It looks like the 'Faux Reform' crowd has begun the long campaign with a 'retrospective'-themed hit piece on he B-2 as part of the wind-up.
It's typical 'Bloomberg' garbage. With a title like: "Almost Nobody Believes the U.S. Air Force Can Build an Affordable Bomber" * , how could it not be? I notice that those non-believers visited in the article have zilch long-range strike credentials. You don't often see the 'bandwagon' fallacious argument brazenly (stupidly?) combined with a fallacious appeal to authority right up front in the title, but there it is...
*Note, 1 June 15: Craptastic Bloomberg site changed the links and memory-holed the comments since post was put up. Link changed to go to the Bloomberg piece again...for now.
There's only a few non-misleading bits, such as...
“There’s already the usual suspects out there telling us that we don’t need this or it won’t work,” Major General Garrett Harencak, assistant chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration, said at an Air Force Association breakfast in January. The new bomber “will be affordable and it’s desperately needed,” he said....buried at random amid the otherwise unrelenting drivel oozing from old and new "usual suspects",
Here's the 'B-2 history' graphic found at the link with corrections to make it 'true', or at least a hell of a lot truer than the 'B.S.' concocted by the article's 'author' David Lerman.
The Bloomberg 'piece' is "Punk Journalism" at it's finest.
And of course, it's all part of the plan:
Lerman's new enough to the game that I would probably categorize him as a "Grubber". If he wakes up to how he's been 'played' and resists from here on out, then he can be seen as a 'Former Pawn'. Otherwise we could be seeing an emerging Loyal Babbler.
To buy more B-2 wouldn't have been better value, since the additional bombers would have had zero additional utility.
ReplyDeleteTo cut the production run was thus prudent, and it led to the excessive costs which are a fact.
It's most reasonable to expect that the USAF will lowball the cost estimate and highball the production run estimate to get the program to the point where complete cancellation is near-impossible politically.
It's furthermore very reasonable to expect the individual new bombers to end up at almost a billion USD per copy - at least.
The potential for export is almost zero. The Australians and British might look at a squadron each IF the costs are low enough. They won't if the fly away price is in the region of a new navy destroyer.
I agree with critics of the new bomber program; it sounds awfully detached from any "defense" needs. It's not "defense" of anything if your target is out of range for midair-refuelled F-35 and there's no need for a dedicated bomber with F-45-like mission radius either, so there's no plausible niche.
The United States of America has according to the Congressional Budget Office a public infrastructure investment shortfall on the order of about a hundred billion USD yearly for at least a decade or two to come. "Defense" is at a budget high since 9/11 that's not warranted by actual national or alliance security needs.
A couple of B-2 issues that go overlooked is that the predicted inflation rate for 1985 - 1992 period was in the 1 - 2% range when in actual rate was 3x greater reaching a level in the early 90's that we haven't seen since.
ReplyDeleteThen there was the labor unrest at Boeing and the fact that Northrop had to go on an unprecedented
hiring binge (and paid top dollar) to recruit sufficient talent. So if those issues can be managed some of the cost issues that drove subsequent unit reductions can be avoided.
No plausible niche? Um... Being able to launch strikes from CONUS into defended areas without a highway full of tankers or having to worry about forward basing. The worry of China hitting Kadena or pushing the carriers too far out because of anti-ship missile. You launch strikes from the US to knock those systems out for the shorter range planes to move in.
ReplyDeleteThe LRS-B is a replacement for the B-2's that are wearing out. Think of it as B-1/B-2 hybrid. A little less stealthy then a B-2 but more rugged with a bigger payload. What will be even more fun is what is coming down the road in terms of a high altitude/high speed plane.
And in terms of cost... The stated goal of $500 million each isn't outrageous because the airlines are paying that kind of price for new passenger planes each.
LRS-B is also an integral part of extended deterrence. Per the last Nuclear Posture Review, the US will forward deploy dual capable tactical aircraft and heavy bombers with tactical nuclear weapons during a crisis.
ReplyDelete@Seal of Lion
ReplyDeleteThere are enough air bases in Japan available for use in a conflict with the PRC that involves Japan. Midair refuelling kits for transport aircraft are relatively cheap and simple, even a kit for USAF-style refuelling is possible if the rear ramp is replaced.
A conflict with the PRC that doesn't involve Japan couldn't be "won" anyways, unless it's solely about air/sea action. And in that case one shouldn't and wouldn't bomb the continental PRC.
A B-1/B-2 mix would not be capable of operations against PRC or Russia without support by fighters, so any range advantage over fighters would have negligible utility.
The cheerleader-for-hire Loren Thompson has used the airliner price comparison a while ago, but it's bollocks. An A380 is a profitable investment for airlines at its price. A bomber isn't profitable, it's destructive with no sales. Its utility is solely in what it does militarily, and at USD 550 million (likely to grow to almost a billion) it will compete with great many more promising alternatives, such as infrastructure investments, spending on training, spending on ammunition war stocks, spending on replacing a gazillion small things that are 30+ years old in the military, spending on upgrades, forgiving student debt, reducing the deficit, ...
The United States have become accustomed to an excessive level of military power ambition. It's fiscally and macroeconomically necessary to at least tone the military power ambitions down to the level before the 9/11 hysteria.
"There are enough air bases in Japan available for use in a conflict with the PRC that involves Japan. "
ReplyDeleteSo you are assuming that air bases in Japan are inviolable? Wow...
"Midair refuelling kits for transport aircraft are relatively cheap and simple, even a kit for USAF-style refuelling is possible if the rear ramp is replaced."
And the survivability of such transport aircraft in a high threat environment would be very low.
"A B-1/B-2 mix would not be capable of operations against PRC or Russia without support by fighters, so any range advantage over fighters would have negligible utility."
Isn't that a very good argument for LRS-B? You are also forgetting about LRSO...
"The cheerleader-for-hire Loren Thompson"
Is that you, Bill Sweetman? :)
Thompson's point was that very large, multi engine aircraft designed for multi-decadal lifetimes
have a certain price point (O&S and fixed cost is typically proportional to operating
empty weight). Even if Thompson is a cheerleader that doesn't invalidate his observation.
"The United States have become accustomed to an excessive level of military power ambition."
Gasp! You mean honoring our treaty obligations? Extended deterrence is a major component of that.
Surely substituting LRS-B for nuclear tipped tomahawks in the Asia Pacific region and nuclear artillery
in Europe is a good thing.
"So you are assuming that air bases in Japan are inviolable? Wow..."
ReplyDeleteWhat a pointless thought. What good would a bomber for Hawaii-PRC missions be if in all of Western Japan there's no possibility to use some paved surface for F-15 operations?
Sounds like fighting a lost war to me.
"And the survivability of such transport aircraft in a high threat environment would be very low."
Yeah, but those in command would not send them into such an environment, for there is no need. They would be very safe over the ocean, hundreds of km from the nearest hostile base. There would be no AEW&C if this was not true, and the USAF offensive capabilities are crap without AEW&C anyway.
"Isn't that a very good argument for LRS-B? You are also forgetting about LRSO..."
No, it's not. If a bomber cannot go farther than a fighter-bomber because of threats, then its added range (size) is almost irrelevant. Stand-off missiles can be used with stand-off by definition, no need for a golden bomber.
"Even if Thompson is a cheerleader that doesn't invalidate his observation."
The fact that he compared oranges and apples does, and I explained that already. Expensive or not depends on how great the utility of the item is relative to the price. Airliners are profitable. B-2 and the like aren't profitable.
"Gasp! You mean honoring our treaty obligations?"
Nonsense. Those weren't in question before the military spending doubled because everybody got hysterical about terrorism.
Furthermore, hardly any treaty ally spends as much in %GDP on its military as the U.S. does. The army of Taiwan is stuck in the 1960's, for example. The European NATO is more powerful than all realistic threats to them (Russia, Mediterranean Arabs, Belarus) combined, and spends less only ~1.65% GDP on the military on average.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ee.html
U.S.military spending is insanely wasteful because U.S.military power ambitions are hysterical. The spending beyond what actual "defense" requires is not even remotely matched by real additional benefits. Meanwhile, the government runs deficits and neglects infrastructure investments.
These days 'hundreds of kilometers' is no defense. What if the PRC sends a group of fighters with buddy tanks and long range missiles? Even if they don't kill the tankers & AWACS they can drive them off.
ReplyDeleteAlso your concept of fighters guarding bombers is decades out of date. A long range bomber doesn't have a close escort of fighters or travels in formations. With its range, it can pick where and when it attacks. Some stealth and jamming with decoys can make it even harder to find.
Stand-off missiles are fine but can be limited by numbers. A bomber can carry dozens of GPS/INS guided bombs each.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete"What a pointless thought. What good would a bomber for Hawaii-PRC missions be if in all of Western Japan there's no possibility to use some paved surface for F-15 operations?
ReplyDeleteSounds like fighting a lost war to me."
Nice strawmen all around. Who said there was no possibility of paved surface use in Western Japan? Who said the bombers would be staged from Hawaii? The main impact I was highlighting would be the reduction in fighter sortie rates which combined with their smaller payloads would have to be made up for by something else. Bombers for example.
"Yeah, but those in command would not send them into such an environment, for there is no need. They would be very safe over the ocean, hundreds of km from the nearest hostile base. There would be no AEW&C if this was not true."
Hundreds of km from the nearest hostile base still puts them within J-20, J-16 (Flanker family) radius.
AEW&C aircraft have pretty exquisite defensive suites and of course, by definition very good awareness.
Military tankers don't have the awareness and converted transport milk cows have nothing. Bombers are little reliant on AEW&C so the claim about crap offensive power is nonsense.
"If a bomber cannot go farther than a fighter-bomber because of threats, then its added range (size) is almost irrelevant. Stand-off missiles can be used with stand-off by definition, no need for a golden bomber."
Harping on range but forgetting about payload. Bombers bring both and that includes the ability to carry big standoff weapons that exceed the pylon/hardpoint limit of any Fighter-bomber in the inventory. I fully expect you to propose we convert transport aircraft into standoff weapons carriers at this point...
"The fact that he compared oranges and apples does, and I explained that already. Expensive or not depends on how great the utility of the item is relative to the price. Airliners are profitable. B-2 and the like aren't profitable."
He compared one VLA to another VLA; apples to apples. Surely if the deterrent effect of bombers works they pay for themselves many times over. And if the effect fails, then they can shorten a war which is generally salutary for profits across the board. I won't delve into the arguments for Military Keynesianism.
"Nonsense. Those weren't in question before the military spending doubled because everybody got hysterical about terrorism."
The ability to meet our treaty obligations was and is in doubt. Very publicly during the precipitous "peace dividend" drawdown of the 90's and now in the Obama era.
LRS-B actually helps meet the New Start treaty obligations whose counting rules are designed to emphasize the least destabilizing member of the triad, the heavy bomber. The B-1b has been denuclearized.
"Furthermore, hardly any treaty ally spends as much in %GDP on its military as the U.S. does."
And they should be chastised for it. Britain's current chicanery in meeting the 2% requirement by
including military pensions is absolutely disgraceful. But thanks to Russian mischief military budgets
seem to be on the rise in Europe. You also see similar budgetary rises in the Far East thanks to China's mischief.
"U.S.military spending is insanely wasteful because U.S.military power ambitions are hysterical."
US military power ambitions are what exactly? The status quo in the Far East and Europe?
How outrageous!
"Meanwhile, the government runs deficits and neglects infrastructure investments."
So how exactly would infrastructure "investments" be funded? By deficits.
Probably much less than 20 years. Perhaps less than 5. Rumors are that the prototypes are flying now and. People have been noticing that there are extra large hangers built at Groom Lake in the past few years. That would fit with the black project status the program has been running in until now.
ReplyDeleteTake a look at the X-47B and imagine it a lot larger with a cockpit and that could be Northup/Grumman's candidate. Add the stealth design from the B-2 and the technology developed for the F-22/35 and you have the B-3.
The one that is 20 years down the road would be the 'B-4/SR-72' hypersonic bomber.
S.O.
ReplyDeleteYour first comment was nothing other than a series of assertions unsupported by fact and yet presented as if they were self-evident truths. You've gone downhill from there. If you had a good argument against the LRS-B it would have been easy for you to lay out to the rest of us for further, rational discussion.
We MIGHT have played '5 whys' and get to the real root of your concern with the LRS-B and 'defense' in general, but aside from being a semi-revealed mystery, who now cares? Others have saved me the trouble of dissecting your nonsense.
You can take a position I hate until the "cows come home" as long as your argument is cogent, avoids needless repetition and you do not try to pass off opinions as absolute truth. But if you make any more rationally unsupported assertions, or offer another "fallacious appeal to fill-in-the-blank, it's "Buh-Bye".
I'm probably even going to express some LRS-B reservations myself along with why they are reservations sometime AFTER the contract is awarded, and also posit as to how the AF and/or LRS-B in its execution might overcome my reservations. But the reasons for the reservations will be provided and I'll be sure to use words like "I think" or "I believe" whenever required and not expect anyone to just take my word for it without challenge.
You don't like current defense (and national) priorities. We get it...and yet you've not provided one cogent rationale why anyone should care one way or the other, or spend their time trying to figure out if we SHOULD care. Feel free to go play at Don Bacon's lonely outpost and commiserate with the little Anarcho-Capitalist himself or do something similar elsewhere if all you want is reaffirmation.
"No, they're not stupid enough to overspend as do the Americans.
ReplyDeleteEuropean NATO / EU has more military power than all its neighbours (Med Arabs, Iran, Russia, Belarus) could combine against it. Any call for them to spend more only reveals that the caller is either perfectly irrational or perfectly incompetent."
They should be chastised for not meeting their treaty obligations which they signed up for in good faith. The combined military power of a fractious coalition (NATO/EU) can in no way be compared with a monolithic military power like Russia. Unified decision making, acquisition, logistics and doctrine matter.
Russian defense spending is more than twice the average NATO member spending (% GDP) and all of that done in a country with a very low cost structure and excellent energy and rare earths resources. Add to that more tactical nuclear weapons than the rest of the world combined..
"And that's what I think of your (Marauder) other positions as well. It's obvious your favorable sentiment towards yet another military power prestige item cam first, and whatever poses as reasoning came later as a fig leaf."
And here I was hoping for a nuanced counter-argument on technical matters. Sigh..
"That's a myth. There is no such treaty obligation to spend a certain amount, or much"
ReplyDeleteAll of which is contradicted by
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm?selectedLocale=en
"In 2006, NATO member countries agreed to commit a minimum of two per cent of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to spending on defence."
If it were merely a myth the British would not be engaging in all sorts of accounting tricks to meet the
the 2% figure.
Please don't assume that I supported NATO's recent military adventures. I was especially opposed to the operations
over Serbia and Libya.
"And that's irrelevant in regard to European military spending, for the Russians still cannot even hope to cope with EU or European NATO conventional military power. Both UK and France have MAD deterrence."
It's funny how you dismiss treaty elements like spending guidelines but think that the UK and France are willing to commit strategic nuclear weapons to sub-strategic use. With the overmatch of the Russian strategic arsenal and the country's depth, there is no mutually assured destruction on the Russian side in a strategic nuclear exchange with France and Britain.
The British have no tactical nuclear weapons and I don't believe the French do either.
As to conventional power, what's the operational readiness of NATO armies? It's not great. How are the spares and munitions inventories? More importantly, when was the last time they held exercises that were greater than company size in terms of armored forces? How frequently are combined arms exercises held?
Is there an integrated air defense picture? How resilient are air defenses against Russian DEAD/SEAD forces? How good are NATO forces in conducting SEAD/DEAD against Russian strategic SAMs which will push out the tanker and AWACS orbits?
How hardened are NATO air basis and marshalling points against Russian SRBM attack? When was the last time NATO practiced dispersion and STOL?
So lots of questions none of which are about weakness but readiness.
Continued:
ReplyDelete"The European military strength is dominant by far in the region and its navies so powerful there's no non-allied match to them in the Atlantic or Indian Oceans."
And yet Russian subs are sailing around the Baltic to the Irish Sea with impunity. How long will those Navies last against
the SSGNs the Russians have on hand let alone the ones they are building. The Russians have enough ASCMs and enough OTH targeting assets to cripple most of the NATO surface fleet and enough offensive mine laying capability to interdict
most western ports. It would be very ugly.
As to airpower, the operational readiness of most of those air forces is low as is the number of combat coded aircraft and the cannibalization rate is high. Bringing up the Hellenic Air Force if funny since the probability of them going against the Russians is incredibly remote given the current rapproachment.
"All brigades the Russians can muster for warfare in the Western military district combined (including what they massed against the Ukraine) would be inferior to the combined German and UK's army even without a mobilization of the latter ones."
The Brits have one severely understrength armored division in Germany and inadequate sea and airlift to reinforce and sustain it. The Germany army can field at most, about one combat ready armored division. That's not exactly a staggering force ratio.
"That report was supported by what the Russians actually amassed in the Ukraine conflict; army forces comparable to the Romanian military at most (still hyped by Western news media as huge forces concentration)."
I wouldn't expect Russian force concentrations in and around Ukraine to be large at all. There's no need; plenty of
ethnic Russian reservists who can be called to the colors and who only need a trickle of armor to make a difference
against Ukrainian regulars.
"One could also look at the extremely huge USAF and extremely huge USN air and consider whether even more is actually required. It is in the long term only. Right now, the U.S. could cut half of the USAF without actual loss of forces utility.
It could also remember that alliance treaties are not nature's law and can be left when they add more burden than benefit - and the need for U.S. air power would almost instantly drop to less than the current USN air component."
I'm happy to revisit force structure discussions but US TACAIR and NAVAIR wings are shrinking by design anyway.
The bomber fleet, even if LRS-B goes to 100 frames, will be smaller during the course of its lifetime than any time since 1950. That would make meeting treaty obligation quite manageable and affordable assuming the USAF gets its planned number of dual capable aircraft.
S.O., you just couldn’t resist, could you?
ReplyDeleteFor posterity, I’ll parse your response in case it disappears when I cut you off.
Part 1:
RE: “In a democracy, this is unsuitable. Substantial funds will have been committed by then, and to not question those in time means to give up some democratic control of the military and the budget. That's a mix of technocracy and crony capitalism.”
How do you pack so much non-thought into just three sentences?
1. We don’t live in a ‘Democracy’ we live in a ‘Democratic Republic’. More to the point, we operate our Republic via a “representative government” whereby we democratically elect a ‘few’ people to take care of minding those “substantial funds” for ‘all of us’.
2. As the military is funded by the representative government, our “control” of the “military and the budget” is maintained per #1 above.
3. My point about delaying voicing my concerns was that I am doing so for personal reasons. That there are things I see that I don’t like about the LRS-B. It doesn’t mean I have a right to assert that LRS-B program is flawed or ‘wrong’ in any way just because I see something I don’t like. I’m experienced enough to know there’s probably something I’m missing, so I will explore that avenue before making any conclusions. I’m only waiting until AFTER the source selection to comment because depending on which team wins, what and how much I CAN speculate on the program is unknown. And no, I won’t say which selection makes the most difference.
4. Errrrr, ‘giving up control’ (which again, we are NOT) would be “a mix of technocracy and crony capitalism”? What you state is a non-sequitur: asserting something that theoretically might happen, WOULD happen, when one does not necessarily follow the other. I’d say it’s likely an infeasible Non-Sequitur at that. Technocracy involves a technical elite controlling things. Crony Capitalism is when the success of private enterprise is dependent on the favoritism of the ruling government. But this does perhaps give indication of your personal fears. ‘Task-oriented’ technocrats in government? ROFLMAO.
RE: “The default assumption should be that to not spend resources is better than to spend them, so the pro side that's in favor of spending said resources has the burden of proof that their proposal is worthy since spending in itself is a loss.…”
No.
This assertion comes close to giving form to my main complaint with you and others like you. This is a statement of fact that is demonstrably untrue, but you assert it as a certainty. You are clearly working from a zero-sum game POV, when it is arguably an ‘exchange’ in resources that might occur, not a “loss”.
The default questions to ask initially are:
1) Do I have a shortfall in a resource I need? No one in DoD sits around first thinking “I want to spend money”. That’s Congress’ gig.
2) In what ways can our needs be met?
3) How can I ensure the resources I will give up are worth the resources we will gain in exchange? And how do I assess the relative values?
The answers to these questions MAY drive procurement of a new weapon system, but more frequently (BY FAR!) they drive a re-purposing or modification of existing systems, a new strategy, or new tactical approach. etc.
Part 2.
ReplyDeleteRE: "You seem to assume the opposite and give the DoD the benefit of the doubt - to an organization [sic] that certainly didn't deserve or has a reputation for efficient allocation of resources."
Another easily dismissed position stated as fact. Is the DoD as ‘efficient’ as it ‘could be’ in allocating resources? Probably not, but it could be more efficient than we have a right to expect. We don’t know. Why?
Because we CANNOT know.
1. We have no basis or bases for comparing the DoD’s efficiency to any other endeavor on earth. Why? Because no other comparable activities EXIST. (Name one?) But you appear to believe you are capable of judging the DoD’s performance in this regard. If so, perhaps you should ask yourself WHY you should ‘feel’ so qualified?
2. Define ‘efficient’. As the purpose of the DoD is to protect the US and our interests around the world, do we judge efficiency by the percentage of time we’ve been able to successfully kick some ne’er-do-well’s a** militarily? In that case DoD runs at 100% efficiency. Too bad the foreign policy/Foggy Bottom team seems to be in a perpetual slump. Or is ‘efficiency’ measured in useful lifespans of the systems procured at the level of effort involved?
3. Delineate between ‘inefficiencies’ inherent to the DoD and those ‘inefficiencies’ imposed from outside the DoD. RAND has published volumes on this topic. Much, if not MOST comes from imposed change. You should read up.
4. Define ‘efficiency’ for the act of fielding new technology or new combinations of technology. How do you “efficiently” create something that has never existed before? I’d love to hear it (alas, from somebody else now).
5. How do you measure the indirect benefit of new technology spawned from defense activity? I’d say the major problem in trying to measure the ROI is that once the tech leaves the hands of the military it becomes fungible and ubiquitous. Examples? Did you know that before the outer shape of the B-2 had been declassified technology developed to inspect B-2 composites was already in use within the latest medical imaging equipment? I’d wager the economic benefits from GPS not only have paid for the program’s creation and operation to date, but probably has paid for any number of other weapon systems. What percentage of the US economy has been positively affected by the proliferation of the microchip revolution, not to mention the internet (ARPANET)?
Part 3
ReplyDeleteRE: "Now if you understood what I meant here, you'll understand why I don't see [an] reason to provide supportive evidence. The burden of proof is on the bomber proponent side - and they delivered essentially no supportive evidence whatsoever, only assertions."
That is incorrect. You have explicitly (congratulations on that, it is very rare compared to ‘implicitly’) committed the Fallacious Burden of Proof aka “Appeal to Ignorance” fallacy. I suspect your limited perspective of the world around you has caused it.
The burden-of-proof for the “LRS-B” WAS once-upon-a-time placed on those who would seek to field a new bomber. That time has now passed as they succeeded in meeting that burden (obviously) in getting it to be a program of record with a competitive procurement attached. Not only must the proponents have fulfilled many “someone’s” satisfaction that the LRS-B was needed, they had to do so using a Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) requirement as a standard to measure against. So can you now visualize how the idea that ‘some guy’ with a Blogger handle of “S.O.” claiming there is a ‘burden of proof’ the new bomber must meet to satisfy HIS notions of need appears to the rest of us? I now state explicitly that it is YOU who must bear the burden-of-proof to convince DoD and the AF that a new bomber is not needed. Since the status quo is now that one IS needed and YOU are challenging (in debate ‘making the affirmative’) that the status quo needs changing.
As an aside, are you aware of how many programs have failed to garner enough support to reach the status of the LRS-B has in the procurement process over the years?
I do: http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2009/01/chasing-long-range-strike-1990-2009.html
RE: “Well, actually I did. I pointed at the underfunding of infrastructure, which competes with the bomber project for resources….”
No.
You created a binary ‘either-or’ Strawman argument. One that does not exist in the real world, as infrastructure first competes with other non-defense spending. You’ve also failed to even define the boundaries of what you mean by ‘infrastructure’. This is a non-trivial point as I can find even ‘Prog’ pseudo-studies that claim private, state , and local capital can and does provide for most infrastructure outside of two of the five (six if you count data transportation) national transportation systems.
Part 4
ReplyDeleteRE: “The benefits of investing more in infrastructure are well-known and also documented in multiple CBO reports and the like. To spend on infrastructure yields a net gain from resources spent. A bomber program needs to beat that net gain/ return on investment (or beat other promising alternatives) in order to be a good idea. That's why you SHOULD care. It's about whether the nation's resources shall be wasted or not.”
If there was a CBO study that ever reported such drivel I would have heard about it or you would have linked to it like 'gold'. I believe I’ve seen CRS references to such, but hell, they’ll quote anybody to back up a ‘some claim’ statement.
I HAVE found however, that when I’ve pulled the thread to find the original source for ANY claims that infrastructure spending reaps greater benefit than defense spending, the thread ultimately lead to the UMASS Political Economy Research Institute (PERI). They publish their annual screed on the topic under commission from this or that radical activist group year to year. I don’t damn them for their funding sources, but it does make them suspect until proven otherwise. Unfortunately, their methods, models, and motives are also highly suspect, and I know of no one else in the area of American economic research that comes close to finding the same ‘findings’ they seem to 'reliably' produce. I actually keep a dossier of sorts on their reports: tracking how they have become more opaque year to year as to their methods, modes and even findings for future use.
BTW: Much of the “Political Economy” coming out of PERI radiates a detectable “Marxist” , (vs “Chigago School”), etc, vibe IMHO.
RE: “Besides; why SHOULD anyone care whether a military program in its infancy gets criticized, or funded? How does a bomber program affect regular Joe? The contra military spending side doesn't have the burden of proof, you know. The usefulness of a military program to regular Joe is NOT self-evident. So why do you imply the requirement ("why ... SHOULD care") at but one side of the argument? It looks like a biased rhetoric trick to me.”
See ‘representative government’ and ‘burden of proof’ the first time.
“Regular Joes” actually DON’T care. They assume we’re paying other people to care for them. Now all the nattering nabobs of negativity get all excited, but before the internet, they used to hang out at the corner store with their booze in a bag and complain amongst themselves. They’re obvious low standing in the knowledge food chain on topics outside their purview sheltered them from the delusion that they knew WTF they were talking about.
Note to all: Normally I don’t spend this much effort on time wastrels, but there is method to my madness in doing so this time.