Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military From: randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Military Cuts Summary Message-ID: <13376@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 22 Jan 90 06:03:21 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: U of Kentucky, Mathematical Sciences Lines: 73 Approved: military@att.att.com From: Randy Appleton Here is my summary of the "where is the most cost effective place to cut the military" question. Any ideas out there? 1) Coast Guard. Already doing a great job, already getting its pilot training from the Navy, already doing its best to use common equipment from the other services. In general, there may be some fat here, but not too much. [Most of this comes from one pertcular Guarder. Is this stuff true?] 2) Navy. Probably cannot cut the number of Carrier Battle groups without cutting deployments. Right now there are one group in the Atlantic, Med, Indian, Eastern Pacific, and Western Pacific. Also, carriers are VERY useful for low intensity conflicts, especially at a time when overseas bases are hard to come by. 3) Converting old SSBN's to SSN's. I don't know yet. There may be some technical difficulties, (like SSBN sonar stinks, and the conversion would then cost to much). [Anybody know. Somebody must] 4) B-2. Probably not the most cost effective weapon in the world for low intensity warfare. (want to send a $500M plane to drop 500lb bombs?) Probably not the most cost effective weapons for Nuclear war. (One can always use a B-1 along with a ALCM. Also, for that kind of money one can buy an awful lot of ICMB or SLBM warheads. Does have a great Bat Plane look. (is that worth the money?) 5) Strategic Forces. I heard on the TV news that they were thinking of cutting the Minutemen II ICBM's to save $450M/year. [Any news?] 6) Marines. We probably have more Marines than we have need for Anphib invasion. It cannot be cost effective to keep around TWO sets of ground- pounders. But the Marines do what they do VERY well, and we're reluctant to cut a good thing. One possible solution: fix the army/AF. Second solution: replace all the top Army people with Marine Generals. [This part needs more input. Any ideas?] 7) On the Army. I would say cut the Army from 17 to 10 active divisions, and keep all 10 reserve divisions. I just decided on these numbers by wee-gee board. [What do yall think? How few divisions do we need?] 8) Battleships. I say kill'em. One person said they CAN be made effective, but the crew size is 3x that of a DD. Also, I heard the guns didn't do so well in Lebanon. [any ideas?] 9) Pentagon and Burocracy in General. Pretty much a "they stink", but people have been saying that for years. Proably the people who know best what to do are in the Pentagon themselves. ARG [Off with their heads!] 10) Air Force. Got me. Given the current situation, do we need all the fighter wings to maintain air seperiority? Could we cut some of the F-4's? Do we need all the tankers, especially after cutting the B-2 and many of the B-52's. 11) B-52's. I think we could get by with many less than 263. No one seemed to dissagree, so down many of them go. 12) Using the military to supplement the Police Forces. There may be some legal questions, but they can be solved/gotten-around. There may be some training problems. But as far as drug interdiction, it ought to work OK. Except off Colombian waters |-) -- _______________________________________________________________________________ "Tiger gotta hunt, bird gotta fly, man gotta sit, sit and wonder why. Tiger gotta sleep, bird gotta land, man gotta tell himself that he understand" -Bokonon [Address:Randy@ms.uky.edu]