Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
pghquest - some sample comments from today's KCNA of DPRK:
Quote:
Should the U.S. conservative hard-liners push the situation on the peninsula and the DPRK-U.S. relations to the worst phase, doggedly opposed to the negotiated solution of the issue, the U.S. will be held wholly responsible for the ensuing catastrophic consequences, warns the commentary.
Quote:
The U.S. had better drop its wild design to dominate the world by force, pondering over the catastrophic consequences to be entailed by its reckless military build-up.
The U.S. imperialist aggressor forces and the south Korean forces committed at least 200 cases of aerial espionage against the DPRK in March with strategic and tactical reconnaissance planes of different missions, aggravating the situation of the Korean Peninsula, according to a military source.
More than 110 cases were made by the U.S. imperialist warmongers and 90 odd cases by the south Korean forces.
Quote:
Denouncing the south Korean authorities' moves to build the missile defense system, it said that such action would spark off an arms race and create an acute war crisis in Northeast Asia.
It may be laughable to you that the NorKs would consider launching an attack against the US (or Japan or South Korea), but they don't think like you...
Ok I'll accept that but the DARPA Net was never expected to be used by us civilians. The actual Internet is an accident.
I mostly object to the abuses of government contracting like "no bid" contracts and nearly inexcusable budget creep and cost overruns. This is nothing but corporate welfare at its worst.
I will also add that the increasing complexity reduces reliability. For example when I was in 'Nam in 1966 I was given the choice of an M-16 or an old pump action shotgun. I picked the shotgun because it would always fire when I pulled the trigger and anybody hit stayed down. IMHO a slower manual .72 caliber carbine was a better weapon than a .22 caliber automatic rifle. What I really wanted was a Thompson or a M-3 grease gun. Actually, looking back, I really could have used an AK-47 with a drum magazine but the other side thought of it first. Too bad, the AK is a really good assault rifle.
One of the aspects to Defense spending is the byproducts of the research, as is the case with NASA too.
However, the cost overrun problem is still extensive.
Also, in addition to Ken's acquisition process insights I want to add that the cost of continued logistical support for overaged weapon systems, still needed due to these failed acquisitions, is also a significant cost.
Yes it is.
As a weapon system ages it requires more and more maintenence. The LAST B-52 delivered (for example) came into the Air Forces' hands in 1962 - nearly 50 years ago. Failure to come up with a suitable replacement in sufficient numbers means that these aging workhorses are STLL in the first line of defense.
Yes it is.
As a weapon system ages it requires more and more maintenence. The LAST B-52 delivered (for example) came into the Air Forces' hands in 1962 - nearly 50 years ago. Failure to come up with a suitable replacement in sufficient numbers means that these aging workhorses are STLL in the first line of defense.
Ken
And as the weapons age, they are upgraded. Part of the massive cost beyond that disclosed in the subject GAO report about acquisition cost overruns is the cost of retrofitting changes on these old weapons.
I suspect the North Koreans have all those weapons because they live next to CHINA. I wonder if the Koreans would attack us if the Chinese attacked them? How would we react if the Chinese did attack NK and promised to stop at the border between North and South Korea? Or if the Chinese promised but didn't stop until they completely occupied South Korea?
In any of these cases our DOD contractors would scream poverty and demand more money for ineffective weapons. This is all part of the administration’s endless war policy.
In any of these cases our DOD contractors would scream poverty and demand more money for ineffective weapons. This is all part of the administration’s endless war policy.
This problem significantly predates this administration. I am aware of it all the way back to Nixon.
Ok I'll accept that but the DARPA Net was never expected to be used by us civilians. The actual Internet is an accident.
I mostly object to the abuses of government contracting like "no bid" contracts and nearly inexcusable budget creep and cost overruns. This is nothing but corporate welfare at its worst.
I will also add that the increasing complexity reduces reliability. For example when I was in 'Nam in 1966 I was given the choice of an M-16 or an old pump action shotgun. I picked the shotgun because it would always fire when I pulled the trigger and anybody hit stayed down. IMHO a slower manual .72 caliber carbine was a better weapon than a .22 caliber automatic rifle. What I really wanted was a Thompson or a M-3 grease gun. Actually, looking back, I really could have used an AK-47 with a drum magazine but the other side thought of it first. Too bad, the AK is a really good assault rifle.
Yeah, you have a valid argument. The US philosophy regarding weapons development and procurement has long been "fewer, more advanced units are better than more, less advanced units". Though costs of this sort of approach are high, SO FAR it has USUALLY paid off on the battlefield (not always).
Take for example the M-1 Tank. It was extremely expensive and had a whole host of problems when it was introduced and I remember shows like 60 Minutes lambasting the project and it's enormous cost overruns. They considered it too complicated, too expensive and too unreliable.
However, as the first Gulf War showed, it made mincemeat of the competition in battle. The ability to maintain a stable firing platform and shoot while on the go - even while bouncing up and down like a yoyo - and still HIT what you are shooting at proved to be an ENORMOUS advantage. No matter HOW the tank bounces up and down, the gun ALWAYS remains fixed on the target with a computer compensating for the motion of the vehicle This means you can fire while "on the go" rather than needing to stop and take aim (which makes you a stable - and easy to hit target for the enemy). When the M1 first encountered the Iraq T-72's (a very modern tank) for example, roughly 200 Iraqi tanks were lost without the loss of a SINGLE M1. To this day, even after both wars in Iraq, a mere handful of M1s have been lost - so that philosophy of "fewer, more advanced units" CAN pay off.
As mentioned however, there IS risk in this approach, and sometimes you are going to spend a ton of money and time and still come up with a dud. This is true whenever you are pushing the envelope with technology. Not all ideas are going to pan out and failure is sometimes a fact of life.
Ken
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
