Friday, March 14, 2014

Beware of This Clever Deceit to Disarm


Oct 22, 2013  -  CBO Says Navy Shipbuilding Plan $76 Billion Short
 "In particular, the plan would lead to temporary shortfalls relative to the Navy's goals for ballistic missile submarines, attack submarines, large surface combatants, and amphibious warfare ships," the report said.
Nov. 22, 2013 - Markey Seeks Cost Options for Modernizing Ballistic-Missile Submarines
Washington -- A proposed amendment to the U.S. Senate's fiscal 2014 defense authorization bill would require the Navy to update Congress on cost projections for different alternatives for modernizing the nation's ballistic-missile submarine fleet.

The measure submitted by freshman Senator Edward Markey (D-Mass.) would give the Navy until the end of March to report on the latest cost projections for all options for replacing the expiring generation of Ohio-class nuclear-armed submarines.

The estimated $90 billion expense of modernizing the sea-based leg of the country's nuclear triad has worried some lawmakers and Defense officials, who say it could eat up a huge chunk of the service's available shipbuilding funds for many years to come.

More Recently
Obama Administration Leader
February 2014 -Navy Secretary Ray Mabus in late February told a think tank audience there should be public debate over how to fund the submarine-modernization program<<<<<

Democrat Followers
March 12, 2014 - Some U.S. Lawmakers Eye Funding New Submarines Outside Normal Process Some U.S. lawmakers are calling for funding the Navy's new fleet of ballistic-missile submarines outside its regular shipbuilding budget, Inside Defense reports.  U.S. Representative Joe Courtney (D-Conn.) and Senator Jack Reed (D-R.I.) contend that the tens of billions of dollars needed to build a successor fleet to the Ohio-class submarine should not come out of the usual funds because the vessels are a national strategic asset.

"I think this is a debate that, between now and 2019, which is now inside the five-year defense budget, that we need to have because we need to build these [submarines]. ...   


At a time when the U.S.  has wasted $billions in taxpayer subsidies on dozens of solar outfits (Solyndra), healthcare premiums are rising for the unemployed (Obamacare), the Sequester is beginning to effect us all, and nuclear is still (Fukushima ) a very bad memory, how many people does anyone know that even cares about somethiing few understand and even
fewer will ever see --- Trident submarines?

At the very time P.O.T.U.S. has unilaterally proposed warhead reductions, inadvertently injected fear and uncertainty into U.S. foreign policy posture, provoked ire among Europe's leaders (NSA phone intercepts), concern among our allies as to the ongoing value of military commitments (Benghazi, Ukraine), and raised concern in the Middle East (Syria, Israel, Saudi Arabia) about U.S. steadfstness, Democrats (so far, but soon to be joined by RINO lawyer-politician colleagues) suggest having public debate over how to fund a successor fleet for a strategic asset.

The outcome of such a debate would produce only a bigger question, the same one D.C. lobbyists working for elite, one-world globalists have pushed since WW2: Why have nuclear weapons and subs, at all.   

At stake:  Just perpetuation of Liberty, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  Don't be one of those fooled by their transparent ploy.

Submarines are always silent and strange.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,


At 15 March, 2014 22:33, Blogger Pete said...

Hi Vigilis

I agree US SLBM nuclear weapons continue to be necessary - contrary to what peaceniks hope.

Russia's military aggression in Crimea is an indicator that the main potential nuclear threat to the US remains.



At 16 March, 2014 20:05, Blogger Vigilis said...

Thanks for weighing in on this, Pete.



Post a Comment

<< Home