<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>U.S.Category: Military Spending &#124; U.S. &#124; TIME.com</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nation.time.com/category/military-spending-2/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nation.time.com</link>
	<description>News, Headlines, Stories, Video from Around the Nation</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 04:04:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
<cloud domain='nation.time.com' port='80' path='/?rsscloud=notify' registerProcedure='' protocol='http-post' />

	<atom:link rel="search" type="application/opensearchdescription+xml" href="http://nation.time.com/osd.xml" title="U.S." />
	<atom:link rel='hub' href='http://nation.time.com/?pushpress=hub'/>
		<item>
		<title>Pentagon Sequestysteria</title>
		<link>http://nation.time.com/2013/02/25/pentagon-sequestyria/</link>
		<comments>http://nation.time.com/2013/02/25/pentagon-sequestyria/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2013 13:54:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mark Thompson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Battleland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Navy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Obama]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nation.time.com/?p=108332</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ever since the Cold War ended, the Pentagon has been pushing to become more “flexible” and “agile,” to use two words frequently heard at Defense Department briefings and found burrowed into innumerable Pentagon reports. So how come the building is so flummoxed by a looming budget cut of 10%? It&#8217;s a strange thing, this sequester – especially the Pentagon&#8217;s over-reaction. Sure, entitlement spending is driving the budget crisis. But that doesn&#8217;t mean military spending should be bullet-proof. Yet instead of smartly saluting and doing what it has been told, the U.S. military has been wailing for more than a year about how the impending cuts – amounting to more than $500 billion over the coming decade – will cripple U.S. national security. Looking like nothing so much as the Bolshoi Ballet, the choreographed screams about coming cuts has gone too far, even for hawks like conservative columnist George Will. In Sunday&#8217;s Washington Post, Will protested the Navy&#8217;s recent delay in dispatching the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman to the Persian Gulf, purportedly due to the looming budget shortfall: The Navy is saying it cannot find cuts to programs or deployments less essential than the Truman deployment. The Navy’s participation in the political campaign to pressure Congress into unraveling the sequester is crude, obvious and shameful, and it should earn the Navy’s budget especially skeptical scrutiny by Congress. The Defense Department’s civilian employment has grown 17 percent since 2002. In 2012, defense spending on civilian personnel than in 2002. And the Truman must stay in Norfolk? This is, strictly speaking, unbelievable. [Battleland modestly believes Will gleaned these facts from our post last month linking him to a Government Accountability Office report containing them -- Whatever Floats Your Bloat, By George! – but is pleased, nonetheless, to share such interesting tidbits far and wide.] Here&#8217;s something to keep in mind: the Department of Defense budget, strictly speaking, isn&#8217;t elastic. It doesn&#8217;t expand and shrink on a moment&#8217;s notice. According to the rulebook, wars and other major operations are not funded in its<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nation.time.com&#038;blog=20157722&#038;post=108332&#038;subd=timemilitary&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nation.time.com/2013/02/25/pentagon-sequestyria/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Military Spending</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://nation.time.com/category/military-spending-2/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/56983735.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/56983735.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/56983735.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">56983735</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/cf2658ecf5812f0fd988c6de2037c9d8?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">mt53</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/cato-chart.png?w=535" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">cato chart</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>F-35: Blade Bummer</title>
		<link>http://nation.time.com/2013/02/25/f-35-blade-bummer/</link>
		<comments>http://nation.time.com/2013/02/25/f-35-blade-bummer/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2013 13:38:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mark Thompson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Air Force]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Battleland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defense Contractors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Procurement]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nation.time.com/?p=108372</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The news that the Pentagon&#8217;s fleet of 51 F-35 fighters has been grounded because of a half-inch crack in one of its engine&#8217;s turbine blade is one of those problems that can truly be called a teething issue: it&#8217;s something that happens on most every high-tech jet engine that is pushing the engineering envelope. Pentagon officials over the weekend suggested waiting for Pratt &#38; Whitney, the maker of the F-135 powerplant that powers the F-35, could take a week to 10 days. Sometimes such problems are natural; sometimes not. All involved want to make sure that whatever caused the crack is unique to that particular blade and not a threat to all F-35 engines. A single-engine warplane like the F-35 could be doomed by a disintegrating turbine blade. This isn&#8217;t a new problem with the F-35 powerplant; a similar blade cracked during testing in 2007. &#8220;Most likely root cause is resonant response to aerodynamic excitation by the upstream 54 vanes in STOVL operation,&#8221; an investigation into that earlier failure concluded. &#8220;No indication that defects in material properties or single crystal orientation significantly contributed to the failures.&#8221; News of the grounding comes at a sensitive time, as F-35 advocates try to convince the Australian government this week to stick to its original plan to buy 100 of the jets. The grounding is only the latest in a series of problems for the program, which has been plagued by delays and cost overruns. The U.S. military plans on spending $396 billion for 2,457 of the planes, making it the most costly weapons system in the history of the world (the planes, built by Lockheed Martin, are slated to cost $332 billion; Pratt&#8217;s price for the engines is projected to be $64 billion). But the program&#8217;s problems, and looming defense-spending cuts, are likely to cut the program, perhaps by as much as half, defense officials say privately. The grounding affects the F-35s being built for the Air Force, the Marines and the Navy because all three variants use the same engine (&#8220;Putting all<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nation.time.com&#038;blog=20157722&#038;post=108372&#038;subd=timemilitary&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nation.time.com/2013/02/25/f-35-blade-bummer/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Procurement</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://nation.time.com/category/procurement/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/screen-shot-2013-02-24-at-5-16-23-pm.png?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/screen-shot-2013-02-24-at-5-16-23-pm.png?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/screen-shot-2013-02-24-at-5-16-23-pm.png?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Screen Shot 2013-02-24 at 5.16.23 PM</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/cf2658ecf5812f0fd988c6de2037c9d8?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">mt53</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sequestration is for Sissies: $6.9 Billion More for the F-22</title>
		<link>http://nation.time.com/2013/02/21/sequestration-is-for-sissies-6-9-billion-more-for-the-f-22/</link>
		<comments>http://nation.time.com/2013/02/21/sequestration-is-for-sissies-6-9-billion-more-for-the-f-22/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Feb 2013 11:47:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mark Thompson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Air Force]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Battleland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Procurement]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nation.time.com/?p=107894</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Pentagon officials took to PBS and the Pentagon press room to warn Wednesday about the impending sequester&#8217;s impact on military spending. &#8220;We&#8217;re really trying to keep on protecting the country and delivering the defense under these circumstances,&#8221; Deputy Defense Secretary Ash Carter said on the PBS NewsHour Wednesday evening. &#8220;In some cases, that&#8217;s not going to be possible.&#8221; On March 1, assuming no White-House-congressional deal on a $1.2 trillion deficit reduction package over the coming decade, more than $500 billion in Pentagon cuts will kick in automatically, including a $46 billion cut between March 1 and October 1. &#8220;Two-thirds of the Army active combat brigade teams, other than those that are currently deployed, would be at below acceptable levels of readiness,&#8221; Pentagon money chief Robert Hale said. &#8220;It could affect their ability to deploy to a new contingency, if one occurred, or if this goes on long enough, even to Afghanistan.&#8221; Yet slightly more than an hour before Carter appeared on television, the Air Force slipped Lockheed Martin a little something extra to keep their fleet of F-22s flying: Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract (FA8611-13-D-2850) with a ceiling of $6,900,000,000 for F-22 modernization…This award is a result of a sole source acquisition. One doesn&#8217;t know whether to laugh or cry. The F-22 program has become a parody of itself, and of all that is wrong and warped in the military-industrial complex. Let&#8217;s review the bidding: &#8211; The 188-plane program cost $67 billion, or more than $350 million per plane. &#8211; Just over two years ago, the Air Force awarded Lockheed a similar $7.4 billion contract &#8220;for the development of system upgrades to existing requirements, incorporate new requirements, add capability and enhance performance in the F-22 Weapon System.&#8221; &#8211; That&#8217;s apparently a total of $14.3 billion added to the initial cost of $67 billion &#8212; a 21% hike. &#8211; The F-22 became operational in 2005. &#8211; It has yet to fly a single combat mission, even as the nation has waged wars in<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nation.time.com&#038;blog=20157722&#038;post=107894&#038;subd=timemilitary&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nation.time.com/2013/02/21/sequestration-is-for-sissies-6-9-billion-more-for-the-f-22/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Military Spending</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://nation.time.com/category/military-spending-2/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/130105-f-pb632-946.jpeg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/130105-f-pb632-946.jpeg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/130105-f-pb632-946.jpeg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Raptor in flight</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/cf2658ecf5812f0fd988c6de2037c9d8?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">mt53</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Loren Ranger</title>
		<link>http://nation.time.com/2013/02/20/the-loren-ranger/</link>
		<comments>http://nation.time.com/2013/02/20/the-loren-ranger/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2013 12:09:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mark Thompson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Battleland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Weapons]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nation.time.com/?p=107657</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Loren B. Thompson of the Lexington Institute didn’t much care for our F-35 story last week. On his Early Warning blog, he calls it a “misleading” and “sloppy” story that left out all the positive news about the $396 billion program. Unfortunately, a growing number of Pentagon officials acknowledge the Defense Department can’t afford the full 2,457-plane buy, regardless of Thompson&#8217;s (no relation) view of the program. The Loren Ranger Beyond that, they argue a mixture of F-35s and existing warplanes is sufficient, the tri-service approach failed, the program has been mismanaged for close to a decade, and that its costs-performance tradeoff is heading in the wrong direction. But don’t take our word for it: take it from this editorial last fall in Aviation Week magazine, the bible of the aerospace trade and a firm supporter of the defense industry. Just not as much a supporter as the Lexington Institute, which gets a &#8220;significant&#8221; chunk of its $2.5 million in annual funding from defense contractors.<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nation.time.com&#038;blog=20157722&#038;post=107657&#038;subd=timemilitary&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nation.time.com/2013/02/20/the-loren-ranger/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Weapons</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://nation.time.com/category/weapons-2/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/670307.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/670307.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/670307.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Lone Ranger Memorabilia Online Auction</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/cf2658ecf5812f0fd988c6de2037c9d8?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">mt53</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/l-ranger.jpg" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">l ranger</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pentagon Budgetary Hat Trickery</title>
		<link>http://nation.time.com/2013/02/19/pentagon-budgetary-hat-trick/</link>
		<comments>http://nation.time.com/2013/02/19/pentagon-budgetary-hat-trick/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2013 13:37:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mark Thompson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Battleland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nation.time.com/?p=107507</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The sky-is-falling game is now fully underway when it comes to the more than $500 billion in Pentagon budget cuts slated to begin March 1 if Congress and the White House can not agree on a $1.2 trillion deficit reduction by then. So far, no rumbles of any kind of a deal. Sequestration means the Pentagon would have to hack $46 billion out of the seven months left in its $557 billion 2013 budget (these numbers vary depending on who is using which yardstick when; $46 billion is the size of the cut projected last week by Ashton Carter, the deputy defense secretary, and the $557 billion sum is the number used by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments). Anyway, time for the wheels to start squeaking: Bloomberg reports that Pentagon contracts &#8220;plunged&#8221; 67% in January, compared to December: The Pentagon wants to reduce commitments to better prepare for the possibility of automatic cuts, which would require making steep reductions to the annual budget over just six months, according to Larry Allen, president of Allen Federal Business Partners, a consulting firm in McLean, Virginia. “Slowing spending on anything other than what is absolutely essential saves on contract cancellation costs,” he said in an e-mail. Meanwhile, over at the Washington Times, correspondent Rowan Scarborough reports that the Obama Administration has selected high-profile cuts – including indefinitely delaying the deployment of the aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman to the Persian Gulf Feb. 6, two days before she was set to sail &#8212; to make them appear worse than they really are: Analysts and Capitol Hill staffers say there are less-dramatic budget items that could be sacrificed in the first year of a decade of across-the-board spending cuts called sequestration. But they think the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the White House want to pick the items that would put the most pressure on lawmakers. All this, of course, might lead some to think that the Pentagon is facing huge budget cuts that could cripple the nation&#8217;s security. That leads to the<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nation.time.com&#038;blog=20157722&#038;post=107507&#038;subd=timemilitary&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nation.time.com/2013/02/19/pentagon-budgetary-hat-trick/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Military Spending</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://nation.time.com/category/military-spending-2/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/151815612.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/151815612.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/151815612.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">151815612</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/cf2658ecf5812f0fd988c6de2037c9d8?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">mt53</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>With War Ending, When Should We Look for a Peace Dividend?</title>
		<link>http://nation.time.com/2012/10/24/with-war-ending-when-should-we-look-for-a-peace-dividend/</link>
		<comments>http://nation.time.com/2012/10/24/with-war-ending-when-should-we-look-for-a-peace-dividend/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2012 12:05:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Winslow Wheeler</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Battleland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nation.time.com/?p=90243</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The defense budget has become such a pampered darling of the American political system that the most stringent budget scenario that most Republicans and Democrats are currently contemplating &#8212; the so-called “Doomsday” scenario &#8212; is so stuffed with money as to be historically unprecedented. Moreover, as Pentagon spending begins to approach the modestly-reduced levels it currently faces, we can anticipate a titanic effort by defense industry and many across the U.S. political spectrum to pump additional tens, even hundreds, of billions of dollars into Pentagon coffers. Conventional wisdom on these questions is so poorly informed as to the actual data that politicians running for both the White House and Congress make stupendously daft statements about the defense budget, only to be greeted by many nods of pontificatory agreement. Consider the data in the graph below. It shows spending for the Department of Defense (DOD) since the end of World War II to 2022. The data up to the year 2012 are actual spending, expressed in inflation-adjusted dollars equivalent to the year 2012—according to DOD’s records. The data for the years 2012-2022 show Republican candidate Mitt Romney’s approximate plan (in red), President Obama’s (in blue), and the spending to be impose by “sequestration” (in green). That green line is a result of Congress’ failure to come to a broad budget deal under the provisions of the Budget Control Act of 2011, resulting in automatic reductions in DOD’s and other budgets now scheduled for January 2, 2013.<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nation.time.com&#038;blog=20157722&#038;post=90243&#038;subd=timemilitary&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nation.time.com/2012/10/24/with-war-ending-when-should-we-look-for-a-peace-dividend/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Military Spending</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://nation.time.com/category/military-spending-2/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/289927-034.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/289927-034.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/289927-034.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">289927-034</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/ec58dc826721ceca9b4f9b9b965a8fa2?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">winslowwheeler</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/ww-chart.png" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">ww chart</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Nunn-Lugar No Longer?</title>
		<link>http://nation.time.com/2012/10/16/nunn-lugar-no-longer/</link>
		<comments>http://nation.time.com/2012/10/16/nunn-lugar-no-longer/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:00:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mark Thompson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Battleland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military History]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nation.time.com/?p=89144</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sam Nunn left the Senate in 1997. Richard Lugar lost his bid for a seventh term in May. So perhaps it shouldn't come as a surprise that their landmark 1991 legislation, the Nunn-Lugar act that created the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, may be passing into history<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nation.time.com&#038;blog=20157722&#038;post=89144&#038;subd=timemilitary&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nation.time.com/2012/10/16/nunn-lugar-no-longer/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Nuclear Weapons</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://nation.time.com/category/nuclear-weapons-2/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/dn-sd-01-09865.jpeg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/dn-sd-01-09865.jpeg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/dn-sd-01-09865.jpeg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">960604-N-YF557-001</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/cf2658ecf5812f0fd988c6de2037c9d8?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">mt53</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/dn-sd-01-09863.jpeg?w=360" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">960529-N-YF557-009</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Return Fire on the Navy&#8217;s Littoral Combat Ship</title>
		<link>http://nation.time.com/2012/10/12/return-fire-on-the-navys-littoral-combat-ship/</link>
		<comments>http://nation.time.com/2012/10/12/return-fire-on-the-navys-littoral-combat-ship/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2012 12:16:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rear Admiral John Kirby, USN</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Battleland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Navy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Weapons]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nation.time.com/?p=88837</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Last week on Time’s Battleland blog there was a piece by Mr. John Sayen entitled The Navy’s New Class of Warships: Big Bucks, Little Bang. Obviously, Mr. Sayen is not a fan of the Littoral Combat Ship. And that’s OK. We welcome the debate and the discussion. <img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nation.time.com&#038;blog=20157722&#038;post=88837&#038;subd=timemilitary&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nation.time.com/2012/10/12/return-fire-on-the-navys-littoral-combat-ship/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Procurement</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://nation.time.com/category/procurement/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/120502-n-zz999-0191.jpeg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/120502-n-zz999-0191.jpeg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/120502-n-zz999-0191.jpeg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">120502-n-zz999-019</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/cf2658ecf5812f0fd988c6de2037c9d8?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">mt53</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Exploding Budgets</title>
		<link>http://nation.time.com/2012/10/10/exploding-budgets/</link>
		<comments>http://nation.time.com/2012/10/10/exploding-budgets/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2012 13:19:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joe Cirincione </dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Battleland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defense Contractors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Procurement]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nation.time.com/?p=88412</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The government is set to spend $640 billion on nuclear weapons and related programs over the next ten years.

If you didn't know that, you are not alone. No one has put together a reliable estimate of these future budgets – until now.<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nation.time.com&#038;blog=20157722&#038;post=88412&#038;subd=timemilitary&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nation.time.com/2012/10/10/exploding-budgets/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Nuclear Weapons</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://nation.time.com/category/nuclear-weapons-2/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/50611295.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/50611295.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/50611295.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Mushrm. cloud rising white, blotting hor</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/cf2658ecf5812f0fd988c6de2037c9d8?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">mt53</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Contractors in War Zones: Not Exactly &#8220;Contracting&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://nation.time.com/2012/10/09/contractors-in-war-zones-not-exactly-contracting/</link>
		<comments>http://nation.time.com/2012/10/09/contractors-in-war-zones-not-exactly-contracting/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Oct 2012 12:48:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David Isenberg</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Battleland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Troops]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nation.time.com/?p=88230</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[U.S. military forces may be out of Iraq, but the unsung and unrecognized part of America’s modern military establishment is still serving and sacrificing -- the role played by private military and security contractors.<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nation.time.com&#038;blog=20157722&#038;post=88230&#038;subd=timemilitary&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nation.time.com/2012/10/09/contractors-in-war-zones-not-exactly-contracting/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Defense Contractors</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://nation.time.com/category/defense-contractors/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/screen-shot-2012-10-08-at-2-41-31-pm.png?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/screen-shot-2012-10-08-at-2-41-31-pm.png?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/screen-shot-2012-10-08-at-2-41-31-pm.png?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Screen shot 2012-10-08 at 2.41.31 PM</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/cf2658ecf5812f0fd988c6de2037c9d8?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">mt53</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
