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.

(Yahoo)   US to drop to #2 in military spending by 2021 according to study, losing its top place to...Asia? An entire continent? The largest most populous continent? Quick, better call congress and tell them to buy a couple more aircraft carriers   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 75
    More: Interesting, arms trade, combat aircraft, IHS Jane, Indian Air Force  
•       •       •

2575 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jun 2013 at 8:12 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-25 08:16:54 AM
3 trillion dollars worth of Kung Fu and Rice.
 
2013-06-25 08:19:01 AM
People who criticize military spending often make the mistake in thinking that money spent on the military is for the military, often its just a back door stimulus to keep select industry and voters employed.  You think the F-35 has to be built in 47 states and Puerto Rico?

Solution:

/Place this spending under social welfare
//Push airplane into ocean
///Keep people employed, make the anti defense spending crowd happy
 
2013-06-25 08:23:49 AM
FTFA "India, for instance, is speaking exclusively to France's Dassault Aviation on a $12 billion order of 126 warlanes and wants 50 percent of the work to be given to Indian companies " wanna know how I can tell how you don't know what the word "exclusively  " means ?
 
2013-06-25 08:24:06 AM
Don't give them ideas or excuses subby. They might just actually follow through.
 
2013-06-25 08:25:10 AM
Great, now all those Asian countries that all get along so well are going to turn their continent of sunshine and rainbows and point all their weapons at the same target.

//Or they'll take all their hard-earned military spending and kill each other with it, leaving the US to cut military spending now that half of Asia is missing.
 
2013-06-25 08:31:00 AM
Not to worry. According to some random blabbers, the immigration thingy they're trying to put out will cause the U.S. to spend 2 dollars for every one dollar in tax a citizen pays out, in benefits to the suddenly citizen illegal immigrants
 
2013-06-25 08:31:15 AM

Slartibartfaster: wants 50 percent of the work to be given to Indian companies " wanna know how I can tell how you don't know what the word "exclusively  " means ?


You?

They want Dassault to form contracts with local manufacturers to make the majority of the airframe locally, in India.

In this case, it's long past overdue. We need to stop policing the world and getting involved in third world brushfires which we have no business in. Let Europe pull their weight for the first time since Hitler offed himself.
 
2013-06-25 08:31:56 AM
So we're not decreasing spending. We're redistributing it.
 
2013-06-25 08:32:10 AM
"Military spending in the Asia Pacific region - which includes China, India and Indonesia" umm India borders the pacific now ? farking hell this is one of the worse reports Ive ever read (accuracy wise) what a piece of trash
 
2013-06-25 08:33:15 AM

Meatsim1: People who criticize military spending often make the mistake in thinking that money spent on the military is for the military, often its just a back door stimulus to keep select industry and voters employed.  You think the F-35 has to be built in 47 states and Puerto Rico?

Solution:

/Place this spending under social welfare
//Push airplane into ocean
///Keep people employed, make the anti defense spending crowd happy


so in other words, socialism?
 
2013-06-25 08:34:14 AM

hardinparamedic: Slartibartfaster: wants 50 percent of the work to be given to Indian companies " wanna know how I can tell how you don't know what the word "exclusively  " means ?

You?

They want Dassault to form contracts with local manufacturers to make the majority of the airframe locally, in India.

In this case, it's long past overdue. We need to stop policing the world and getting involved in third world brushfires which we have no business in. Let Europe pull their weight for the first time since Hitler offed himself.


way to out quote shiathead
India is talking to more than one supplier
Convenient you left that bit out of your quote of me
 
2013-06-25 08:35:44 AM
Saying that Asia is "the most populous" is kind of deceptive.   Asia doesn't have just a few more people than the US, it has about 10 times as many people.   And, it isn't like all that military spending there is just to deal with the US, there are a lot of disagreements between Russia, China, Pakistan, India, Japan, the Koreas, etc.
 
2013-06-25 08:37:30 AM
Wouldn't 'Asia' also include the majority of Russia (east of the Urals or so)?
 
2013-06-25 08:38:20 AM

Slartibartfaster: way to out quote shiathead
India is talking to more than one supplier
Convenient you left that bit out of your quote of me


Uh.

Slartibartfaster: FTFA "India, for instance, is speaking exclusively to France's Dassault Aviation on a $12 billion order of 126 warlanes and wants 50 percent of the work to be given to Indian companies " wanna know how I can tell how you don't know what the word "exclusively  " means ?


Same thing.
 
2013-06-25 08:38:36 AM
Yeah ... the US is falling behind in aircraft carriers. Note that aside from almost having a 2:1 ratio vs the entire world ... most of the other carriers in the world are from allied countries.

d32gw8q6pt8twd.cloudfront.net
 
2013-06-25 08:42:47 AM

hardinparamedic: Same thing


UMMM let me say this REALLY slowly for you

EXCLUSIVE, means not more than one

fark - does it take time to learn to be that stupid ?
 
2013-06-25 08:45:53 AM
It's hardly a fair comparison. Asia gets seven bonus armies every turn.
 
2013-06-25 08:46:49 AM

hardinparamedic: Let Europe pull their weight for the first time since Hitler offed himself


ya mean like, during the Russian invasion of Berlin ?
What continent do you thing the Moscow is in ?
 
2013-06-25 08:47:53 AM

Slartibartfaster: "Military spending in the Asia Pacific region - which includes China, India and Indonesia" umm India borders the pacific now ? farking hell this is one of the worse reports Ive ever read (accuracy wise) what a piece of trash


iat's in Asia, which is part of the Asia Pacific region. For the purposes of these sorts of reports, they often include India in them because it is a regional power with influence in the area.
 
2013-06-25 08:50:30 AM

Slartibartfaster: hardinparamedic: Same thing

UMMM let me say this REALLY slowly for you

EXCLUSIVE, means not more than one

fark - does it take time to learn to be that stupid ?


You must be reading some other article or just be lost.  In this article, they only mention India talking to one company, but requiring that parts are manufactured by that one company within the borders of India.  It's kind of like how Toyota is a japanese company, but manages to have parts for US cars manufactured inside the US by sub-contractors.
 
2013-06-25 08:51:59 AM
We also spend more on mean tested welfare (TANF, Food Stamps MEDICAID, etc) -$ 1 Trillion (Federal-State combined)

We also spend more on non-mean tested Welfare (Social Security, MEDICARE, VA etc ) -$1.3 Trillion

We also spend more education $0.8 Trillion (Federal State combined)

Yet no mention is made of that by "progressives" I wonder why?
 
2013-06-25 08:52:01 AM
This Congress? Don't give them any ideas. "Party of Fiscal Responsibility" and all that.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-06-25 08:53:54 AM

Meatsim1: People who criticize military spending often make the mistake in thinking that money spent on the military is for the military, often its just a back door stimulus to keep select industry and voters employed.  You think the F-35 has to be built in 47 states and Puerto Rico?

Solution:

/Place this spending under social welfare
//Push airplane into ocean
///Keep people employed, make the anti defense spending crowd happy


Or build things that have the same stimulative effect but are also useful in themselves like bridges and roads and schools and things like that?
 
2013-06-25 08:55:20 AM

vpb: Or build things that have the same stimulative effect but are also useful in themselves like bridges and roads and schools and things like that?


Hey, you Commie socialest fascist lib-u-lardo, you can't blow shiat up with those. Love it or leave it, man!
 
2013-06-25 08:55:34 AM

Meatsim1: People who criticize military spending often make the mistake in thinking that money spent on the military is for the military, often its just a back door stimulus to keep select industry and voters employed.  You think the F-35 has to be built in 47 states and Puerto Rico?

Solution:

/Place this spending under social welfare
//Push airplane into ocean
///Keep people employed, make the anti defense spending crowd happy




And procurement is not even the biggest part of defense spending:

It is Operations and Personnel costs:

www.washingtonpost.com
 
2013-06-25 08:56:24 AM

hasty ambush: Yet no mention is made of that by "progressives" I wonder why?


Because gutting education is one of the dumbest f*cking things a society can do, and gutting Medicare and Social Security would destroy the economy as millions of old people are suddenly left floundering.

Having a defense budget many times that of he nearest nation is idiotic, especially given the network of alliances and economic ties we have with so many nations.

It's like buying a tenth gun to protect your family while cutting the food budget to pay for it.
 
2013-06-25 08:58:35 AM
Why dont we cut handout while we're at it?
Oh, because more voters are layabouts than productive bodies....
 
2013-06-25 08:59:50 AM

hasty ambush: Yet no mention is made of that by "progressives" I wonder why?


Is this a one-off or the start of a threadshiat?

hasty ambush: And procurement is not even the biggest part of defense spending:


Ahhh, I see.
 
2013-06-25 09:03:50 AM

graeth: Why dont we cut handout while we're at it?


Because farmers, old people, and veterans get pissed when you cut their welfare.
 
2013-06-25 09:03:57 AM

Meatsim1: People who criticize military spending often make the mistake in thinking that money spent on the military is for the military


Me, I made the mistake of thinking the population of Asia (4.14 Billion) should be spending more on just about everything than the population of the US (313.9 Million).
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-06-25 09:05:06 AM

Slartibartfaster: EXCLUSIVE, means not more than one

fark - does it take time to learn to be that stupid ?


Yes, that one being the Rafale which is the one aircraft selected by India.  India also wants Dassault to sub-contract 50% of the work to Indian companies which is fairly typical for these deals.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-06-25 09:10:33 AM
hasty ambush:

And procurement is not even the biggest part of defense spending:

It is Operations and Personnel costs:


Yes, pointless wars, un-needed bases and the people needed to run them.  Basically handouts for red states and defense contractors.
 
2013-06-25 09:11:11 AM

Slartibartfaster: ya mean like, during the Russian invasion of Berlin ?
What continent do you thing the Moscow is in ?


The Russian Berlin Offensive began on January 12, 1945.
Hitler ate a bullet on April 30.
 
2013-06-25 09:16:41 AM
Now if only we could teach subby and other liberals how to normalize statistics for real comparisons... maybe as a % of GDP?
 
2013-06-25 09:21:53 AM

Aarontology: Having a defense budget many times that of he nearest nation is idiotic, especially given the network of alliances and economic ties we have with so many nations.


BS. Those alliances are not worth the paper they are written o. They are made with countries for the most part whose military is almost non-existent. I would remind you how or allies got there collective butts run out of Bosnia by the mighty Yugoslavian military and would not go back in without our help. In Kosovo we ended up flying 80% of the combat missions.

For example -you really think one of our European "allies" is going to risk its a cut of natural gas supply with Russia to help in our interests.

More importantly do you really want to but the ability to look after our countries interest, which are global and we are maritime nation, in the hands of others who would sell us out if it was in their interests. You may not remember it but most of our European allies became "less allied" during the Arab oil Embargo in the early 70s.


It's like buying a tenth gun to protect your family while cutting the food budget to pay for it.

Show me where we are doing that. We have spent $19 trillion dollars on the war on poverty since its inception-how has that worked out? Show me a year that Social Security and Medicare have decreased Exactly where are the great results for us spending more per student than any other country in the world?

saturdaybriefing.outrigger.com
www.zerohedge.com
 
2013-06-25 09:36:47 AM
You know what the US needs?  Flying Carriers.  Replace the entire fleet with flying carriers.  Why limit yourself to the oceans of the world?
 
2013-06-25 09:40:22 AM

hardinparamedic: Slartibartfaster: ya mean like, during the Russian invasion of Berlin ?
What continent do you thing the Moscow is in ?

The Russian Berlin Offensive began on January 12, 1945.
Hitler ate a bullet on April 30.


errr yea

your point being ? is April before January in your calendar ?
The battle of Stalingrad was in 1942
The US didnt even bother helping her allies formally until the end of 1941
What is your point ?
 
2013-06-25 09:42:33 AM
hasty ambush:
[www.zerohedge.com image 699x554]

it's almost as if a cold war ended and the population increased!
 
2013-06-25 09:45:03 AM
How to Cut the Military Budget Without Touching Defense

the Pentagon could readily absorb as much as $550 billion in spending cuts over the next 10 years --


Non-Military Research and Development: Research projects that have little or nothing to
do with national defense or medical needs related to military service ($6 billion).

Education: The Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools (DDESS)
that educates children of military families here in the United States and the Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) programs that duplicates the work of
the Department of Education and local school districts ($10.7 billion). ( military is needlessly operating 64 schools on 16 military installations around the country, at a cost averaging $50,000 per student. The national average for other schools is $11,000 per student)

The Department of Defense Tuition Assistance Program which provides college funding for military members on
active duty and duplicates the Department of Veterans Affairs ($4.5 billion).

Alternative Energy: Duplicative and unnecessary alternative energy research by the
Department of Defense ($700 million).

Grocery Stores. Pentagon-run grocery stores here in the United States ($9 billion).

Overhead, Support, and Supply Services. Over 300,000 military members performing
civilian-type job functions and too many general officers. ($37 billion).(military ranks are now top-heavy with generals and admirals, pushing up defense costs by hundreds of thousands of dollars because each has a large retinue of aides. The current proportion is seven general officers for every 10,000 troops, two more than during the Cold War. "We almost now have an admiral for every ship in the Navy,")

More detailed stuff
 
2013-06-25 09:45:35 AM

Slartibartfaster: 50 percent of the work to be given to Indian companies


50% is NOT a majority
for farks sake, why does this need to be explained ?!?

India is not in the asia pacific region - why does that need to be explained

Damn you people are thick
 
2013-06-25 09:53:29 AM

FullMetalPanda: You know what the US needs?  Flying Carriers.  Replace the entire fleet with flying carriers.  Why limit yourself to the oceans of the world?




Realistically we don't need the Gerald Ford class. Too expensive and no other country is going to be building anything better than the Nimitz Class. We could continue to build new Nimitz carriers at a rate to replace old ones as they are retired or even go with a cheaper 65,000 ton which would still outclass everything out there and we could have more of them. Carrier Air Wings have gotten smaller with the advent of precision munitions (fewer sorties needed) Drones and the F-35 will make the even smaller as strike packages need even fewer aircraft.
 
2013-06-25 10:00:16 AM

FlashHarry: hasty ambush:
[www.zerohedge.com image 699x554]

it's almost as if a cold war ended and the population increased!


So you acknowledge  defense spending has decreased yet you are still unhappy about it?

Sure the population has increased but would it not make sense that as a percentage of GDP  entitlement spending would be near as constant unless we were spending more per person or had more unproductive people??
 
2013-06-25 10:01:58 AM

hasty ambush: FullMetalPanda: You know what the US needs?  Flying Carriers.  Replace the entire fleet with flying carriers.  Why limit yourself to the oceans of the world?

Realistically we don't need the Gerald Ford class. Too expensive and no other country is going to be building anything better than the Nimitz Class. We could continue to build new Nimitz carriers at a rate to replace old ones as they are retired or even go with a cheaper 65,000 ton which would still outclass everything out there and we could have more of them. Carrier Air Wings have gotten smaller with the advent of precision munitions (fewer sorties needed) Drones and the F-35 will make the even smaller as strike packages need even fewer aircraft.


You do understand the Ford class is not that far off from the GHWB? It has moderate improvements in some places, yes. But the biggest thing to take away from it is the 30% reduction in personnel onboard. That is a HUGE cost savings in the long run.
 
2013-06-25 10:01:59 AM
We're in real danger here.
old.armscontrolcenter.org
 
2013-06-25 10:03:20 AM
The militiary costs 25.9 Gajillions bucks.

Source: Office of We Got da Guns and There ain't Fark-all you can do about it!
 
2013-06-25 10:06:53 AM

jayphat: hasty ambush: FullMetalPanda: You know what the US needs?  Flying Carriers.  Replace the entire fleet with flying carriers.  Why limit yourself to the oceans of the world?

Realistically we don't need the Gerald Ford class. Too expensive and no other country is going to be building anything better than the Nimitz Class. We could continue to build new Nimitz carriers at a rate to replace old ones as they are retired or even go with a cheaper 65,000 ton which would still outclass everything out there and we could have more of them. Carrier Air Wings have gotten smaller with the advent of precision munitions (fewer sorties needed) Drones and the F-35 will make the even smaller as strike packages need even fewer aircraft.

You do understand the Ford class is not that far off from the GHWB? It has moderate improvements in some places, yes. But the biggest thing to take away from it is the 30% reduction in personnel onboard. That is a HUGE cost savings in the long run.


Additionally ... the steam catapults on current carriers are too powerful to launch drones - they are under the minimum weight. The Ford class uses the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) which can be customized for the aircraft it is launching.
 
2013-06-25 10:14:55 AM
Yep, truly disgusting. The next Republican you see who claims to be about small government, show them this and rub their nose in it. Hard.

They won't admit they're wrong. They'll do their level best to either ignore it, or claim it is somehow vital because hurr durr tur'rists and mooslums. They will not, at any expense admit that barely a cent of it has any impact on terrorism, that it is the primary source of waste in our government, and that they in fact are the party of big government spending and erosion of our basic rights.

But on the plus side, you will get a beautiful demonstration of the sheer partisan idiocy of it all.
 
2013-06-25 10:16:06 AM

hardinparamedic: Slartibartfaster: wants 50 percent of the work to be given to Indian companies " wanna know how I can tell how you don't know what the word "exclusively  " means ?

You?

They want Dassault to form contracts with local manufacturers to make the majority of the airframe locally, in India.

In this case, it's long past overdue. We need to stop policing the world and getting involved in third world brushfires which we have no business in. Let Europe pull their weight for the first time since Hitler offed himself.


Bullying, not policing.
 
2013-06-25 10:16:35 AM

hasty ambush: So you acknowledge  defense spending has decreased yet you are still unhappy about it?


if you lose weight, going from 600 lbs to 400 lbs, you're still farking fat.
 
2013-06-25 10:18:03 AM

jayphat: hasty ambush: FullMetalPanda: You know what the US needs?  Flying Carriers.  Replace the entire fleet with flying carriers.  Why limit yourself to the oceans of the world?

Realistically we don't need the Gerald Ford class. Too expensive and no other country is going to be building anything better than the Nimitz Class. We could continue to build new Nimitz carriers at a rate to replace old ones as they are retired or even go with a cheaper 65,000 ton which would still outclass everything out there and we could have more of them. Carrier Air Wings have gotten smaller with the advent of precision munitions (fewer sorties needed) Drones and the F-35 will make the even smaller as strike packages need even fewer aircraft.

You do understand the Ford class is not that far off from the GHWB? It has moderate improvements in some places, yes. But the biggest thing to take away from it is the 30% reduction in personnel onboard. That is a HUGE cost savings in the long run.


Those are not moderate changes. It electromagnetic launch/recovery system and smart crew (smaller crew) are costly  innovations .

 The first is not really need and the second is of dubious pay off.  The smaller crew is cheaper but the experience on the LCSs has shown those crews are being overworked as you have a smaller crew doing a lot of the same workload-maintenance, refueling, etc.   Plus there is large degree of concern over how a smaller crew can handle damage control  task and still keep a ship fighting.

The Ford class is going to cost about $9 billion per ship excluding R&D costs.  The Nimitz class costs about half that.
 
Displayed 50 of 75 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