Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
    Loading
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Secret Weapons

    Posted by Chicago Boyz Archive on April 14th, 2005 (All posts by )

    VodkaPundit quotes a news story saying ” 19 percent of the Pentagon’s acquistion budget — the money to research and buy things — is being devoted to super-secret items …” That’s $28 billion. A nice, round figure.

    Many will say, yegads, what waste must be occurring in those impenetrable shadows! Everybody who says the government wastes money with both hands is right. And the rain falls in May. It is the order of nature.

    But I don’t worry about that too much, waste, on something like this. I remember somebody once said that Jesse Helms thought the whole federal budget should consist of the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force, the Bureau of Prisons and the tobacco subsidy. I think pretty much like Sen. Helms, with a few details changed. If we must have “waste” in Government, let it be spending on some incredible weapon that just might do us some good on some dark, desperate day. The Manhattan project was a secret project. Best money we ever spent. Radar. Proximity fuses. Secret. Stealth technology, secret too. Fine. The best possible place to shovel our tax money is new and improved weapons. Weakness invites attack. May our enemies shake with fear at the monstrous new death-machines that will emerge from America’s Secret Labs. If we are going to bust the budget, this is the place to do it.

     

    10 Responses to “Secret Weapons”

    1. Richard Heddleson Says:

      I just wish they’d bust it on weapons that infantrymen carry or that carry infantrymen. Too little of what is spent shows up at the point of the sphere.

    2. Steve Says:

      Lex, I’m not sure that it really matters what it is actually spent on. The number itself is a sort of “psy-ops” offensive.

      Remember Reagan’s Space-Based Defense Initiative (maligned by its detractors as “Star Wars”)? The concept and the congressional allocation for it in tandem defeated Gorby’s Soviet military machine by exhausting the Soviet financiers.

      -Steve

    3. incognito Says:

      $28 Billion, that’s all? Yes, death to the Hitlerites. er, I mean islamofascists…

    4. aaron Says:

      Internet, interstate roads, space travel…

    5. Sandy P Says:

      I love seeing my tax $ at work (sniff, sniff).

    6. Mace Says:

      Yeah, it must be driving that cabal of old men in Beijing nuts….

    7. ed in texas Says:

      After reading Ben Rich’s ‘Skunk Works’ and [name escapes me]’s ‘Blind Man’s Bluff’ (about submarine warfare) the conclusion one draws is that placing stuff in ‘black’ projects is done for two reasons:(1) for secrecy (what everyone points to) and (2) to defeat the military procurement system that congress has forced on them. To wit, what’s the lead time for new gear? F-15 25 years, F-117 8 years (with a black end-around). Food for thought.

    8. Steve Says:

      Lex, this is O.T., but I recall one commentator named Rajul, who verbally attacked one of your fellow posters here on Chicagoboyz, Michael Hiteshaw. He alluded to parts of Michael’s anatomy and proposed traumatic blows to said body parts. This was, I recall, all in aid of defending our nation’s atronomical increases in aid to the Tsunami victims of S.E. Asia.

      Rajul’s comments were never purged. In fact I recall Shannon, Ginny, and you all said “he makes some good points.” Encouraged by your laxity, he continued to post frothing comments on your blog.

      Can you please explain to this fan the apparent inconsistency in enforcement of your policy regarding “personal attacks and other comments that we consider abusive.” My email address is below.

      -Steve

    9. Jonathan Says:

      I’ll address it. We probably should have deleted some of Rahul’s comments. It may be that we did, I don’t remember. We do the best we can. Sometimes we are inconsistent. In my experience it has almost always been a mistake NOT to delete abusive comments. Anyway, it’s our prerogative since it’s our forum.

      That said, I do not think your comment was so bad. However, Lex is a different person and he found its tone offensive. I defer to him, as I would to any of the other contributors here who was offended by a comment. We are colleagues, despite our disparate interests and physical locations, and mutual consideration is not a bad thing. Of course you are free to discuss this issue further with Lex if you wish, but I don’t think you are likely to gain much by doing so. It was one comment, Lex didn’t like it, it’s gone. Water under the bridge. You continue to make comments and we continue to read them. What more should we do?

    10. Steve Says:

      Thanks, Johnathan,
      I was anxious tto hear what Lex had to say since he was adorative towards Rahul’s comments. But you’re right, water under the bridge ‘n all.

      I have docked Lex’s intellectual resume only a few points for his inconsistent edit. Thanks for taking the time.

      Now, back to the show… ;-)
      -Steve