Published: Wednesday, March 5 2014 12:00 a.m. MST
The A-10 was designed beginning in 1966 and 1st flew in 1972.You would
never send a warrior to war in a Ford Pinto or Chevy Vega.Pres.
Obama and Defense Sec. Hagel have already told us our 21st century military does
not need more bayonets and horses.The United States is already
currently under attack - CYBER-attack, 12,000 times per day by our Corporate
comrades in Communist China.This the current battlefield, 1st line of
Defense, and needs our top priority.An A-10 is 1,000,000% useless in
that sort of warfare.andthe AF-16 and AF-18 can handle close ground
suppport just fine, and has been since the 1st Gulf War 23 years ago.BTW -- Jimmy Carter was right after all -- Cruise Missiles DID replace
manned fighters and Bombers. UAV and Drones will be doing the same thing for the
rest of the fleet.By being perpetually stuck in the past -- rather
than PROGRESSING --Conservatives would still have us throw sticks and
stones at each other to win future wars.
Conservatives really don't have a very good track record in American
history.Conservatives lost out when Liberals wrote the Declaration
of Independence.Conservatives lost the Revolutionary War.Conservatives lost the arguments in Shay's Rebellion.Conservatives lost when the the Constitution replaced the Articles of
Confederation.Conservatives lost the Civil War.I could
go on and on, but the bottom line is that they are still losing. They just
don't understand what's going on around them because they're too
busy looking backwards.
Then there is the cut Government spending rubes, who want to cut Grandma’s
medicine – but want to keep an airplane the Military doesn’t
want.The USAF frees up $3.7 billion for other more critical missions by
cutting the A-10.Why not let the Pentagon decide what the Pentagon wants
and needs, rather than putting our weapon systems up for a non-military civilian
public vote? The letter writer laments the year 1938 like it was
such a long time ago, interesting because that places the need of A-10
only 26 after that time, and nearly 2 twice that time since then.If you
want a “Modern” Military, it’s time to Modernize the Military,
not hang on to out-dated weapon systems.[I type as I’m working
on adding another titanium doubler to help beef up the aging A-10s]
As we have seen in recent conflicts, mechanized infantry are more sitting ducks
then long term sustainable fighting units. This is exactly why the US is
revamping our military infrastructure. Just as the mounted infantry became a
liability rather than a competitive advantage in WWI, how we fight wars is
morphing dramatically. In the confines of the current theater of battle now,
which is largely urban setting, heavy armor is of limited use, and light,
nimble, fast strike capability is paramount. Do you really want our
guys relying on 30 and 40 year old technology? Why would you want to do that?
If we are going to win future wars... it isn't going to be by throwing more
of our young men into the front lines then the other guy. That type of warfare
The A-10 would be a great plane to give to Israel, if they wanted them, because
ground/tank warfare is still very much the Middle-East threat of today. One old man. Your schtick is like a Saturday Night Live skit. Liberals
good. Conservatives bad. And if they are losing as you say, then you must have
forgotten the election of 2010 and 2012 for the most important body of
government in America. The House of Representatives. That is the body that
most reflects the will of the people. Not to mention, Reagan and his military
buildup that caused the end of the cold war without a nuclear shot being fired.
I'd consider that a pretty great conservative victory. Perhaps the most
important in human history.
Happy, you completely missed the point of my post.And it was NOT
Reagan who ended the cold war. It was a Polish Pope and a bunch of very
courageous Polish labor union members who deserve about 98% of the credit.
Reagan just managed to hitch a ride and then take credit among his more gullible
Happy, from most indications, the Cold War is still being waged. It may have
taken a hiatus, but it seems to be back. As for the letter writer,
does he not realized the A-10 (as well as the F-16, F/A-18, F-15,etc.) are being
replaced with newer and more advanced (though still glitchy) aircraft?
@one old manOgden, UTAnd it was NOT Reagan who ended the cold
war. It was a Polish Pope and a bunch of very courageous Polish labor union
members who deserve about 98% of the credit. Reagan just managed to hitch a ride
and then take credit among his more gullible followers.10:53 a.m.
March 5, 2014=========== Agreed!All the
spending, all the military hardware, all the politicians, idn't do it. Not a single shot was fired, That "Wall" came down by
Labor Unions - and the Voice of the People.Is it any wonder
politicians hate Labor Unions?
Why is it mostly just the draft dodgers who are criticizing President Obama for
this? On one hand all of the President's critics believe he's
spending far too much. On the other hand, the President recognizes the wasteful
spending in the military and wants to cut it back.Can't have it both
How will the military-industrial complex cope if we don't have boots on the
Russia is a Land Power, America is a Maritime power. We could not get enough
tanks and troops on the ground to combat Russia in their own territory, just as
Russia can't get enough boats and Navel power to stop the United States on
the Atlantic and Pacific shipping lanes. Tanks are heavy vehicles, and
cost lots of resources and need supply lines to stay in battle. Russia has the
complete advantage in "attacking" satellite countries on their
perimeter. If the Ukraine had been a part of NATO we would fire up our
coalition defense, but... they are not. Its a complex geopolitical situation in
which Russia, in this area, has the upper hand. Russia has also transformed its
economy into one that supplies much of Europe with natural gas, and I don't
think Germany is going to want to shut off that gas valve anytime soon. The bottom line is, its complicated and the news agencies want to simplify
things to the point of stupidity.
Old man and LDS Lib.So what WAS the point of you post. You never did
explain that. And to those of you who are trying to claim that the Reagan
military buildup had nothing to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union, even
they the Russians claim that Reagans pressure had a lot to do with it. In past
times, the Soviets would have just invaded Poland and taken out the labor unions
and stopped any further resistance. But, they were afraid to try that old
manuever with a strong U.S. and NATO. Interesting that they are back to their
old tricks with a weak U.S. So, if you insist on taking credit away from
Reagan, then I suppose I can say Obama had nothing to do with getting Bin Laden.
@happy2bhereclearfield, UTOld man and LDS Lib.So what
WAS the point of you post. You never did explain that. ==========I don't know where you were, but I at Ramstein AFN, Kaiserslatern
Germany when the wall came down.We didn't fly one single
sortie.I remember watching TV and seeing the Labor Unions go on
strike, The East Germans walking through Check-Point Charlie - and NOT
going back, and the people of Lithuania taking ferry boats to Sweden and
NOT going back.Not one short fired.Yet -- We've been in South Korea for 70 years and North Korea is still there,
We've occupied Japan for 70 years and Japan has never attacked us,
We've occupied Germany for 70 years, and Germany is better than the
U.S.But -- We lost Vietnam, and Afghanistan and Iraq
seem to have been a big waste of time and money as well.
"Interesting that they are back to their old tricks with a weak U.S.
"Hahaha. Now that is funny. A weak U.S.A. Funny stuff. Someone
talked about Russia lining up 150,000 soldier mechanized ground force. Too
funny. (I don't know if they did, but no matter.) And someone talked about
our maritime advantage. This is true. But the real point with our military: we
control the AIR. Get it? Let em line up all the tanks they want, all the
soldiers they want. It doesn't matter. (Not that I think going to war with
Russia would be a good idea. In fact it would be about the most stupid thing
somebody could do. Something a Republican president might do.) WE control the
high ground, always in war today. We have the most powerful army the world has
EVER seen. We spend more on our military then the next sixteen countries
COMBINED. Our technology is far superior to any other nation. And
yet here is someone that says we are weak. Well, he might think so,
but all other countries know the truth. Didn't anybody watch what we did in
Iraq? Read Cobra II. Great book.
LDS LiberalI think you are desperatly in need of a basic
understanding of what "deterrent" is. That was why the cold war won by
the west. I, by the way, was in political science classes at college, so I was
studying these things from the global point of view, not just standing some post
in Germany. And a little history, the old Soviet Union had many times squashed
these kinds of revolts with tanks and troops. However, in 1989, they were
overmatched and out of money. That happened in large measure due to our
military industrial complex and the star wars threat of Reagan. Please
don't try to rewrite history just to try to protect a weak President,
Obama.MarkYou are so off about how hot wars are won, it
is hardly worth responding to you. But, hot wars are NEVER won from air power.
It always has to be followed up by occupation. That's why we lost in
Vietnam. And why we won in Europe WW11. We bombed the heck out of them for 10
years. We never went North to defeat them. History repeats itself.
@happy2bhereclearfield, UTLDS LiberalThat was why the
cold war won by the west. I, by the way, was in political science classes at
college, so I was studying these things from the global point of view, not just
standing some post in Germany. ========== 1. I was not
"standing post" in Germany. We wre flying deep into Soviet Airspace for
years -- Globally. I was waving at Soviet aircrews and taking pictures IN
Russia.2. I will put my College Degrees in Mechanical/Aerospace
Engineeering, and 33 years the Military and Department of Defense over your
Political Science classes in college anyday.FYI -- Empires are
crushed when they spread themselves to thin, over too many places, for too
long.Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Nephite, Chinese, Japanese, English,
German, Soviet, and now even the American Empires.And they implode
from internal forces.Like a balloon that takes in more than it can
sustain, grows thin, it eventually bursts.The Berlin Wall and Iron
curtain fell from INTERNAL forces.Something I learned in MY PoliSci
classes in college.Please don't try to rewrite the history I
helped write just to try to make Pres. Obama look bad.
'Our modern military’========= Everytime I
read that headline, and think about the A-10 that has been in USAF service
since 1972 (that's over 42 years ago)...I can't help but
think that those who keep wanting it, would think going into WWII with the
Wright Brothers 1st airpleane (1943) as the most "modern" would somehow
magiaclly beat the Germans and Japanese (1943) ...BTW -- Saddam
Hussein's military was more "modern" than the A-10, and look how
that turned out against 4th generetion F-16, F-18s, ...let alone
with the 5th generation F-22s, and F-35s we have today.
Uh. . . Happy to be here, why don't you go sit in your poli sci class some
more. (I can't believe someone pulled poli sci out trying to impress
anybody.) WARS are won from the high ground. We control the high
ground. NO ONE can compete with us in the air. Not even close. Iraq literally
got zero planes in the air when we attacked. After that it was all over. We
fight wars today far differently then we did in WWII or Vietnam. Vietnam was not
lost because of our military. But it doesn't matter one way or the other
what happened in Vietnam. Again, we do not fight wars like we did, or with the
type of military, we had in Vietnam. The advances in technology, tactics, and
real time information gathering capabilities in the military is astounding.
Vietnam was basically fought with WWII ideas. The U.S. Military is
the most powerful army the world has ever seen. NO other army today comes close
to what we have. We control the air in ways that have never been possible before
in history. Because we control that high ground so thoroughly we win.
Also, let's not take any thing away from our ground troops. The U.S.
Military's ground forces are the most capable force that has EVER been put
in the field. The tactics and battle ground coordination, training and
capabilities that these forces show is awe inspiring. Never before in history
has any ground force had the capabilities, and the ability to use those
capabilities, that our ground forces do. And that's not to impugn other
armies that have existed. There have been fearsome armies throughout
history. But the current U.S. Army, on the land, on the sea, or in the air,
would soundly defeat them all. There is also no other army in the world today
that could stand against ours. It really is that lopsided. But let
me tell you something, you are confusing military victory with occupation. They
are two decidedly different things. Anyway, my initial point was
that somebody said we have a weak military, and I was calling him out. That
person is dead wrong, laughably wrong, to believe we have a weak military.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments