Apparently, the Pentagon isn’t happy with the spectre of arbitrary and mandatory cuts due to the ‘failure’ of the
Poliburo Supercommittee (boldface mine):
An 11 percent reduction is nonetheless a cut of $54 billion, which would have to be done in a single year — the real challenge in reducing Pentagon spending this way. “It’s the abruptness of the cuts, not the depth of the cuts, which makes it hard,” Mr. Harrison said….
Other analysts argued that the United States had such overwhelming military superiority globally that it could easily withstand the cuts, even to the point of eliminating the Joint Strike Fighter. “We have airplanes coming out of our ears,” said Gordon Adams, who oversaw military budgets in the Clinton White House. “We’re in a technological race with ourselves.” Nonetheless, he said, the automatic cuts make life difficult for Pentagon budget planners and are “a terrible way to manage defense.”
Regardless of what one thinks of our military spending, setting an arbitrary cutting target (why $4 trillion? Why not $4.12528 trillion? I think it has to do with the Mad Biologist’s Rule of Base Ten Numbers) and then fixing priorities to met that target, as opposed to figuring out what we need and then cutting the rest, is stupid. All the more so, since we are not currency limited, and, with unemployment at nine percent, inflation isn’t a risk.
Welcome to science funding land, servicemen and -women…