Since you want to get personal on this, let's cover it.
First, I really don't think you even bothered to objectively read my latest post. I covered why a civilian shouldn't be on the top of that heirarchy. The main point of the subject was that there is inefficiency with having a civilian, who doesn't have first hand experience, at the top of that heirarchy. That worked back in when the founding fathers set it up that way because the military hadn't become more complex and technical than one entity could track, let alone having a non-specialized and inexperienced entity in that role. One thing you always have to remember is that the president controls the military but the congress controls the budget the president and the military gets. So your argument about there being no check in the system in the long run is fruitless. No money = no military. You would know some of this had you served, but you are some loud mouth candy ass looking to try and run your mouth regarding shit you have no idea about.
As far as the Crusader vs. the Paladin, let's cover that too. In 1998 there was talk of needing a long range non line-of-sight (NLOS) "Objective Force." The crusader is a 155MM Howitzer firing High Explosive (HEX) self propelled rounds over 40km delivering a maximum 10 rount payload of 15t of Armor Piercing High Explosive (APHEX) detonation at the point of impact per minute. Capabilities the the Paladin doesn't have. This unit can be resupplied under armor on the move with only a 3 man crew. Also, capabilities that the Paladin doesn't have. It also has a top speed of about 48MPH.
Versus the Paladin. Same 155MM Howitzer. Rate of Fire is 4 rounds per minute and 5.7t of HEX detonation at the point of impact. It has a top speed of 35MPH.
You can see the Crusader is a marked improvement coupled with new NLOS targetting capabilities the crusader is THE heavy artillary piece to have on the battlefield.
You make a good point in regards to the weight difference 32 tons (Paladin) versus 54 tons (Crusader). What you forgot was the the crusader is twice as armored, is faster, and can deliver over 3 times the detonation at the point of impact. Cost effective for design and production, probably not but I would feel much safer on the battlefield knowing the tools needed for certain jobs were available should they be needed.
As far as deployment, you don't need to deploy them fully loaded, they can load on the move using the added resupply vehicles. In short, you need fewer Crusaders deployed (Each crusader = 3 Paladins) and they can do one critical thing the Paladin cannot, load from resupply vehicles on the move. How's that for rapid deployment. Put those 3 Paladins on the same transport and you end up with 96 Tons versus the 54 tons of the 1 crusader.
As far as the generals, if they thought it was worth the cost and could prove to the sitting president they needed the thing, sure let them have it. As far as having a civilian make the decisions no, never run a man down until you have walked a few miles in his shoes. which means basically, since civies basically have no experience with the kinds of decision processes the military uses, they should never have a civilian presiding over them.
I still say the secretarty of defense should be prior military either way you slice it. Then at least he/she would understand shit.
As far as the argument, it is over as of right now. Now STFU and find a friend or some shit.
