 |
|
mrmitchell
|
|
Dan, even though he is just making up numbers, I agree. He's got the point I am trying to make.
With a meticulous study of the budget in all departments, we can cut a huge portion of the deficit without losing any capability.
If we follow the same process for every side of the government, voila! no more deficit. But the Defense Dept would be a great place to start.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Atahualpa
|
 |
Hawthrone
Mar 1999
time: 06:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
quote:
Yes, I've become a little disillusioned with strictly realist foreign policy post 9/11. |
You're not the only one.
Anyway, to address the topic, I'd much rather see Japan increase its military spending than Europe. Europe's days as the center of world events is long gone, while odds are good that the next century will be an Asian one. A reliable, militarily strong ally in the thick of world events is much better for the US than a fickle union of formerly influential states with the military strength needed to back up their delusions of grandeur. IMO, at least... |
You are right, the next war is likely to happen in the east. China, Taiwan, Japan and the Koreas are a terrible combination.
Not to forget India and Pakistan.
I think we should prepare for such an event, but I would rather want to see that we try to prevent it from happening in the first place, because it may easily go nuclear and that would suck incredibly.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
He's got the point I am trying to make. |
Without knowing the actual numbers, he's just pulling stuff straight from his ass. Or straight from somebody else's ass on one of those extreme lefty web sites he relies upon sometimes. The numbers matter in this situation. Star Wars is a sizeable expenditure, but he's about an order of magnitude off, for instance.
I have my reservations about Star Wars, but at least I'm realistic about how much money we would have left over from killing the program or putting it in hibernation.
quote:
With a meticulous study of the budget in all departments, we can cut a huge portion of the deficit without losing any capability. |
Waste is just the way the government works. It has always been thus.
Last edited by DanS on 06-06-2005 at 19:35
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CerberusIV
|
|
Three things strike me about the original article.
One - it's a french initiative.
Two - it advocates more spending on control systems.
Three - it praises BAe and the UK MoD.
What's wrong with these points? France and the UK are two of the world's major arms exporters. So they have a lot to gain from selling weapons to other people and therefore spend money on improving their wares. The rest of Europe is either politically unwilling to sell guns to other people or just doesn't see the point in trying to break into a market dominated by the current players.
The UK completed a defence review last year. The outcome was not universally welcomed as it pushed advanced control and communications systems heavily. The UK Chief of Staff was quoted, IIRC, as saying "we want to fight alongside the Americans, not like them". Present systems in the NATO countries are mostly more than any non NATO or European country can respond to anyway. More integrated systems are a good idea provided they don't break down - and don't make troops over-reliant on technology.
Most US defence companies would wet themselves with excitement if they could rip off their taxpayers the way BAe (with the compliance of the MoD) has done to the UK taxpayer over the years. This is the same MoD that has screwed up the RN's carrier order and can't even order desert boots that don't melt in the desert!
More european defence spending would be good - for the US defence industry. Remember the talk around the F22 and JSF projects a few years ago? When the push was to secure the funding and orders it was all about the "grey threat" that advanced european fighter aircraft like the Eurofighter and Rafale might get into hostile (to the US) third party hands. Once the contracts were secure and the issue became export sales the talk changed to how the european aircraft were inferior to the US planes. Who profits? Not the european taxpayer.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lightblue
|
|
L'Boro, UK
Oct 2001
time: 05:35
|
|
Why would we bother with increased defense spending? Who is going to attack us? Terrorists I guess, but they're not directly attached to a nation state anyway. Russia? Doubt it. China? Will have to go through Russia or the US first.
Keep about 10-15 nuclear armed submarines as a whole and a few dozen ICBMs for MAD purposes and get rid of the rest. Maybe a small peacekeeping force, but tbh i think we should let people sort their own messes out.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DanS
. As the referenced report states, other than the UK and France, which spend about 2.75% of their economies on defense, nobody in Europe spends much at all -- none above 2%. |
how little you know....
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-06-2005 10:26
|