Delete comment from: Elements Of Power
S.O., you just couldn’t resist, could you?
For 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.
Jun 5, 2015, 12:23:18 AM
Posted to I Believe the First Hit Piece Against the LRS-B Has Been Written