I thought everybody understood the dynamic between Political Parties, Upper level managers in Government Agencies, and Government contractors?

/See Accenture for a better understanding.

Once again we are offered two alternatives. Support gross overspending created through corruption and inefficiencies or don't and let ourselves becomes a defenseless who'll be overrun by bad guys who hate our freedom.

How do people manage to live in a two option world?

All Apologies

Personally, I like being able to buy my Ford in any color I like as long as it's black...

/sarcasm

The Flying Camel

The problem is that the Pentagon spends money in a Cold War mentality. We face no immediate conventional military threat from any nation-state at the moment. The weapons systems that they are developing would be good in an all-out war with another nation, but what use is a fighter jet against terrorists who hide in caves?

We need to seriously reevaluate our defense spending.

totalsecurity
The weapons of the future will be rocks and sticks.

Not just any stick, but the new Lockheed Martin ST-666 personal anti-terror pine branch (optional pine cones)! Only $799.99!

fifth_of_november

We need to seriously reevaluate our defense spending.

That may all be well and good but, it has absolutely nothing to do with pork barrel legislation...

The UN has 192 nations. The US state department recognizes 193 total nations (Yes, we recognize the Vatican as a nation). However we do not recognize Taiwan, since according to China, Taiwan is just a province of China. We also don't recognize Greenland, Palestine, or West Sahara. I might not argue about West Sahara, but the other two are obviously nations. So now we're up to about 197, since I'm sure there's debate all over the damn place.
The US government acknowledges manned bases in 130 countries. We have over 700 bases outside the US. At least we did in 2003 before all reports on such things were stifled.

Spending on R&D is a problem, because it's gotten out of hand. However it's not a drop in the bucket compared to the lax security and massive spending on needless bases and needless wars.
Also: I hate the fact that we consistently fail to use our spiffy future weapons and instead give a bunch of men m-16s and some grenades, a couple of jeeps and tell them to go occupy the least secure area in the entire world.
I know I'm off topic now but: Why don't we have AKs? Simpler, more durable, less prone to jam from bad ammo or sand, cheaper, more compatible with battlefield salvage. But why would we need AKs if we didn't have men on the ground? Standoff is the way to go. Cruise missiles, bombing runs, artillery strikes.

/For you people who say "Come up with suggestions or STFU".
//Suggestion: Pull out the squishies and use bigger guns, we have enough of those.

we need an all clone army. With heavy weapons and remote controlled suicide belt grafted to them.

The military industrial complex sucks donkey sack.

fifth_of_november
but what use is a fighter jet against terrorists who hide in caves?

Well if you make the missile/bomb big enough it'll work just fine. Yes, I know there are extensive tunnels, but if you carpet bomb the whole area with enough force it'll cave most of the entrances in. If anyone lives, they'll have to dig their way out. If you run enough sorties, you'll see the activity and blow them up again.

I mean, with the amount of money we're spending on occupation we could afford alot of big bombs and fuel, even at the insane prices we put on them.
If we cracked down on the stupid inflation we could cut those prices in half.

I hope the article writer means "The Nightmare Weaponry of Our Soldiers' Future" because I prefer the shotgun to those fancy energy weapons in first person shooters.

No Such Agency: Yeah, but carpenters aren't necessarily ranting about the "sacred lives of unborn babies", then exhibiting a callous lack of concern for those that were actually born into difficult circumstances. As usual, manifested hypocrisy exposes people's true agenda (in this case, reduction of women's ability to control their reproduction).

I agree, but what I was getting at is that it's an unreasonably broad generalization to say that all pro-lifers don't give a damn about the children's environments when they're actually born. There's a bunch that don't, but I'd bet there's others who promote programs to make the child's life less traumatic (maybe adoption, I dunno)

Oh, also, yes, future weapons, blah blah

All Apologies

Once again we are offered two alternatives. Support gross overspending created through corruption and inefficiencies or don't and let ourselves becomes a defenseless who'll be overrun by bad guys who hate our freedom.

That is a False Dichotomy .

If we reevaluated our defense spending:
- steamline spending and R & D into a terrorist fighting mode, and lose the Cold War mentality that massive stockpiles of weapons are necessary
- cut out all the pork and waste
- get rid of military bases in other countries that we no longer need
- stop conducting military exercises against threats that no longer exist (like the soviet union)
- stop spending $20,000 on toilet seats

If we do the above, we could probably cut defense spending by half and still have roughly the same military strength we have now.

The problem is that the Pentagon and the military has this quasi-religious mentality surrounding it, and no politician dares to question anything they do. I couldn't dream up a better formula for corruption.

skhval_factory

Did I so much as mention ours? I wasn't comparing, I was stating a fact. I've been paying attention to politics here as long as I have to the United Stats' politics, and I'm fed up with both, all parties.

The Flying Camel:
That may all be well and good but, it has absolutely nothing to do with pork barrel legislation...

Actually, it does. A lot of defense spending is for projects that are unneeded, have little chance at producing results, and, as Eisenhower pointed out more than 40 years ago, appear to deal more with lining the pockets of defense contractors and not with defending anyone.

It's pork barrel spending with defence money.

*United States'

Amaranth
Why don't we have AKs?

Not as accurate as M-16s for one, plus the military uses the M4 as its main weapon now because of its compact size.

Otherwise, I have no clue. I always used to biatch about the M16 when I was in Kuwait because the sand would cause it to misfeed ammo. Of course, when I said I'd rather have an AK my buddies called me a pinko :P

I came in here expecting maybe one or two war-mongers to defend this . . . yet am pleasantly surprised at the amount of brain-washed farkers. :)

Anyway. I don't know how anyone can support our government spending billions on developing new ways to destroy ourselves in light of the social and health problems in the world. I just don't get it. Stuff like this makes me feel our social contract has been broken . . .

All Apologies:
Once again we are offered two alternatives. Support gross overspending created through corruption and inefficiencies or don't and let ourselves becomes a defenseless who'll be overrun by bad guys who hate our freedom.
How do people manage to live in a two option world?

I personally think it is the core of conservatism. 'You're either with us, or against us' mentality that Bush spouts and his supporters eat up. If there are only two choices, you don't have to think as much about the word around you and how complex it really is.

YouPeopleAreCrazy

The F35 is built to perform almost every aerial role. Like the F22, it's almost invisible to RADAR, and can take on any other craft with ease. The difference is that the F22 costs (as much or more than the F35) but fulfills only one role.

fifth_of_november

False dichotomies are all too common these days. It's become the first line of defense against what are reasonable suggestions. I don't think that reformation of the MIC means removing our defenses by any stretch of the imagination.

whammer: Demographic war. War solely to kill off as many excess young men as possible on both sides.

I don't know, I don't think there'll actually be another full-scale war between superpowers again. The costs are too great, and way too many people live comfortable lives they'd like to continue. Before anyone says, "But we're in iraq.." Part of the reason the anti-war sentiment really hasn't progressed that much in the US is that nobody really feels the daily effects of it. If we were faced with a WW2-esque total war situation, people would pipe up and balk really quickly.

Commissar_Murphy: You know what's more important? Unmanned aerial vehicles. These things are going to shape the world in a more profound way than the F-22.

Yeah, that's where the real stuff's gonna be.

Amaranth: Well if you make the missile/bomb big enough it'll work just fine. Yes, I know there are extensive tunnels, but if you carpet bomb the whole area with enough force it'll cave most of the entrances in. If anyone lives, they'll have to dig their way out. If you run enough sorties, you'll see the activity and blow them up again.

What if that cave is under a mosque? What do you do then?

BrotherAlpha

Dictionary.com: pork-barrel: a government appropriation, bill, or policy that supplies funds for local improvements designed to ingratiate legislators with their constituents.

I guess if you wanna go the route of saying weapons manufacturers keep legislators in power but, that didn't seem to be his initial argument, hence my disagreement

I unfortunately believe that the F-22 is the USA's way of thanking the guys who put up with the TopGun dogfight training in the late 80's-early 90's, because those guys are expecting a new fighter jet. It is just sad because it will never be truly utilized.

Too bad TOPGUN is the Navy Fighter Weapons School, and the F-22 is not a Navy plane.

/F-22 can't handle carrier landings

I design F-16s, so I'm really getting a kick out of these comments...

PS No, really

All you people with hard-ons about war and military technology need to get a grip. No country is going to attack us. Nearly every military expenditure we make is justified with some paranoid fear that this nebulous "enemy" is out there just waiting to invade.

Who's going to attack the U.S. in a conventional war? What would they stand to gain? I can't think of a single military threat to U.S. soil today. No country has attacked us since WW2. We have never had to defend our soil since WW2. Every military operation we've launched since WW2 has been offensive, rather than defensive. It's called the Department of Defense, but it really should be called the Department of Invasion.

That's why we are investing in all this R&D. It's not to defend our soil (which we have arguably been capable of doing since, I dunno, the 2nd Amendment was ratified). It's to give us better and better technology that we can use to attack other countries and/or militarily meddle in their affairs.

It's laughable to argue we need the colossally massive and expensive military we have to defend ourselves from invasion by the Chinese, Russians, Al Qaeda, or whoever is the boogeyman of the week. Our military exists and is equipped almost entirely to attack others.

The difference is that the F22 costs (as much or more than the F35) but fulfills only one role.

Yes, its primary role is air superiority, but look up the SDB.

Z_since_1516

So Lockheed controls NBC? Uh huh..

Oh wait, it's Halliburton! It's evil because franken says so.

The Flying Camel:
I guess if you wanna go the route of saying weapons manufacturers keep legislators in power but, that didn't seem to be his initial argument, hence my disagreement

What I'm saying is, there are people in government fighting for military projects simply because it will be built in their district.

Author of article:

Just sayin'.

This idiot who wrote this article (from Alternet, *surprise*) would be the same person who would bash anyone who claimed that embryonic stem cell research wasn't worth the money we have spent so far on it.

2007-01-14 12:31:37 PM The Flying Camel

Otherwise, I have no clue. I always used to biatch about the M16 when I was in Kuwait because the sand would cause it to misfeed ammo. Of course, when I said I'd rather have an AK my buddies called me a pinko :P

When my dad flew as a FAC in Vietnam, the Air Force issued him an AK-47 in case he got shot down over enemy lines. Luckily, he didn't. He still has the the AK though the Air Force required him to de-mil it when he returned Stateside.

'til later,
Lassivern

The problem is that the Pentagon and the military has this quasi-religious mentality surrounding it, and no politician dares to question anything they do. I couldn't dream up a better formula for corruption.

The military is trying to cut spending. The problem is that there are a lot of politicians who like to get involved and tell the military what they need.

Example, this article from Marketwatch:

"US Rep. expects Congress to add extra ships to defense budget"
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/us-rep-expects-congress-add/story.aspx?g uid=%7B0756DD63-ACC4-488C-9E9C-397DD187D2EE%7D

Why? Said Congressman is from Mississippi, home of Ingalls Shipyard, one of the big-6 shipbuilders.

this article is complete garbage. the author doesn't hates the military and large corporations.

BrotherAlpha

You realize you are not the one I was disagreeing with, right?

stiletto_the_wise

It used to have an appropriate name: The War Department.

After WWII, it was replaced with the Orwellian term "Defense Department."

whammer

And that many "excess" young men is a terrible destructive force.

Sounds to me more like a lot of women are going to have a very, very good time.

/Polyandry ftw!!

Oh noes! The sky is falling.

Our soldiers are not funded for battle because we're fighting a new type of army. Not because we can't friggin afford it. We simply spent our money on things we don't really need right now, i.e. tons of fighter jets and large-scale weaponry.

elektronic
OK, you caught me, I guess I don't know the name for the other service's air superiority academies. I apologize for speaking too swiftly. My point was that I believe the F-22 is being built to satisfy that generation of pilot's desire for a big bad bird (as well as feeding the defense contractors, but for sake of the argument, I just wont touch that). Its been designed because we have highly trained pilots who are about as useful today as a fencer in a firefight. It is high time we started buying what we need, not what people are trained on.

Ah, these threads always amuse me. Very clear to me who works in the defense industry, who doesn't, and who is on their soapbox preaching how things ought to be.

F22, Elmendorf AFB Alaska


I want one, but I don't know where I'd park it.

fifth_of_november

- stop spending $20,000 on toilet seats

Cripes this kind of response infuriates me.

The gub'mint doesn't spend $5000 on a single wrench or toilet seat because they love to spend money and are too dumb to go to Walmart. They spend it because they need these wrenches / toilets to fit into the space confinements submarines and tanks, and they need them to be able function after the tank / sub gets hit with heavy artillery / torpedoes. These requirements make commercial tools / toilets (insert finished goods here) unsuitable for use in these applications.

So after some team of engineers spends man months developing wrenches and toilets that can function after a heavy blast AND fit into a tiny compartment (gobs of money), the gub'mint has to hire some manufacturer to retool their plant to make these special wrenches (more gobs of money) to fill an order of enough to fit into however many tanks exist + future tanks + backup supplies (relatively low number). ALL of which will not approach the amount of similar but inferior wrenches (tools/goods) sold on the open market.

(High R&D Cost + High Manufacturing Cost) / Low Demand = High Priced, special application Toilet seat.

That's why the price tag on these things are high. Otherwise manufacturers don't get paid, engineers and scientists don't get paid, and tanks don't get repaired, and sailors can't poo. Which is non-ideal.

The reason your wrenches at walmart costs $4 is because they sell 5,000,000 of them. If your walmart wrenches were expected to sell 1000 instead, they too would cost much much more then they do now.

Yes, I'm not denying there is bloat. But to go "LOOOK!!! 200,000 TOILET SEATS. EVIL!!!!" is a knee jerk reaction, and simply out in left field.

malaclypse_the_tertiary: Author of article:
www.wimnonline.org
Just sayin'.

Stupid, old, hippie women do pretty much have a template for articles like this.

fifth_of_november

Going to nitpick a bit:

You should just say "country" or "state" as opposed to Nation-State. There are very few actual "nation-states" that exist. One of which would be Japan.

USA IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE WORLD, ONE DAY THE USA WILL REALIZE THE DEEP, GRAVE ERROR FOR TAKING RESPONSIBILITY WHERE NONE WAS GIVEN.

PULL ALL TROOPS BACK INTO OUR BORDERS, NOW.

I knew about the improvisation of home made armor for the humvees, but silly string? I can see how it would serve the purpose of finding trip wires. Say what you want about how much money the government is spending to develop future weapons, but using silly string goes to show how ingenious our guys are over there.

/salute.
//wonders what we can use silly putty for.