Over at The New York Times is this article on the USS McCAMPBELL intercepting a Belize flagged North Korean ship taking missile parts from North Korea to Myanmar. Myanmar is what we used to call Burma. It is also a nation that wants to go the nuclear route. Nuclear as in nuclear weapons. Or not. Maybe they are just a conduit for North Korea.
The interception of the M/V LIGHT was all legal in accord with international law and UN Resolutions.
The last time we figured out what was happening we were not in position to conduct an intercept and the parts were delivered. On the other hand, we pay a hefty hunk of change for the ability to do this sort of thing. So, is non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and missile technology more or less important than some other programs? Where does the marginal $10,000,000 go? Does it go to pay and train the crew of the USS McCAMPBELL and allow them to be forward deployed or does it go for federally funded local firefighters and policemen? Or does it go for a tax cut?
Regards — Cliff
1 comment:
I would suggest that the current preference is that the marginal money go to social welfare type programs. This is largely the intent of placing Leon Panetta in charge of the DoD. He has a long record of slashing and burning budgets to satisfy the political needs of his handler and the means and methodology has already been plainly announced by the Obama administration. Once Panetta gets the pictures hung and the carpet replaced in his new office digs, he will slash military pay and benefits (read that...sharp cuts) to make good on the Obama demand for $500B in tribute from DoD. This of course is the announced preference to cutting systems...and thus alienating the Defense contracting community.
This will be a new era in the definition of a "hollow force."
We MAY be able to project Naval power...and we MAY be able to stumble on someone doing something the UN doesn't like.....but we won't be able to do much about it.
Post a Comment