Originally Posted by snowspot66
I think the most effective stuff has been the CIA and intelligence gathering for their drone programs. Either way I think we need to honestly question whether stopping one or two big attacks on our soil (if we had done nothing) is worth all the cost and loss of life on our part. History suggests that in the past decade maybe one major attack could have been pulled off in that time. Even when we weren't going crazy over this stuff attacks didn't happen very often. They are hard to pull off.
I'm all for more money to the intelligence branches and the drone programs. They cost a lot less, are incredibly affective, and much less risk is involved. Countless experts are on board for more drones and the old fashioned police work band wagon.
But this disaster of a joyride that George sold to the country is definitely more costly than if they had managed to take down another building or two. We passed even point in the cost/benefit ratio a long time ago both in lives lost and dollars spent. Never mind the political ramifications. Which I don't think anybody will argue have been positive.
That's one thing I do really like about Gates. He's all for the smaller, cheaper, less risk, and more bang for the buck projects. He wants more drones and smaller ships for the navy and I'm all for that. Cheaper and likely more effective in the future.
UAVS are what working for the current conflict, but most likely won't be effective in the next one. That why it hard when comes to weapons/system procurement is because many time you are trying to build a system that flexible enough to be used in many different environments. Now there is a lot things DoD can do to reduce cost and delivers products faster, but put one solution is bad idea. Beside at the end of the day the most important powerful weapon system we have is the 18 to 26 year old with rifle in his/her hand and the training to use it.