They are two totally different weapon systems with completely different purposes. From a military operational and strategic perspective, it would be equivalent to, "I've got plenty of transmission fluid, therefore I don't need to get brake fluid anymore."

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Not really. A Predator is basically just a platform to launch from. The Predator works best in a situation were the airspace is controlled. The Tomahawk is a sub-sonic missile designed to penetrate airspace defenses. Though it is becoming less likely to be able to do so. As far as I know and I am no expert.
My initial reaction was that they are becoming dated and new defenses are just around the corner against them. So why not phase them out and apply the monies spent upgrading them towards newer technology. However, it looks like, with upgrades, that they can be viable until 2030 (in most cases).
If this is the case then I have to agree with Rand. Keep what we have. Upgrade it. Slash waste in the meantime and develop the nex-gen a little further down the road after reducing waste costs. I think this is a pragmatic approach.

This matches my assessment. Rand's approach is not only more pragmatic, it also saves a metric pluck-ton of money.

 

[georgiaboy]

Problem is that drones and cruise missiles are different weapons with totally different purposes. A cruise missile is used against fixed, extremely hardened targets, while a hellfire (drones) are used against mobile and light to medium armored targets. A cruise missile (loaded with conventional warhead) has 10 to 30 times the power of a drone launched missile, and it's concentrated into a single impact. Therefore it can take out things like bunkers and hardened factories.

A drone launched hellfire can take out a tank, but would just leave scorch marks and an easily repairable hole in a tank factory.

A whatever-launched Tomahawk can take out the whole tank factory, but could not be targeted against something mobile like a tank.

They are two totally different weapon systems with completely different purposes. From a military operational and strategic perspective, it would be equivalent to, "I've got plenty of transmission fluid, therefore I don't need to get brake fluid anymore."

thanks, G! I figured something like what you describe here was part of the story, but hadn't read it yet in the thread.

 

[KingNothing]

Are you accusing me of supporting the mass murder of civilians, or are you claiming that we used Tomahawk missiles in WW2?

The Tomahawk program is already paid for. Scrapping it means that now there will be a new program, and a new Defense Contractor will get new Trillions of dollars.

I'm an anarchist. I hate government. I want no government. I want no taxes. I want no military industrial complex. I want no state-sponsored destruction, and I want even less state-sponsored death.

Having said all of that, of all things our federal government spends money on, procuring these missiles is potentially the very last expense that should be cut.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

risky and wasteful

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obama-Tomahawk-Hellfire-missiles/2014/03/25/id/561604/

Far from being a stupid, naive, non-forward-thinking neandertal who can't see two inches in front of him, I understand how government works. Keeping the cuts in place leaves the government with thousands of Tomahawk missiles, and no weakened defense capabilities. Restoring the cuts continues a military boondoggle while starting a new one. If the government can't cut an outdated missile system because of national security concerns, what are the chances of an improved system getting the axe? How are you going to pull that one off? Unicorns and rainbows? Fairy dust? Hopes and prayers?

 

[Brett85]

I'm an anarchist. I hate government. I want no government. I want no taxes. I want no military industrial complex. I want no state-sponsored destruction, and I want even less state-sponsored death.

I'm not trying to criticize you here and get into an argument, but weren't you saying before that we weren't doing enough to try to control the situation in Russia/Ukraine? How does intervention in Ukraine square with anarchism? I just got the impression because of the views that you've advocated that you're not an anarchist.

 

[Christian Liberty]

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.

How could a radical non-interventionist and anti-aggressor have anything but contempt for the modern US Military?

Now, I understand that not every person in the military is killing babies, so let's not go there. I'm not saying that. But certainly, joining the military you have to know you MIGHT be deployed to a foreign country and MIGHT have to kill people who are no threat to the US, right?

Why would any libertarian/voluntarist support that?

 

[Anti Federalist]

Oh...this again.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Oh...this again.

You are wrong, AF! Wrong, wrong, wrong!
You've got it completely bass-ackwards.
It is, in actual fact, this again ... (man! SMH ...)

 

[gusbaker]

I think this is where we seperate the non-interventionist with the fairytale believing pacifists. I agree many things in the military should be scaled back, but I see no reason to cut this, it's just a cheap ploy by Obama, Rand is right. Yes, I know I'm new here, but I have been part of Ron Paul's crowd since 2011, now I'm starting to see where some of those smears against RP supporters come from, some of you are dilusional about the world, we don't need to be aggressive with the world, but we do need to have a strong military.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Here's what Rand should do: propose a compromise, where the federal government eliminates any allocation of tax dollars to the Tomahawk, and they set up a fund that people who want to keep the Tomahawk can donate their own money to for that purpose. And if the fund gets enough money, then they keep the Tomahawk and use that money for it.

What a reasonable compromise.

 

[phill4paul]

I think this is where we seperate the non-interventionist with the fairytale believing pacifists. I agree many things in the military should be scaled back, but I see no reason to cut this, it's just a cheap ploy by Obama, Rand is right. Yes, I know I'm new here, but I have been part of Ron Paul's crowd since 2011, now I'm starting to see where some of those smears against RP supporters come from, some of you are dilusional [sic] about the world, we don't need to be aggressive with the world, but we do need to have a strong military.

Second post and you insult forum members. Nice.