SB 19-41: G.I. Joe Act (Debating)

[Lumine]

Generally speaking I'm not a fan of the Atlasian version of defense cuts because they're often too deep and reckless, and tend to neglect to account for issues such as the fact that only a few months ago we were fighting a major war.

Having said that, I think the bill is actually workable and necessary if one accounts for the fact that many of these projects have been inefficiently, too costly when accounting for their usefulness, or have become obsolete despite having given a great service to the nation, so in that sense I think the targeting of the cuts has been responsible instead of indiscriminate and I'm grateful for that.

If it's not a problem - if the Senate doesn't mind my interruption - I do have concerns regarding:

B61 and B83 nuclear programs: There is a case to be made for reductions, but it would be reckless to outright get rid of both given they're still a relevant part of the nuclear arsenal and which, in B61's case, have been undergoing significant efforts to extend their life and accuracy which have already yielded some  positive results. If we must make such cuts - which would make far more sense as a part of a multilateral effort with other nuclear powers instead of a purely unilateral move on budgetary justifications - it would make sense to reduce/get rid of B83, but not (if my reading is correct) B61.

C-130 and C-17: Not sure if it truly makes sense to make these cuts, particularly in terms of the impact on our transport fleet (I have to assume losses were taken during the war).

Trident II: This one might make sense within a longer period of time, but if memory serves right they're nowhere near obsolete. Seems a bit premature to get rid of this one.

M-1 Abrams battle tanks: If a moratorium is to be placed, we should be aware of the potential risks. To suspend their purchases will likely mean production is ended, and it would come at a significant cost to re-start production of this model once the moratorium is over. There is a case to be made for the moratorium, but it will come at a future cost.

Additionally, if we are to reduce the small surface combat ships fleet, may I suggest the State Department and the Administration consider focusing sales to our allies in the East? China may be down after the war in Korea and their naval capabilities temporarily reduced, but it would be helpful to ensure allies such as the Philippines and both Koreas - I wonder if any progress has been made in reunification? I'd love to see the GM Team updating this -, as well as partners such as Vietnam (or even Cambodia now that the relationship is being restored) are relevant targets for the sale of these vessels as it would bring an additional benefit in strategic terms.