Too much spending on defense?

Lunatik

Lunatik

Active member
us_vs_world.gif


Or should it be even more?
 
There's two problems with the current US defense spending strategy, and neither of them have anything to do with the total money being spent. The first is that we're spending a lot of money on all of the wrong things - for example, making $140m F-22s a priority when there's still a shortage of up-armored HMMWVs and body armor.

The second problem is wasted funds. Too many projects get bogged down and end up costing far too much, which usually results in their being canceled - for example, the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship and DDG-1000 programs. Problem is, we need new ships - the frigates the LCS was due to replace were designed 35 years ago for a different war and mission, and the land-attack capability DDG-1000 was supposed to provide the Navy was previously facilitated by BBs - nearly twenty years without a viable replacement. It's time to cut the pork and make it clear that spending overages will not be tolerated - we could do so much with our budget, but extra spending keeps getting in the way.
 
Same here. A lot of basic things that need to be filled aren't being done and they're thinking about sending cyborg soldiers into the front lines. Just give us a helmet worth half a damn first and then we'll talk.
South Korea STILL has its own OICW program. It's a pile of sh*t weapon. I can tell just by looking at it. Look at the SIZE of the damn thing.
 
Have you seen the French OICW counterpart? It's HUGE.

I don't think we're spending too much on defense, we're just not spending it well.
 
How can we spend on military as much as the rest of the planet combined but also be the most peace loving country among all?

:sick:
 
Sun Tzu's Art of War. Be so strong that no one will pick a fight with you. Whether or not you pick a fight with someone else is a different question entirely.
 
Well, Chinese are one of the oldest standing civilizations, he must have made quite a few good points. :)

c/C, I am.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
Sun Tzu's Art of War. Be so strong that no one will pick a fight with you. Whether or not you pick a fight with someone else is a different question entirely.
Click to expand...

That statement isnt always true though, Hitler and Japan both picked a fight with US and Russia as did al Qaeda.
 
Japan would arguably have won the fight with the US had they hit our carriers, and the Nazis were far stronger than the Russians when the invasion began. Problem was, our carriers survived and Hitler was a cocky SOB who didn't listen to his field commanders. It wasn't a matter of sheer strength.
 
mmarsh said:
That statement isnt always true though, Hitler and Japan both picked a fight with US and Russia as did al Qaeda.
Click to expand...

At the time, Germany and Japan under estimated the US. The US's military and the Russian military were not very strong at the beginning of World War II. They weren't able to anticipate how the Americans and Russians could turn it around and field the largest armies ever known.
Al Qaeda also does not see America as a TRULY strong opponent. At least it didn't. They had seen so many instances of a lack of American resolve that they felt America could be beat easier than it actually turned out. Beirut, Mogadishu... if you kill enough Americans and you drag the fight on long enough, you WILL beat the Americans. That's why they picked a fight with America. And if you hide among civilians, you are untouchable.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
Al Qaeda also does not see America as a TRULY strong opponent. At least it didn't. They had seen so many instances of a lack of American resolve that they felt America could be beat easier than it actually turned out. Beirut, Mogadishu... if you kill enough Americans and you drag the fight on long enough, you WILL beat the Americans. That's why they picked a fight with America. And if you hide among civilians, you are untouchable.
Click to expand...

I think in part you are right but I feel you have misread their tactics somewhat.
Al Qaeda know they are not going to win a conventional war against anyone but the weakest of third world nations that are already in a state of civil war where they can simply get involved with the "winning side" what they are fighting is a very effective economic war where all they need to do is drop a few pictures of trains and half the world spends billions of dollars securing railway stations, cost to Bin Laden a $10 camera, cost to the west thousands of times that in security.

When you couple this the growing desire/ability of governments to clamp down on personal freedoms of its public in response to terrorism you end up in a situation where countries have slumped economies and public dissent which plays right into the hands of groups like Al Qaeda.
 
I think the cutting of freedoms was an unplanned and surprising success for Al Qaeda. I don't think they would have thought that far in advance.
Al Qaeda's strength does not lie in their conventional fighting ability. It's their ability to be like weeds. They probably know that.
 
I think that may be under estimating them, there is a great deal of difference between those planting bombs and those planning the over all Al Qaeda campaign they are not a bunch of dumb as rocks suicide jockeys off fighting for some "holy" cause they are a well funded bunch of nutters with very definite goals in mind.

Destabilise the worlds economies, create dissent in stable nations by eroding freedoms and wealth and you create the conditions of civil war which I believe was the plan from the beginning. The sad part is that inept leadership has played right into this game.

Al Qaeda will never storm the beaches of any nation but they will show up when the conditions are right with a bit of cash and the knowledge of how to get the most out of a civil war.
 
Either way that's the effect it's having. Sometimes you can miss your target and hit something even better by accident.
Could be the case, may not be, who knows.
But what they DO know is that if you make the fight long enough and if you take out enough Americans, victory is guaranteed.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
Al Qaeda also does not see America as a TRULY strong opponent. At least it didn't. They had seen so many instances of a lack of American resolve that they felt America could be beat easier than it actually turned out. Beirut, Mogadishu... if you kill enough Americans and you drag the fight on long enough, you WILL beat the Americans. That's why they picked a fight with America. And if you hide among civilians, you are untouchable.
Click to expand...
Which is why I don't like the term "innocent civilians," and also why I don't like being in Iraq for the good of the Iraqis. It means that we can't go after civillians, because if we do then that's forceful occupation.

If we were to go after civillians, it would certainly encourage them to throw out the imposters... but we can't.
 
That worked well for Korea in Vietnam.
If a VC killed a South Korean Marine, the Marine squad would go and level the village and kill ten civilians in the place of the one dead guy. VC were not welcome in villages where South Koreans patrolled. In fact, VC tried to avoid Koreans whenever possible.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
That worked well for Korea in Vietnam.
If a VC killed a South Korean Marine, the Marine squad would go and level the village and kill ten civilians in the place of the one dead guy. VC were not welcome in villages where South Koreans patrolled. In fact, VC tried to avoid Koreans whenever possible.
Click to expand...
It's how the Romans held down huge empires. It's how the Germans operated successfully for a time against resistance fighters.

If only we could use it now...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top