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.
I know you don't like wild goose chases but if you're in defense you really should keep up better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinkieMcGee
Why were there no nukes fired before the 80s and after WW2?
Mutual destruction was good for Atheist, you'd put your life and the lives of your children in the hands of Islamic extremist who think dying for Allah will get them 72 virgins? I'm betting against you if you do... just for the record. Your only option leaves no option but that mutual destruction. You'd rather avenge lives than to save them.
Our troops will continue to be the best equiped and best trained in the world...
We don't need outrageously expensive systems like the F22 or B1 - they are so astronomically expensive that they can only be bought in very small numbers.. The B1 is over $1BILLION a copy, the F22 is in the hundreds of millions!!! Talk about the insanity of the military industrial complex...
I am proud that Obama has the courage to stand up to the powerful military contractor lobbyists... and to can these systems..
They were built to fight a foe that no longer exists...
Besides, the future of airial warfare is in UNMANNED aircraft - which in a few short years - will be able to fly circles around the best fighter jock in the most lethal fighter... So why continue to pour hundreds of billions into technology that will soon be overwhelmingly eclispesd by unmanned fighters and bombers???
The future of the Air Force lies with kids who today are great with computer video games - and who have the hand-eye coordination to control the deadly lethal unmanned attack aircraft of the future...
The fighter jock will go the way of the battleship.
Our troops will continue to be the best equiped and best trained in the world...
We don't need outrageously expensive systems like the F22 or B1 - they are so astronomically expensive that they can only be bought in very small numbers.. The B1 is over $1BILLION a copy, the F22 is in the hundreds of millions!!! Talk about the insanity of the military industrial complex...
I am proud that Obama has the courage to stand up to the powerful military contractor lobbyists... and to can these systems..
They were built to fight a foe that no longer exists...
Besides, the future of airial warfare is in UNMANNED aircraft - which in a few short years - will be able to fly circles around the best fighter jock in the most lethal fighter... So why continue to pour hundreds of billions into technology that will soon be overwhelmingly eclispesd by unmanned fighters and bombers???
The future of the Air Force lies with kids who today are great with computer video games - and who have the hand-eye coordination to control the deadly lethal unmanned attack aircraft of the future...
The fighter jock will go the way of the battleship.
I don't disagree with you on the point that unmanned aircraft is the future. Unmanned aircraft are just not there yet in terms of technology and firepower. There is still a need for F-22s which by the way only cost around $135 million per plane now. And more you build the cheaper it gets.
No I'd rather spend much more on more important things. The important part is we stay dominant, unless you trust your freedoms with communist, fascist or any of the various theocracies.
Apparently we have no problems dealing with those types of countries economically. But apparently they are the war hungry savages. Give me a break.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yachtcare
One's enemies usually attack in a manner in which their intended target is least prepared to defend themselves.
We were well prepared for full on frontal assault, that's why we are confronted with asymetrical warfare. When we spend all our $$ preparing to fight a foe that uses guerilla tactics, we will be confronted with the full on frontal assault, once again........
It's the nature of the game, the only feasible means of proper defense is too be prepared for whatever one's enemies can throw at you. Sadly our current economic condition doesnt bode well for the future preparedness of our military.
Wonder how long before the programs for replacement of the space shuttle, and the return to the moon get scrapped?
I agree with most of this, alternatively there are other means to feasible defense such as diplomacy which have been completely ignored over the past decade. Half these countries only armed and threatened to get nukes because they were afraid they were next on the chopping block (and rightfully so). I mean, based on what you have stated it's a futile exercise overall to win via big toys. No amount of spending will buy safety.
But to be fair, there was like a 40 year span where we could have had a land war with Russia and that did not happen. The fact of the matter is that first world nations don't want to enter a war with a lot of casualties and a high price because the citizens won't buy it. This is why large countries stage proxy wars in smaller countries and will continue to do so.
And yeah, I dunno, NASA is probably going to eat it with regards to the budget which is pretty depressing.
Again your diplomacy requires we make a deal with people who balk at the freedoms you enjoy. That's not considered the upper hand and if you were talking to Cesar you just found out who your pack leader is.... Amazing, even the very simple ideas behind training a dog go hand and hand with also training humans. Try training a dog by giving into some things and not others. You'll end up allowing the dog to do whatever it wants. If you want to get what you want they must become submissive. Not likely to happen with love letters...
I don't disagree with you on the point that unmanned aircraft is the future. Unmanned aircraft are just not there yet in terms of technology and firepower. There is still a need for F-22s which by the way only cost around $135 million per plane now. And more you build the cheaper it gets.
ONLY $135 million a copy is quite a ludicrous amount for a single fighter...
I think it makes far more sense to enhance and extend the current F15, F18 and F16 designs - and continue to produce them - with refinements - until unmanned aircraft evolve sufficiently...
The F22 is just way too expensive to field in sufficient numbers to be a mainline fighter... It may be the most advanced - but could be undone by enemy aircraft of lesser capability coming at it in far greater numbers...
I think the DOD has ordered about 280 F22s in total. I say let that production run out and then stop making them...
Put the money you were spending on the F22 and B1 and put it into unmanned fighters - and you will have a far more lethal force...
Again your diplomacy requires we make a deal with people who balk at the freedoms you enjoy. That's not considered the upper hand and if you were talking to Cesar you just found out who your pack leader is.... Amazing, even the very simple ideas behind training a dog go hand and hand with also training humans. Try training a dog by giving into some things and not others. You'll end up allowing the dog to do whatever it wants. If you want to get what you want they must become submissive. Not likely to happen with love letters...
Yes, we played a real hard line with evil communist china by opening trade with them and look how doomed we are now!
In the 1970's Carter also cut defence spending. The end result were ships at sea with outdated technology, malfunctioning systems and poorly trained sailors.
The army was in much the same boat.
The air force and Naval Aviation programs were hurt in the area of training. No money to buy fuel to get hours in the cockpit.
Its cheaper to maintain and to build as you go than it is to have to rebuild as Reagan did.
The USS Eisenhower commissioned under Carter was outfitted with Korean war vintage defence systems..... When we did a missile shoot it was not uncommon for 2 out of 3 missiles to fail to launch. Now we are cutting defence spending with a war on 2 fronts. How do we maintain our military, and adequately support our troops with less money?
In the 1970's Carter also cut defence spending. The end result were ships at sea with outdated technology, malfunctioning systems and poorly trained sailors.
The army was in much the same boat.
The air force and Naval Aviation programs were hurt in the area of training. No money to buy fuel to get hours in the cockpit.
Its cheaper to maintain and to build as you go than it is to have to rebuild as Reagan did.
The USS Eisenhower commissioned under Carter was outfitted with Korean war vintage defence systems..... When we did a missile shoot it was not uncommon for 2 out of 3 missiles to fail to launch. Now we are cutting defence spending with a war on 2 fronts. How do we maintain our military, and adequately support our troops with less money?
If you took 5 seconds to read the article you'd notice that defense spending is going up, but certain wasteful programs are being axed.
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.
