SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
The Cold War Takes a Hit
Apr 08, 2009
The war
that ended 20 years ago has lived on in a menu of weapons systems we
have continued to develop, modify, and build at ever increasing cost,
if not utility, since then. Defense Secretary Robert Gates'
announcement of significant cuts in several of those systems signals
that in a new administration and a severe fiscal crisis, this Cold War
legacy may finally be winding down.
In his speech last month to a joint session of Congress, President
Barack Obama promised to "reform our defense budget so that we're not
paying for Cold War-era systems we don't use." This budget makes a
down-payment on that promise. It proposes the most ambitious set of
cuts to well-entrenched weapons systems since the early '90s.
Among its targets:
- the F-22 fighter jet, which the most impressive PR campaign in history couldn't save;
- the DDG-1000 Destroyer, which the Navy tried to cancel last year;
- Future
Combat Systems, which is lurching and straining under the weight of its
enormous complication, unproven technology, and massive $150 billion
pricetag.
At the same time, this budget perpetuates the overall upward
trajectory of defense spending. Though Gates has been promising that
"the spigot of defense spending after 9-11 is closing," this budget
exceeds all of the Bush administration's budgets that preceded it. And
it leaves barreling through the pipeline such unneeded programs as the
Virginia Class submarine and the V-22 Osprey, which then-Defense
Secretary Dick Cheney tried to kill in 1992.
The Task Force on a Unified Security Budget for the United States (USB) outlined
a set of $60.7 billion in reductions to the FY2009 defense budget, and
made the case for why these cuts could be made with no sacrifice to our
security. Here is how the Secretary's budget stacks up to those
recommendations:
Scorecard - Gates's Proposed Cuts vs. Unified Security Budget Recommendations | |||
| Administration's FY 2009 Request | USB Proposed Change | Gates's Proposed FY 2010 Budget |
F/A-22 Raptor | 4.1 | -3.8 | -4.1 |
Ballistic Missile Defense | 10.5 | -8.1 | -1.4 |
Virginia-Class Submarine | 3.6 | -2.5 | no change announced |
DDG-1000 | 3.2 | -3.2 | as little as -1.5, as much as -3.2 |
V-22 Osprey | 3.5 | -3.0 | no change announced |
Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) | 0.3 | -0.3 | no change announced |
F35 Joint Strike Fighter | 6.7 | -3.7 | plus 4.4 |
Offensive Space Weapons | 1.5 | -1.4 | -0.79 |
Future Combat Systems | 3.6 | -2.1 | minus 0.77, plus 87 billion in future savings for cancelling ground vehicle component |
Research & Development | 80.0 | -5.0 | n/a |
Nuclear Forces | 21.0 | -15.6 | no change announced |
Force Structure | - | -5.0 | no change announced, but 11 billion in future savings for one less carrier |
Waste in Procurement and Business Operations | - | -7.0 | n/a |
Total |
| -60.7 | 8.6 to 10.3, with 98 billion in future savings |
|
|
|
|
(figures in billions) |
|
|
|
Thus, the cuts announced today represent a down-payment on the USB recommendations in the amount of between $8 and $10 billion.
It's a start. The president's commitments to negotiate a reduction
in our nuclear arsenal down to 1000 warheads, and to get serious about
acquisition reform, will bring more.
Meanwhile, preserving even these cuts won't be easy. This tree
falling in the forest has made quite a sound, in the form of howls of
protest from major contractors echoing through congressional halls even
before Gates finished speaking.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 Foreign Policy In Focus
Miriam Pemberton
Miriam Pemberton is a Research Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. She directs its Peace Economy Transitions Project which focuses on helping to build the foundations of a postwar economy at the federal, state and local levels.
The war
that ended 20 years ago has lived on in a menu of weapons systems we
have continued to develop, modify, and build at ever increasing cost,
if not utility, since then. Defense Secretary Robert Gates'
announcement of significant cuts in several of those systems signals
that in a new administration and a severe fiscal crisis, this Cold War
legacy may finally be winding down.
In his speech last month to a joint session of Congress, President
Barack Obama promised to "reform our defense budget so that we're not
paying for Cold War-era systems we don't use." This budget makes a
down-payment on that promise. It proposes the most ambitious set of
cuts to well-entrenched weapons systems since the early '90s.
Among its targets:
- the F-22 fighter jet, which the most impressive PR campaign in history couldn't save;
- the DDG-1000 Destroyer, which the Navy tried to cancel last year;
- Future
Combat Systems, which is lurching and straining under the weight of its
enormous complication, unproven technology, and massive $150 billion
pricetag.
At the same time, this budget perpetuates the overall upward
trajectory of defense spending. Though Gates has been promising that
"the spigot of defense spending after 9-11 is closing," this budget
exceeds all of the Bush administration's budgets that preceded it. And
it leaves barreling through the pipeline such unneeded programs as the
Virginia Class submarine and the V-22 Osprey, which then-Defense
Secretary Dick Cheney tried to kill in 1992.
The Task Force on a Unified Security Budget for the United States (USB) outlined
a set of $60.7 billion in reductions to the FY2009 defense budget, and
made the case for why these cuts could be made with no sacrifice to our
security. Here is how the Secretary's budget stacks up to those
recommendations:
Scorecard - Gates's Proposed Cuts vs. Unified Security Budget Recommendations | |||
| Administration's FY 2009 Request | USB Proposed Change | Gates's Proposed FY 2010 Budget |
F/A-22 Raptor | 4.1 | -3.8 | -4.1 |
Ballistic Missile Defense | 10.5 | -8.1 | -1.4 |
Virginia-Class Submarine | 3.6 | -2.5 | no change announced |
DDG-1000 | 3.2 | -3.2 | as little as -1.5, as much as -3.2 |
V-22 Osprey | 3.5 | -3.0 | no change announced |
Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) | 0.3 | -0.3 | no change announced |
F35 Joint Strike Fighter | 6.7 | -3.7 | plus 4.4 |
Offensive Space Weapons | 1.5 | -1.4 | -0.79 |
Future Combat Systems | 3.6 | -2.1 | minus 0.77, plus 87 billion in future savings for cancelling ground vehicle component |
Research & Development | 80.0 | -5.0 | n/a |
Nuclear Forces | 21.0 | -15.6 | no change announced |
Force Structure | - | -5.0 | no change announced, but 11 billion in future savings for one less carrier |
Waste in Procurement and Business Operations | - | -7.0 | n/a |
Total |
| -60.7 | 8.6 to 10.3, with 98 billion in future savings |
|
|
|
|
(figures in billions) |
|
|
|
Thus, the cuts announced today represent a down-payment on the USB recommendations in the amount of between $8 and $10 billion.
It's a start. The president's commitments to negotiate a reduction
in our nuclear arsenal down to 1000 warheads, and to get serious about
acquisition reform, will bring more.
Meanwhile, preserving even these cuts won't be easy. This tree
falling in the forest has made quite a sound, in the form of howls of
protest from major contractors echoing through congressional halls even
before Gates finished speaking.
Miriam Pemberton
Miriam Pemberton is a Research Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. She directs its Peace Economy Transitions Project which focuses on helping to build the foundations of a postwar economy at the federal, state and local levels.
The war
that ended 20 years ago has lived on in a menu of weapons systems we
have continued to develop, modify, and build at ever increasing cost,
if not utility, since then. Defense Secretary Robert Gates'
announcement of significant cuts in several of those systems signals
that in a new administration and a severe fiscal crisis, this Cold War
legacy may finally be winding down.
In his speech last month to a joint session of Congress, President
Barack Obama promised to "reform our defense budget so that we're not
paying for Cold War-era systems we don't use." This budget makes a
down-payment on that promise. It proposes the most ambitious set of
cuts to well-entrenched weapons systems since the early '90s.
Among its targets:
- the F-22 fighter jet, which the most impressive PR campaign in history couldn't save;
- the DDG-1000 Destroyer, which the Navy tried to cancel last year;
- Future
Combat Systems, which is lurching and straining under the weight of its
enormous complication, unproven technology, and massive $150 billion
pricetag.
At the same time, this budget perpetuates the overall upward
trajectory of defense spending. Though Gates has been promising that
"the spigot of defense spending after 9-11 is closing," this budget
exceeds all of the Bush administration's budgets that preceded it. And
it leaves barreling through the pipeline such unneeded programs as the
Virginia Class submarine and the V-22 Osprey, which then-Defense
Secretary Dick Cheney tried to kill in 1992.
The Task Force on a Unified Security Budget for the United States (USB) outlined
a set of $60.7 billion in reductions to the FY2009 defense budget, and
made the case for why these cuts could be made with no sacrifice to our
security. Here is how the Secretary's budget stacks up to those
recommendations:
Scorecard - Gates's Proposed Cuts vs. Unified Security Budget Recommendations | |||
| Administration's FY 2009 Request | USB Proposed Change | Gates's Proposed FY 2010 Budget |
F/A-22 Raptor | 4.1 | -3.8 | -4.1 |
Ballistic Missile Defense | 10.5 | -8.1 | -1.4 |
Virginia-Class Submarine | 3.6 | -2.5 | no change announced |
DDG-1000 | 3.2 | -3.2 | as little as -1.5, as much as -3.2 |
V-22 Osprey | 3.5 | -3.0 | no change announced |
Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) | 0.3 | -0.3 | no change announced |
F35 Joint Strike Fighter | 6.7 | -3.7 | plus 4.4 |
Offensive Space Weapons | 1.5 | -1.4 | -0.79 |
Future Combat Systems | 3.6 | -2.1 | minus 0.77, plus 87 billion in future savings for cancelling ground vehicle component |
Research & Development | 80.0 | -5.0 | n/a |
Nuclear Forces | 21.0 | -15.6 | no change announced |
Force Structure | - | -5.0 | no change announced, but 11 billion in future savings for one less carrier |
Waste in Procurement and Business Operations | - | -7.0 | n/a |
Total |
| -60.7 | 8.6 to 10.3, with 98 billion in future savings |
|
|
|
|
(figures in billions) |
|
|
|
Thus, the cuts announced today represent a down-payment on the USB recommendations in the amount of between $8 and $10 billion.
It's a start. The president's commitments to negotiate a reduction
in our nuclear arsenal down to 1000 warheads, and to get serious about
acquisition reform, will bring more.
Meanwhile, preserving even these cuts won't be easy. This tree
falling in the forest has made quite a sound, in the form of howls of
protest from major contractors echoing through congressional halls even
before Gates finished speaking.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.