Uppity Wisconsin
Making Wisconsin Progressive Again
To block health care bill, GOP willing to give aid and comfort to the enemy
Tue, 12/22/2009 - 6:49pm | xoff
No, I don't really believe the "aid and comfort to the enemy" part. That's how the Constitution defines treason.
It's what a guy named Cheney, no longer a veep but still a dick, accused President Obama of recently for deciding to try the accused 9-11 mastermind in a U.S, courtroom.
It's what conservatives always claim about war protesters or opponents of giving the Pentagon a blank check. If you ask any questions, you're helping the other side, whoever they are. <
And it's what Republicans, their conservative base, and the right-wing radio talkers would be screaming if Democrats had tried to pull what the GOP tried this week.
Republicans in the Senate refused to give a single vote to a $636-billion Pentagon spending bill that the defense secretary said was necessary to protect "our foreign policy and national security priorities.”
Instead, they threatened a filibuster and forced Democrats to come up with 60 votes to insure passage. That came only when Wisconsin's Sen. Russ Feingold, a Dem who opposed the bill,
Tags: On The Air Force Bomber Problem, Part 2, Or, Let's Talk Options
Wed, 07/09/2008 - 8:48am | fake consultant
When last we met we had a conversation about the challenges the Air Force faces in providing a capable bomber force. We discussed the age of the existing bomber fleet’s backbone, the B-52, the limitations of the B-1, and the fact that the B-2s is limited by the age of the aircraft’s electronics from participating in the “network-centric warfare” model most appropriate for the 21st Century military.
We also examined the probability that future air-defense systems will likely soon raise the threat level to a point where existing US aircraft will no longer be able to operate safely in the highest threat environments.
So what are we to do?
Today we’ll consider several options, including some that change the nature of the heavy bomber fleet in very fundamental ways.
Let’s start with a question that came to light after the first diary was published: why have a bomber capability at all? Here is the response I offered on my personal blog:
...consider darfur.
we know that government aircraft are bombing innocent civilians.
we could presumably disable the aircraft that are doing the bombing and the airfields that support them through aerial bombing of our own; and i would submit to you that such an action would be neither indiscriminate killing nor unjustified.
We also examined the probability that future air-defense systems will likely soon raise the threat level to a point where existing US aircraft will no longer be able to operate safely in the highest threat environments.
So what are we to do?
Today we’ll consider several options, including some that change the nature of the heavy bomber fleet in very fundamental ways.
Let’s start with a question that came to light after the first diary was published: why have a bomber capability at all? Here is the response I offered on my personal blog:
...consider darfur.
we know that government aircraft are bombing innocent civilians.
we could presumably disable the aircraft that are doing the bombing and the airfields that support them through aerial bombing of our own; and i would submit to you that such an action would be neither indiscriminate killing nor unjustified.
On The Air Force Bomber Problem, Or, It May Be Time For That Bake Sale
Tue, 07/08/2008 - 4:25am | fake consultant
I come today with a message many of you will not want to hear, particularly in a time when we are looking forward to ending a war...and in a time where we are already struggling to provide enough money for military funding, the last thing you want to hear from me is that we need to send a couple hundred billion more to the Air Force—and that we need to do it soon.
Nonetheless, we have a problem we need to fix.
Of course, I hate to present a problem without a solution...and today I have two ideas that can help with the problem—and maybe save the taxpayer a mess of money in the process.
Y’all ready?
Then let’s go...
Here’s the problem in a nutshell: the Air Force relies on bombers to perform a variety of “softening up” missions: such missions can be as simple as dropping a single bomb on a gun emplacement or as final as the last bomb dropped on the last day of human existence to soften up a missile silo.
The bomber they rely upon the most is the B-52...and it’s just getting too old to do the job it has undertaken for a half century. The newer bombers are either too small, too vulnerable to anti-aircraft systems or too few in numbers to replace the B-52--and that means we are going to have to find a replacement.
Nonetheless, we have a problem we need to fix.
Of course, I hate to present a problem without a solution...and today I have two ideas that can help with the problem—and maybe save the taxpayer a mess of money in the process.
Y’all ready?
Then let’s go...
Here’s the problem in a nutshell: the Air Force relies on bombers to perform a variety of “softening up” missions: such missions can be as simple as dropping a single bomb on a gun emplacement or as final as the last bomb dropped on the last day of human existence to soften up a missile silo.
The bomber they rely upon the most is the B-52...and it’s just getting too old to do the job it has undertaken for a half century. The newer bombers are either too small, too vulnerable to anti-aircraft systems or too few in numbers to replace the B-52--and that means we are going to have to find a replacement.