If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WCPO Cincinnati)   Good news, everyone: World military spending is down, despite it seeming like everyone is one sneeze away from world war 3. So we got that going for us, which is nice   (wcpo.com) divider line 85
    More: Interesting, percent increase, Oman, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute  
•       •       •

1570 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Apr 2013 at 9:06 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



85 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-15 09:08:41 AM
Well, since the US has proven to be more than happy to foot the bill in manpower, equipment, and treasure for most of the wars of late, why should the world at large bother spending more money on the military?

/seriously, look at all the countries we have agreements with.
 
2013-04-15 09:10:51 AM
Probably because the US cut defense spending, and we make up circa 40% of the world's spending on that topic.
 
2013-04-15 09:13:36 AM
Isn't that usually when the world war begins?
 
2013-04-15 09:14:22 AM

rabidarmadillo24: Probably because the US cut defense spending, and we make up circa 40% of the world's spending on that topic.


When did that happen?
 
2013-04-15 09:15:15 AM
WW3?  Good thing I found this in my folk's stuff this weekend.  Should be handy.

sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-04-15 09:15:18 AM
Soon, soon. Our screaming death row prisoner surface to air missile defense systems will come off the drawing board of a drunken hippy laying in his own waste in the middle of a wal-mart
 
2013-04-15 09:17:48 AM
Still enough nukes in silos around the world to wipe out humanity dozens of times over.

But yes, it is nice that the US covers most of the developed world's defense needs so they're free to build up their societies, infrastructures, citizens.  Can't wait til it's time for the roles to flip so the US can do those things.

/That's in the contract, right?
 
2013-04-15 09:18:57 AM
WWIII any day now.  I've been hearing this my entire life, but I'm pretty sure that this is the year.

/makes jerkoff motion
 
2013-04-15 09:19:45 AM
Good job not using the joke of a term "defense" spending, subby.

s21.postimg.org
 
2013-04-15 09:20:01 AM
Let's all feel bad for the poor impoverished war profiteers. They're the real victims.
 
2013-04-15 09:20:57 AM

Lochsteppe: Still enough nukes in silos around the world to wipe out humanity dozens of times over.

But yes, it is nice that the US covers most of the developed world's defense needs so they're free to build up their societies, infrastructures, citizens.  Can't wait til it's time for the roles to flip so the US can do those things.

/That's in the contract, right?


No, and if you suggest we reduce military spending even further or stop footing the bill for everyone else you're a commie isolationist who hates the troops.

'Murica.
 
2013-04-15 09:21:58 AM
You sound even more paranoid than I am, subby. Relax. If the 911/Afghan/Iraq crap didn't start WWIII we're probably okay. Now if China started banging its war drums I'd be concerned... but they aren't.

Global warfare has moved into more of an economic/ideological realm than big things going boom. Our rich masters know that with the weaponry we have now they wouldn't be able to safely hide in their palaces while the plebes fight it out as easily as days of yore.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-04-15 09:27:18 AM
We're close to WWIII because the petulant child known as North Korea is screaming again?

Oh please....
 
2013-04-15 09:31:53 AM

Void_Beavis: Isn't that usually when the world war begins?


Yup. We've already bought the stuff, and are just waiting for the starting bell.
 
2013-04-15 09:32:51 AM

oryx: Let's all feel bad for the poor impoverished war profiteers. They're the real victims.


If you only knew the havoc a properly trained dressage horse can wreak on a battalion of North Korean arquebusiers.
 
2013-04-15 09:33:12 AM
WW3?  Oh please.  If anything, we are farther from WW3 than at any point in my lifetime, being born in 1980 and living through the tail end of the cold war.  This nonsense in Korea isn't going to start WW3, it will merely (if anything at all) spark a brief regional conflict while fatty dingdongs is deposed, or more likely will amount to exactly nothing whatsoever.
 
2013-04-15 09:34:02 AM
Reading the whole thread in futurama voices makes this funny
 
2013-04-15 09:34:05 AM

Aarontology: Lochsteppe: Still enough nukes in silos around the world to wipe out humanity dozens of times over.

But yes, it is nice that the US covers most of the developed world's defense needs so they're free to build up their societies, infrastructures, citizens.  Can't wait til it's time for the roles to flip so the US can do those things.

/That's in the contract, right?

No, and if you suggest we reduce military spending even further or stop footing the bill for everyone else you're a commie isolationist who hates the troops.

'Murica.



Or sane.
 
2013-04-15 09:34:41 AM

here to help: You sound even more paranoid than I am, subby. Relax. If the 911/Afghan/Iraq crap didn't start WWIII we're probably okay. Now if China started banging its war drums I'd be concerned... but they aren't.

Global warfare has moved into more of an economic/ideological realm than big things going boom. Our rich masters know that with the weaponry we have now they wouldn't be able to safely hide in their palaces while the plebes fight it out as easily as days of yore.


This. A global economy has done more for world peace than any number of Nobel Prize folks have.
 
2013-04-15 09:35:13 AM
There won't be a WWIII.
We all get along now, we travel freely and mingle happily globally.
The leaders are all in debt to each other and almost without exception are of the same political belief.
We are more heavily sedated, more poorly informed and less inclined to actually do anything than ever before.
I can think of only one situation whereby there could be a global outbreak of war, nothing to do with the decreasing access to clean drinking water, not massive inflation of basic foodstuffs, not land grabs by despots or dictators, not diplomatic aneurysms by new and improved little Hitlers... should Cyprus continue to allow the production of runny omelettes then that could prove to be a tipping point, but hopefully they have learned that valuable lesson when I was there in 1989 and opened a can of fiery whoop-ass on them for not finishing cooking my eggs.
 
2013-04-15 09:35:49 AM

shamanwest: Reading the whole thread in futurama voices makes this funny


Wha???
 
2013-04-15 09:37:30 AM
I like military R&D as lots of good shiat comes out of it (even with the bad), but spending on having troops stationed all around the world is a farking waste.
 
2013-04-15 09:37:52 AM

PC LOAD LETTER: shamanwest: Reading the whole thread in futurama voices makes this funny

Wha???


I read it in the voice of fatty dingdong .
 
2013-04-15 09:38:14 AM
World military spending going down means that people are going to perceive that this is a good time to try to "get away with" territorial wars, since the superpowers aren't interested in enforcement.

That's more war, not less.
 
2013-04-15 09:40:10 AM
Maybe the sequester is working after all?
 
2013-04-15 09:41:23 AM
This is just a sign that guns and ammo have got gotten cheaper.
 
2013-04-15 09:45:05 AM

Lochsteppe: Still enough nukes in silos around the world to wipe out humanity dozens of times over.

But yes, it is nice that the US covers most of the developed world's defense needs so they're free to build up their societies, infrastructures, citizens.  Can't wait til it's time for the roles to flip so the US can do those things.

/That's in the contract, right?


Actually, there aren't enough nukes in silos to destroy the world more than about 3 times over nowadays.
 
2013-04-15 09:46:06 AM

Rapmaster2000: WWIII any day now.  I've been hearing this my entire life, but I'm pretty sure that this is the year.

/makes jerkoff motion


Was gay marriage going to be adopted as a right in previous years?

I thought not.
 
2013-04-15 09:46:55 AM

sodomizer: World military spending going down means that people are going to perceive that this is a good time to try to "get away with" territorial wars, since the superpowers aren't interested in enforcement.

That's more war, not less.


Oh please. Yeah, Assad is really worried about world military spending as he butchers his own people and everyone watches. And Sudan has been eyeing these numbers closely over the last 40 years of ethnic cleansing that is still going on and nobody gives two farks about.

War is peace? That your point?

The dollar figures here are pretty much mostly and only indicative of how hard we are sucking Saudi and Israeli dick and how effectively the war industry in America can lobby.
 
2013-04-15 09:48:32 AM

jaybeezey: This is just a sign that guns and ammo have got gotten cheaper.


Fun fact - when military budgets take a dive, arms transfers go through the roof. Militaries, in a period of contracting budgets, give away as aid or sell at a discount the used equipment they cannot afford to maintain, mothball, or destroy. It makes them look "thrifty" and helps make up the budgetary losses that they face in lean times.

In short, reducing military spending in the short term results in increased conventional arms proliferation in the long term. What fun!
 
2013-04-15 09:49:10 AM

here to help: You sound even more paranoid than I am, subby. Relax. If the 911/Afghan/Iraq crap didn't start WWIII we're probably okay. Now if China started banging its war drums I'd be concerned... but they aren't.

Global warfare has moved into more of an economic/ideological realm than big things going boom. Our rich masters know that with the weaponry we have now they wouldn't be able to safely hide in their palaces while the plebes fight it out as easily as days of yore.


Our rich masters have ALWAYS known that they win the peace a lot better than they win wars, so they have tried to stay out of war, trading national pride in exchange for time. We were late to WWI, we were late to WWII, and we did a pretty reasonable job at not going to war with the Soviets. People think Lockheed Martin wins when there are wars, so they try to cause them. But most of the richest people win when there aren't wars, and they're much more powerful.
 
2013-04-15 09:50:55 AM

PC LOAD LETTER: here to help: You sound even more paranoid than I am, subby. Relax. If the 911/Afghan/Iraq crap didn't start WWIII we're probably okay. Now if China started banging its war drums I'd be concerned... but they aren't.

Global warfare has moved into more of an economic/ideological realm than big things going boom. Our rich masters know that with the weaponry we have now they wouldn't be able to safely hide in their palaces while the plebes fight it out as easily as days of yore.

This. A global economy has done more for world peace than any number of Nobel Prize folks have.


Don't be so sure that economics is a significant motivator for peace. In 1914, Germany's #1 trade partner was Great Britain. #2 was France. Germany's #1 investment was Russia.

That didn't slow any of those assholes down for a second.
 
2013-04-15 09:52:36 AM
WWIII?  Oh, please.  I can't be the only one here who lived through the school bomb drills of the cold war.
 
2013-04-15 09:53:19 AM

d23: We're close to WWIII because the petulant child known as North Korea is screaming again?

Oh please....


Yeah, it seems like everyone wants to panic and talk about a new world war every time some country begins to lose its shiat. WWIII starts with Iran, right? I mean, it doesn't have any alliances with major powers, but somehow it would drag Russia or China in. By what mechanism is unclear, but they're pretty sure it'll happen.
 
2013-04-15 09:55:41 AM

farkingatwork: I like military R&D as lots of good shiat comes out of it (even with the bad), but spending on having troops stationed all around the world is a farking waste.


That issue is over-stated. Our military, in terms of soldiers, has been getting smaller. The last American tank just left Europe this month. Our presence around the world, aside where we've been fighting in the Persian Gulf region, has been going down.
 
2013-04-15 10:02:25 AM

Hack Patooey: WW3?  Good thing I found this in my folk's stuff this weekend.  Should be handy.



Found this in my folk's basement.  Should come in handy too.

i50.tinypic.com
 
2013-04-15 10:03:45 AM
"He stressed that the gap was larger when it comes to actual capabilities, noting that the U.S. has 11 aircraft carriers while China has one."


No.  The U.S. has eleven highly-capable carrier task forces.  The Chinese have one obsolete old tub they bought from Ukraine, and it has zero combat capability right now, and will have zero capability for at least several years.  At the very best (if you ask me) it will never be anything more than a very expensive showpiece, and by then, it will have become clear that big carriers are on the way out anyway.

This is on top of the fact that it takes decades to build up an effective naval air force.  Qualified carrier pilots don't just drop out of the sky, though as China is doubtless learning right now, the unqualified ones frequently do.

When China sends a carrier to the other side of the world on a mission, then I'll acknowledge that they have "one aircraft carrier."
 
2013-04-15 10:07:41 AM
We already bought everything. Twice. We have to wait for the Fall line of tanks to come out.
 
2013-04-15 10:07:49 AM

Kibbler: When China sends a carrier to the other side of the world on a mission, then I'll acknowledge that they have "one aircraft carrier."


Pretty much this.
 
2013-04-15 10:09:30 AM

DROxINxTHExWIND: We already bought everything. Twice. We have to wait for the Fall line of tanks to come out.


Will they come in cornflower blue?
 
2013-04-15 10:12:41 AM

Kibbler: When China sends a carrier to the other side of the world on a mission, then I'll acknowledge that they have "one aircraft carrier."


Call me when they pass through the Senkakus, past our Hawaiian radar stations, and lay off our largest cities, and listen to our rock and roll... while they conduct flight ops. And when they are finished, we'll be willing to acknowledge they have "one aircraft carrier."
 
2013-04-15 10:17:06 AM

vygramul: Don't be so sure that economics is a significant motivator for peace. In 1914, Germany's #1 trade partner was Great Britain. #2 was France. Germany's #1 investment was Russia.

That didn't slow any of those assholes down for a second.


I'm worried that some idiot country will think lower military spending means their neighbour is vulnerable or an easy mark, and they will take a shot. There are a lot of people in governments who are easily convinced by spurious arguments that use charts and graphs and the subheadings from their freshman economics lectures.
 
2013-04-15 10:17:17 AM

Hack Patooey: DROxINxTHExWIND: We already bought everything. Twice. We have to wait for the Fall line of tanks to come out.

Will they come in cornflower blue?


Hell yeah. They'll be so blue that you won't notice how vulnerable the bottom is to attack by a roadside bomb.
 
2013-04-15 10:21:33 AM

Bennie Crabtree: vygramul: Don't be so sure that economics is a significant motivator for peace. In 1914, Germany's #1 trade partner was Great Britain. #2 was France. Germany's #1 investment was Russia.

That didn't slow any of those assholes down for a second.

I'm worried that some idiot country will think lower military spending means their neighbour is vulnerable or an easy mark, and they will take a shot. There are a lot of people in governments who are easily convinced by spurious arguments that use charts and graphs and the subheadings from their freshman economics lectures.


That usually doesn't happen. Most wars are preceded by sharp increases in military spending by all involved.
 
2013-04-15 10:22:57 AM

Hack Patooey: DROxINxTHExWIND: We already bought everything. Twice. We have to wait for the Fall line of tanks to come out.

Will they come in cornflower blue?


When can the white line of tanks start?
 
2013-04-15 10:24:13 AM

vygramul: Bennie Crabtree: vygramul: Don't be so sure that economics is a significant motivator for peace. In 1914, Germany's #1 trade partner was Great Britain. #2 was France. Germany's #1 investment was Russia.

That didn't slow any of those assholes down for a second.

I'm worried that some idiot country will think lower military spending means their neighbour is vulnerable or an easy mark, and they will take a shot. There are a lot of people in governments who are easily convinced by spurious arguments that use charts and graphs and the subheadings from their freshman economics lectures.

That usually doesn't happen. Most wars are preceded by sharp increases in military spending by all involved.


I totally disagree. Most wars are preceeded by DECREASES in military spending. The run-up to war is used to justify the need for an increase.

See: Iraq
 
2013-04-15 10:24:44 AM

Elegy: jaybeezey: This is just a sign that guns and ammo have got gotten cheaper.

Fun fact - when military budgets take a dive, arms transfers go through the roof. Militaries, in a period of contracting budgets, give away as aid or sell at a discount the used equipment they cannot afford to maintain, mothball, or destroy. It makes them look "thrifty" and helps make up the budgetary losses that they face in lean times.

In short, reducing military spending in the short term results in increased conventional arms proliferation in the long term. What fun!


How does this gel with the notions that we're always fighting the last war and that tech makes quantum leaps forward during "wartime"?
 
2013-04-15 10:25:02 AM

Hack Patooey: DROxINxTHExWIND: We already bought everything. Twice. We have to wait for the Fall line of tanks to come out.

Will they come in cornflower blue?


I believe that it's perrywinkle this year.
 
2013-04-15 10:26:07 AM
Obama got millions in 'campaign contribution' kickbacks and payoffs from the warmakers and dumbass liberal crackpots are just lining up to suck his d*** as usual. And since so much of these payoffs are now "state secrets" thanks to the courts, I'm guessing about 90% came from the Muslim Brotherhood and other terrorist groups. Prove me wrong. Show me the payoff list, dumbass liberals. Yeah, I didn't think so.
 
2013-04-15 10:27:32 AM

here to help: Global warfare has moved into more of an economic/ideological realm than big things going boom. Our rich masters know that with the weaponry we have now they wouldn't be able to safely hide in their palaces while the plebes fight it out as easily as days of yore.


Pretty much this. War is all fun and games when I can reap massive profits by sending poor peoples' children to die in a foreign country, but a nuclear war would ruin everyone's day. It's no fun to rule over a pile of radioactive rubble, and any WWII-style global conflict would almost certainly go nuclear at some point. There is no profit in that, so we'll stick to our regional conflicts and long, drawn-out quagmires. Those are much better for business.
 
Displayed 50 of 85 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report