Boeing does not need Congressional approval to R and D and it continues to do so for military as well as commercial applications. They stay on the cutting edge of technology without a specific order for it, just like the govt. should be doing in its military applications. Hense a strong national defense NOT operating on a shoe string budgetTurquoise wrote:
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.
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.
Well, I will agree that the technology gap will certainly close over time, and that can translate to higher casualties, but with the growing interest in drone technology, I'm not sure if that's a realistic expectation.Commie Killer wrote:
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.
Also, when you consider how interdependent the world is becoming economically, warfare is becoming less and less attractive to both the developing and developed world.
Last edited by Turquoise (2010-05-20 17:43:34)
Unconventional is pointless, we are done with the middle east, though I think most don't know it yet. Iran is going no where, they are going to get the bomb, and they won't use it. Africa is going to slowly settle down over the next 20 years, of course, we will still have the standard genocide every few years. If China is in the position is is now 100 years ago, it would control Southeast Asia, Japan, Korea, Siberia, Australia, and portions of India. They understand and know that too, and they also realize that they can't do anything about it at the moment, so they think long term. I'm not going to say were going to have a 1930's Japan on our hands, just a Soviet Union. Its not going to do anything as long as their is a bigger kid on the block to stop it.Turquoise wrote:
This is an honest question. Why do you think we're headed back to conventional warfare?
I'm going to assume you believe we are looking at more unconventional conflicts, so, why do you believe that?
Drone technology can only go so far, the communication links will always be vulnerable, extremely vulnerable, and we will never in our right minds let a weapons platform fire autonomously.Turquoise wrote:
Well, I will agree that the technology gap will certainly close over time, and that can translate to higher casualties, but with the growing interest in drone technology, I'm not sure if that's a realistic expectation.
Also, when you consider how interdependent the world is becoming economically, warfare is becoming less and less attractive to both the developing and developed world.
Last edited by Commie Killer (2010-05-20 17:46:21)
In the private sector, most research is need driven. If Boeing doesn't see an opportunity in successfully marketing some new technology, it's not likely to invest in it.lowing wrote:
Boeing does not need Congressional approval to R and D and it continues to do so for military as well as commercial applications. They stay on the cutting edge of technology without a specific order for it, just like the govt. should be doing in its military applications. Hense a strong national defense NOT operating on a shoe string budgetTurquoise wrote:
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.
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.
By contrast, government research isn't bound by the same laws of supply and demand. There is less of a motivation to focus on what's most marketable. Sometimes, this is a good thing, but in other cases, it leads to waste.
So, in a way, your statement here seems to support the idea of less military spending, because Boeing has already shown that it handles innovation quite well without government interest or funding.
Globalisation and trade has pretty much seen the end of wars as our grandparents knew it. I imagine wars in the future will be much like Iraq.Commie Killer wrote:
Unconventional is pointless, we are done with the middle east, though I think most don't know it yet. Iran is going no where, they are going to get the bomb, and they won't use it. Africa is going to slowly settle down over the next 20 years, of course, we will still have the standard genocide every few years. If China is in the position is is now 100 years ago, it would control Southeast Asia, Japan, Korea, Siberia, Australia, and portions of India. They understand and know that too, and they also realize that they can't do anything about it at the moment, so they think long term. I'm not going to say were going to have a 1930's Japan on our hands, just a Soviet Union. Its not going to do anything as long as their is a bigger kid on the block to stop it.Turquoise wrote:
This is an honest question. Why do you think we're headed back to conventional warfare?
I'm going to assume you believe we are looking at more unconventional conflicts, so, why do you believe that?Drone technology can only go so far, the communication links will always be vulnerable, extremely vulnerable, and we will never in our right minds let a weapons platform fire autonomously.Turquoise wrote:
Well, I will agree that the technology gap will certainly close over time, and that can translate to higher casualties, but with the growing interest in drone technology, I'm not sure if that's a realistic expectation.
Also, when you consider how interdependent the world is becoming economically, warfare is becoming less and less attractive to both the developing and developed world.
Economic interdependence encourages more diplomatic actions than military ones. Countries may argue with each other, but most of the battles that are fought today are in trade policy. Armed conflict is generally something reserved for less stable countries these days. While it is true that we're still engaged in it along with our allies, it's more of a peacekeeping action than anything else. Said missions do not require one major power in charge. All that is needed is multilateral agreement, and in many cases, economic power speaks louder than military might.Commie Killer wrote:
Unconventional is pointless, we are done with the middle east, though I think most don't know it yet. Iran is going no where, they are going to get the bomb, and they won't use it. Africa is going to slowly settle down over the next 20 years, of course, we will still have the standard genocide every few years. If China is in the position is is now 100 years ago, it would control Southeast Asia, Japan, Korea, Siberia, Australia, and portions of India. They understand and know that too, and they also realize that they can't do anything about it at the moment, so they think long term. I'm not going to say were going to have a 1930's Japan on our hands, just a Soviet Union. Its not going to do anything as long as their is a bigger kid on the block to stop it.
I'm going to assume you believe we are looking at more unconventional conflicts, so, why do you believe that?
That being said, the parties most interested in warfare nowadays are radicals. People that hold fanatical, nihilistic views are more likely to engage in guerilla warfare than established countries are for conventional conflicts. The reason for this is a matter of what's at stake to lose.
Fanatics have little to lose and everything to gain from war. Established economies are the opposite because of the debts and negative PR involved.
This is true.Commie Killer wrote:
Drone technology can only go so far, the communication links will always be vulnerable, extremely vulnerable, and we will never in our right minds let a weapons platform fire autonomously.
Boeing just flew the 787 don't think for a second, the 797 isn't being discussed somewhere all without an immediate need. this holds true for the military. Just as it has been proven after WW1 we can ill afford to let out guard down now, just because there is not an immediate need. As I have stated, the world is too fluid for that attitude.Turquoise wrote:
In the private sector, most research is need driven. If Boeing doesn't see an opportunity in successfully marketing some new technology, it's not likely to invest in it.lowing wrote:
Boeing does not need Congressional approval to R and D and it continues to do so for military as well as commercial applications. They stay on the cutting edge of technology without a specific order for it, just like the govt. should be doing in its military applications. Hence a strong national defense NOT operating on a shoe string budgetTurquoise wrote:
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.
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.
By contrast, government research isn't bound by the same laws of supply and demand. There is less of a motivation to focus on what's most marketable. Sometimes, this is a good thing, but in other cases, it leads to waste.
So, in a way, your statement here seems to support the idea of less military spending, because Boeing has already shown that it handles innovation quite well without government interest or funding.
Japan, Korea and India do not like China all that much... I would highly doubt they would want to form an alliance with the Chinese.Commie Killer wrote:
Unconventional is pointless, we are done with the middle east, though I think most don't know it yet. Iran is going no where, they are going to get the bomb, and they won't use it. Africa is going to slowly settle down over the next 20 years, of course, we will still have the standard genocide every few years. If China is in the position is is now 100 years ago, it would control Southeast Asia, Japan, Korea, Siberia, Australia, and portions of India. They understand and know that too, and they also realize that they can't do anything about it at the moment, so they think long term. I'm not going to say were going to have a 1930's Japan on our hands, just a Soviet Union. Its not going to do anything as long as their is a bigger kid on the block to stop it.Turquoise wrote:
This is an honest question. Why do you think we're headed back to conventional warfare?
I'm going to assume you believe we are looking at more unconventional conflicts, so, why do you believe that?Drone technology can only go so far, the communication links will always be vulnerable, extremely vulnerable, and we will never in our right minds let a weapons platform fire autonomously.Turquoise wrote:
Well, I will agree that the technology gap will certainly close over time, and that can translate to higher casualties, but with the growing interest in drone technology, I'm not sure if that's a realistic expectation.
Also, when you consider how interdependent the world is becoming economically, warfare is becoming less and less attractive to both the developing and developed world.
I wasn't speaking of an alliance.Cybargs wrote:
Japan, Korea and India do not like China all that much... I would highly doubt they would want to form an alliance with the Chinese.Commie Killer wrote:
Unconventional is pointless, we are done with the middle east, though I think most don't know it yet. Iran is going no where, they are going to get the bomb, and they won't use it. Africa is going to slowly settle down over the next 20 years, of course, we will still have the standard genocide every few years. If China is in the position is is now 100 years ago, it would control Southeast Asia, Japan, Korea, Siberia, Australia, and portions of India. They understand and know that too, and they also realize that they can't do anything about it at the moment, so they think long term. I'm not going to say were going to have a 1930's Japan on our hands, just a Soviet Union. Its not going to do anything as long as their is a bigger kid on the block to stop it.Turquoise wrote:
This is an honest question. Why do you think we're headed back to conventional warfare?
I'm going to assume you believe we are looking at more unconventional conflicts, so, why do you believe that?Drone technology can only go so far, the communication links will always be vulnerable, extremely vulnerable, and we will never in our right minds let a weapons platform fire autonomously.Turquoise wrote:
Well, I will agree that the technology gap will certainly close over time, and that can translate to higher casualties, but with the growing interest in drone technology, I'm not sure if that's a realistic expectation.
Also, when you consider how interdependent the world is becoming economically, warfare is becoming less and less attractive to both the developing and developed world.
I agree on the economic thing as well, but again, Chinese think long term, very long term, and I would believe they would be willing to take a hit in the short term for the greater economic benefits in the future with the increased territory, info/tech, resources, etc from taking over those territories.
I'm for defense spending that makes us safer rather than spending for defense spending sake (i.e. ever increasing).Trotskygrad wrote:
mandatory conscription/drafting will not go over well tbh.JohnG@lt wrote:
As I've argued before, I agree that we need to drastically shrink our defense spending. FM brings up a very strong point though. Reducing our military would necessitate bringing back the draft, perhaps in a like manner to Israel and Europe.
However, defense spending does need to be shrunk.
I don't see it as letting our guard down though. For example, we could cut our military budget in half and still spend 5 times more than the next biggest spender -- China.lowing wrote:
Boeing just flew the 787 don't think for a second, the 797 isn't being discussed somewhere all without an immediate need. this holds true for the military. Just as it has been proven after WW1 we can ill afford to let out guard down now, just because there is not an immediate need. As I have stated, the world is too fluid for that attitude.Turquoise wrote:
In the private sector, most research is need driven. If Boeing doesn't see an opportunity in successfully marketing some new technology, it's not likely to invest in it.lowing wrote:
Boeing does not need Congressional approval to R and D and it continues to do so for military as well as commercial applications. They stay on the cutting edge of technology without a specific order for it, just like the govt. should be doing in its military applications. Hence a strong national defense NOT operating on a shoe string budget
By contrast, government research isn't bound by the same laws of supply and demand. There is less of a motivation to focus on what's most marketable. Sometimes, this is a good thing, but in other cases, it leads to waste.
So, in a way, your statement here seems to support the idea of less military spending, because Boeing has already shown that it handles innovation quite well without government interest or funding.
There is no rational justification for maintaining such a wide spending berth between us and China, because even if we spent the same amount militarily, it would not be in China's best interests to attack us. They wield far more power against us through purchasing our debt.
Generally speaking, the tactic China more often uses is one of economic imperialism, rather than the military version. They've spent the last century watching us wield our influence through trade policy, and I think, at this point, they've started to overtake us in their prowess at it.Cybargs wrote:
Japan, Korea and India do not like China all that much... I would highly doubt they would want to form an alliance with the Chinese.Commie Killer wrote:
Unconventional is pointless, we are done with the middle east, though I think most don't know it yet. Iran is going no where, they are going to get the bomb, and they won't use it. Africa is going to slowly settle down over the next 20 years, of course, we will still have the standard genocide every few years. If China is in the position is is now 100 years ago, it would control Southeast Asia, Japan, Korea, Siberia, Australia, and portions of India. They understand and know that too, and they also realize that they can't do anything about it at the moment, so they think long term. I'm not going to say were going to have a 1930's Japan on our hands, just a Soviet Union. Its not going to do anything as long as their is a bigger kid on the block to stop it.Turquoise wrote:
This is an honest question. Why do you think we're headed back to conventional warfare?
I'm going to assume you believe we are looking at more unconventional conflicts, so, why do you believe that?Drone technology can only go so far, the communication links will always be vulnerable, extremely vulnerable, and we will never in our right minds let a weapons platform fire autonomously.Turquoise wrote:
Well, I will agree that the technology gap will certainly close over time, and that can translate to higher casualties, but with the growing interest in drone technology, I'm not sure if that's a realistic expectation.
Also, when you consider how interdependent the world is becoming economically, warfare is becoming less and less attractive to both the developing and developed world.
It's usually much more affordable and profitable to control countries through multinational corporations and purchasing vital resources than it is to conquer them via military occupation.
The US are addicted to military spending. How many jobs and tax dollars are creating by military spending?
We need to boost spending.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
So are you going to back that up, or are you just trying to be inflammatory?DBBrinson1 wrote:
We need to boost spending.
a lot tbh, I'm against it, but it creates a sh*tload of jobs.BN wrote:
The US are addicted to military spending. How many jobs and tax dollars are creating by military spending?
It doesn't create jobs...Trotskygrad wrote:
a lot tbh, I'm against it, but it creates a sh*tload of jobs.BN wrote:
The US are addicted to military spending. How many jobs and tax dollars are creating by military spending?
"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
Some of the money would be invested if it went to the private sector.
fine, it provides a shitload of jobs, if they cut spending, people are gonna become unemployed.JohnG@lt wrote:
It doesn't create jobs...Trotskygrad wrote:
a lot tbh, I'm against it, but it creates a sh*tload of jobs.BN wrote:
The US are addicted to military spending. How many jobs and tax dollars are creating by military spending?
Are you using their published figures here?Turquoise wrote:
I don't see it as letting our guard down though. For example, we could cut our military budget in half and still spend 5 times more than the next biggest spender -- China.
It is widely and reasonably believed that China understates their military budget by over 50%.
Sure seemed to during WW2. Not really sure how you can say that national defense does not create jobs.JohnG@lt wrote:
It doesn't create jobs...Trotskygrad wrote:
a lot tbh, I'm against it, but it creates a sh*tload of jobs.BN wrote:
The US are addicted to military spending. How many jobs and tax dollars are creating by military spending?
Dunno about that, but if that were to be true the only reason it would be so is because China would bank on over welming numbers of cheap units vs our high cost technology. THis was also proven in WW2 Germany's equipment 1 on 1 was far superior. They were just out numbered by the sheer amount of units we had to throw at them. Sherman tank vs Panzer as one example.Turquoise wrote:
I don't see it as letting our guard down though. For example, we could cut our military budget in half and still spend 5 times more than the next biggest spender -- China.lowing wrote:
Boeing just flew the 787 don't think for a second, the 797 isn't being discussed somewhere all without an immediate need. this holds true for the military. Just as it has been proven after WW1 we can ill afford to let out guard down now, just because there is not an immediate need. As I have stated, the world is too fluid for that attitude.Turquoise wrote:
In the private sector, most research is need driven. If Boeing doesn't see an opportunity in successfully marketing some new technology, it's not likely to invest in it.
By contrast, government research isn't bound by the same laws of supply and demand. There is less of a motivation to focus on what's most marketable. Sometimes, this is a good thing, but in other cases, it leads to waste.
So, in a way, your statement here seems to support the idea of less military spending, because Boeing has already shown that it handles innovation quite well without government interest or funding.
There is no rational justification for maintaining such a wide spending berth between us and China, because even if we spent the same amount militarily, it would not be in China's best interests to attack us. They wield far more power against us through purchasing our debt.
Your second paragraph is a different matter, and one I can agree with.
America GDP isn't shrinking... It's just other people are rising as economic powers... US defence spending is sitll like what, 3-4% of GDP? It doesn't necessarily take people away from jobs as it's a volunteer military, people have choices and the military also provides a lot of educational grants.
If you're thinking about needing to defend against China then you are forgetting one rather important thing - nukes. America has the ability to wipe the country out within minutes, hours at most. China does not - it keeps its warheads and launchers separate.lowing wrote:
Dunno about that, but if that were to be true the only reason it would be so is because China would bank on over welming numbers of cheap units vs our high cost technology. THis was also proven in WW2 Germany's equipment 1 on 1 was far superior. They were just out numbered by the sheer amount of units we had to throw at them. Sherman tank vs Panzer as one example.Turquoise wrote:
I don't see it as letting our guard down though. For example, we could cut our military budget in half and still spend 5 times more than the next biggest spender -- China.lowing wrote:
Boeing just flew the 787 don't think for a second, the 797 isn't being discussed somewhere all without an immediate need. this holds true for the military. Just as it has been proven after WW1 we can ill afford to let out guard down now, just because there is not an immediate need. As I have stated, the world is too fluid for that attitude.
There is no rational justification for maintaining such a wide spending berth between us and China, because even if we spent the same amount militarily, it would not be in China's best interests to attack us. They wield far more power against us through purchasing our debt.
Your second paragraph is a different matter, and one I can agree with.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
i agree. bring back the draft.