Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military
From: randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Military Cuts
Message-ID: <12686@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 2 Jan 90 02:47:24 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: U of Kentucky, Mathematical Sciences
Lines: 29
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton)
Whether or not you think there should be cuts in military spending, surely 
everyone will agree that there are programs that provide less "bang" per
"buck" that we really want.  So my question becomes, what do you think they
are?

Here is an personal example.  The U.S. Army still has more than 100 OV-1's, and
the Marines have many OV-10's.  These are light turbo-prop aircraft used for
battlefield recon.  I wonder how long they would live in a world filled with
sholder launched SAM's.  Also, there function can be filled by helicopter, 
which has tha added advantage of being able to hide behind trees.

A second example is the SR-71.  The AF felt they could get similar
intelligence from satelite, at much less cost.

What ideas do "yall" in net.land have?

P.S. If it were up to me, I would cut Army "heavy" divisions and strategic
weapons first, and *NOT* air-mobile and naval forces.  What do yall think
on this?


-- 
_______________________________________________________________________________
"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]