• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Armed to the teeth

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
During the cold war, when the US was protecting Europe from the evil Commies, I didn't hear much (save the far, far left wing) in the way of complaints. They're still protected by (about 100 000) US troops, and the last thing they want is for those troops to go to Asia and make the EU defend itself exclusively.

It's not to Europe's advantage to see enormous increases in US military spending. Therefore, they don't want it.

As for me, I benefit from greater US hegemony, so I say it's a good thing that our military budget is equal to the next five competitors combined.

If the government needs money, it should start castrating social security 🙂
 
I mean, here in Canada, Cretin promised to buy some new helicopters in '93 and still nothing has happened. Apperantly Canada's next contribution to any war will be crashing Sea Kings, C130s and other antiquiated equipment into enemy positions

That is a very good example of why the US must keep it's forces strong. Many of the other countries of the world that are our allies cannot be depended on in a crisis. While they may bash us and deplore that we are keeping our military strong, they will also be the first to call on us when they cannot defend themselves.
 


<<

<< The Europeans are saying that we're more powerful militarily than the Roman Empire was 2000 years ago, but at the same time I keep hearing the Department of Defense say that we're lacking in just about every area. 😕 >>




They DoD is lying. Come on! You guys have the largest military and spend close to 400billion/a, which is about 8 times more than Russia which spends about 50B/a and is second after you (my figures might be a bit wrong). The DoD is probably saying that to simply get more funding. >>


The DOD isn't lying........they are merely Making comparrisons to military capabilities of just a few years ago. Like it or not, Clinton DID sabotage our military.........I know......I was there "pre-Clinton" and have many friends and family whom are still active. In the 80's, we never scrounged parts.......we always had plenty new parts in stock to run a full maitenance schedule on everything...............these days, they borrow from other working hardware to make one run efficiently as possible! We never ran short of anything while I was active........now, munintions and weaponry are rationed due to low stock. Manpower and capability are the lowest they have been in decades per cap.!

If anyone thinks the U.S. military is "Armed To The Teeth" now...........you should have seen our capability during the 80's!😉
 
If anyone thinks that the amount that the US spends on defense does not affect what the rest of the world spends on theirs is very, very naive. If we all operated as equal partners in the UN, NATO, etc. there would be many countries spending a lot less on the social programs you are all so proud of and a lot more on your military. Instead of criticizing, just say "Thank you" and go on about your business.


"Thank You "

And I'm glad we are spending our money on social programs -- they are using my tax dollar so I can have my 7 weeks of paid vacation --
YUMMY --
 


<< you should have seen our capability during the 80's! >>




I don't want to start a flame war (this is an honest question), but isn't that when the US got most of its current debt?
 


<<

<< you should have seen our capability during the 80's! >>




I don't want to start a flame war (this is an honest question), but isn't that when the US got most of its current debt? >>


Oh....so you want to start another discussion????? I suppose in your view it would be better to have a piss poor military with crappy hardware and resources then???? Yes, a good military costs money to acheive, but, in our case at least, we had it and then it was cut away to be able to show a surpluss and a "great economic policy" of another administration............if they had merely left it at "status quoe" instead of cutting it to the bare minimuim..........we wouldn't be in the situation we are now of borrowing parts to maintain hardware..........😉

Sorry.......but this hits "close to home" for me and when my relatives and friends tell me how things are now compared to 10 - 15 years ago............:|
 
It also ran the Soviet Union into the ground.



<< I don't want to start a flame war (this is an honest question), but isn't that when the US got most of its current debt? >>

 


<<
Oh....so you want to start another discussion????? I suppose in your view it would be better to have a piss poor military with crappy hardware and resources then???? Yes, a good military costs money to acheive, but, in our case at least, we had it and then it was cut away to be able to show a surpluss and a "great economic policy" of another administration............if they had merely left it at "status quoe" instead of cutting it to the bare minimuim..........we wouldn't be in the situation we are now of borrowing parts to maintain hardware..........😉

Sorry.......but this hits "close to home" for me and when my relatives and friends tell me how things are now compared to 10 - 15 years ago............:| >>




If you read my earlier post, I don't think a crappy military is any good.

I was just wondering. Personally, I'm all for balance. No deficit, smaller, but nicely equiped army, reasonable social programs...

But maybe you guys like it different way down there, oh well. We have our own problems to look after here (we don't even have a freakin united right!...tsk tsk tsk)
 
hmm, i really dont care about the army that much, but the axis of evil is total bulsh1it. Bush was onlly setting himself up for his own little agenda do setup pro-west go'vt all around the world.
 
They DoD is lying. Come on! You guys have the largest military and spend close to 400billion/a, which is about 8 times more than Russia which spends about 50B/a and is second after you (my figures might be a bit wrong). The DoD is probably saying that to simply get more funding.

The U.S. does NOT have the largest military in terms of personnel. China has that distinction, and India is right up there as well. Quality-wise, that's another discussion. The figure for this year's budget was in the neighborhood of $320B -- next year's is projected to be $359B (these are off the top of my head, though I just read the second figure a few days ago).

Anyway, after years of extremely high deployments without increased budgets to compensate the military services for additional pay and maintenance, the military needs more money to recoup the losses from the Clinton years. Yes, there are parallels with the '80s because the military suffered almost a decade of neglect following the Vietnam War during which our capabilities were allowed to erode significantly. With the almost spastic effort to reduce military spending for a so-called "peace dividend", we lost a lot of ground under Clinton.

How about an analogy? If you do routine maintenance on your car, you have to spend $20-30 every few months to change the oil to keep it running smoothly. If you fail to change the oil regularly, or at all, you can ruin the entire engine which costs thousands of dollars to replace. So, we starve the military for a long while under Clinton, and now we have to replace the engine.

Our military budget is still under what Reagan used to spend, in adjusted dollars. I seem to remember that Reagan had military budgets in the neighborhood of $300B and that was from twenty to fourteen years ago. Seems like a bargain these days! 😉
 


<<

<<
Oh....so you want to start another discussion????? I suppose in your view it would be better to have a piss poor military with crappy hardware and resources then???? Yes, a good military costs money to acheive, but, in our case at least, we had it and then it was cut away to be able to show a surpluss and a "great economic policy" of another administration............if they had merely left it at "status quoe" instead of cutting it to the bare minimuim..........we wouldn't be in the situation we are now of borrowing parts to maintain hardware..........😉

Sorry.......but this hits "close to home" for me and when my relatives and friends tell me how things are now compared to 10 - 15 years ago............:| >>




If you read my earlier post, I don't think a crappy military is any good.

I was just wondering. Personally, I'm all for balance. No deficit, smaller, but nicely equiped army, reasonable social programs...

But maybe you guys like it different way down there, oh well. We have our own problems to look after here (we don't even have a freakin united right!...tsk tsk tsk) >>


Well......no.....that was my main point.........we had a very good efficient, well equipped military in place. The main cuts began occuring in 1995....(buried to most but very impressive for the upcoming elections!😉) all they had to do was MAINTAIN what they had........but, instead, the cuts began and ran DEEP! The budget was already in place and working..........nobody asked for an "increase" for more............just the status quoe to maintain what they had, but, some were convinced we didn't need what we had and with other "superpowers" gone, any threats would be minimal..........🙁 All they had to do was kepp what they had......but NOOOOOO they cut it down to the point they're at now and have been at for a few years now.........everyone works with the bare minimuim and hardware is robbed to maintain others!!! I honestly believe some of you would be really suprised to see how bare we were running pre-9/11............😉
 


<< everyone works with the bare minimuim and hardware is robbed to maintain others!!! I honestly believe some of you would be really suprised to see how bare we were running pre-9/11............ >>


It wouldn't surprise me at all. The buzz words in the service all through the 90's was "Do more with less". The cuts were put in place before 1995 though. The plans were already in the works before Bush Sr. left office. We suffered in the 90's because of 1. A good economy hurts recruiting and 2. There was no perceived threat. I blame Congress as much as any President for the problems we had in the 90's.
 
They DoD is lying. Come on! You guys have the largest military and spend close to 400billion/a, which is about 8 times more than Russia which spends about 50B/a and is second after you (my figures might be a bit wrong). The DoD is probably saying that to simply get more funding.

No matter what they spend, they're not spending enough in the right places. The rate of pay that the men and women who protect our lives and the housing they are given to live in isn't fit for a dog.
 


<<

<< everyone works with the bare minimuim and hardware is robbed to maintain others!!! I honestly believe some of you would be really suprised to see how bare we were running pre-9/11............ >>


It wouldn't surprise me at all. The buzz words in the service all through the 90's was "Do more with less". The cuts were put in place before 1995 though. The plans were already in the works before Bush Sr. left office. We suffered in the 90's because of 1. A good economy hurts recruiting and 2. There was no perceived threat. I blame Congress as much as any President for the problems we had in the 90's. >>


True.......the main cuts which hurt the most though, did occur during the year before the '96 elections! I looked it up for another thread here on A/T a while ago and it was just amazing how deep the cuts were to the military as a whole in that year and the following! Rumsfeld has also commented that most of the damage was done during the second term..............🙁 At any rate, what's done........is done........now though, the job is to get it back to basic operations standards and of course, it will take money and the current administration will suffer because of it..............🙁
 
Oh, and they claim we have nuclear-powered aircraft carriers that are a mile in length.

#%@ oh my, i would be floored if we had something that awesome. we could fly b-52's off something like that and blast any country into smitheens🙂 wee! that would be a technological wonder of the world for sure🙂 almost a shame we don't have one for bragging rights🙂
 
Seems like a huge waste of money to have a standing military.
We need to use that power to conquer all the middle east oil reserves and permanently seize them for ourselves. It seems absurd to me that we pay all these insane taxes to support the military without getting a good price break on our gas prices. Why should we drill in Anwar if we can seize existing oil fields in Arabia? We have a perfect excuse of the war of terrorism to colonize the arab world, and make them our oil monkeys. Besides, they are all a bunch of tyrants over there. Let's conquer them for their own good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top