-
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.
Obama: "I will cut investments in unproven missle defense systems"
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
You guys do realise that a very small percentage of our GDP is spent on defense and a huge percentage of our GDP is spent on social programs? Cutting all military would be of hardly any fiscal benefit. I don't understand you people. You guys are like my City Council, cut IT's budget, they are just a money pit. My budget used to be 300k, then it's 200k, this year it's 150k and being cut and next years is even smaller. Kudos city council, you just "saved" the city 150k!! Woohoo. Now how about you cut the approximately 3 million parks budget and quit subsidizing the pool so much, you'll save much more money. Nah, we'd rather cut the budget that looks like it does zero for the city, but it actually the backbone.
A strong military is what the Fed is there for, to protect us so we can have "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". That's it.
A strong military is what the Fed is there for, to protect us so we can have "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". That's it.
Siddhartha
Lifer
Of course it's up during a time of war. Pre-war and even in Reagan era I believe it was about 6% of our GDP.
-------------------------------
Actually my first response was completely wrong. I was correct originally.
Siddhartha you linked to a budget pie chart, not budget percentage compared to our GDP. We are spending approximately the same that we have been for 30 years.
Defense Budget compared to GDP
Defense budget by national budget percentage
I completely agree about over-extending it. I however disagree with the Ds on always cutting military spending first. They always want to cut the defense fund. I think cuts need to be made elsewhere.
I think this administration has done a horrible job of being fiscally conservative, responsible, and being good stewards of our money. That also includes the way money is handled in regards to the military. I no longer consider Bush a republican, he isn't acting like one and neither are many of the Rs we have in congress right now.
I really hope the up and coming Rs are not like him and his cronies or I will have to become an independent. And I need to revise what I said above.
Siddhartha you linked to a budget pie chart, not budget percentage compared to our GDP. We are spending approximately the same that we have been for 30 years.
Defense Budget compared to GDP
Defense budget by national budget percentage
Cold Steel
Member
Bear in mind that all missle defense systems were at one point "unproven".
Even the six shot single action revolver was "unproven" until Sam Colt made the first one.
Even the six shot single action revolver was "unproven" until Sam Colt made the first one.
Lemon law
Lifer
All the implications of this was contemplated and outlawed by treaty years ago. This test merely demonstrates that if you know exactly when and where the enemy will launch a missile, and happen to be prepared to launch an ABM, one can have a small chance of shooting one missile down. But its hardly a real world test where such an enemy missile will
come with both surprise and all kinds of tricky radar counter measures. And we would be dealing with not justs one missile, but a large number of them coming from direction we are not prepared to intercept.
But the main reason this ABM idea was outlawed by treaty is that it just fuels the arm race in an extremely expensive and counterproductive way. If an enemy figures it will have 20% of its missiles shot down, it will merely increase the number of missiles they send by 25%. And since the missile with a warhead is far cheaper to make and deploy than the missile able to shoot it down, it bankrupts all parties engaged in such an arms race while it increase the size of all side's nuclear arsenal. And worse yet, if one side makes too much progress in anti missile defense, they will be tempted to launch a first strike in the possible insane hope that they can kill the other side without significant damage to themselves.
We need to face the new realities, WE CAN HAVE GUNS OR WE CAN HAVE BUTTER. BUT WE CANNOT HAVE BOTH. Maybe in the heady days of the 1960's, we thought the USA was above that old adage, but back then we had a strong economy and A BIG BALANCE OF TRADE SURPLUS. We have now ridden having guns to the point where its already weakening us almost fatally and just the notion of military superiority has already ensnared GWB into its own stupidity metric. Fools like GWB do not come along everyday, but they still occur with distressing frequency. I hope the lesson learned is that we don't need any fearless leaders, we need leadership that is conscience of the consequences of
military aggression.
come with both surprise and all kinds of tricky radar counter measures. And we would be dealing with not justs one missile, but a large number of them coming from direction we are not prepared to intercept.
But the main reason this ABM idea was outlawed by treaty is that it just fuels the arm race in an extremely expensive and counterproductive way. If an enemy figures it will have 20% of its missiles shot down, it will merely increase the number of missiles they send by 25%. And since the missile with a warhead is far cheaper to make and deploy than the missile able to shoot it down, it bankrupts all parties engaged in such an arms race while it increase the size of all side's nuclear arsenal. And worse yet, if one side makes too much progress in anti missile defense, they will be tempted to launch a first strike in the possible insane hope that they can kill the other side without significant damage to themselves.
We need to face the new realities, WE CAN HAVE GUNS OR WE CAN HAVE BUTTER. BUT WE CANNOT HAVE BOTH. Maybe in the heady days of the 1960's, we thought the USA was above that old adage, but back then we had a strong economy and A BIG BALANCE OF TRADE SURPLUS. We have now ridden having guns to the point where its already weakening us almost fatally and just the notion of military superiority has already ensnared GWB into its own stupidity metric. Fools like GWB do not come along everyday, but they still occur with distressing frequency. I hope the lesson learned is that we don't need any fearless leaders, we need leadership that is conscience of the consequences of
military aggression.
Siddhartha
Lifer
I do not have trouble with the guy running for US President saying that he would evaluate government spending.
That is part of the job description for the US President, right?
That is part of the job description for the US President, right?
heyheybooboo
Diamond Member
To the OP:
Thanks! And good luck with the 'Boogieman' and F.E.A.R platform this November.
Thanks! And good luck with the 'Boogieman' and F.E.A.R platform this November.
Jeff7
Lifer
Which still doesn't mean that all avenues should be pursued blindly.
As a species, it's still sad, and embarrassing, how much we spend each year finding ways to harm one another; sadder too are the reasons why we do this.
"You were born on THAT side of this imaginary line in the dirt, therefore you deserve to die, and I don't."
Wars so often make me think of a bunch of monkeys in a fig tree, fighting over who gets the best branches. Now give those monkeys automatic rifles and explosives. There'd be so much destruction that they'd wind up obliterating the tree. Then they'd have to fight over whose fault it was that the fig tree was destroyed.
Sadly, we'd do the same thing.
How lame. Almost half the world's total military spending is done by the US, so that we can defend ourselves and our "interests" against... well, whatever paranoid fantasy comes to mind, right?
And this gem-
Great argument- We've been wrong for so long that it looks right to us...
The most amazing part of it all is that military spending and increases in the national debt have a very strong correlation during that timeframe- mere coincidence, right?
Not to mention that having a massive military machine sitting around means that, sooner or later, some bunch of damned fools will think they need to use it for purposes other than deterrence, as we've seen wrt Iraq...
If the US military budget were cut by half, there would be no force or conceivable combination of forces that could stand against us. Very straightforward. What happened to the "Peace dividend" foreseen in the collapse of the puffed up Soviet boogeyman, anyway?
It was consumed by the most dangerous kind of pork and wasteful extravagance lavished on the Neocons' delusional dreams of global dominance by military means, that's what happened- fueled by fearmongering and whatever enemy du jour could be dreamed up.
ChunkiMunki
Senior member
great post, Jhhnn :laugh:
lupi
Lifer
Lets see,
WWI - Dem pres, check
WW2 - Dem pres, check
Korea - Dem pres, check
Vietnam - Dem pres, check
Maybe it's good to have a strong military when a Dem is in office.
Right, must be why we've nuked so many countries already.
And yet the reports from the pentagon are about how stretched the military is to cover current commitments and how we are started an increase in manpower.
"Here's a video of Mt Empty Suit discussing how he will gut the military - having figured out that making our enemies uncomfortable is the real source of problems. It's no wonder terrosrists and dictators around the world endorse Bama (not to mention the home grown nut jobs). I will give credit to Obama for being able to talk total rubbish with a very sincere voice. Hes a tremendous actor - better than even OJ. He's like an idiot savant. "
I think your post pretty much shows who the idiot is.
I think your post pretty much shows who the idiot is.
herm0016
Diamond Member
you all think the military only kills people.
when in fact the us military is the largest humanitarian org. in the word. they send troops and hospitals ( at least try) to places like myanmar, and the tsunami ravaged areas of the pacific, they drop supplies to hundreds of countries that need them, they protect you and i from many things, the research they conduct has led to things like microwaves and carbon fiber and food that you can keep in you cubord for long periods of time. they conduct research in to everything you can think of. the internet? not without the DoD first. they fund projects on hybrid cars and medical robotics too. the fact that we have a presence in so many countries around the world is important too, keeping their citizens from being killed by their leading parties or religious crazies.
when in fact the us military is the largest humanitarian org. in the word. they send troops and hospitals ( at least try) to places like myanmar, and the tsunami ravaged areas of the pacific, they drop supplies to hundreds of countries that need them, they protect you and i from many things, the research they conduct has led to things like microwaves and carbon fiber and food that you can keep in you cubord for long periods of time. they conduct research in to everything you can think of. the internet? not without the DoD first. they fund projects on hybrid cars and medical robotics too. the fact that we have a presence in so many countries around the world is important too, keeping their citizens from being killed by their leading parties or religious crazies.
Throckmorton
Lifer
That missile defense is a boondoggle. It's ineffective, and when this became a PR problem, they just stopped testing. You can't link to one Youtube video and say "it works and Obama wants to gut the military".
Canceling corporate favor boondoggles and putting resources where they are more effective doesn't make the military less effective, it makes it more effective.
Canceling corporate favor boondoggles and putting resources where they are more effective doesn't make the military less effective, it makes it more effective.
Throckmorton
Lifer
Wait, this is something else. Show us proof of Obama saying an anti missile defense designed for a ship is ineffective. That's a different thing from the "missile shield" which amounts to expensive and ineffective saber rattling.
http://www.ceskenoviny.cz/news/index_view.php?id=291273
http://www.topix.com/cz/rokyca...ineffective-u-s-expert
http://www.slate.com/id/2142313/
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Look at all the chickenhawks crawling out of the woodwork
http://www.ceskenoviny.cz/news/index_view.php?id=291273
http://www.topix.com/cz/rokyca...ineffective-u-s-expert
http://www.slate.com/id/2142313/
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Look at all the chickenhawks crawling out of the woodwork
Zebo
Elite Member
not as big of a waste as giving people checks who do nothing. Assuming for a second all systems are failures , which they arn't and you can get success without investmet in the first place, i'd rather see scientists and engineers get a check than those that sit and watch life pass them by.
Throckmorton
Lifer
You support paying contractors billions of dollars so that scientists can get paid a few million?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
