From: muellerm@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Marc Mueller)
Subject: Re: ABOLISH SELECTIVE SERVICE
Nntp-Posting-Host: irl2
Organization: Vanderbilt University School of Engineering, Nashville, TN, USA
Lines: 61

In article <1993Apr16.131508.9518@ra.msstate.edu> fpa1@Trumpet.CC.MsState.Edu (Fletcher P Adams) writes:
>kmitchel@netcom.com (Kenneth C. Mitchell) writes:
>>Dave Borden (borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu) wrote:
>>: The Selective Service Registration should be abolished.  To start with, the
>>: draft is immoral.  Whether you agree with that or not, we don't have one now,
>>: and military experts agree that the quality of the armed forces is superior
>>: with a volunteer army than with draftees.  Finally, the government has us
>>: on many lists in many computers (the IRS, Social Security Admistration and
>>: Motor Vehicle Registries to name a few) and it can find us if it needs to.
>>: Maintaining yet another list of people is an utter waste of money and time.
>>: Let's axe this whole department, and reduce the deficit a little bit.
>
>I'm really surprised Clinton hasn't already tried to do this.  He seems
>to want to tackle other irrelevant issues first, so why not this one as well.

Considering that Clinton received a draft notice and got out of it (he admits it) the political feasibility of him abolishing it is not something he would
be inclined to risk any extra exposure on.

>
>>Let me say this about that, as a retired Navy officer; 
>>
>>I agree. Cut it.  But let's not stop there. 
>>
>>Eliminate the C-17 transport. 
>
>Wrong.  We need its capability.  Sure it has its problems, very few
>airplanes haven't, but getting rid of something we need is not the
>answer.  What do you want to do, start over a rebuild a new airplane
>from scatch?  It'll have its problems as well and there will be calls
>again, for it to be scrapped.  THe other option is to try to extend
>the life of the C-5s and C-141s that are getting extremely old.

If you read Aviation Week, the C-5 line can be reopened and the C-5s
would be delivered a year earlier and cost a billion less for the 
program. Politically, though, the C-17 is popular pork.

>
>>Scrap the Seawolf SSN-21 nuclear submarine. 
>>Ground the B-2 stealth bomber. 
>
>It'll cost jobs, but I'm for it.  We especially don't need a B-2. THe
>SSN-21, I know litttle about.
>
Agreed. Congress took money from NASA and FHA to fund the second Seawolf.
The shipyards are still building Los Angeles Class submarines and there
is a lack of ASW foes to contend with. The Navy is considering reducing
the number of attack subs to 40 (Navy Times) and that would entail
getting rid of or mothballing some of the current Los Angeles class.

Politically, General Dynamics is in Connecticut and we will get
Seawolf subs whether we need them or not.

In addition, more bases need to be closed. Probably Long Beach Naval Station
and others. The Navy is talking about three main bases on each coast being 
required to home port a total fleet of 320 ships.

The question is whether Les Aspin and Clinton will be able to face down
a pork happy Congress.


-- Marc Mueller
