Forum Thread

Huge increases in US military spending

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 61 1 2 3 4 5 Next
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Increases in the US military spending is higher than most countries yearly budgets for military spending. And that's not our total spending but the amount of our increases........

    http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/04/military-cost-increases/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I've said in several "threads" what is going on; sorry to say this is the only budget which in reality does not get cut; on paper of course they tell you different stories. Non of the defense contractors are suffering or loosing money. Furthermore I do not see any reduction of US army/personel stationed all over the place. Neither any cuts in the "too big to fail" F35 program. The hype about NK only adds to that; sure the slogan; "that is what keeps America safe" is a great marketing tool for the uneducated, who love such statements.
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Our existing weapon systems could destroy most of the known world without any improvements added to them,I could understand the need to improve/update our defense systems as other countries play catch up with their own offensive weapons. We have the capabilty to bomb targets as far away as 6,000 miles with a piloted bomber,as we also have the means to employ drones anywhere in the world from some base in Az or Ca.,what more do we need, bigger and faster is not always the best way to go,especially since we have a huge spending problem in this country,priorities need to be set realistically and adhered to
  • Other Party
    Nebraska
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The military budget shoud be cut everyone knows that. Just about ALL of the federal budget needs to be cut. We need a balanced budget amendment that says balance the budget or Congress gets their pay cut. If we put THEIR money into the equation, they would find a way to do what they can't seem to do otherwise.

    As long as China is modernizing their military, that will be used as the justification for our military spending. It used to be the USSR, now it's China. And little pissants like North Korea and Iran are in the mix too, but China is the big justification. They just flew their second copy of the F-35.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jamesn Wrote: The military budget shoud be cut everyone knows that. Just about ALL of the federal budget needs to be cut. We need a balanced budget amendment that says balance the budget or Congress gets their pay cut. If we put THEIR money into the equation, they would find a way to do what they can't seem to do otherwise.

    As long as China is modernizing their military, that will be used as the justification for our military spending. It used to be the USSR, now it's China. And little pissants like North Korea and Iran are in the mix too, but China is the big justification. They just flew their second copy of the F-35.
    Your last line says it all; inother words do we continue to make the same mistake as with the USSR in the past? However my feeling it is a bit different money wise; do not forget we never owed the USSR anything, but owe the Chineese an awful lot of money. So are we the ones who attacks the "producer" of all the junk we so desperate long for? It is like the spoiled little kid who wants a big stick to hit his providers.
  • Other Party
    Nebraska
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch as usual you are half right. We can't attack the "producer" of all the junk just like they can't attack the "buyer" of all the junk. It works both ways: They produce the junk, send it here, we buy it, the money goes back to them so they can make new and improved junk for us to buy. It's one big circle. Or a circle jerk. Whatever.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jamesn Wrote: Dutch as usual you are half right. We can't attack the "producer" of all the junk just like they can't attack the "buyer" of all the junk. It works both ways: They produce the junk, send it here, we buy it, the money goes back to them so they can make new and improved junk for us to buy. It's one big circle. Or a circle jerk. Whatever.
    Yeah, can you imagine that all of a sudden the I-Phone production and flatscreen etc. will stop; every kid on the block will be crying: please make peace and sent them pizza's.
  • Independent
    Dover, TN
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    When I was in the Navy it was taught that one Ohio Class Sub could end life on earth as we know it. They were called a Strategic Deterrence, maybe so but I care none for the outcome if ever used. Why would we and do we spend money on such. Is it just to be "The Winner"? I think I would rather take my chances losing.
  • Independent
    Dover, TN
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: Our existing weapon systems could destroy most of the known world without any improvements added to them,I could understand the need to improve/update our defense systems as other countries play catch up with their own offensive weapons. We have the capabilty to bomb targets as far away as 6,000 miles with a piloted bomber,as we also have the means to employ drones anywhere in the world from some base in Az or Ca.,what more do we need, bigger and faster is not always the best way to go,especially since we have a huge spending problem in this country,priorities need to be set realistically and adhered to
    Actually we have the capability to bomb anywhere on the globe. During Desert Storm many of our bombing missions took of from a base in Missouri.
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Boone Wrote: When I was in the Navy it was taught that one Ohio Class Sub could end life on earth as we know it. They were called a Strategic Deterrence, maybe so but I care none for the outcome if ever used. Why would we and do we spend money on such. Is it just to be "The Winner"? I think I would rather take my chances losing.
    Boone,
    I agree with you. If we won that battle, what kind of world would we have left ?
  • Democrat
    Lawrence, MA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Boone Wrote: When I was in the Navy it was taught that one Ohio Class Sub could end life on earth as we know it. They were called a Strategic Deterrence, maybe so but I care none for the outcome if ever used. Why would we and do we spend money on such. Is it just to be "The Winner"? I think I would rather take my chances losing.
    Years ago a high British Official ( I believe it was the PM ) was asked why Britain didn't put a greater emphasis on its nuclear program. He replied that their entire retaliatory program consisted of 5 or 5 nuclear subs. An enemy, he said, could completely destroy our island , and months later we could strike back and obliterate them. What need do we have for a force greater than that ? This little illustration shows that the massive nuclear build up by the US has a much different purpose than mere protection of the American people.
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    It seems at times our military minds think that by slamming a fly with a bigger and bigger hammer that the fly is more dead, you gotta wonder sometimes.....
  • Other Party
    Nebraska
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    ..."a bigger and bigger hammer"... and I'll tell you why. Bigger hammer means less dead on our side. Why fight fair? Why not outnumber and overwhelm the other guy? More numbers and bigger better weapons is the way to go. If you had a choice would you want to fight one against one...or ten against one?

    Remember it is the politicians which send our military to fight and most of them never served, and they aren't risking their own lives, they are merely sending our military men and women into battle. Once that decision has been made BY THE POLITICIANS to go to war...why wouldn't our military want more numbers, a "bigger hammer" on OUR side?
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    yea jamesn,
    Bigger hammer, sure. But only to a point. Current day nukes are about 100 times more powerful than what we dropped on Japan so why do we need 1700 of them ? 6 - 10 would be more than enough. Our military spending is out of control. While the money is needed domestically.
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    If we as country have the means to destroy damn every living thing on the planet with what we have on hand,why build more than what is needed especially now ,the way the economy is going and the debt is soaring why not find a way to pay down the debt, instead of paying for more B-2 bombers at cost of billions, why not make just 1 less and use that money to pay down the debt,it won't resolve the issue but it would mean less interest paid on the debt. As for us being overwhelmed ,only if we allow it will it happen, we are now almost overwhelmed by debt and very little is done by Congress to allivate the problem. Just remember what happened to the U.S.S.R, they spent so much on its military that its society collapsed under the debt.