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.
Obama is not "giving up" on defense. He and Gates wants to change spending priorities from large weapons programs to spec ops and intelligence gathering platforms. We should make changes but there is no need to completely stop production of F-22 which would leave us way too vulnerable to next gen fighter aircraft from Russia and China.
Sounds like Rumsfield's plan. I didn't say give up on all defense. Too many people lose track of the many inventions that are in use today that come from the cutting edge defense spending.
I pay plenty attention, I work for defense and specifically with the procurement process and trying to make it less terrible, so don't go lording that crap over me. I've seen where the money goes and how terrible the process is.
They already have whichever ones they procured so it's not like the 187 planes they already purchased have been scrapped. They can spend the ludicrous amount of money that they already blew on F-22s maintaining F-15s. If they want to blow money on a fighter that is never used because they don't want to lose it in combat because it's too god damn expensive or the situation to use them doesn't exist they can just buy more B-2s.
Meanwhile China has increased spending on defense by double digit % points for the past 11 years. We're going to need something unless you want our military to erode like we allowed all the way up to the 80's.
Meanwhile China has increased spending on defense by double digit % points for the past 11 years. We're going to need something unless you want our military to erode like we allowed all the way up to the 80's.
If we get into a war with China we have way more problems than military might, sorry to say.
You are welcome to match them in spending or whatever, but since military spending didn't really help the soviet union maintain power I don't see how that helps the US maintain power.
It's also good to see the next boogeyman is in fact China and that we're "over" terrorism.
And still far superior to the capabilities of many of our enemies..
Against the latest Sukhoi fighters not so sure about being superior.
I think what will happen with the F-15 is the same that happened with the F-14. The plane will just fall apart and they'll have to retire it earlier than expected.
If we get into a war with China we have way more problems than military might, sorry to say.
You are welcome to match them in spending or whatever, but since military spending didn't really help the soviet union maintain power I don't see how that helps the US maintain power.
It's also good to see the next boogeyman is in fact China and that we're "over" terrorism.
None of this makes sense. Of course it didn't help Rusian, in Reagan's words: "you'll never win the arms race Mike." Gorbachev: "Why." Reagan: "Because we will out spend you..."
Obama removed any of those options by obligating us even further to China and decreasing any room we had to jiggle. But hey those insolvent banks are still running.... sorta.
If we get into a war with China we have way more problems than military might, sorry to say.
You are welcome to match them in spending or whatever, but since military spending didn't really help the soviet union maintain power I don't see how that helps the US maintain power.
Let me ask you this:
Would you rather spend $10 billion on a 100 more F-22s that could deter any aggression by China/Russia or end up spending hundreds of billions (likely trillions) in an actual fight. I like the smaller figure. I know war with Russia/China is unlikely but government and the DOD must be prepared for all contingencies.
Would you rather spend $10 billion on a 100 more F-22s that could deter any aggression by China/Russia or end up spending hundreds of billions (possibly trillions) in an actual fight. I like the smaller figure.
Or they can just say eff it and fire nukes. As I said if there is direct non-proxy war aggression from China or Russia we have bigger fish to fry than the F-22 getting scrapped. We've already blown trillions of dollars on paranoia and this would have been more of the same.
Or they can just say eff it and fire nukes. As I said if there is direct non-proxy war aggression from China or Russia we have bigger fish to fry than the F-22 getting scrapped. We've already blown trillions of dollars on paranoia and this would have been more of the same.
SDI was paranoia too huh? The only other viable option was, after the first nuke the correct answer is to blow everything else up on earth.
SDI was paranoia too huh? The only other viable option was, after the first nuke the correct answer is to blow everything else up on earth.
What? You're comparing something that would be used in a traditional World War 2 style war to nuclear weapons? You sure you wanna go down that route BigJon?
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.
