New York Times on the Web Forums Science
Russian military leaders have expressed concern about US plans
for a national missile defense system. Will defense technology be
limited by possibilities for a strategic imbalance? Is this just SDI
all over again?
(7902 previous messages)
- 03:54pm Aug 18, 2001 EST (#7903
Rumsfeld signals cuts to armed forces By Edward Alden in
Washington www.ft.com Published: August 17 2001 20:26GMT
The US is set to abandon its military policy of
being capable of winning two big regional conflicts simultaneously
and replace it with what could be termed a "1½ war strategy",
Donald Rumsfeld, US defence secretary, said on Friday.
In his most detailed statements yet on the Bush administration's
plans to restructure the armed forces, Mr Rumsfeld said the new
policy would be based on the US winning one war decisively while
simultaneously repelling an attack somewhere else in the world.
The savings from this shift would allow the US to maintain
forces for a variety of smaller conflicts and peacekeeping missions
such as that in Kosovo. It would also free up funds for building
new weapons systems and modernising the armed forces, he said.
Since the end of the cold war, US defence planning has been based
on the need to win two big conflicts at the same time at opposite
ends of the earth. The most likely adversaries have been seen as
Iraq and North Korea.
The doctrine required the US to maintain half a million troops,
half a dozen aircraft carriers and accompanying air support for each
But Mr Rumsfeld said on Friday that US forces were simply
unprepared for two missions on such a scale. "Because of shortage of
transport, shortage of troops, shortage of high-demand assets, the
little secret of the whole thing was that we had the construct but
we didn't have the capabilities to fit them."
In addition, the effort to meet that strategy had kept the
military from funding other urgent needs, he said. The two-war
doctrine "took priority over people, it took priority over
modernisation [and] it took priority over transformation".
Mr Rumsfeld has previously made clear his wish to abandon the
two-war strategy but had been vague as to what would replace it. He
made clear yesterday that a final decision would not be made by
President George W. Bush until the quadrennial defence review was
completed at the end of next month.
The essential requirement of the new posture would be that the US
could win one regional war on its own terms, including occupying an
enemy's territory, while for the other conflict the US would remain
capable of defeating an attack but not be able to end the war on
such decisive terms.
The shift in posture will almost certainly result in some cuts to
the overall size of US military forces, something that could face
strong opposition in Congress. But Mr Rumsfeld said he might simply
spell out the requirements and budgets for each of the armed
services and allow them to make their own decisions on whether to
cut troops or find savings elsewhere.
"This is a big organisation," he said. "The services make a lot
of decisions. It would be foolhardy to try to micro-manage from the
Mr Rumsfeld added on Friday that the US was not planning to send
extra troops to Macedonia to support any Nato operation.
The US has agreed to participate with logistics, intelligence and
medical support, and has offered the use of Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo
for hospital care if needed, he said. "The forces that would be used
are forces that are already in Macedonia or Kosovo," Mr Rumsfeld
said. "So we're not planning on sending extra forces."
more from FT.com Special report: Bush defence plans - shield or
- 03:58pm Aug 18, 2001 EST (#7904
Special report: Bush defence plans - shield or charade?
Published: August 8 2001 17:27GMT
Despite the extravagant costs involved, doubts
about technical feasibility and the effect on relations with
Russia, China and European allies, US President George W. Bush and
his advisors appear determined to press ahead with development of
a missile defence plan.
Mr Bush has defended his proposal as a "search for
security, not a search for advantage." Responding to criticism
that the US is treading islolationist grounds, Mr Bush has argued
that his plan would also benefit American allies. In deference to
Europe, he dropped the word "national" from the missile defence
Mr Bush also faces a US congress reluctant to fund
the expensive proposal. And many strategists and scientists are
asking: will the shield even work? FT.com provides background and
breaking news to explain Mr Bush's ambitious - and perhaps
dangerous - plan. (gives background links)
- 05:24am Aug 19, 2001 EST (#7905
Oz tv : People who say they are x_Viet_Vets are sorted out by the
US Seals who follow through this long list of bragging cheats - the
great 'pretenders' .. yet the greatest pretender of all was omitted
from the list .. perhaps he'll make it soon.
Putin was shown on his August_break throwing clay pots. Out with
the people, magnanimously learning new crafts and skills. This take
on Russia was the new entrepreneurs are doing well, but, there are
many who are poor, alcoholic and destitute.
New York Times on the Web Forums Science