Kober Report

Same as the report below, but I've finished it.

Mostly rubbish. The Anti-Bush agenda isn't even attempted to be subtle. But I'll let that go and just look at their proposed cuts to military spending.

The section on the Nuclear Forces has a small amount of merit. I agree that the bunker busting nukes and the like for pre-emptive strike use is just a poor idea. Being the only country to ever use the nuclear weapons, I can't see the US as gaining anything in ever using them pre-emptively. I disagree with the idea of scaling down to just 1000 war-head as well. It would probably be best to stockpile lower yield nuclear devices that are as clean as possible. Use of such a weapon would be less detrimental to invasion forces and civilians if the need ever was justified. The big boys, hydrogen bombs, probably aren't ever going to be needed again. Hopefully.

The argument on the Ballistic Missile Defense (aka Star Wars) is lacking on one argument and correct on the second. Essentially, the argument is that it doesn't work and never will. Very poor analysis on his part.

There are two problems with the Bush approach. First, the system is not ready for deployment. It has not been successfully tested in over three years. Moreover, to fulfill Bush'’s campaign promise, the Pentagon took a number of shortcuts that put schedule ahead of performance. The shortcuts included insufficient ground tests of key components, a lack of specifications and standards, and a tendency to postpone the resolution of difficult issues. Finally, there is increasing evidence that no matter how much money is spent and no matter how long we continue to test it, the system can never work effectively.

I'd like to see the evidence stating that it can never work. Obviously, he hasn't learned anything about technology and man's ability to invent. I'll agree with the insufficient testing statement though. The problem comes in the cost of that testing, and the equal problem of people complaining about it.

His second point has merit though.

Second, even if missile defense were to work perfectly, and that is by no means assured, it is still addressing a low-priority threat. Enemy nations can deliver nuclear weapons in many cheaper, more reliable and more accurate ways (for example, placing a nuclear weapon in a container rather than firing a long-range missile with a return address).

This is pretty much spot on. Knowing that the US has more than the means to retaliate, sending up an ICBM is like waving a flag and stating "nuke me please." The Star Wars defense doesn't address asymetrical warfare with regards to delivery.

His section on Investment Programs makes some poor assumptions. The primary of them is that he appears to assume that terrorism and asymetrical warfare will be the only warfare of the future. He rails against "cold war relics" of technology, while missing the point repeatedly proven through history, that you can't always know how the enemy will fight, or who the enemy will be.

He strongly protests about the F/A-22 and the F-35. He believes that the costs aren't justified for the F/A-22 and that the F-35, being very ambitious, should take it's time in development. His solution is to just scrap the F/A-22 and maintain the present planes or purchase upgraded F-16s. I dislike the notion of standing still with technology. The F-16 technology may be the best today, but not knowing what will be done by other countries in the near future, you shouldn't stop advancements because you wish to be fiscally responsible. Being fiscally responsible has led the US to be unprepared for several major conflicts in the past. Staying at the top of military technology assures that the US won't run into any aircraft in combat that can compete, assuring that the US remains secure.

The discussion goes to Nuclear Submarines. His sysnopsis is to scrap the Virginia class subs and refuel the Los Angeles class subs.

As these Virginia Class submarines are built, the Navy plans to retire the existing Los Angeles Class submarines early -— that is, before their normal service life is reached. Canceling the Virginia Class and refueling the reactors of the Los Angeles Class can save $2.3 billion in 2006 and $12 billion over the next five years.

Los Angeles Class subs have been in the process of upgrade and refueling for a while now. Some of these boats are quite old and upgrade will just not get you a boat that has the capabilities to perform against future hazards. The Virginia class is also a ship designed for a smaller crew, thus requiring a smaller military to man and utilize the system. The Los Angeles class may very well be fine for the present and near future, but being short sighted is something the US shouldn't have to worry about.

He discusses the Osprey and the newest DD(x) destroyer, which may have merit. The Osprey is a continuing failure and the DD(x) may be too large for a fleet that needs to be able to perform more operations in shallow and narrow seas.

I'd say he dislikes the Spaced Based Offensive weapons as well.

However tempting the prospects of such expanded strike capabilities might appear at first glance, the reality is that the deployment of such weapons would not only undermine our national security, it would also be an enormous misallocation of defense resources.

Space-based weapons would not significantly expand U.S. military superiority. Our conventional and nuclear weapons are already capable of destroying any of the ground targets that space-based weapons would, and they can do it at a fraction of the cost. Existing intercontinental ballistic missiles can match the destructive force of the proposed "“Rods from God"” space weapons program. Richard Garwin, one of the chief nuclear scientists behind the development of the hydrogen bomb, has calculated that the cost per target of a space-based laser would be almost twice that of a Tomahawk missile.

We shouldn't invent Spase-based because we have nukes? That is sad. Wouldn't a weapon that has no nuclear fall out be preferrable to a nuke? Wouldn't it eliminate those bunker buster nukes that he speaks against earlier in the report? I also disagree with the technology decreasing national security. He provides no justification for the statement, and I don't believe the argument has ever been valid. Having another simple and powerful technology will only give the country options should the need arise.

Arms race you say? With whom? China isn't to the point of making high-tech arms and at the moment they are working more toward quantity vice quality.

Then there is the Future Combat Systems:

The Future Combat System is necessary for the Army because it will make units more deployable, lethal and survivable. However, its current schedule is far too ambitious, given the complexity of the program. Of the network of 53 crucial technologies, 52 are unproven. Therefore, the $3.4 billion requested in 2006 should be reduced to $1 billion, and the $25 billion proposed over the next five years cut back to $10 billion.

So that's how it works. A schedule is too ambitious, so we cut funding. I guess I don't see any need to point out any more flaws with this one.

The Force structure section is just blind. The main point is that the war on terror only uses so many forces, mostly army and marines, so we should scrap a carrier group and two air-force wings. What have I been saying about being prepared for future conflict? This really appears to assume that the only wars we will ever face again will be asymmetric and small. Poor assumption to make when the countries interests are being wagered.

Though the report has some valid points I find the whole thing weak because it spends more time being fiscally responsible while ignoring the potential for future threats.