Comments on: Troubled Seas Ahead

By: Karen

Karen — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 19:07:30 +0000

I don’t think cutting the budget is a good idea. I thought that it would have been wiser to increase it so as to win the war.

By: commieobamie

commieobamie — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 02:54:20 +0000

Obama is a USURPER and a COMMUNIST! He’s trying to destroy the USA. Wake up Idiots!
Clearing the Smoke on Obama

By: Charles

Charles — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 19:50:12 +0000

4%, 5%, or 10% of GDP spent on Defense would be acceptable to me. The important part is that it is paid for.
For FY2008 about 30% (743 billion) of the budget is not being paid for (if Social Security income is treated as debt to the Social Security trust fund and Social Security payments are treaded as servicing that debt).
To those who scream ‘cut to entitlement programs’ lets ask a few questions.
1. Do you like to drive on roads for extremely low cost?
2. Do you like receiving electricity at your home at prices you can afford?
3. How much is it worth to you to know that if you are driving in a city at night and you stop at a red light that it is not guarantied that you will be car jacked and kidnapped?
4. Do you like having the fire brigade come and put out the fire in your house?
Every one of those things is paid for by entitlement programs. (1: highway spending bill. 2: Rural electricity cost and build out subsidies. 3: Welfare. 4: Government Fire Departments.)
This country would be a craptastic place to live if these programs didn’t exist. If you want to see what it is like to live in a place where social safety nets don’t exist take a look at Brazil or India.
It all well and good to say ‘cut entitlement programs’ but I have never seen a group of Americans stand up and say you should cut the entitlement that benefits our group. (Trucker and gas subsidies, Loggers and cut rate pricing on forest logging rights, Soldiers and tax free combat pay, American workers and the government buying American products regardless of cost of the same non-American products.)

By: Byron Skinner

Byron Skinner — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 18:54:13 +0000

Good Morning Mr.Ortman,
I’m sure the Russian inventory goes all the way back to the 1940’s and the T-34–85’s who last modernization was in 1969, but are still active in the Syrian and Egyptian militaries.
As for the T-62’s, the last of the T-54 variant if you recall they were the ones the US bought and provided to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. They were is such poor operating condition that with in two weeks all were broken down on the side of the road. For the U.S. this is saving $ billion in useless armored vehicles that would have been bought trying to second guess the Russian Federation. That’s money that go for healthcare, job creation and other worth while projects that the current Administration wants to do.
This is a good step for both the Americans and Russians. For the Russians it will get rid of a lot of junque that is costing Rubles to store and would be of no use in the event of War. and it will be fielding a modern armored force.
For the United States it give us a true indicator of Russian armor forces and what they have and will have. One thing for sure this make the decision to now buy the FCS a very good one. We know what the T-90 is and what it can do and we can put our efforts in dealing with the T-95 if and when it becomes operational.
In the war on terror this heroic decision on the part of the Russian will keep these old but still serviceable tanks out of Africa, Latin America and other places that the Islamic or other brands of terrorists might decide to operate out of.
This is the post CW environment one small victory at a time, that works for both sides.
A Chamber of Commerce note here. For those really interested in military technology and not just using “potty language” on line. In San Diego today the SS Dolphin goes on display as part of our Maritime Museum. It is the only place in the world that I know of where, for small fees, you can go on board a, Soviet K Class Submarine, the SS Dolphin a U.S. is a diesel Submarine, the last on active duty in the USN, and then you can visit the most recent vintage U.S. carrier on public display, the U.S. Midway. All with in easy walking distance. If one has a little more time in town there are excellent free museums at the Command Museum Marine Corps Recruit Depot, just around the corner from the Maritime museums, the aviation museum at Marine Corp Air Station Miramar and the armor exhibits at Camp Pendleton.
Not to be for gotten our Aero Space Museum in Balboa park where you can see both a Sea Dart and an A10, for free on display as well as again for a small fee a first rate aviation museum. By the way the USMC Museums are free.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

By: Sven Ortmann

Sven Ortmann — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 11:22:43 +0000

“It appears that the Russian are readers of defense tech, a little while ago a Russian New Agency posted that the Russian Army will reduce it current inventory of 22,000 tanks to 2,000, all of which be T-90’s converted for T-72’s. the larger haul T-64/T-80 tanks will be scrapped.“
Problem:
They used some T-62’s in the second MRD that intervened in South Ossetia. It was both unknown and unexpected in the public that T-62’s were still in service.
This casts some doubts about Russian tank inventories and use in general.

By: freefallingbomb

freefallingbomb — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 09:21:56 +0000

To the poster Mr. Byron Skinner:
In very, very general terms: BEFORE you even start to write or even to think anything: Are you quite sure that you manage to distinguish clearly between the extinct Soviet Union (1917 — 1991) and extant Russia (1991 — now)?
Everybody: Check out once Mr. Byron Skinner’s chrono“logical” sequence of phrases, for example merely in his last answer to me (and this time totally irrespective of their remaining contents) :
Phrase nr. 3: “The SOVIETS never had and still don’t have a first strike capability.“
Phrase nr. 5: “In RECENT YEARS both Topal (M) and Bulava missiles has failed every test launch.“
Phrases nr. 8 and 9: “The Russian CURRENTLY under treaty are allowed 39 missile cylos, but none contain a missile. The Russian CURRENTLY have 6 mobile launchers for whenever the Topal M become available.“
Phrases nr. 11 and 12: “The U.S. had Space Based Imaging up and operating by 1961, the SOVIETS would not have this capacity till the end of the 1960’s. In the 1980’s the US. had real time satellite imaging and SAR , the SOVIETS never did fully achieve this.“
These are HALF-CENTURY LEAPS which you constantly make! ARE YOU EVEN MINIMALLY AWARE of the real differences between the former Soviet Union and modern Russia??! Maybe you got stuck in time?
Regarding my lousy English skills: After you learned any other language besides your mother tongue English, we talk again. In your second language. (I speak only five, but that’s because I’m a dumb Euro…)
By the way: Your English spelling sucks (missile “cylos”?), just like your grammar, your capitalization, your punctuation and your syntax, everything! Back in school I would NEVER have been allowed to write as bad as most U.S. Americans here, although my English teacher was a very tolerant U.S. American herself.
P.S.: But thanks again for your daily supply of fresh, amusing, unsurmountable nonsense: “…You don’t understand what first strike capability is, it has nothing to do with (a missile’s) accuracy.“
True, I.C.B.M.s only need relatively crude guidance systems. That’s jolly old Byron Skinner, unabridged!
P.P.S.: You’ve got cancer.
.….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….…
To Mr. Sven Ortmann:
Can you forgive me for exposing our TERRIBLE , TERRIBLE secret, the fact that we’re N-O-T pure U.S. Americans, although we sometimes gather here incognito to post, and even enjoy our little desecrations of this temple of High Americanism?
I admit it, profoundly ashamed, my head covered with ashes: That was soooo irresponsible of me, so mindless! What is going to happen to us now?! WE HAVE BEEN EXPOSED !

By: Byron Skinner

Byron Skinner — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 19:08:23 +0000

Good Morning Folks,
It appears that the Russian are readers of defense tech, a little while ago a Russian New Agency posted that the Russian Army will reduce it current inventory of 22,000 tanks to 2,000, all of which be T-90’s converted for T-72’s. the larger haul T-64/T-80 tanks will be scrapped. The T-95, “Abrams killer”, is expected to be in testing by the end of 2009 and in production in 3–4 years, good luck, it also will be a constructed on the smaller T-72 haul but will have a welded turret, laser rangefinder, laser defensive system, and perhaps a new main gun, a auto loading 130mm Smooth Bore ?, the power plant is expected to remain diesel, we will just have to wait and see I guess.
The current status of tanks in the Russian Federation Army are 6,000 serviceable, about 1,000 to 1,500 in active units.
China is estimated to have a total of 4–5,000 total mostly old Soviet T-54’s and T-55’s with about 2,000 Chinese manufactured Type 90’s.
NATO less the United States is estimated to have about 6,000 tanks. The U.S. claims to have 7,500 M1A1’s in units and in strategic storage and an unknown number of M-60’s in reserve.
Again FFB lays a DUD.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

By: Byron Skinner

Byron Skinner — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:39:11 +0000

Good Morning FFB,
What am I going to do with you. Clearly you don’t understand what first strike capability is, it has nothing to do with accuracy. The Soviets never had and still don’t have a first strike capability. Two reasons their Command and Control system and the in ability to pre fuel a missile and then let it sit.
In recent years both Topal (M) and Bulava missiles has failed every test launch. While just last week the U.S. test fired a Minuteman III down the Pacific Test range and the 3 dummy warheads hit their targets at 2400 miles.
Currently the Russian have 8 Delta IV SSBN’s that have been sitting at the docks for at least 10 years, unarmed because currently the Russian have no missile for them or for that matter crews.
The Russian currently under treaty are allowed 39 missile cylos, but none contain a missile. The Russian currently have 6 mobile launchers for whenever the Topal M become available.
Satellite observation. The U.S. had Space Based Imaging up and operating by 1961, the Soviets would not have this capacity till the end of the 1960’s. In the 1980’s the US. had real time satellite imaging and SAR , the Soviets never did fully achieve this.
Lets see now I’m european, the fact that I’ve yet to visit Europe doesn’t matter, I guess. As for yourself we still don’t know a name, the brach of military service you served in, or who is paying you to post, I would suggest by you lack of mastery of the language and knowledge of the subject matter they are not getting their monies worth.
If it weren’t for profanity, personal attacks and lack of knowledge of the subject matter you wouldn’t have anything to say at all. But I’m getting to you and that amuses me, but only so far.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

By: Sven Ortmann

Sven Ortmann — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:04:17 +0000

@Bobbymike:
Ad hominem, that’s all you got?
The U.S. wouldn’t even exist without Europe. It would instead still be settled by stone age tribes.
Come on, it’s not my fault that your fiscal idea was a harakiri of logic.

By: bobbymike

bobbymike — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 14:54:54 +0000

So Sven Ortmann according to freefaillingbomb you’re European? If so now I understand why you have no understanding of the Constitution or Declaration or have not read the Federalist Papers or other writings of the Founders.
You would not be able to post on a blog without the freedom the US provided. So to quote Colonel Nathan R Jessup “Just say thank you and be on your way”.