maybe not Germany.......China perhaps, not like it hasn't happened before.JohnG@lt wrote:
Then react as necessary. We don't need to maintain a million people on active duty on the off chance that Germany decides to drop out of the EU and arm itself.lowing wrote:
been through this before John, attack does not have to come in the form of storming the beaches or dropping out of the sky.JohnG@lt wrote:
We have two giant oceans protecting our borders. Paratroopers are not going to start raining out of the skies, nor will transport ships show up at our docks. The odds of an invasion are next to nil. The odds of a successful invasion are nil.
Also, just because we are allies with most of Europe, (if not all?), does not mean it will stay that way. We are now allies with all of the ex-axis powers if WW2 and became enemies with former allies. It is a crazy fluid world, and the US needs to stay on top of it.
It doesn't produce jobs. Government can not produce jobs. All it can do is remove jobs from one sector of the economy and transfer them elsewhere in the exact same way it does wealth transfer garbage.lowing wrote:
Already stated where to save money, entitlement programs that produce nothing. Defense produces jobs at least.Turquoise wrote:
In the long run, that means higher taxes for you and me. I don't think you really want that.lowing wrote:
been through this before John, attack does not have to come in the form of storming the beaches or dropping out of the sky.
Also, just because we are allies with most of Europe, (if not all?), does not mean it will stay that way. We are now allies with all of the ex-axis powers if WW2 and became enemies with former allies. It is a crazy fluid world, and the US needs to stay on top of it.
"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
Research comes in many forms. Not everything the military experiments with is ridiculously expensive.lowing wrote:
Well if you have no plans on building a widget, why would you R and D it? Or how could you R and D it? Or what good would it do if you did not have it produced?Turquoise wrote:
Cutting the military budget doesn't mean research should (or would) stop. It would just be a difference in volume of research.lowing wrote:
I disagree, after WW1 ( the war to end all wars) we were woefully unprepared for future conflicts in manpower and technology. I would not want to see that happen again.
ALthough I can stipulate that money could be shifted from some projects to others to meet the issues of the day, IE from F-22 ( perhaps) to intelligence gathering) I see no reason why we should just stop R and D or production of the latest and greatest.
For example, there is a paste like substance that has been developed from battlefield medical practice that clots wounds far better than any previous products, but this particular innovation was infinitely cheaper to develop than the F-22.
The point is, when budgets are constrained, research becomes more cost effective. Only the projects with more conservative outlays get funding, which is a good thing, since the payout is usually much better in a proportional sense.
didn't say govt.... Boeing for example produces jobs, along with boeing suppliers, metal factories that supply the suppliers, and on down the lineJohnG@lt wrote:
It doesn't produce jobs. Government can not produce jobs. All it can do is remove jobs from one sector of the economy and transfer them elsewhere in the exact same way it does wealth transfer garbage.lowing wrote:
Already stated where to save money, entitlement programs that produce nothing. Defense produces jobs at least.Turquoise wrote:
In the long run, that means higher taxes for you and me. I don't think you really want that.
Even though Boeing and other companies like that are private, they highly depend on government money. Because of this dependency, they don't stimulate the economy the same way that an industry with a purely private income source would.lowing wrote:
didn't say govt.... Boeing for example produces jobs, along with boeing suppliers, metal factories that supply the suppliers, and on down the lineJohnG@lt wrote:
It doesn't produce jobs. Government can not produce jobs. All it can do is remove jobs from one sector of the economy and transfer them elsewhere in the exact same way it does wealth transfer garbage.lowing wrote:
Already stated where to save money, entitlement programs that produce nothing. Defense produces jobs at least.
heard about that, and it is a great product, however, the R and D I was referring entailed giving the soldier the upper hand to prevent him from needing a blood clotting substance in the first place.Turquoise wrote:
Research comes in many forms. Not everything the military experiments with is ridiculously expensive.lowing wrote:
Well if you have no plans on building a widget, why would you R and D it? Or how could you R and D it? Or what good would it do if you did not have it produced?Turquoise wrote:
Cutting the military budget doesn't mean research should (or would) stop. It would just be a difference in volume of research.
For example, there is a paste like substance that has been developed from battlefield medical practice that clots wounds far better than any previous products, but this particular innovation was infinitely cheaper to develop than the F-22.
The point is, when budgets are constrained, research becomes more cost effective. Only the projects with more conservative outlays get funding, which is a good thing, since the payout is usually much better in a proportional sense.
Gotta disagree. A company like boeing, and the satellite companies most definitely stimulate an economy. Shut one down and tell me what happens.Turquoise wrote:
Even though Boeing and other companies like that are private, they highly depend on government money. Because of this dependency, they don't stimulate the economy the same way that an industry with a purely private income source would.lowing wrote:
didn't say govt.... Boeing for example produces jobs, along with boeing suppliers, metal factories that supply the suppliers, and on down the lineJohnG@lt wrote:
It doesn't produce jobs. Government can not produce jobs. All it can do is remove jobs from one sector of the economy and transfer them elsewhere in the exact same way it does wealth transfer garbage.
The only reasonable justification for high defense spending is R&D.
Its the backdoor way that the govt subsidizes US industries to keep the country ahead of the technological curve.
You spend tax payers money to develop new technologies and eventually you leak that development into the consumer sector.
And the WTO and other trade agreements don't see it as a subsidy for trade war purposes because its defense spending.
You see, we are more socialistic than you think, the private sector doesn't develop squat. Jet planes, computers, nuclear power, nuclear batteries, plastics etc etc, if its new expensive high tech, then it was a tax payer funded program that paid for it.
Other than that, defense spending has a lot of meat on the bone for cutting when the time for cuts comes around. They are no sacred cow.
Its the backdoor way that the govt subsidizes US industries to keep the country ahead of the technological curve.
You spend tax payers money to develop new technologies and eventually you leak that development into the consumer sector.
And the WTO and other trade agreements don't see it as a subsidy for trade war purposes because its defense spending.
You see, we are more socialistic than you think, the private sector doesn't develop squat. Jet planes, computers, nuclear power, nuclear batteries, plastics etc etc, if its new expensive high tech, then it was a tax payer funded program that paid for it.
Other than that, defense spending has a lot of meat on the bone for cutting when the time for cuts comes around. They are no sacred cow.
Well, for the most part, that's already available. We have a massive military presense in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and while our casualties are relatively low, they could be even lower if our soldiers had better body armor (which is already available) and better armor on their Humvees and such (which is also readily available).lowing wrote:
heard about that, and it is a great product, however, the R and D I was referring entailed giving the soldier the upper hand to prevent him from needing a blood clotting substance in the first place.Turquoise wrote:
Research comes in many forms. Not everything the military experiments with is ridiculously expensive.lowing wrote:
Well if you have no plans on building a widget, why would you R and D it? Or how could you R and D it? Or what good would it do if you did not have it produced?
For example, there is a paste like substance that has been developed from battlefield medical practice that clots wounds far better than any previous products, but this particular innovation was infinitely cheaper to develop than the F-22.
The point is, when budgets are constrained, research becomes more cost effective. Only the projects with more conservative outlays get funding, which is a good thing, since the payout is usually much better in a proportional sense.
Clearly, the military only cares to a certain degree about minimizing casualties among its own soldiers.
Most of the research we currently do involves very expensive vehicles or cutting edge weapons, and while these things do help our soldiers, clearly, the emphasis is not specifically on protecting soldiers as much as it is having better equipment to work with -- which is not always the same goal.
Granted, drone technology may remove the need for soldiers on the actual battlefield.
Last edited by Turquoise (2010-05-20 17:16:55)
Well lets see, aircraft technology filters to the private sector, medical, vehicle, IT, all transfers to the private sector. In fact, in one form or another, it ALL transfers to the private sector, even space shit, So you support a strong national defense good to have you on board.Diesel_dyk wrote:
The only reasonable justification for high defense spending is R&D.
Its the backdoor way that the govt subsidizes US industries to keep the country ahead of the technological curve.
You spend tax payers money to develop new technologies and eventually you leak that development into the consumer sector.
And the WTO and other trade agreements don't see it as a subsidy for trade war purposes because its defense spending.
You see, we are more socialistic than you think, the private sector doesn't develop squat. Jet planes, computers, nuclear power, nuclear batteries, plastics etc etc, if its new expensive high tech, then it was a tax payer funded program that paid for it.
Other than that, defense spending has a lot of meat on the bone for cutting when the time for cuts comes around. They are no sacred cow.
a different topic all together, one I can agree with. However all of theose things you talk about comes from the defense budget that you want to cut.Turquoise wrote:
Well, for the most part, that's already available. We have a massive military presense in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and while our casualties are relatively low, they could be even lower if our soldiers had better body armor (which is already available) and better armor on their Humvees and such (which is also readily available).lowing wrote:
heard about that, and it is a great product, however, the R and D I was referring entailed giving the soldier the upper hand to prevent him from needing a blood clotting substance in the first place.Turquoise wrote:
Research comes in many forms. Not everything the military experiments with is ridiculously expensive.
For example, there is a paste like substance that has been developed from battlefield medical practice that clots wounds far better than any previous products, but this particular innovation was infinitely cheaper to develop than the F-22.
The point is, when budgets are constrained, research becomes more cost effective. Only the projects with more conservative outlays get funding, which is a good thing, since the payout is usually much better in a proportional sense.
Clearly, the military only cares to a certain degree about minimizing casualties among its own soldiers.
Most of the research we currently do involves very expensive vehicles or cutting edge weapons, and while these things do help our soldiers, clearly, the emphasis is not specifically on protecting soldiers as much as it is having better equipment to work with -- which is not always the same goal.
Granted, drone technology may remove the need for soldiers on the actual battlefield.
Well, a company with foresight diversifies. That's what Boeing did. They've cut back on what percentage of their income is dependent on defense projects.lowing wrote:
Gotta disagree. A company like boeing, and the satellite companies most definitely stimulate an economy. Shut one down and tell me what happens.Turquoise wrote:
Even though Boeing and other companies like that are private, they highly depend on government money. Because of this dependency, they don't stimulate the economy the same way that an industry with a purely private income source would.lowing wrote:
didn't say govt.... Boeing for example produces jobs, along with boeing suppliers, metal factories that supply the suppliers, and on down the line
Most successful companies have to rely at least partially on the private market to stay afloat. This is why defense contractors without a purely commercial sector will either suffer during peacetime or instead spend shitloads on lobbyism to keep the money flowing in their direction from the government.
We used to cut back defense spending then lose an unnecessarily large number of men when hostilities break out because we weren't prepared. You can cut 300 bil off of that though once the two wars end. Truth is though, spending is going to continue to rise, we can not slip back into another post Vietnam era military, Army needs a complete refit, Air Force's median age on its fighter force is around 22 years if I remember correctly, Navy is plowing around the ocean in 30 year old ships that are much less advanced then what even small military's are using now(think Italy). Sure, we have a bunch of aircraft carriers, but they are going to be raped the first time we run into an adversary that left the 70's. Christ, on the Tico cruisers some of the computers being used were produced back in the 70's. The Iraq/Afghan war's stripped the military of one of its regular upgrades, just like Vietnam did 40 years ago.
In a world where wars are won and lost in days or weeks, not the years or decades of 50+ years ago, we need a large, standing, well equipped, well trained military. That means no draft, increased procurement and training spending, and massive bills to repair all the damages suffered in the past 9 years. Think the military of 75-80, thats the direction we are heading now, and its going to take A LOT of money to turn that around.
For example the Army lost its Future Combat Systems program (probably for the best)and infantry small arms replacement. Air Force lost its 2018 bomber, got its "high-risk" force of F-22's(no where near enough to replace the F-15's it is supposed to), lost the program to upgrade the nuclear weapons force. Navy lost out on the new cruisers and destroyers(understandably, they were absurdly expensive), and programs to replace subs (luckily they were able to get the 4 Ohio's converted to SSGN's) and is using the F-18 for virtually every mission( a plane in the first place that was only designed to be field for a short time until a better replacement came up).
Personally, I wouldn't really give a shit, except in 20 years, when we run into an adversary that kicks our ass, the Senators are going to pull the Joint Chiefs and the others who were in charge of the respective territorial commands, and grill them, and roast them. The politicians will make a bunch of statements in the cameras, and feign outrage at why so many lost their lives(hell, maybe this time, they might not be acting if they actually feel in danger). But the truth will be, the money wasn't spent now, so our asses got kicked, so we can either pull a WWII(except in this case, expect the battles to be much much shorter, and the procurement times much much longer). Casualties will be higher, spending will be levels beyond our worst nightmares, and attrition levels will be absurd(we have mastered killing each other like nothing else).
In a world where wars are won and lost in days or weeks, not the years or decades of 50+ years ago, we need a large, standing, well equipped, well trained military. That means no draft, increased procurement and training spending, and massive bills to repair all the damages suffered in the past 9 years. Think the military of 75-80, thats the direction we are heading now, and its going to take A LOT of money to turn that around.
For example the Army lost its Future Combat Systems program (probably for the best)and infantry small arms replacement. Air Force lost its 2018 bomber, got its "high-risk" force of F-22's(no where near enough to replace the F-15's it is supposed to), lost the program to upgrade the nuclear weapons force. Navy lost out on the new cruisers and destroyers(understandably, they were absurdly expensive), and programs to replace subs (luckily they were able to get the 4 Ohio's converted to SSGN's) and is using the F-18 for virtually every mission( a plane in the first place that was only designed to be field for a short time until a better replacement came up).
Personally, I wouldn't really give a shit, except in 20 years, when we run into an adversary that kicks our ass, the Senators are going to pull the Joint Chiefs and the others who were in charge of the respective territorial commands, and grill them, and roast them. The politicians will make a bunch of statements in the cameras, and feign outrage at why so many lost their lives(hell, maybe this time, they might not be acting if they actually feel in danger). But the truth will be, the money wasn't spent now, so our asses got kicked, so we can either pull a WWII(except in this case, expect the battles to be much much shorter, and the procurement times much much longer). Casualties will be higher, spending will be levels beyond our worst nightmares, and attrition levels will be absurd(we have mastered killing each other like nothing else).
The best thing to cut in the military budget is bureaucracy. This means laying off a lot of personnel, but some of the resulting savings could be used to provide better armor to infantry.lowing wrote:
a different topic all together, one I can agree with. However all of theose things you talk about comes from the defense budget that you want to cut.Turquoise wrote:
Well, for the most part, that's already available. We have a massive military presense in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and while our casualties are relatively low, they could be even lower if our soldiers had better body armor (which is already available) and better armor on their Humvees and such (which is also readily available).lowing wrote:
heard about that, and it is a great product, however, the R and D I was referring entailed giving the soldier the upper hand to prevent him from needing a blood clotting substance in the first place.
Clearly, the military only cares to a certain degree about minimizing casualties among its own soldiers.
Most of the research we currently do involves very expensive vehicles or cutting edge weapons, and while these things do help our soldiers, clearly, the emphasis is not specifically on protecting soldiers as much as it is having better equipment to work with -- which is not always the same goal.
Granted, drone technology may remove the need for soldiers on the actual battlefield.
THat is nothing new, Boeing was founded on both military and commercial production. they didn't just decide to do that.Turquoise wrote:
Well, a company with foresight diversifies. That's what Boeing did. They've cut back on what percentage of their income is dependent on defense projects.lowing wrote:
Gotta disagree. A company like boeing, and the satellite companies most definitely stimulate an economy. Shut one down and tell me what happens.Turquoise wrote:
Even though Boeing and other companies like that are private, they highly depend on government money. Because of this dependency, they don't stimulate the economy the same way that an industry with a purely private income source would.
Most successful companies have to rely at least partially on the private market to stay afloat. This is why defense contractors without a purely commercial sector will either suffer during peacetime or instead spend shitloads on lobbyism to keep the money flowing in their direction from the government.
You are drifting for mthe topic at hand, a strong national defense and how one is maintained while enforcing your desire to drastically cut its budget.
Streamlining excess personnel is not the cutting of defense spending you were referring to. Although I have no problem with this as long as defense stays a top priority.Turquoise wrote:
The best thing to cut in the military budget is bureaucracy. This means laying off a lot of personnel, but some of the resulting savings could be used to provide better armor to infantry.lowing wrote:
a different topic all together, one I can agree with. However all of theose things you talk about comes from the defense budget that you want to cut.Turquoise wrote:
Well, for the most part, that's already available. We have a massive military presense in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and while our casualties are relatively low, they could be even lower if our soldiers had better body armor (which is already available) and better armor on their Humvees and such (which is also readily available).
Clearly, the military only cares to a certain degree about minimizing casualties among its own soldiers.
Most of the research we currently do involves very expensive vehicles or cutting edge weapons, and while these things do help our soldiers, clearly, the emphasis is not specifically on protecting soldiers as much as it is having better equipment to work with -- which is not always the same goal.
Granted, drone technology may remove the need for soldiers on the actual battlefield.
Exactly, its what keeps us ahead of everyone else. I can't wait until the anti-gravity tech comes out.lowing wrote:
Well lets see, aircraft technology filters to the private sector, medical, vehicle, IT, all transfers to the private sector. In fact, in one form or another, it ALL transfers to the private sector, even space shit, So you support a strong national defense good to have you on board.Diesel_dyk wrote:
The only reasonable justification for high defense spending is R&D.
Its the backdoor way that the govt subsidizes US industries to keep the country ahead of the technological curve.
You spend tax payers money to develop new technologies and eventually you leak that development into the consumer sector.
And the WTO and other trade agreements don't see it as a subsidy for trade war purposes because its defense spending.
You see, we are more socialistic than you think, the private sector doesn't develop squat. Jet planes, computers, nuclear power, nuclear batteries, plastics etc etc, if its new expensive high tech, then it was a tax payer funded program that paid for it.
Other than that, defense spending has a lot of meat on the bone for cutting when the time for cuts comes around. They are no sacred cow.
What I don't support is privatization of the military, ie blackwater and friends. They cost us too much, and when the two wars wind up, I really hope that we stop paying them.
I think that's a bit paranoid.Commie Killer wrote:
We used to cut back defense spending then lose an unnecessarily large number of men when hostilities break out because we weren't prepared. You can cut 300 bil off of that though once the two wars end. Truth is though, spending is going to continue to rise, we can not slip back into another post Vietnam era military, Army needs a complete refit, Air Force's median age on its fighter force is around 22 years if I remember correctly, Navy is plowing around the ocean in 30 year old ships that are much less advanced then what even small military's are using now(think Italy). Sure, we have a bunch of aircraft carriers, but they are going to be raped the first time we run into an adversary that left the 70's. Christ, on the Tico cruisers some of the computers being used were produced back in the 70's. The Iraq/Afghan war's stripped the military of one of its regular upgrades, just like Vietnam did 40 years ago.
In a world where wars are won and lost in days or weeks, not the years or decades of 50+ years ago, we need a large, standing, well equipped, well trained military. That means no draft, increased procurement and training spending, and massive bills to repair all the damages suffered in the past 9 years. Think the military of 75-80, thats the direction we are heading now, and its going to take A LOT of money to turn that around.
For example the Army lost its Future Combat Systems program (probably for the best)and infantry small arms replacement. Air Force lost its 2018 bomber, got its "high-risk" force of F-22's(no where near enough to replace the F-15's it is supposed to), lost the program to upgrade the nuclear weapons force. Navy lost out on the new cruisers and destroyers(understandably, they were absurdly expensive), and programs to replace subs (luckily they were able to get the 4 Ohio's converted to SSGN's) and is using the F-18 for virtually every mission( a plane in the first place that was only designed to be field for a short time until a better replacement came up).
Personally, I wouldn't really give a shit, except in 20 years, when we run into an adversary that kicks our ass, the Senators are going to pull the Joint Chiefs and the others who were in charge of the respective territorial commands, and grill them, and roast them. The politicians will make a bunch of statements in the cameras, and feign outrage at why so many lost their lives(hell, maybe this time, they might not be acting if they actually feel in danger). But the truth will be, the money wasn't spent now, so our asses got kicked, so we can either pull a WWII(except in this case, expect the battles to be much much shorter, and the procurement times much much longer). Casualties will be higher, spending will be levels beyond our worst nightmares, and attrition levels will be absurd(we have mastered killing each other like nothing else).
It's much more reasonable to assume that you can handle most conflicts multilaterally with a small but well-equipped force rather than having a standing army larger than everyone else's. In fact, that's kind of the way we already operate.
It's our technology that puts us ahead. Yes, it is true that we have aging fleets, but even that can be fixed in a cost effective manner if we simply accept that the number of planes and ships don't matter as much as the technology on each does.
Yes, but there was a time when they were shifting more towards defense projects. They got somewhat burned by that, and so now they're back to moving toward the private sector.lowing wrote:
THat is nothing new, Boeing was founded on both military and commercial production. they didn't just decide to do that.Turquoise wrote:
Well, a company with foresight diversifies. That's what Boeing did. They've cut back on what percentage of their income is dependent on defense projects.lowing wrote:
Gotta disagree. A company like boeing, and the satellite companies most definitely stimulate an economy. Shut one down and tell me what happens.
Most successful companies have to rely at least partially on the private market to stay afloat. This is why defense contractors without a purely commercial sector will either suffer during peacetime or instead spend shitloads on lobbyism to keep the money flowing in their direction from the government.
You are drifting for mthe topic at hand, a strong national defense and how one is maintained while enforcing your desire to drastically cut its budget.
Body armor can always be improved, but currently, the HMMWV uparmor is pointless. Its being replaced in the next few years, by a vehicle that is actually designed for combat, unlike the HMMWV.Turquoise wrote:
Well, for the most part, that's already available. We have a massive military presense in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and while our casualties are relatively low, they could be even lower if our soldiers had better body armor (which is already available) and better armor on their Humvees and such (which is also readily available).lowing wrote:
heard about that, and it is a great product, however, the R and D I was referring entailed giving the soldier the upper hand to prevent him from needing a blood clotting substance in the first place.Turquoise wrote:
Research comes in many forms. Not everything the military experiments with is ridiculously expensive.
For example, there is a paste like substance that has been developed from battlefield medical practice that clots wounds far better than any previous products, but this particular innovation was infinitely cheaper to develop than the F-22.
The point is, when budgets are constrained, research becomes more cost effective. Only the projects with more conservative outlays get funding, which is a good thing, since the payout is usually much better in a proportional sense.
Clearly, the military only cares to a certain degree about minimizing casualties among its own soldiers.
Most of the research we currently do involves very expensive vehicles or cutting edge weapons, and while these things do help our soldiers, clearly, the emphasis is not specifically on protecting soldiers as much as it is having better equipment to work with -- which is not always the same goal.
Granted, drone technology may remove the need for soldiers on the actual battlefield.
People are stuck on the idea that the majority of wars are going to be unconventional, and its probably going to take till 2015-2018 to realize that that is changing. We're going back into the conventional field, the trick is to have forces that can go both ways though, in the Stryyker we have that. Interestingly the 2nd ID proved that it can be used effectively against heavy armor, troops carrying FGM-148's will provide the knock out punch needed to win a stand up fight, albeit we higher casualties.
I can't disagree with that.Diesel_dyk wrote:
Exactly, its what keeps us ahead of everyone else. I can't wait until the anti-gravity tech comes out.lowing wrote:
Well lets see, aircraft technology filters to the private sector, medical, vehicle, IT, all transfers to the private sector. In fact, in one form or another, it ALL transfers to the private sector, even space shit, So you support a strong national defense good to have you on board.Diesel_dyk wrote:
The only reasonable justification for high defense spending is R&D.
Its the backdoor way that the govt subsidizes US industries to keep the country ahead of the technological curve.
You spend tax payers money to develop new technologies and eventually you leak that development into the consumer sector.
And the WTO and other trade agreements don't see it as a subsidy for trade war purposes because its defense spending.
You see, we are more socialistic than you think, the private sector doesn't develop squat. Jet planes, computers, nuclear power, nuclear batteries, plastics etc etc, if its new expensive high tech, then it was a tax payer funded program that paid for it.
Other than that, defense spending has a lot of meat on the bone for cutting when the time for cuts comes around. They are no sacred cow.
What I don't support is privatization of the military, ie blackwater and friends. They cost us too much, and when the two wars wind up, I really hope that we stop paying them.
Wrong, historically Boeing has been on the cutting edge of commerical air travel as well as military aircraft. It has never neglected one for the other.Turquoise wrote:
Yes, but there was a time when they were shifting more towards defense projects. They got somewhat burned by that, and so now they're back to moving toward the private sector.lowing wrote:
THat is nothing new, Boeing was founded on both military and commercial production. they didn't just decide to do that.Turquoise wrote:
Well, a company with foresight diversifies. That's what Boeing did. They've cut back on what percentage of their income is dependent on defense projects.
Most successful companies have to rely at least partially on the private market to stay afloat. This is why defense contractors without a purely commercial sector will either suffer during peacetime or instead spend shitloads on lobbyism to keep the money flowing in their direction from the government.
You are drifting for mthe topic at hand, a strong national defense and how one is maintained while enforcing your desire to drastically cut its budget.
This is an honest question. Why do you think we're headed back to conventional warfare?Commie Killer wrote:
Body armor can always be improved, but currently, the HMMWV uparmor is pointless. Its being replaced in the next few years, by a vehicle that is actually designed for combat, unlike the HMMWV.Turquoise wrote:
Well, for the most part, that's already available. We have a massive military presense in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and while our casualties are relatively low, they could be even lower if our soldiers had better body armor (which is already available) and better armor on their Humvees and such (which is also readily available).lowing wrote:
heard about that, and it is a great product, however, the R and D I was referring entailed giving the soldier the upper hand to prevent him from needing a blood clotting substance in the first place.
Clearly, the military only cares to a certain degree about minimizing casualties among its own soldiers.
Most of the research we currently do involves very expensive vehicles or cutting edge weapons, and while these things do help our soldiers, clearly, the emphasis is not specifically on protecting soldiers as much as it is having better equipment to work with -- which is not always the same goal.
Granted, drone technology may remove the need for soldiers on the actual battlefield.
People are stuck on the idea that the majority of wars are going to be unconventional, and its probably going to take till 2015-2018 to realize that that is changing. We're going back into the conventional field, the trick is to have forces that can go both ways though, in the Stryyker we have that. Interestingly the 2nd ID proved that it can be used effectively against heavy armor, troops carrying FGM-148's will provide the knock out punch needed to win a stand up fight, albeit we higher casualties.
Well, the same friend who provided this article to me would beg to differ. He works for Boeing. I can't give too many details, but let's just say he's seen firsthand what trying to complete a major defense contract is like, and it's not pleasant.lowing wrote:
Wrong, historically Boeing has been on the cutting edge of commerical air travel as well as military aircraft. It has never neglected one for the other.Turquoise wrote:
Yes, but there was a time when they were shifting more towards defense projects. They got somewhat burned by that, and so now they're back to moving toward the private sector.lowing wrote:
THat is nothing new, Boeing was founded on both military and commercial production. they didn't just decide to do that.
You are drifting for mthe topic at hand, a strong national defense and how one is maintained while enforcing your desire to drastically cut its budget.
Private sector contracts are much more stable and easier to manage, because airlines don't have the same kind of leverage that Congress does. When Congress adds a responsibility onto a project, they can keep the price the same as before. When a contractor tries to land a defense contract in the first place, they usually low-ball the estimate to undercut the competition.
Things tend to snowball from that point onward, because of the fickle nature of Congress.
I'm not taking the bait.Turquoise wrote:
I think that's a bit paranoid.
It's much more reasonable to assume that you can handle most conflicts multilaterally with a small but well-equipped force rather than having a standing army larger than everyone else's. In fact, that's kind of the way we already operate.
It's our technology that puts us ahead. Yes, it is true that we have aging fleets, but even that can be fixed in a cost effective manner if we simply accept that the number of planes and ships don't matter as much as the technology on each does.
We're going to have to accept that the first time we run into a well equipped advasary, we are going to take heavy casualties. Think WESTPAC, if China, today, decides to go to war, most of our planes are going to be destroyed on the ground by IRBM's, port facilities too. I'm a big believer in quality over quantity, and I think the size we have right now is just about perfect, but quantity does have a quality of its own.
Ground level, soldier level, we are still using roughly the same equipment we used in Desert Storm, and there is no doubt that equipment performed amazingly(taking out an entire military in 100 hours is without compare), but we seemed to have stopped at that level, while the rest of the world kept going.