SECURITY: Defence

America faces more threats than at anytime since the end of the Cold War. The cornerstone of our security has been and always be a strong military. From the front lines in the War On Terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, to our National Guard formations at home, a strong military has protected our unique way of life for generations. A strong military also allows us to play a major role in world events and protect our interests in the global marketplace. I feel strongly that defense spending goes beyond simply maintaining our military, but primes our economy, and fosters innovation and research. When evaluating all of these aspects, President Bush by far is much more in tune with the needs of America for the next 4 years.

President Bush has proposed a multifaceted approach to help us maintain our military dominance and improve in several key areas:

Pay Raises: The Bush plan will help take care of the most important factor in our military, the people. Our high technology military depends on the dedication and skill of our people. By improving pay and overall conditions, the presidents plan not only help to retain personnel, but will continue to attract highly qualified and motivated people. The plan also proposes to decrease out of pocket expenses for military families that opt for community living by 2005.

Training: The high level of training and professionalism in our armed forces are another one of its keys. Without this training all of the high technology equipment would not be able to be used. The Bush plan calls for sustaining the high training levels for our military forces. It allows for increased flying hours, ship at sea time, and ground vehicle training.

Missile Defense: Often decried as �The Son Of Star Wars� missile defense represents the best way to defend our country from the threats that rouge nations pose. The shield will only protect against limited missile attack and will in no way threaten the security of Russia or China. The interceptors are currently being initially deployed in Alaska and total system integration will take several years. The Bush plan provides the necessary funding for this. Beyond missile defense, the funding will prime the research and development for years to come. President Reagan was ridiculed for supporting Star Wars, but the technology that sprouted from it is in use today. From lasers to miniaturization, we will benefit from that for years to come

Naval Presence: The president supports the development of the Navy�s newest stealth ships to continue our domination of the seas.

Future Systems: In order to stay on top, the military needs to continue to modernize and field new weapons system. President Bush supports continued development of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) and their cousins Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles (UCAV), Unmanned underwater vehicles, the Army�s Land Warrior Technology, the small diameter bomb project, a new series of deep penetrating weapons to hit bunkers and deeply sited WMD, and lastly improve on our space dominance by improving detection technology and intelligence gathering.

As I stated above, our military is the key to preserving our security and our way of life. Historically military weakness has never resulted in long term security, no has it maintained the peace. President Bush has consistently kept our military as strong as possible. The Democratic nominee John Kerry has also claimed to be �Strong� on defense. However, one has to wonder where he is going to get all the money for his ambitious social programs? The cornerstone to Kerry�s defense plan is to build global alliances to help protect the nation. Chumming up tot he French and the UN is not going to preserve our integrity. A war on terrorism requires us to be strong, not to be conciliatory. Alliances have their uses, but the needs of the United States should be paramount, not the desire to be �Mr. Nice Guy�. Beyond, that the Kerry platform calls for an increase in the number of Special Forces and active duties soldiers. He also calls for modernization, echoing the same in the Bush proposal.

However, one simply has to look at Kerry�s history in public office to become very concerned that a Kerry administration will leave our country at its weakest point since the Carter administration.

In an 1984 in written Budget Plan, Kerry proposed canceling the following programs to save money: The MX Missile, the B-1, Star Wars, Anti-Satellite weapons, the Apache Gunship, DIVAD, the Patriot Missile, the Ageis system, the Harrier, further F-15 procurement, the F-14D, the Phoenix and Sparrow missile improvements.

When he has voted, he has also, either tried to kill programs or reduce Americas strength in key areas.

5/11/1988, 1. S 2355: Vote to table [kill] an amendment that would keep the US strategic arsenal roughly in line with the US-Soviet strategic arms limitation treaty of 1979 [SALT II], which had not been ratified at the time. Kerry voted NO to not kill the amendment, which would have required us to live by a treaty that we never ratified. The motion was tabled 51-45.
1991, the 1. Gulf War. Kerry voted NO but the resolution passed 52-47

7/31/1991, 1. S 1507: Vote on an amendment that would show it is the United States' goal to maintain strategic stability with the Soviet Union. Still not understanding the success of the Reagan defense build-up, Kerry voted YES. The amendment failed 43-56.

8/1/1991, 1. S 1507: Discontinue production of B-2 bomber. Kerry voted YES but the bill failed 42-57.

9/10/1991, 1. HR 2707: Voted To Slash Over $3 Billion from Defense, Shift Money to Social Programs. Only 27 Senators joined Kerry in voting for the defense cut. (H.R. 2707, CQ Vote #182: Motion Rejected 28-69: R 3-39; D 25-30, 9/10/91, Kerry Voted Yea)

9/9/1992, 1. S Con Res 106: Reduce the defense spending levels for smaller weapon projects by $8.8 billion in fiscal 1993. Kerry voted YES, but the measure was rejected 45-50.

5/5/1992, 1. S 2403: Cancel funding for a second and third Seawolf nuclear submarine. Kerry voted NO, and the measure failed 46-52. Hallelujah! Finally a defense system that Kerry liked! Where's that Seawolf built again? Oh yeah. Connecticut.

9/18/1992, 1. S 3114: Cut $2,686,572,000 from the bill for production of additional B-2 stealth bombers, halting production of the B-2 fleet at 15 planes instead of the 20 planes requested by the administration. Kerry voted YES but the measure failed 45-53.

1993: Kerry introduced 1. S 1163, where the liberal northeastern Senator supported a whole plethora of defense cuts, including:
Reduction in the operating tempo of ballistic missile submarines.
Reduction in the attack submarine force.
Reduction in the antisubmarine warfare weapon systems of the Navy.
Reduction in number of light divisions.
Reduction in number of tactical fighter wings.
Limitation on expenditures for nuclear weapons research, development, and testing activities of the Department of Energy.
Strategic Defense Initiative (limiting the scope)
Termination of the MHC(V) coastal mine-hunting ship program.
Termination of the Kinetic Energy Anti-satellite Attack program.
Force the Retirement of no less than 60,000 members of the armed forces in one year

7/1/1994, 1. S 2182: Cut $150 million for additional B-2 stealth bombers. Kerry voted YES for the cut but the measure failed 45-55.

8/10/1994, HR 4650: Eliminate funding for Trident II submarine-launched missiles. Kerry voted YES but the measure failed 40-60. A strange history of voting for the submarines but against the missiles on the submarines. Or, in other words, he voted for the submarines before he voted against the submarine-launched missiles.

1/26/1996, 1. S 1124 (also here): Vote to adopt a revised version of a bill [HR 1530] to authorize $265.3 billion in appropriations for 1996 for military activities of the Department of Defense, military construction, and Department of Energy defense activities. The bill includes a 2.4% cost-of-living increase for members of the armed forces, among other provisions. This revised bill deletes a provision in the original bill requiring that the U.S. develop an affordable and effective national missile defense system to be operational by 2003. There is also a provision requiring the president to certify Congress in advance that any future deployment of U.S. troops under the operational control of the UN is in the U.S. national security interest, among other changes. Kerry voted NO but the bill passed 56-34.

9/13/2000, 1. HR 4444: Vote to table [kill] an amendment that would require sanctions against China or other countries if they were found to be selling illicit weapons of mass destruction. Not favoring sanctions, Kerry voted YES and the amendment was killed 65-32.
Taken From: www.tacitus.org...

These are but a few of the bills that Kerry has voted on (He has missed a few over the years). Given his track record on killing defense bills I have serious concerns about his long term impact on national defense. The list of systems that he proposed to kill in 1984 form the backbone of our military today. He tried again to make further deep cuts in 1993.

President Bush represents the best choice for maintaining and improving our nations military. From modernization, to supporting our troops, to investing in the technologies of the future, the Bush plan stands out as being best for America

Given that the teams are adding members, Im goint to bump this topic up. I feel the differences in the candidates is a important factor in this race.

First I must say that I am by no mean a fan of Kerry but I would like to provide some possible insight on why he may have made some of the choice in these facts that you stated.

Anything below that I am not quoting, I either do not have a position on the topic or I disagree with his vote. For some of these votes I must say though; what was he thinking?!

9/9/1992, 1. S Con Res 106: Reduce the defense spending levels for smaller weapon projects by $8.8 billion in fiscal 1993. Kerry voted YES, but the measure was rejected 45-50.

5/5/1992, 1. S 2403: Cancel funding for a second and third Seawolf nuclear submarine. Kerry voted NO, and the measure failed 46-52. Hallelujah! Finally a defense system that Kerry liked! Where's that Seawolf built again? Oh yeah. Connecticut.

First of all the strategic arsenal is changing now over time. I believe that having a well rounded submarine which is able to carry ICBMs, torpedoes, Surface to Surface missiles or SAMs is much more beneficial than having some of these monster boomers roaming around the ocean.

9/18/1992, 1. S 3114: Cut $2,686,572,000 from the bill for production of additional B-2 stealth bombers, halting production of the B-2 fleet at 15 planes instead of the 20 planes requested by the administration. Kerry voted YES but the measure failed 45-53.

Is this trillion with a 'T'? For only 5 planes? I can see his reasoning but we need to really determine what the best solution truly is for air dominance in the changing world climate. We are not fighting any countries with large air forces nor are we using these very expensive bombers to its potential. Right now the threat of war with a country that is really able to stress our existing fleet is pretty slim. An extra five B-2s for 2.6 trillion dollars seems a bit much.

1993: Kerry introduced 1. S 1163, where the liberal northeastern Senator supported a whole plethora of defense cuts, including:
Reduction in the operating tempo of ballistic missile submarines.
Reduction in the attack submarine force.
Reduction in the antisubmarine warfare weapon systems of the Navy.

As stated above our submarine force has to change to the new world climate. We have no country that can even compete with our submarine force or our Navy. The Russian submarine fleet is so antiquated now they would probably have trouble even finding our subs since their screws are so rusty and loud now. We need to divert the tactical nuclear submarine force and the attack class submarines to the newer, more agile and capable Seawolf class submarines.

Reduction in number of tactical fighter wings.

Again, the military needs to change the needs to fit the current world climate and no one can touch our fighters right now as it is.

Limitation on expenditures for nuclear weapons research, development, and testing activities of the Department of Energy.

Just my personal view. I think we really need to be spending less time working on better ways to destroy our planet with nuclear weapons. We should not be testing them as much of the world has agreed upon and that the continuing support of weapons such as these is only holding us back into finding alternative weapons which maybe as powerful but have less detrimental affects onto our environment.

7/1/1994, 1. S 2182: Cut $150 million for additional B-2 stealth bombers. Kerry voted YES for the cut but the measure failed 45-55.

This is just part of trying to have our military force meet the current threats of the world.

8/10/1994, HR 4650: Eliminate funding for Trident II submarine-launched missiles. Kerry voted YES but the measure failed 40-60. A strange history of voting for the submarines but against the missiles on the submarines. Or, in other words, he voted for the submarines before he voted against the submarine-launched missiles.

Boomers are out. Cool Seawolves are in.

9/13/2000, 1. HR 4444: Vote to table [kill] an amendment that would require sanctions against China or other countries if they were found to be selling illicit weapons of mass destruction. Not favoring sanctions, Kerry voted YES and the amendment was killed 65-32.

If this was specifically directed at China, I can understand. This bill should be for all countries including our own to not sell ANY weapons of mass destruction to anyone.


Anyway, the points I tried to layout above is just the operational shift of our military. The big arms race is over so we no longer really need to build up as much as we did. That is why the Soviet Union crumbled, we just economically drained them. We need to focus on being able to deliver American style force to the urban environment and work on military solutions for that.

Although playing Devil's Advocate on myself, we always want to stay as far ahead of the game as possible so we are not caught off guard by anyone who maybe able to organize such a force to give us a big run for our money. Obviously nuclear weapons is the end all be all and we need to make sure the proliferation of them is stopped at once because no 2.6 trillion bombers are going to stop someone from waltzing into our country and leveling NYC. Unless we get into pre-emption and that is a different topic

The Seawolf class of SSN is an awesum sub. However, the Navy did not want it,and 3 were forced upon it. They prefered to spend the money on the Virginia Class SSN which is designed from the ground up for Littoral warfare. The Clinton Administration, pushed through funding for these sub for like all admins political reasons (Hence the USS Jimmy Carter). Now partly the decision was made to keep the shipyards active and I cannot fault them for that.

Indeed, largely because of its cost, the SEAWOLF became the most controversial submarine program in American history. When the Cold War ended the Bush Administration cancelled the entire 29-ship SEAWOLF program except for the lead submarine. Pressure from the nuclear submarine community, led by Admiral Bruce DeMars, and shipyard influence caused the Congress to fund two more SEAWOLF-class submarines.
armedservices.house.gov...

The only other point is that the Ohio Class SSBN represents a huge chunk of our strategic arsenal and is its most survivable. I don't think you could effectivly combine the roles with an attack sub.

The Unit price for the B-2 is insane. However, the governemnt had based the R&D to be spread out over a 100 plane buy. As we are seeing with the F-22, if you cut the production numbers, you will see unit costs go up. The 20 plane fleet If I recall correctly was to ensure that the AF had enough planes to maintain a reasonable Ops Tempo if needed.

That being said, the military does need to adapt to the changes in the world, but it is important to maintain our present surperiority, as well as keeping the strategic balance in our favor. While you have postulated that Kerry was advocating the cuts to redirect the funds to different projects in the military, I have a hard time accepting that. Kerry's ambitious social agenda will have to get its money from somewere and it will take more than raising taxes to do so. I for one do not want to see our military wither with shades of Jimmy Carter.