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  
•       •       •

2579 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 10:26:03 AM  

hasty ambush: 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.


The EMLS isn't needed? Really? It's safer, maintenance is easier, and the damage done to airframes is greatly reduced due to the accuracy of launch weights being better calculated.

The cost of the Nimitz has gone done considerably seeing as we're on the 10th one and, well, we've learned a few things along the way. I expect the same thing with the Ford class as time goes on. Or it becomes the F35 project.
 
2013-06-25 10:28:57 AM  

EViLTeW: 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.




borkadventures.files.wordpress.com

China's 20201 high speed rail?
 
2013-06-25 10:31:00 AM  

Slartibartfaster: 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


You are embarrassing yourself badly, and should quit while you are behind, before you make it any worse.

You clearly do not understand the difference between a contractor / supplier, and a manufacturer. It has been explained to you using baby words, and you still don't understand. You never will. Give up and let the grownups talk.

India is considered part of the Asia Pacific region by many entities, including the US Department of Defense.

http://www.apcss.org/about-2/ap-countries/

Again, you know not what you are talking about. Go play on your Sit'n'Spin, and let the grownups talk now. Be a dear, run along!
 
2013-06-25 10:31:01 AM  

mutterfark: EViLTeW: 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.

[borkadventures.files.wordpress.com image 649x500]

China's 20201 high speed rail?


I would not put it past them to put a rail train near an active volcano as a tourist attraction.
 
2013-06-25 10:34:42 AM  

FlashHarry: 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.


Except it's around the average compared to most countries in terms of percent GDP.

By your logic, NYC would be a bloated police state because it spends so much more on law enforcement than Podunk, KS.
 
2013-06-25 10:40:30 AM  

hasty ambush: BS. Those alliances are not worth the paper they are written o


Those alliances are what allow us to have military presence all over the globe, and the ability to respond to any "threat" at any given time. There's more to ali/ances than just fighting side by side. The Rammstein base in Germany, for example, is responsible for saving the lives of thousands of Americans after being wounded in the Iraq War.

hasty ambush: 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.


The national interest only goes several miles off shore. Everything else, every military base, every troop, every military action is entirely optional. There is no nation that will attack us, because it would be damn near impossible to get to use with the navy and their air force

hasty ambush: 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?


That's because more and more people are aging, dipshiat. An increased population will inevitably lead to those programs having more people enrolled in them. And they've been responsible for cutting elderly poverty by a half to two thirds since they were implemented. Millions of impoverished seniors would have an incredibly disastrous effect on the economy.

And those great results? We're the richest, most powerful nation on the face of the planet. Innovators in technology of all sorts; computers, aerospace, biotech, etc. Without an educated workforce we'd lose out on many of the innovations or economic benefits because there simply wouldn't be the people to come up with the ideas and work towards advancement. And with the military, it was highly educated people who were able to come up with many of the life saving technologies that have kept causalities lower, and it was those people who came up with the military hardware and technology that makes the military so powerful.

Where the hell do you think shiat comes from? The sky? Those magical job creators in a board room willing things into existence? No, it takes an educated populace. Show me one nation on Earth that disdains education to the degree you seem to that is even remotely capable of matching anything we do.
 
2013-06-25 10:44:28 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?


They could, they should, but the bridge and school lobby isn't as well funded.  Besides with the 400 billion dollars already spent and the 1.5 trillion dollar estimated life time program cost, you'd run outta places to build bridges!!  How many bridges are you planning on building anyway?
 
2013-06-25 10:47:59 AM  

mutterfark: EViLTeW: 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.

[borkadventures.files.wordpress.com image 649x500]

China's 20201 high speed rail?


Probably.  I hear that thing's a pain, though.

//Quick, tell it a joke.
 
2013-06-25 11:01:01 AM  

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

Because farmers, old people, and veterans get pissed when you cut their welfare.


Well, see, now the Social Security and VA Benefits are not welfare. They are contracts into which the recipients have paid through payroll deductions or as part of a larger compensation package as part of military service. Like 'em or not, nobody just rolls up to the VA or the SSA and says, "Hey, gimme some money, I want some money." If you haven't paid into the Social Security system, or are not a qualified veteran, then you'll get nothing and like it.

Farm subsidies and corporate tax breaks, however, those are most definitely welfare, no different than the poor getting the AFDC or Medicaid. That's all money coming from the rest of us.
 
2013-06-25 11:05:43 AM  

jayphat: hasty ambush: 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.

The EMLS isn't needed? Really? It's safer, maintenance is easier, and the damage done to airframes is greatly reduced due to the accuracy of launch weights being better calculated.

The cost of the Nimitz has gone done considerably seeing as we're on the 10th one and, well, we've learned a few things along the way. I expect the same thing with the Ford cl ...


The EMLS required the building and entirely new designed power plant for the ship which adds to the costs.   You are  hedging  You add in Rand D costs the  Ford rises to 14 billion so far  that is still not counting crew and aircraft or about the cost of 3 Nimitz carriers.


It may be everything it promise to be but we cannot afford it. More logically let us say we have to choose between 3 Ford classes (projected)  or  4 new Nimitz Ships or even  better 6 new  65,000 ton carriers which make for smaller targets..


Realizing that between down time (3 of carriers are currently long term non-deployable due to scheduled maintenance) and there is a lot of water out there a ship no matter how good it is cannot be two places at once (as the French have found out with their 1 aircraft carrier) we need a bigger navy.  Ideally  we need at a minimum about a 320-350 ship Navy and we need to look not at what would be nice to have but what we can afford.  65,000 ton carriers we enable us to afford 12 Carrier Strike groups.  Less Virginia class and some  diesel/AIP subs would give us more subs with some better suited to operating in constricted areas like the Persian Gulf or the Spratly Islands.  No America Class (which is really just a CVL for the navy not an Amphibious Assault Ship  as it does not even have a well deck)  and more of the  cheaper LHD Wasp class ship would enable us to get our Amphibious Ready Groups back up to 5  Amphibious Assault ships giving them more flexibility and not having all our eggs in 3 baskets so to speak  but 5.


We need to bring back our tender/maintenance ships to include a floating dry docks or two  reduce our dependence on the good will of our "allies" for shore base.




The Influence of Sea Power Upon History,

 
2013-06-25 11:07:02 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


Exactly. Because if you call it "Defense", then it's Patriotism and TROOPS! and Eagles and Security and What Not. If you put those same people to work building highways and rail systems and other infrastructure projects that would allow for the creation of more capital benefiting the economy and entire society, well, that's Socialism and we mustn't have that.
 
2013-06-25 11:10:08 AM  

Meatsim1: 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?

They could, they should, but the bridge and school lobby isn't as well funded.  Besides with the 400 billion dollars already spent and the 1.5 trillion dollar estimated life time program cost, you'd run outta places to build bridges!!  How many bridges are you planning on building anyway?


NTSB says Wash. bridge collapse is wake-up call
We could do with replacing some of our aging, falling-down bridges.
 
2013-06-25 11:17:45 AM  

hasty ambush: jayphat: hasty ambush: 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.

The EMLS isn't needed? Really? It's safer, maintenance is easier, and the damage done to airframes is greatly reduced due to the accuracy of launch weights being better calculated.

The cost of the Nimitz has gone done considerably seeing as we're on the 10th one and, well, we've learned a few things along the way. I expect the same thing with th ...


I like how you lump the EMLS in the R&D of the Ford when it's already been installed in the GHWB. So, lets pull that number out, mmmkay? Lets just say that I don't agree with the 65K ton carrier idea. As does the rest of the Navy. Sorry.
 
2013-06-25 11:33:51 AM  

jayphat: I like how you lump the EMLS in the R&D of the Ford when it's already been installed in the GHWB. So, lets pull that number out, mmmkay? Lets just say that I don't agree with the 65K ton carrier idea. As does the rest of the Navy. Sorry.


Not the rest of the Navy just the Carrie /aviation types.  The Submariners would just as well see carrier go away all together.  And I am sure the surface warfare types would  be too upset.
 Time to look at what we can afford and will give us most bang for our buck not what we would like to have. Given an $16 trillion national debt an a shrinking defense budget the Ford is an extravagance.  More so than the F-35.  the F-35 replaces aging/wore out aircraft, some no longer in production and a UAV replacement won't be along soon enough. No similar such justification can be found for the Ford.
 
2013-06-25 11:38:09 AM  

hasty ambush: jayphat: I like how you lump the EMLS in the R&D of the Ford when it's already been installed in the GHWB. So, lets pull that number out, mmmkay? Lets just say that I don't agree with the 65K ton carrier idea. As does the rest of the Navy. Sorry.

Not the rest of the Navy just the Carrie /aviation types.  The Submariners would just as well see carrier go away all together.  And I am sure the surface warfare types would  be too upset.
 Time to look at what we can afford and will give us most bang for our buck not what we would like to have. Given an $16 trillion national debt an a shrinking defense budget the Ford is an extravagance.  More so than the F-35.  the F-35 replaces aging/wore out aircraft, some no longer in production and a UAV replacement won't be along soon enough. No similar such justification can be found for the Ford.


The F35 tries to be an all in one replacement for something that doesn't need replaced. There is zero reason to just abandon the F22 program. There is zero reason to replace most of the Marine Corps and Navy fighters with something high and mighty that is ballooning out of control. And if you want to talk about a $16 trillion debt, lets talk about the large drivers of that that everyone throws hissy fits when you even mention fixing their long term problems. Entitlement reform(not elimination) would be my first start, as there is so much redundancy in these programs it's not even laughable.
 
2013-06-25 12:45:24 PM  

jayphat: hasty ambush: jayphat: I like how you lump the EMLS in the R&D of the Ford when it's already been installed in the GHWB. So, lets pull that number out, mmmkay? Lets just say that I don't agree with the 65K ton carrier idea. As does the rest of the Navy. Sorry.

Not the rest of the Navy just the Carrie /aviation types.  The Submariners would just as well see carrier go away all together.  And I am sure the surface warfare types would  be too upset.
 Time to look at what we can afford and will give us most bang for our buck not what we would like to have. Given an $16 trillion national debt an a shrinking defense budget the Ford is an extravagance.  More so than the F-35.  the F-35 replaces aging/wore out aircraft, some no longer in production and a UAV replacement won't be along soon enough. No similar such justification can be found for the Ford.

The F35 tries to be an all in one replacement for something that doesn't need replaced. There is zero reason to just abandon the F22 program. There is zero reason to replace most of the Marine Corps and Navy fighters with something high and mighty that is ballooning out of control. And if you want to talk about a $16 trillion debt, lets talk about the large drivers of that that everyone throws hissy fits when you even mention fixing their long term problems. Entitlement reform(not elimination) would be my first start, as there is so much redundancy in these programs it's not even laughable.


He didn't say anything about replacing the F-22. The F-35 absolutely cannot replace the F-22 as they are designed for different purposes.
 
2013-06-25 12:51:09 PM  
what's all this butthurt about? Isn't this good for the US? the US by far still has the most robust defense industry with name recognition.

If Asia wants to buy arms by all means.. we'll just sell them and take in hundreds of billions in profits.
I'm sure a lot of farkers here just like many others citizens via mutual funds, stocks, private trading etc own  stocks in companies like Raytheon, Boeing, Lockheed, General Dynamics, Olin and hundreds others etc.
 
2013-06-25 01:03:33 PM  

Tobin_Lam: jayphat: hasty ambush: jayphat: I like how you lump the EMLS in the R&D of the Ford when it's already been installed in the GHWB. So, lets pull that number out, mmmkay? Lets just say that I don't agree with the 65K ton carrier idea. As does the rest of the Navy. Sorry.

Not the rest of the Navy just the Carrie /aviation types.  The Submariners would just as well see carrier go away all together.  And I am sure the surface warfare types would  be too upset.
 Time to look at what we can afford and will give us most bang for our buck not what we would like to have. Given an $16 trillion national debt an a shrinking defense budget the Ford is an extravagance.  More so than the F-35.  the F-35 replaces aging/wore out aircraft, some no longer in production and a UAV replacement won't be along soon enough. No similar such justification can be found for the Ford.

The F35 tries to be an all in one replacement for something that doesn't need replaced. There is zero reason to just abandon the F22 program. There is zero reason to replace most of the Marine Corps and Navy fighters with something high and mighty that is ballooning out of control. And if you want to talk about a $16 trillion debt, lets talk about the large drivers of that that everyone throws hissy fits when you even mention fixing their long term problems. Entitlement reform(not elimination) would be my first start, as there is so much redundancy in these programs it's not even laughable.

He didn't say anything about replacing the F-22. The F-35 absolutely cannot replace the F-22 as they are designed for different purposes.


F-35 replaces the F-16s and the AV-8 (harrier) mainly. Eventually they will replace the F-18 hornets.
 
2013-06-25 01:34:15 PM  

Slartibartfaster: 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


Uh, did you forget which alt you're logged into?
 
2013-06-25 02:46:24 PM  

gweilo8888: India is considered part of the Asia Pacific region by many entities, including the US Department of Defense


Go look at a map numbnut - start by looking for "pacific", then look for India

Take note that India is not near the pacific, It is near the .... ya know INDIAN Ocean

If you department of defense cant work that out that does not make it true
 
2013-06-25 02:58:50 PM  

Slartibartfaster: Go look at a map numbnut - start by looking for "pacific", then look for India

Take note that India is not near the pacific, It is near the .... ya know INDIAN Ocean

If you department of defense cant work that out that does not make it true


India is a part of Asia which makes it a part of that group. There are several Asian nations that don't touch the Pacific but are considered to be a part of the Asia Pacific group as well as several countries that aren't in Asia (as far as maps go) that are also in that group.

It's based upon a sphere of influence, not an imaginary line on a map.
 
2013-06-25 05:01:24 PM  

Slartibartfaster: gweilo8888: India is considered part of the Asia Pacific region by many entities, including the US Department of Defense

Go look at a map numbnut - start by looking for "pacific", then look for India

Take note that India is not near the pacific, It is near the .... ya know INDIAN Ocean

If you department of defense cant work that out that does not make it true


Again, you are a vapid moron who cannot understand the simplest thing on the planet. What matters is not whether you are near the Pacific. It is whether you are considered to be part of the Asia Pacific Region. Many, MANY definitions of Asia Pacific -- including from some of the most significant bodies both inside and outside the Asia Pacific region -- include India on that list.

Now run along, you'll be late for playschool.
 
2013-06-25 06:56:29 PM  

hasty ambush: 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?


THIS

Your making my favorite argument.

Toss out these numbers also, 2.3 Trillion in social spending plus the 800 billion in total public education equals 3.1 Trillion in tax revenues or federal and state borrowing committed to the social state as it were.

The US has about 4 million births a year, among all social classes.  Divide number 1 by number two and you get 3,100,000,000,000 / 4,000,000 or 3,100,000/4 which equals  $775,000

$775,000 is the true cost of the welfare state expressed per birth of a citizen per year. Ever single american is born with a $775,000 burden they are responsible for throughout their life. Naturally some pay taxes and some dont, but if you go that route you are missing the point.

The real point is that if we didnt bother with the welfare state we could just cut a check to ever newborn for $775,000 and spend no extra money whatsoever.

If that check is in the form of a blind trust directed by a state level board of trustees, with the earned interest made available to pay the costs that child would ordinarily exert upon the welfare state.....being education, supplemental food, housing, healthcare, etc..... You get a nation of trust fund babies whose every need is paid for out of their earned interest income.  AND compounding interest allows you to refund to the state the original $775,000 when the kid turns 21, leaving him with MILLIONS in his trust. So the net cost to the public is the debt carrying cost of the money for 21 years.

You could literally be born, have the best education, healthcare that money can buy through age 21, with your own income as an emergency fund if you should encounter familial financial difficulty. Then at 21 the state takes back its seed money, leaving you with about 3 million dollars in earned interest. Then that nest egg pays your healthcare insurance for your entire life, keeps compounding the entire time.......

When you have a child of your own you split the funding of his birth trust with your spouse or partner at no second generational cost to the public, and you keep going, working and doing all the normal things until you turn say 50 years old when your trust becomes a retirement account with maybe 30 million dollars in it and you retire like a millionaire. Its like a GUARANTEED LOTTERY WIN. hit fifty, retire in style.

After a lifetime of paid deluxe healthcare, paid deluxe education, emergency funds accessible through the trust, etc.....

Can you honestly tell me that a social safety net that provides crappy care for 40% of us is better than a guaranteed life as a millionaire for 100% of us?

Because we are already spending that much money and have been since about 1960.

THAT is the true cost of socialism, it has cost us happiness for every single person in America.
 
2013-06-25 07:42:15 PM  

super_grass: FlashHarry: 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.

Except it's around the average compared to most countries in terms of percent GDP.

By your logic, NYC would be a bloated police state because it spends so much more on law enforcement than Podunk, KS.


Um, NYC IS a bloated police state.  Spending so much more on law enforcement than Podunk is a big part of why...
 
2013-06-25 10:46:21 PM  

archichris: THAT is the true cost of socialism, it has cost us happiness for every single person in America.


Wow ... you have derp down to a science.

I love the way $775,000 can become "millions" in 18 years while you are living off the interest. What kind of return are you guys getting on 100% safe investments down there?

And let's not ever bother with the time value of money. Let's pretend that giving a child $775,000 on the day they are born is exactly the same cost as giving them $775,000 spread out over 80 years ... because that's realistic.
 
Displayed 25 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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report