Figured I'd just roll several stories into 1 thread.

First, in the middle of the snow storm, the Senate passed the Defense bill this morning. It was $635 billion, with $130 of that for Iraq and Afghanistan. Interesting, the bill did not include the $30-$40 billion for the 30,000+ for Afghanistan.

Of course the bill was mired in politics, the D's loaded (typical Congress actions at the end the year) extensions to Medicare, Cobra, the Patriot Act and other measures that will be taken up in Feb.
R's tried to fillibuster the measure, yes odd since they are for the military, in order to slow the progress of health reform.

I'm all for the passage and it is good to see this measure finally passed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/19/AR2009121900796.html?hpid=topnews

Second, interesting article today about the debate on how the Pentagon rewards contracts for defense systems. The company Oshkosh makes anti-IED trucks in Wisconsin, and has created jobs in the U.S. But, the GAO says the Army should rethink the award since other companies like BAE, can also produce the truck at relatively the same costs. But, BAE, a European company says the DoD rewarded the contract solely for jobs purposes.

So, the argument goes, should the DoD factor in job creation into rewarding contracts, or go by costs and relative ability to quickly and adequately put units in the field.

I had a course on this and my prof. was quoted in the article,

The DOD is not a social-service organization," said Jacques Gansler, who served as the Pentagon's top weapons buyer in the Clinton administration. "Its mission is providing national security for the nation. Its mission is not to provide subsidies for jobs. The DOD is not in the business of employing people for the sake of employing them."

I agree with him, and while it is nice to have jobs in the U.S., what is more important is having the DoD find the best cost, best application and best of the best for out boys. If that is from Europe then so be it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/18/AR2009121804342.html?wpisrc=newsletter

Third and Fourth, Nuclear arms control. Yesterday, the President stated that the U.S. and Russia are close and will hopefully get the deal signed next month. The Russians are stalling as they want less intrusive verification measures, and while the former START verification measures are not needed, but there are still measures needed. The Russians have expected Obama to cave for the sake of simply getting to an agreement, and that has not happened.

The new START treaty is expected to reduce deployed nuclear warheads used for long-range missions from 2,200 to 1,500 to 1,675 on each side. It is also expected to slash the number of long-range vehicles that can carry nuclear warheads or bombs from 1,600 to about 700 or 800. Those vehicles include aircraft, intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarines.

If signed, it would have to be ratified by the Senate, which could be interesting. I'm a huge supporter of the measure and hope it can be signed and passed soon.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/18/AR2009121801998.html?wpisrc=newsletter

Finally, the President's Nuclear Posture Review, that reviews all our nuclear forces is due out in Feb. It looks like it will focus less on deterrence and more on nuclear terrorism, a huge and welcome change. Deterrence is less important now, and terrorism is more important in terms of relative risk.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/19/us/politics/19nuke.html?ref=todayspaper

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: Figured I'd just roll several stories into 1 thread.

Second, interesting article today about the debate on how the Pentagon rewards contracts for defense systems. The company Oshkosh makes anti-IED trucks in Wisconsin, and has created jobs in the U.S. But, the GAO says the Army should rethink the award since other companies like BAE, can also produce the truck at relatively the same costs. But, BAE, a European company says the DoD rewarded the contract solely for jobs purposes.

So, the argument goes, should the DoD factor in job creation into rewarding contracts, or go by costs and relative ability to quickly and adequately put units in the field.

I had a course on this and my prof. was quoted in the article,

The DOD is not a social-service organization," said Jacques Gansler, who served as the Pentagon's top weapons buyer in the Clinton administration. "Its mission is providing national security for the nation. Its mission is not to provide subsidies for jobs. The DOD is not in the business of employing people for the sake of employing them."

I agree with him, and while it is nice to have jobs in the U.S., what is more important is having the DoD find the best cost, best application and best of the best for out boys. If that is from Europe then so be it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/18/AR2009121804342.html?wpisrc=newsletter

Not sure the exact background of BAE, but i believe we also had South African made up-armored vehicles in Iraq when i was there.

Ptown....to the START treaty I can only say, "trust but verify." And when it comes to the Russians I'm with Teddy Roosevelt.

Bottom-line: Intellectually who wouldn't be for reduction of nuclear arms? Unfortunately the negative side of realpolitik always rears its ugly head. In the end the United States gets screwed royally in nuke reduction deals.

Well I do not think the government has any intrinsic rights and is quite an abortion of an institution, so it should do the most it can to return funds to the people. I do believe that the government should favor US jobs. If money is returned to the people who should have it. In the first place, it would effectively lower the tax rate.

Glory Days wrote:
Not sure the exact background of BAE, but i believe we also had South African made up-armored vehicles in Iraq when i was there.

BAEI is European, but yeah we have South African MRAPS.

believer wrote: Ptown....to the START treaty I can only say, "trust but verify." And when it comes to the Russians I'm with Teddy Roosevelt.

Bottom-line: While intellectually who wouldn't be for reduction of nuclear arms? Unfortunately the negative side of realpolitik always rears its ugly head. In the end the United States gets screwed royally in nuke reduction deals.

While we may not need to be at every site, with every single inspector, modern technology does eliminate the need to such intrusive verification measures. The START verification measures were like a phone book. That is not needed really today. Technology and sharing, with some on site verification is good enough. The problem is the Russians want less, and the U.S. want something inbetween the 91 treaty and what the Russians are talking about.

We actually do need to reduce, as they cost too much, are too redundant and want to enter into a binding treaty that limits what the Russians can have.

We can execute out nuclear policy with about a 1,000. This agreement is not going there, so we have redundancy. In order to ensure that the Russians are not building new weapons, it is better to have something there that does limit them. But, verification is key.
We don't get screwed. We benefit greatly.

alwaysafan wrote: Well I do not think the government has any intrinsic rights and is quite an abortion of an institution, so it should do the most it can to return funds to the people. I do believe that the government should favor US jobs. If money is returned to the people who should have it. In the first place, it would effectively lower the tax rate.

Or at least the taxes recycle...and in this crazy "climate change" era, who wouldn't be for that?

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:But, verification is key. We don't get screwed. We benefit greatly.

You're closer to "in the know" than I so I defer to your inside knowledge!

Second, interesting article today about the debate on how the Pentagon rewards contracts for defense systems. The company Oshkosh makes anti-IED trucks in Wisconsin, and has created jobs in the U.S. But, the GAO says the Army should rethink the award since other companies like BAE, can also produce the truck at relatively the same costs. But, BAE, a European company says the DoD rewarded the contract solely for jobs purposes.

I think Oshkosh should get the contract. ESPECIALLY if the costs are "relatively the same".

If our own government won't pick America first, then how can anybody piss/moan about businesses not picking America first?

I don't know. Maybe I'm just looking at it the wrong way?
:dodgy:

CenterBHSFan wrote:

Second, interesting article today about the debate on how the Pentagon rewards contracts for defense systems. The company Oshkosh makes anti-IED trucks in Wisconsin, and has created jobs in the U.S. But, the GAO says the Army should rethink the award since other companies like BAE, can also produce the truck at relatively the same costs. But, BAE, a European company says the DoD rewarded the contract solely for jobs purposes.

I think Oshkosh should get the contract. ESPECIALLY if the costs are "relatively the same".

If our own government won't pick America first, then how can anybody piss/moan about businesses not picking America first?

I don't know. Maybe I'm just looking at it the wrong way?
:dodgy:

The whole argument is should job creation be a factor in determining contracts and should it have played a factor in the rewarding of the contract? BAE suggested it did play a factor.

While I agree that America first is a good idea, but that it should not be the metric of which we acquisition our defense supplies. Rather, it should be on cost effectiveness, ability to ramp up supplies and replacement parts and the ability to save costs in the long run.

Sometimes, the best may not be American, most often it is not now.

ptown,

But how can it not be "best" to pick American in this case? You, yourself said that the costs are relatively the same. If that's the case, then there shouldn't be any question in the equation by anybody.

CenterBHSFan wrote: ptown,

But how can it not be "best" to pick American in this case? You, yourself said that the costs are relatively the same. If that's the case, then there shouldn't be any question in the equation by anybody.

Apparently, BAE suggest that the "relative cost" argument is not as cut and dry as thought, and the GAO also found that, which is why they said the Army to review the reward.

I'm for the Oshkosh getting the reward, if it is the best deal and can best service out men and women. What I disagree with, and so does the GAO and others, is the argument that jobs trump costs in the decision to reward.

If the GAO finds that Oshkosh is the best and most rewarding company relative to costs and supply chain costs, then great.

CenterBHSFan wrote: ptown,

But how can it not be "best" to pick American in this case? You, yourself said that the costs are relatively the same. If that's the case, then there shouldn't be any question in the equation by anybody.

Apparently, BAE suggest that the "relative cost" argument is not as cut and dry as thought, and the GAO also found that, which is why they said the Army to review the reward.

I'm for the Oshkosh getting the reward, if it is the best deal and can best service out men and women. What I disagree with, and so does the GAO and others, is the argument that jobs trump costs in the decision to reward.

If the GAO finds that Oshkosh is the best and most rewarding company relative to costs and supply chain costs, then great.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: While I agree that America first is a good idea, but that it should not be the metric of which we acquisition our defense supplies. Rather, it should be on cost effectiveness, ability to ramp up supplies and replacement parts and the ability to save costs in the long run.

Sometimes, the best may not be American, most often it is not now.

Your arguments have merit from a cost/benefits analysis. But when it comes to supplying our national defense I would sleep a lot better at night knowing that that our supply lines are controlled 100% by the United States as opposed to any reliance on foreign sources.

believer wrote:

Your arguments have merit from a cost/benefits analysis. But when it comes to supplying our national defense I would sleep a lot better at night knowing that that our supply lines are controlled 100% by the United States as opposed to any reliance on foreign sources.

Totally impossible and not practical. Most subsystems have foreign parts from Asia or Europe as it costs less and is better quality. 100% America is a nice idea on paper, but when you start to get into details, you find a company in Europe has the best "this" or best "that" and it would simply be too expensive to try and create and build that in the U.S.

In addition, for expensive platforms, like the F-35 and Aegis system missile defense it is better to have it a multinational help, like Germany and Japan. That lowers costs, and does add in better technology for the weapons.

Again, I want the best for our soldiers and if it comes from America, great, but if not, then so be it.

Not only that, it helps build and keep allies.