Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!att!cbfsb!cbnewsc!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Pentagon budget: sexy vs. boring
Message-ID: <1991Mar6.035953.22789@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 6 Mar 91 03:59:53 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (william.b.thacker)
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 17
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)


While the recent conflict demonstrated the effectiveness of several of
the weapons in the US arsenal, it also demonstrated some real
weaknesses in our military.  In particular, our lack of fast sea lift
capability could have proven disastrous, and our mine sweeping
capability was inadequate.  Sexy, sleek weapons have their place, but
so do the more "boring" pieces of equipment.

Does anyone know whether the Pentagon is adjusting its budget to fill
in some of the gaps in the less exciting parts of its arsenal?

--Scott Cromar
cromar@math.rutgers.edu