Would Obama Disarm the Military?

Like it or not the reason why many of those countries do spend less is that they depend on the U.S. to aid them in equipment and men if some thing happens. That is why for example Japan spends less even though they have been rethinking this now that China is the regional super power and probable in top 3 in world.

Once we get out places like Iraq and N. Korea spending can come down with out hurting the preparedness of the military. The problem is I think that money should equal lower taxies but Obama will spend it on “programs”. Also seems like GNP wise (statically better way to show spending relative to other counties) we are getting a good deal. I rather be at the top GNP wise of first world country than the last.
 
I thought the UN was supposed to keep the peace! Policing the world is a great idea if you can afford it. We are at a crossroad here on fiscal spending and borrowing. Does that mean we hate America because we don't want to bankrupt the country? Far from it.
Click to expand...

Although our military supremacy in and of itself does help to moderate world order, that should not be it’s purpose. It’s purpose is to deal with the fact that there will be no power vacuum. As long as humans are the dominant species on this planet, there will be struggles to dominate it through military power. Having military power unrivaled by any handful of our closest competitors is the only way to assure that we retain our liberty, our standard of living and our security.

Yup; it's expensive! Thinking it is not required is naive and very, very dangerous!
 
Yup; it's expensive!
Click to expand...
How do we continue to pay for it? Short our infrastructure? Offshore all manufacturing, then borrow from China and others to purchase said items?
Thinking it is not required is naive and very, very dangerous!
Click to expand...
I can't argue that it's not necessary and has worked in the past. But we also used to manufacture much more in this country and were fiscally solvent. the only "naive" thinking here seems to be the lack of concern of the methods we use to pay for this security. How did Russia go broke?
 
How do we continue to pay for it?
Click to expand...

There are plenty of opportunities for trimming other portions of the budget.

  • Social Security
  • Medicare
  • Medicaid
  • Unemployment
  • Health and Human Services
  • Housing and Urban development
  • Education
  • The list goes on.....

Lot's of stuff there that won't matter much if we're not protecting our interests.
 
"The US budget for Iraq in FY 2006 comes to $3,749/Iraqi. This is more than double their per person GDP. It's like spending $91,000 per person in the US. Why not just bribe the whole country?"

Consider that as of this morning the US has spent $468,843,987,806 on war in Iraq; roughly $1500 from every man, woman and child in this country sent to a hellhole that probably deserves none of our treasure and certainly none of our blood.


As to regular military spending: Our system often resembles communist cronyism more than free enterprise. Bribe your congressmen, keep the military buying stuff they don't need (like V-22s, strykers, etc.) or throwing money down the black hole of development.

While in the army my friend wrote a computer program for tracking supplies and other logistics. It was very popular among his unit and he offered to give it to the army, free. "No thanks", they said. One year later I read about a local company given $15 million to create the same progam. "If all goes well it will be ready in 4 years!"

Ask any Rocket Scientist not currently getting paid for work on anti missile systems and they'll tell you anti missile systems don't work. In tests they can't hit a known target on a known trajectory 70% of the time. If incoming missles employ simple countermeasures there is no way at all for any current system to differentiate between dummy targets and real ones.

If anyone suggests that parts of the Military budget could be better spent elsewhere they're "Weak on Defense".
Oh well, it's only a couple of trillion and who wants to spend that on boring stuff like schools, police on our streets, securing our nation's ports, airports, nuclear and chemical facilities, the loose nukes (and scientists) floating around the former Soviet Union. No one ever got rich doing that stuff.
 
they'll tell you anti missile systems don't work. In tests they can't hit a known target on a known trajectory 70% of the time.
Click to expand...

Guess that satellite they shot down with a jury rigged system was in that 30%:cool:

WildsureashelltaughtalessontotherusskiesandthechineseAlaska ™
 
Well, like others have said, there are plenty of people who might want to shoot missiles at us. And aircraft carriers are an essential part of long-range naval power. The US has been heavily dependent on maritime trade since before the Revolutionary war, and to scrap the ability to project massive amounts of naval military force across the globe is to stop investing in maintaining a trade network this nation has depended on for centuries. Obama is clearly not fit to command US naval force as Commander in Chief if he can't understand the strategic value of aircraft carriers.
Click to expand...
Again, we have seven Nimitz class carriers at sea as it is, they're larger and more powerful than any other nation's and we have more of them than any other nation. I'm not suggesting we dismantle the current ones but maybe we don't need another one.
The only way weapons fall out of favor is by becoming obsolete. Nukes are nowhere near obsolete because they are such excellent weapons: Threaten my country and you won't have one of your own. They still have international utility for that reason alone. And terrorists typically are fighting for interests which are confined to geographical areas. That means a lot of the interests of terrorist groups are subject to nuclear attack as well.
Click to expand...
Flamethrowers fell out of favor because enough countries agreed that they shouldn't be allowed in war. They certainly weren't obsolete.

Terrorists being subject to nuclear attack in no way protects us from them.
Space is the ultimate high ground. Sun Tzu said "Keep to the high ground even if it kills you." for good reason. If we don't weaponize space along with the Russians and Chinese (who most definitely will in the future) then we will have ceded the high ground to military rivals. I question the utility of that course of action.
Click to expand...
Russia has actually proposed a treaty to ban space weapons so they're already a step ahead of us. If the rest of the world agrees to stop China from developing space weapons then they won't be able to. They can't survive without support of the rest of the world; neither can we.

We should not weaponize space nor should we allow the thinking that anyone should have control of it.
It doesn't disarm the military in the present. For the next decade or so the military would be very capable of its mission. But once the strategic advantages we have now are given up and strategic advantages which are now only potential are not sought after the U.S. military might as well be disarmed in the face of strategically superior enemies in 20 years.
Click to expand...
We're already strategically superior to our enemies by 20 years. We don't need to keep spending so much to stay there. Cut down and stay 10 years ahead of them instead.

The idea is not to simply stop all development. I have no idea why anyone is thinking such a thing. It's to cut development down to necessity and to hold the military accountable for the money it spends.
 
Flamethrowers fell out of favor because enough countries agreed that they shouldn't be allowed in war. They certainly weren't obsolete.
Click to expand...

and if it was found they could benefit one side more than the other, including any political ramifications, they would use them in a heartbeat. Notice we decided we didn't need flamethrowers only AFTER we had cleaned the Japanese out of all those Pacific Islands...

Russia has actually proposed a treaty to ban space weapons so they're already a step ahead of us. If the rest of the world agrees to stop China from developing space weapons then they won't be able to. They can't survive without support of the rest of the world; neither can we.
Click to expand...

What a joke. So if your NFL team cannot compete stop a running game should the opposition agree not to run? Russia is behind and knows it. They know they cannot effectively compete so they propose a treaty to not let anyone pass them. If China wants to develop space weapons they will and all the world saying no will not matter one bit as long as people are addicted to $29.99 DVD players.
 
We're already strategically superior to our enemies by 20 years. We don't need to keep spending so much to stay there. Cut down and stay 10 years ahead of them instead.
Click to expand...

I am glad you are so confident our enemies are not looking to continue advancement. I find it funny that those who think the CIA is full of dullards incapable of determining the presence of WMDs also thinks they can be completely informed on the level of development all our potential enemies, as well as supposed friends who will sell to others, are at. What the hell, we have a tradition of dismantling our military only to go to war ill equipped with antiquated gear. WWII was proof of that.

I like the idea that we should call Lockheed and tell them to develop a fighter that is only 50% as advanced as they can make it... I really love that we are going to tell a pilot we are sending him to war with an inferior system because we didn't want to be too far ahead of our enemies. Back in Korea we thought we had the most advanced aircraft around, only to be stunned by the performance of Soviet aircraft which exceeded our own in several ways.

We need the most advanced systems because we do NOT have the manpower to cover everything. Technology properly employed is a force multiplier.
 
oy

:rolleyes:


yeah, how dare I suggest that things be done reasonably and efficiently and that the military be held responsible for the money it spends.

I must hate America so much. And we wonder why the rest of the civilized world sees us as war-hungry primates.
 
ho, here's an idea. maybe if we didn't parade around and act like everyone else is our enemy we wouldn't have so many to begin with


nono, of course not. they hate us because of our freedom. naturally.
 
There are plenty of opportunities for trimming other portions of the budget.
Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid
Unemployment
Health and Human Services
Housing and Urban development
Education
The list goes on.....

Lot's of stuff there that won't matter much if we're not protecting our interests.
Click to expand...
All entitlements.

I notice you didn't mention anything about cutting infrastructure improvements. Possibly because we can't cut them much more. We spend more to rebuild Iraq than we do here.

Spend Spend Spend till it's gone. We'll let our kids worry about it. Seems we've given up lots of freedom in the USA to protect it elsewhere.
 
#1 Redworm:
nono, of course not. they hate us because of our freedom. naturally.
Click to expand...
We've about solved that problem, just toss our freedoms out the window we don't need them in the face of the jihad.
 
My 1st post on this forum ... I saw the title to this thread and couldn't help myself :)

I believe all candidates ACCEPT Ron Paul would disarm this country. An excellent video to watch is called ‘Freedom To Fascism’ by Aaron Russo. You can watch it for free online. I know the name may sound a bit wacko, but it is a very serious film.

I personally believe that everyone and anyone should educate themselves with the 'true issues' of today. NONE of the issues spoken about publicly/media-wise is of any true consequence. Those silly issues are used to fog the majority and divert their attention.

I like to refer people to at least read the 'executive orders' that have been instituted by our own government now and for the past several years. If that isn't enough to convince people that something seriously wrong is going on ... NOTHING will.

I hope at least some people view that movie.
 
With the radar antenna extended, USA 193 was about the size of a basketball court"
Click to expand...

Flying how fast? At what range? Was there a heat signature?

The shootdown of that satellite using a missle not designed for the task with jury rigged software demonstrates just how technoligially superior the USA is. Belittle it if you want, but the reality was that it was a marvel of technology.

And certain countries agree and have taken notice. Think we just did it to protect the environment?

Signals are important.

WildinlifeasinuinternationalrelationsAlaska TM
 
My only question to Redworm is: have you served this country?

Unless you have, I submit that you do not truly understand our military nor what it means to serve. If our military needs to be run more efficiently and cheaply, I suggest you sign up and fix it. It's easy to sit in your recliner, protected by the military you despise, and throw rocks.

Forgot to add that after our military is neutered, he'll then take our guns (or ammo) away so we'll be safer. Without guns, we'll all start getting along and then we can afford to give away money to those that would rather not work for it.

My signature line is the absolute truth. We are only free because we maintain the power (in men and machines) to make our enemies realize that they'd be in for a fight...
 
Flying how fast? At what range? Was there a heat signature?

The shootdown of that satellite using a missle not designed for the task with jury rigged software demonstrates just how technoligially superior the USA is. Belittle it if you want, but the reality was that it was a marvel of technology.

And certain countries agree and have taken notice. Think we just did it to protect the environment?

Signals are important.

WildinlifeasinuinternationalrelationsAlaska TM
Click to expand...

I hate to admit it but... I agree with Wildalaska here!
 
My only question to Redworm is: have you served this country?

Unless you have, I submit that you do not truly understand our military nor what it means to serve. If our military needs to be run more efficiently and cheaply, I suggest you sign up and fix it. It's easy to sit in your recliner, protected by the military you despise, and throw rocks.

Forgot to add that after our military is neutered, he'll then take our guns (or ammo) away so we'll be safer. Without guns, we'll all start getting along and then we can afford to give away money to those that would rather not work for it.

My signature line is the absolute truth. We are only free because we maintain the power (in men and machines) to make our enemies realize that they'd be in for a fight...
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: I do not despise the military.

Again, he doesn't want to neuter the military. Making it run more efficiently and holding it responsible for its transactions is not neutering, it's called "responsibility".

We are free because of the will of the people, not because of our military might. It sure as hell helps but it's not the only reason we are free. There are plenty of other free countries in the world that do not have the military strength we have.

Again, maybe if we stopped calling everyone that isn't American our enemy we wouldn't be making so many.
 
We need a strong military but we don't need stupid weapons systems.

The dreaded Donald Rumsfeld cancelled some systems like the Crusader self-propelled gun as it was not useful and was cursed for leaving us defenseless.

If you read the techy aviation and naval sites and journals - they are debating whether the F-22 or Zumwalt ships are necessary. We only have 20 B-2s as they became helliciously expensive.

It's more complicated that it seems with competing interests who just want the dough for weapons we don't need. Look at the A-12 project, another bloat and its failure weakened the range of carrier aviation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top