SUBSCRIBE | NEWSLETTERS | MAPS | VIDEOS | BLOGS | MARKETPLACE | CONTESTS
TRY BACKPACKER FREE!
SUBSCRIBE NOW and get
2 Free Issues and 3 Free Gifts!
Full Name:
Address 1:
Address 2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email: (required)
If I like it and decide to continue, I'll pay just $12.00, and receive a full one-year subscription (9 issues in all), a 73% savings off the newsstand price! If for any reason I decide not to continue, I'll write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing.
Your subscription includes 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Or click here to pay now and get 2 extra issues
Offer valid in US only.


» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Page 1 of 3123>>

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: Time to Cut Back?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
 Post Number: 1
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 25973
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 03 2013, 11:39 am  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I think the visual below really drives home the point -- our defense spending has gotten out of hand.  Yes, we need defense.  But do we really need to outspend all countries that matter combined ?  If we have tons of money, OK, fine, who cares... but we actually have serious budget problems!

Data is 2010 (not too long ago) -- but I think a picture says a thousand words by comparison:



--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 2
EastieTrekker Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1467
Joined: Mar. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 03 2013, 11:55 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Always known that fact, but never saw it displayed graphically.  Yes, it certainly drives that point home.  The statistician in me says, "Ignore the absolute level of spending and consider as a % of GDP".  Well, by golly, we're about double or more by that metric for all but Saudi Arabia and Russia!!

It's a problem, a real, big problem. If we cut spending in half, would it solve our fiscal problems?  Not outright, but it would be a huge step in the right direction and an honest approach to reigning in our spending.  I'm sure we'd still be quite the "super power" spending a measly $350B/year, generating an extra $350B in revenue, all without raising taxes!!


--------------
I request all the possible consumer protection organizations, and fight with their injustice.   ???
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 3
Ron. Search for posts by this member.
don't surround yourself with your self
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 11994
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 03 2013, 11:59 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

But I thought cutting spending and austerity were the exact wrong things to do in our weak economy.

--------------
And be kind toward one another
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 4
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 03 2013, 12:12 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

This does not represent a posture of defence. It would aptly be named the Department of Offence, or as it was pre WW11, "THE WAR DEPARTMENT"

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 5
EastieTrekker Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1467
Joined: Mar. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 03 2013, 12:15 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Ron. @ Apr. 03 2013, 11:59 am)
QUOTE
But I thought cutting spending and austerity were the exact wrong things to do in our weak economy.

I realize your comment is a bit tongue in cheek (at least I think it is), but nowhere am I advising to shrink the military's budget by $350B in the next 6-12 months.  In fact, I don't even know what level is appropriate to cut defense by, but it could certainly bear the burden of a reduced budget.  But you're not saying that our defense spending should be left untouched are you?  

It's foolhardy to think this country doesn't have a spending problem.  Cuts ARE necessary, but they must be carefully done (i.e. over time as to not shock the system) - else the Greece problem becomes our own.

That said, the whole theory behind some short term raising of taxes (let's not be silly and pretend that any new increase in taxes must last for eternity) is to increase revenue in the short term, WHILE simultaneously trimming spending from areas where we are over-spending (i.e. defense is one major culprit), to lessen the effect on the resulting job losses from the spending cuts, and setting up our long-term budget to be a bit more viable.  Providing former defense employees with adequate unemployment compensation, relocation services, etc.  Is just one example of how a sensible approach could help our ailing economy.

Standing on the side of cuts only or taxes only is the wrong position (not that i'm saying this is your particular position).


--------------
I request all the possible consumer protection organizations, and fight with their injustice.   ???
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 6
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 25973
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 03 2013, 1:02 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Just like I wouldn't make a lifetime alcoholic cut 'cold turkey' -- cuts need to be done with care -- but also with consistency.  But listen to the rhetoric re. China -- or even NK -- and it seems to me -- our NIC is clearly not going to accept cuts without a fight!    And we the American people are easily scared.  Seriously, looking at the graph above -- is NK really a threat?  No.  Their economy is so poor and so depleted they don't even figure in the chart!   And what little mischief it can actually manage -- China will likely slap it down -- to avoid an outright confrontation with us.  China isn't stupid -- they see the same graph.

--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 7
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43809
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 03 2013, 1:14 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Re-prioritization. Spend it but spend it smarter. Both within the military and outside.

As noted in another thread: the ENTIRE Mars Curiosity mission is the price of ten F22's or 2% of the F35 program (which total program for an aircraft we do not need would fund the entire National Institutes of Health for about five years!)
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 8
buzzards Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2042
Joined: Apr. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 03 2013, 1:25 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

There are three main reasons for this discrepancy:
-We actually pay our soldiers. Not a bunch, but better than the conscripts that comprise most other nations armies. And officers can earn fairly handsome packages of salaries and benefits. Not to mention pensions and the VA hospital system. As a percentage of total military spending, I'm pretty sure no other country spends as much on salaries as the US of A. I'd track down the reference, but feeling lazy right now.
-A lot of other countries would have to have larger spending if they didn't hide behind our coattails. Reducing defense spending to pay for social programs has been going on in Europe for decades. They can do this because they know the USA has their back if the mud ever hits the fan.
-No other country has a global logistical system. All those transport aircraft, not to mention carrier battle groups, come at a steep price. The upside is that we can have a light division on the ground within days anywhere in the world, and a heavy division within weeks. Again, we are the only ones who can do this. If we cut back, losing this capability will be a discussion that the country has to have.


--------------
Now shall I walk or shall I ride?
Ride, said pleasure,
Walk, Joy replied,
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 9
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 25973
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 03 2013, 1:30 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(buzzards @ Apr. 03 2013, 10:25 am)
QUOTE
There are three main reasons for this discrepancy:
-We actually pay our soldiers. Not a bunch, but better than the conscripts that comprise most other nations armies. And officers can earn fairly handsome packages of salaries and benefits. Not to mention pensions and the VA hospital system. As a percentage of total military spending, I'm pretty sure no other country spends as much on salaries as the US of A. I'd track down the reference, but feeling lazy right now.
-A lot of other countries would have to have larger spending if they didn't hide behind our coattails. Reducing defense spending to pay for social programs has been going on in Europe for decades. They can do this because they know the USA has their back if the mud ever hits the fan.
-No other country has a global logistical system. All those transport aircraft, not to mention carrier battle groups, come at a steep price. The upside is that we can have a light division on the ground within days anywhere in the world, and a heavy division within weeks. Again, we are the only ones who can do this. If we cut back, losing this capability will be a discussion that the country has to have.

buzzards:

All valid questions that need to be debated (not here so much, but in the halls of power).  I would also add:  can we afford to continue as we have?


--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 10
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43809
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 03 2013, 1:56 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Even if we can there's still the fundamental question of should we?

Versus infrastructure both physical and intellectual, for instance.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 11
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 25973
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 03 2013, 2:04 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(High_Sierra_Fan @ Apr. 03 2013, 10:56 am)
QUOTE
Even if we can there's still the fundamental question of should we?

Versus infrastructure both physical and intellectual, for instance.

Indeed.

Actually, if we can afford all this, we are probably taxing too much -- and we should reduce taxes -- which ought to please the Republicans, no?  How ironic that the party ostensibly for small government and responsible spending is also a big supporter for continued, obscene defense spending!


--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 12
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43809
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 03 2013, 2:08 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Ben2World @ Apr. 03 2013, 11:04 am)
QUOTE

(High_Sierra_Fan @ Apr. 03 2013, 10:56 am)
QUOTE
Even if we can there's still the fundamental question of should we?

Versus infrastructure both physical and intellectual, for instance.

Indeed.

Actually, if we can afford all this, we are probably taxing too much -- and we should reduce taxes -- which ought to please the Republicans, no?  How ironic that the party ostensibly for small government and responsible spending is also a big supporter for continued, obscene defense spending!

Borrowing too much is more the case.

Taxing at historic lows while spending at the norm leads to deficits unending.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 13
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 03 2013, 2:11 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(buzzards @ Apr. 03 2013, 1:25 pm)
QUOTE
There are three main reasons for this discrepancy:
-We actually pay our soldiers. Not a bunch, but better than the conscripts that comprise most other nations armies. And officers can earn fairly handsome packages of salaries and benefits. Not to mention pensions and the VA hospital system. As a percentage of total military spending, I'm pretty sure no other country spends as much on salaries as the US of A. I'd track down the reference, but feeling lazy right now.
-A lot of other countries would have to have larger spending if they didn't hide behind our coattails. Reducing defense spending to pay for social programs has been going on in Europe for decades. They can do this because they know the USA has their back if the mud ever hits the fan.
-No other country has a global logistical system. All those transport aircraft, not to mention carrier battle groups, come at a steep price. The upside is that we can have a light division on the ground within days anywhere in the world, and a heavy division within weeks. Again, we are the only ones who can do this. If we cut back, losing this capability will be a discussion that the country has to have.

Bring it on, lets have that damn discussion then!

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 14
Gabby Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6337
Joined: Jun. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 03 2013, 2:46 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(EastieTrekker @ Apr. 03 2013, 10:55 am)
QUOTE
Always known that fact, but never saw it displayed graphically.  Yes, it certainly drives that point home.  The statistician in me says, "Ignore the absolute level of spending and consider as a % of GDP".  Well, by golly, we're about double or more by that metric for all but Saudi Arabia and Russia!!

It's a problem, a real, big problem. If we cut spending in half, would it solve our fiscal problems?  Not outright, but it would be a huge step in the right direction and an honest approach to reigning [sic] in our spending.  I'm sure we'd still be quite the "super power" spending a measly $350B/year, generating an extra $350B in revenue, all without raising taxes!!

Agree completely. It's the most egregious waste of money on earth. But your point about "% of GDP" is, of course, a more accurate representation of the situation.


I have become a devotee of Google's "public data" tool!
[The (virtually unreadable in this downscaled representation) countries ahead of the United States in this, admittedly, somewhat ad hoc selection are Saudi Arabia, Israel and Iraq.]
http://www.google.com/publicdata/directory
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 15
EastieTrekker Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1467
Joined: Mar. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 03 2013, 3:10 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

What's a matter Gabby - you don't like my use of the progressive tense of the word reign (royal authority or the dominion, sway, or influence of one resembling a monarch).  :;):

Oops!!  Good Catch!!


--------------
I request all the possible consumer protection organizations, and fight with their injustice.   ???
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 16
Gabby Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6337
Joined: Jun. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 03 2013, 4:01 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Eastie, I was just trying to be equitable in my distribution of grammatical criticism, and I'm sorely aware that it's a nuisance. I know we all make errors, but I do see this confusion almost as much as "to" used for "too", at least around here. (Why, if you're confused about the spelling of "to/too", wouldn't you simply substitute the word 'also' for the latter - so your meaning was clear?)

I am extremely visual in most respects (my daughter is virtually an autistic savant AFA the written word goes - I used to read American history with her, and she only needed one pass to know all the facts and all the relevant dates, an amazing feat to me), so I try to picture something (a mnemonic of sorts) to associate with the spelling: "rain" (droplets), "rein" (leather straps), "reign" (a crown). Sad to say, not everyone has the same kind of brain, so any given method is not guaranteed to work.

There is yet another (to shamelessly reuse a "Star Wars" phrase) rampant confusion hereabouts: using "tow" instead of "toe" in the phrase "toe the line".
http://grammartips.homestead.com/toetheline.html

Yeah, I know I'm obsessive.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 17
Gabby Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6337
Joined: Jun. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 03 2013, 5:06 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I find the Google public data site so interesting, I thought I'd post a TINYURL link (the original link is very, very UGLY) to the Google chart which I posted above (though the one to which I actually linked is a personally-hosted, downsized copy). Though the color scheme is changed (they're dynamically assigned, apparently), you'll see (pointing to a label or a graph line highlights that data element) that the line that has two ridiculously large "points" on the left belongs to Angola, and the one that descends from over 20% of GDP to disappear in the "muck" of all the others somewhere around 1992 is Russia.

http://tinyurl.com/cqgz2zr

With this one, you can actually read the labels - and you can manipulate the data!
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 18
EastieTrekker Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1467
Joined: Mar. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 03 2013, 5:15 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Though it only goes up to 2011, I think it's a pretty telling chart.  I was actually quite astonished to see how level China has been over time, despite all the noise about them ramping up in recent years.

--------------
I request all the possible consumer protection organizations, and fight with their injustice.   ???
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 19
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 25973
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 03 2013, 5:21 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

China's ramping up is from a relatively small base.

I believe our 2012 spending was $735B -- a "mere" 5% growth.  But that $35B growth --if applied to China's relatively puny base -- would represent a whopping 30%!!  But our government and our media are just not good at giving people the right perspective.  It's simply not alarming enough.  Much better to YELL how China's spending is growing at double digits (low teens) whereas ours is just 5% and we need to get our acts together, yaddy, yaddy, yadda...  In truth, China is still so far, far behind...

You see, Eastie, judging by your posts, you are much more aware than most.  And yet, even you feel astonished!  Our MIC, together with our government and media -- have done a fabulous job, haven't they?


--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 20
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43809
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 03 2013, 5:25 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

It's my impression that given the corporate structure of the PLA it would be very difficult to pry out what real spending is within the China defense area. There's the funds the government more or less openly directs at the PLA and then there are all the funds the corporations owned by the PLA (some 40,000 at one count) make available.

ETA:For United States defense expenditures there are a number of components, there's the base budget and then there are the operations and contingencies additions, namely the funds expended for the immediate needs of the Iraq and Afgfhanistan efforts. Iraq and Afghanistan alrwady declining or effectively eliminated don't rerally count towards any controlling of the overall defense budget in my view: when wars end those costs naturally go away. It's the base budget that is needed to be examined.

ETA2: Ben, oh to be sure, whatever the adjustments to the China number wouldn't change the United States' monster of a number's relative dominence I agree.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 21
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 25973
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 03 2013, 5:32 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I am sure that's true, HSF.  But I believe western experts make adjustments as best they can to maximize comparability.  Still imperfect, to be sure, but for overall comparison, I think the graph still speaks volumes.

Besides, all governments spend in various different categories that may benefit their military directly and indirectly.  We will never get a precise comparison.


--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 22
Hungry Jack Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2284
Joined: Nov. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 03 2013, 6:09 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Considering we could probably wipe out N. Korea with some M-80s, hand grenades, and slingshots, we should cut back on the military hardware.

--------------
Summon the Minions!
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 23
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43809
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 03 2013, 6:12 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Hungry Jack @ Apr. 03 2013, 3:09 pm)
QUOTE
Considering we could probably wipe out N. Korea with some M-80s, hand grenades, and slingshots, we should cut back on the military hardware.

Huh???

Three little words: Weaponized Kim Chee
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 24
Panhandler Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 411
Joined: Aug. 2011
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 03 2013, 6:22 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

The current drumbeating that really, really bothers me is the objections (usually by columnists) to the reductions in nuclear weapons. We have friggin thousands. How many times over do you need to destroy the planet?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 25
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43809
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 03 2013, 6:25 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Panhandler @ Apr. 03 2013, 3:22 pm)
QUOTE
The current drumbeating that really, really bothers me is the objections (usually by columnists) to the reductions in nuclear weapons. We have friggin thousands. How many times over do you need to destroy the planet?

but on the up side when we lose track of some it doesn't significantly reduce the inventory....
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 26
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 25973
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 03 2013, 11:15 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montecresto @ Apr. 03 2013, 9:12 am)
QUOTE
This does not represent a posture of defence. It would aptly be named the Department of Offence, or as it was pre WW11, "THE WAR DEPARTMENT"

We've found playing the victim much more effective!


--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 27
SW Mtn backpacker Search for posts by this member.
Born to hike, forced to work ...
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7295
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 04 2013, 7:54 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

The US has potential adversaries, so we and allied nations need to be on top of our game as the opening rounds of WW2 illustrated.  

That said, while there's always a need for boots on the ground, eye in the sky, etc..., the armed forces need to further automate operations with potentially high casualties ; probably replacing human piloted strike aircraft or obstacle breaching vehicles with "drones", IMHO (as former military with a lot of economics education).  Hate to put it like this but our young people need to be spared to pay into Medicare/Social Security etc..., not take out via disability.  We will never be able to eliminate risk but should minimize it as many of the remaining people in uniform become even more highly specialized.  That said, I don't see the US being able to become a big Switzerland (the Republican opponent wanted to take on Russia, China, and Iran, the latter probably involving retaking portions of Iraq).   Our domestic politics are becoming increasingly byzantine on defense, however.


--------------
Usually Southwest and then some.

In wildness is the preservation of the world. - Henry Thoreau
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 28
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 04 2013, 9:12 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Fu Ying, a spokeswoman for the National People's Congress, said the overall military budget would be released Tuesday. She said China maintained a strictly defensive military posture and cited U.N. peacekeeping missions and anti-piracy patrols in the Gulf of Aden as examples of Beijing's contribution to world peace and stability.
"As such a big country, China's inability to ensure its own security would not be good news for the world," Fu said. "Our strengthening of our defense is to defend ourselves, to defend security and peace, and not to threaten other countries."

http://www.military.com/daily-n....ng.html


--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 29
Bass Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2271
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 04 2013, 9:34 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Panhandler
QUOTE
How many times over do you need to destroy the planet?


The concept is "mutually assured destruction". It worked in the day when enemies wore uniforms and had territory and armies. Any power that attacked the US would be assured that the US would retaliate with a nuclear attack of many times more than enough to obliterate the attacker. This was considered necessary because it was assumed that the attacker would hide their military and government officials in some remote location. So complete destruction would assure that the enemy would not survive.

But in this new world of proxies, the attacker can easily be be some obscure group financed and armed with nukes by a country that claims innocence. And the delivery of the nukes may be some group bringing a "suitcase nuke" across the border with a shipment illegal drugs. A number of these "suitcase nukes" could easily bring the US to its knees and destroy the major cities.

Then the US nuclear arsenal, and any army, would be useless.

So maybe ALL defense spending is a waste of money.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 30
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43809
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 04 2013, 9:36 am Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE

And so we revisit that the best defense is a good offense.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
66 replies since Apr. 03 2013, 11:39 am < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]


Page 1 of 3123>>
reply to topic new topic new poll

» Quick Reply Time to Cut Back?
iB Code Buttons
You are posting as:

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code



Get 2 FREE Trial Issues and 3 FREE GIFTS
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
The Best Trails in America
YES! Please send me my FREE trial issues of Backpacker
and my 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Full Name:
City:
Address 1:
Zip Code:
State:
Address 2:
Email (required):
Free trial offer valid for US subscribers only. Canadian subscriptions | International subscriptions