I was so happy to be president again. I leaped into my second term so happy because I thought I could do what I wanted with all my toys, like Air Force One, the Rule of Law, and the national economy.
Sequestration, for those not yet familiar with it, is an automatic process whereby the discretionary portion of the federal budget (but not the mandatory portion, i.e. not entitlements or debt interest) will be significantly and automatically cut – and by far the heaviest cuts, over 60% of the total, will fall on the defense budget.
The DOTE and test pilots have written that as a result, the F-35 will be outclassed in air combat everytime because of poor visibility for the pilot (i.e. the pilot will have good visibility only straight ahead). Even vision to the sides will be poor. As a result, the plane will succumb in air to air combat (at least in Within Visual Range combat) every time, for all-around vision is a non-negotiable requirement for this regime of combat. In simple English, F-35 pilots won’t be able to see what’s around them, only what’s in front of them.
These are just the most damaging, most crippling of the defense cuts that POGO and TCS have proposed. Implementing them would gut the military and make it unable to counter anti-access/area-denial threats – the most pervasive and ubiquitous threats the US faces today – because TCS and POGO have targeted the very weapons and capabilities needed to counter these threats.
And the empirical evidence is that ENTITLEMENTS, not the military, are the programs Washington overspends on. According to the Heritage Foundation (see its graphs below), entitlements alone consume 62% of the total federal budget (and are on track to consume 100% by 2050), and the broader category of social/welfare spending consumes 70% of the entire federal budget.
America’s nuclear weapons do not pose any danger to anyone, except those who’d like to make war on the US or its allies. (But if you DO plan to make war on the US or its allies, then yes, America’s nuclear arsenal is a huge threat to you.) In fact, it is this arsenal that has kept America and its allies safe for the last 67 years (and counting), and which continues to keep all of us safe to this day. It is America’s and her allies’ life insurance – and the best one you could ever get.
The fact is that a nuclear arsenal, in order to be survivable, MUST be large – there’s no way around that fact. In order to be an effective deterrent, it also must be able to hold the vast majority of enemy military and economic assets at risk. A smaller arsenal and the new nuclear strategy prepared for Obama’s signature will be utterly unable to do so.
He’s completely wrong. Firstly, there are no American interests at stake in Afghanistan, and the war over that country is utterly unwinnable. True, American troops are still dying there – but it’s time to stop that waste of American blood by ending the war ASAP. Secondly, Republicans are not engaging in a “scripted apoplexy over Syria, Iran, and China”, they are rightly sounding the alarm over China’s huge military buildup (which long ago exceeded China’s legitimate self-defense needs) and Bashar al-Assad’s genocide of his own people. But I guess that Mr Miller would prefer for American troops to continue to die in the totally irrelevant quagmire of Afghanistan instead of defending America’s Pacific Rim allies (or America’s southern border).
They have been caught lying about nuclear modernization costs many times before – by the Washington Post’s Fact Checker Glenn Kessler, for example. When, last year, they falsely claimed a $700 bn per decade nuclear modernization cost, the WaPo’s Fact Checker gave them two Pinnochios , and they responded by saying “whether we are spending $500 billion or $700 billion on nuclear weapons in the next decade — the number is still too high.”