The Cold War Takes a Hit
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, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. 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. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
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.
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.