Sadly yes. Unless the AF is building super space weapons, cut the funding imo.jsnipy wrote:
That will probably be the last placeCybargs wrote:
Especially airforce imo.
Eh... why on earth would we cut our air force? It's infinitely more useful than our navy. Our air force is what wins us battles.Cybargs wrote:
Sadly yes. Unless the AF is building super space weapons, cut the funding imo.jsnipy wrote:
That will probably be the last placeCybargs wrote:
Especially airforce imo.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
It's political suicide; it is like playing with fire with you want to reduce the defence budget. Bill Clinton reduce the defence budget and he more or less was blamed on the 9/11 traedy.Mekstizzle wrote:
Rather he cut their ridiculous defense budget than the space budget. But he doesn't have the balls to cut the defence budget, the US is a militarised society. Even the "liberals" don't want a cut in the defence budget. If anything this guy is going to increase the defence budget
if you don't, then the crazy muslims will eat your kids at night
Naval dominance for every day connectivity.JohnG@lt wrote:
Eh... why on earth would we cut our air force? It's infinitely more useful than our navy. Our air force is what wins us battles.Cybargs wrote:
Sadly yes. Unless the AF is building super space weapons, cut the funding imo.jsnipy wrote:
That will probably be the last place
Majority of the Airforce is in the US if I recall correctly... No need for a large AF when you're practically protected by two oceans (again, Naval dominance).
Army could be cut, expand Marines imo (arguably better for maneuverability etc).
soon as some country that's not in NA/EU starts trying to put people on the moon, it'll all start again
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Or incorporate marines into the armyCybargs wrote:
Naval dominance for every day connectivity.JohnG@lt wrote:
Eh... why on earth would we cut our air force? It's infinitely more useful than our navy. Our air force is what wins us battles.Cybargs wrote:
Sadly yes. Unless the AF is building super space weapons, cut the funding imo.
Majority of the Airforce is in the US if I recall correctly... No need for a large AF when you're practically protected by two oceans (again, Naval dominance).
Army could be cut, expand Marines imo (arguably better for maneuverability etc).
yeah i went there.
Umm. Navies are largely obsolete. This was proven in WWII when aircraft carriers instead of battleships ruled the ocean. With anti-ship missiles and long range aircraft any navy in the world can be obliterated without coming near our shores. The navy is really only useful for supporting Marine landings.Cybargs wrote:
Naval dominance for every day connectivity.JohnG@lt wrote:
Eh... why on earth would we cut our air force? It's infinitely more useful than our navy. Our air force is what wins us battles.Cybargs wrote:
Sadly yes. Unless the AF is building super space weapons, cut the funding imo.
Majority of the Airforce is in the US if I recall correctly... No need for a large AF when you're practically protected by two oceans (again, Naval dominance).
Army could be cut, expand Marines imo (arguably better for maneuverability etc).
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-02-01 08:52:27)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
US is still keeping a Carrier based naval dominance no? Aren't modern day carriers like only destructible by nukes =/JohnG@lt wrote:
Umm. Navies are largely obsolete. This was proven in WWII when aircraft carriers instead of battleships ruled the ocean. With anti-ship missiles and long range aircraft any navy in the world can be obliterated without coming near our shores. The navy is really only useful for supporting Marine landings.Cybargs wrote:
Naval dominance for every day connectivity.JohnG@lt wrote:
Eh... why on earth would we cut our air force? It's infinitely more useful than our navy. Our air force is what wins us battles.
Majority of the Airforce is in the US if I recall correctly... No need for a large AF when you're practically protected by two oceans (again, Naval dominance).
Army could be cut, expand Marines imo (arguably better for maneuverability etc).
That's the theory, though I'm sure a well funded and dedicated enemy can find numerous ways to take our a carrier.Cybargs wrote:
US is still keeping a Carrier based naval dominance no? Aren't modern day carriers like only destructible by nukes =/JohnG@lt wrote:
Umm. Navies are largely obsolete. This was proven in WWII when aircraft carriers instead of battleships ruled the ocean. With anti-ship missiles and long range aircraft any navy in the world can be obliterated without coming near our shores. The navy is really only useful for supporting Marine landings.Cybargs wrote:
Naval dominance for every day connectivity.
Majority of the Airforce is in the US if I recall correctly... No need for a large AF when you're practically protected by two oceans (again, Naval dominance).
Army could be cut, expand Marines imo (arguably better for maneuverability etc).
Yes, but they're mostly clinging to the past. The Navy is essentially the Air Force with inferior aircraft due to the limitations of a carriers flight deck and armament capacities. Why keep paying for something that is inferior? The only blue water navy we need are submarines and a carrier group or two to support potential Marine landings. We don't need 9 fucking aircraft carriers with the support and defense ships that go along with themCybargs wrote:
US is still keeping a Carrier based naval dominance no? Aren't modern day carriers like only destructible by nukes =/JohnG@lt wrote:
Umm. Navies are largely obsolete. This was proven in WWII when aircraft carriers instead of battleships ruled the ocean. With anti-ship missiles and long range aircraft any navy in the world can be obliterated without coming near our shores. The navy is really only useful for supporting Marine landings.Cybargs wrote:
Naval dominance for every day connectivity.
Majority of the Airforce is in the US if I recall correctly... No need for a large AF when you're practically protected by two oceans (again, Naval dominance).
Army could be cut, expand Marines imo (arguably better for maneuverability etc).
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
But the world is my playgroundJohnG@lt wrote:
Yes, but they're mostly clinging to the past. The Navy is essentially the Air Force with inferior aircraft due to the limitations of a carriers flight deck and armament capacities. Why keep paying for something that is inferior? The only blue water navy we need are submarines and a carrier group or two to support potential Marine landings. We don't need 9 fucking aircraft carriers with the support and defense ships that go along with themCybargs wrote:
US is still keeping a Carrier based naval dominance no? Aren't modern day carriers like only destructible by nukes =/JohnG@lt wrote:
Umm. Navies are largely obsolete. This was proven in WWII when aircraft carriers instead of battleships ruled the ocean. With anti-ship missiles and long range aircraft any navy in the world can be obliterated without coming near our shores. The navy is really only useful for supporting Marine landings.
Carriers provide a great platform for medical aid also. The intimidation factor is good stuff too.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
The amount of resources required to defend and supply a carrier is what makes them inefficient. You need mine sweepers, provision ships, ammunition ships, fuel ships, ASW picket ships, close defense AEGIS ships etc. Or, you can land a brigade of marines, build an air field and have the air force come in and do it's job on a pittance of the upkeep. You lose the air base? So what, you fly elsewhere to land.jord wrote:
That's the theory, though I'm sure a well funded and dedicated enemy can find numerous ways to take our a carrier.Cybargs wrote:
US is still keeping a Carrier based naval dominance no? Aren't modern day carriers like only destructible by nukes =/JohnG@lt wrote:
Umm. Navies are largely obsolete. This was proven in WWII when aircraft carriers instead of battleships ruled the ocean. With anti-ship missiles and long range aircraft any navy in the world can be obliterated without coming near our shores. The navy is really only useful for supporting Marine landings.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Bob Kagan is a neoconservative douchebag, why would I listen to him?Pochsy wrote:
Actually, given the neorealist resurgence in the last 10 years or so their defense budget makes more sense than ever. Why give up power when you are on top? These overly liberal 'disband the military' arguments make less sense now than they did during the Cold War. Robert Kagan on EU- American military policies and relations, if you want me to back these statements.Mekstizzle wrote:
Rather he cut their ridiculous defense budget than the space budget. But he doesn't have the balls to cut the defence budget, the US is a militarised society. Even the "liberals" don't want a cut in the defence budget. If anything this guy is going to increase the defence budget
if you don't, then the crazy muslims will eat your kids at night
one day we will all unite and fight a common cause, we will forge alliances with other planets throughout other galaxys, wage wars with many others, gentlemen, that day will be the start of a new era.
Are you a moron or do you just play one on tv?=NHB=Shadow wrote:
one day we will all unite and fight a common cause, we will forge alliances with other planets throughout other galaxys, wage wars with many others, gentlemen, that day will be the start of a new era.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Because he's a reputable neorealist academic? Almost all neocons are just that...offensive realists.ghettoperson wrote:
Bob Kagan is a neoconservative douchebag, why would I listen to him?Pochsy wrote:
Actually, given the neorealist resurgence in the last 10 years or so their defense budget makes more sense than ever. Why give up power when you are on top? These overly liberal 'disband the military' arguments make less sense now than they did during the Cold War. Robert Kagan on EU- American military policies and relations, if you want me to back these statements.Mekstizzle wrote:
Rather he cut their ridiculous defense budget than the space budget. But he doesn't have the balls to cut the defence budget, the US is a militarised society. Even the "liberals" don't want a cut in the defence budget. If anything this guy is going to increase the defence budget
if you don't, then the crazy muslims will eat your kids at night
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
I thought we were talking about Star Wars or Star Trek ??JohnG@lt wrote:
Are you a moron or do you just play one on tv?=NHB=Shadow wrote:
one day we will all unite and fight a common cause, we will forge alliances with other planets throughout other galaxys, wage wars with many others, gentlemen, that day will be the start of a new era.
Just because he's a reputable academic doesn't make him right. So someone who is largely in favour of invading other countries supports huge investments in the military? Big surprise.
Have you seen the major projects?jsnipy wrote:
That will probably be the last placeCybargs wrote:
Especially airforce imo.
F-22: Capped
KC-X: Terminated (multiple times)
CSAR-X: Terminated (multiple times)
"Star Wars": Mostly terminated (multiple timess)
On the USN side, carriers are very useful because they provide floating airfields. The USAF has to deal with overflight restrictions from angry "allies" and neutral parties. The USN can park off the enemy's coast...
On spaceflight:
I'm a bit saddened. We gained a HUGE amount of scientific information and new materials/technology from Apollo. We could reasonably expect some new discoveries from a new moon mission (especially a long-term one). I wish we had kept more residual budget for the program (like R&D and planning). That way, when we decide to restart the thing, we wouldn't be starting at square 1 (or square Apollo as it may be).
I'm a huge NASA fan, but walking around on the moon really has no point other than for publicity. I agree with cutting a manned mission, since we don't even have the technology to establish a safe base and/or productive colony. If you just want to explore up close, why not send a rover?
Besides which, Obama hasn't even finished emptying the treasury yet.
Besides which, Obama hasn't even finished emptying the treasury yet.
they did I posted a thread on u could contact this guy and buy moon parts from, the guy is a millionaire nowPochsy wrote:
I think the US needs to start workin' on some mining projects in space to pay for the programs. Maybe start selling moon rocks to enthusiasts or something.
If we were to take an isolationist view:Cybargs wrote:
Naval dominance for every day connectivity.JohnG@lt wrote:
Eh... why on earth would we cut our air force? It's infinitely more useful than our navy. Our air force is what wins us battles.Cybargs wrote:
Sadly yes. Unless the AF is building super space weapons, cut the funding imo.
Majority of the Airforce is in the US if I recall correctly... No need for a large AF when you're practically protected by two oceans (again, Naval dominance).
Army could be cut, expand Marines imo (arguably better for maneuverability etc).
Cut the Army to a CONUS/AK/HI defensive force. Don't even know if that would cut it that much. Would certainly remove our overseas infrastructure, though (I can hear the EU and Asian countries screaming now).
Plus up Navy and AF. Need to be able to project outward for defensive purposes and--in rare cases--offensive purposes. Also, majority of non-NASA space portfolio is in the AF (ties back to OP).
Leave Marines the way they are.
Would likely see net savings overall in defense spending.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Damn. That could have been me if I had a moon-parts/rocks supplier and came up with the idea 20 years ago. I identified the market, but that's as far as I got, lol.blademaster wrote:
they did I posted a thread on u could contact this guy and buy moon parts from, the guy is a millionaire nowPochsy wrote:
I think the US needs to start workin' on some mining projects in space to pay for the programs. Maybe start selling moon rocks to enthusiasts or something.
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
someone's been playing too much mass effect=NHB=Shadow wrote:
one day we will all unite and fight a common cause, we will forge alliances with other planets throughout other galaxys, wage wars with many others, gentlemen, that day will be the start of a new era.