In Monday’s editorial cartoon it was asked if we should cut back on technology, personnel or military readiness. I think it is a no brainier.
We could and should cut back on the military. If we do this it would not cut back on our readiness. I believe we need a powerful military, but does that mean we should give them a blank check? Is there any watchdog group watching over them?
For example, Wikipedia says the Pentagon put a price of $207 million on each of the 32 F-35a aircraft to be acquired. That amount climbs to $304 million if its share of research, development, testing and evaluation spending is included. This, of course, does not include arming, manning, fueling, etc. With the advent of drones, are these planes even needed?
According to an NBC special, the military is spending just under $3 billion a day. Not only the military is looking to waste money but politics enters into it. According to Yahoo news and others, in 2012 the Army basically said it didn’t need anymore M1 Abram tanks. But that would have meant the only plant that produces the tanks in Lima, Ohio, would have to close. So what do the politicians do? They order 42 more Abram tanks! For a little less than one half billion dollars!
I guess they know more what the Army needs than the Army does. I believe this might be the real problem: If the military gets smaller, we will lose jobs. If that is true, shame on us. Because these are weapons of war, which, of course, means not only do people die in war but wars are very wasteful.
Lower Mt. Bethel Township
via LETTER: Plenty of room for cuts in U.S. military spending | lehighvalleylive.com.