I’ll try to stay off my soapbox, but two points are worth mentioning. First, as noted by McNeal, is that the primary function of the federal government is to provide for the common defense — not health care, green initiatives (readers: please don’t try to combine global warming projections into security, as some are wont to do. It’s lame) and corporate bailouts.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, is the fact that our powerful military exists to prevent a war as much as it exists to win a war. Si vis pacem, para bellum, if you will. One can argue that our strategic nuclear deterrent accomplishes this well enough, but I’m not convinced. I’d rather spend 5%-6% of our GDP on ensuring we never have to suffer through another WWI or WWII. One can argue Vietnam, Iraq, et al… but neither of those conflicts came close to the cost of the major theater level wars — both in lives and treasure lost.
Back in the day, people ridiculed Reagan’s “Peace through strength.” When December 1991 rolled around, no one was laughing.
–John Noonan
The number alone are without meaning.
I will tell you why:
US: almost 700 billion
Red China: 70 billion(official)
At first look it seems that the US is well ahead of the PRC right? WRONG!
Keep in mind that cost for people is half the US budget and then look at the number of troops both countries have:
US: around 1,5 million activ
China: 2,25 million activ
How can China do that? Easy, in China soldiers cost nothing. The US is a highpricecountry where you have to pay the soldiers much more so they can live and even more cause of the free market.
And this is true for everything else. Cost of making weapons,
cause those chinese workers, even the engieers and scientists get nothing compare to their US counterparts.
I’m confused. After all the hatred for Bush pushed by DefenseTech and Noah, you’d think they be elated with Obama.
I mean, how mnany tanks do you *really* need to sing Kumbaya?
Well Well Well
Good Morning Folks,
I think that the point John Nooan is make regarding defense spending as a percentage of GDP or even perhaps the more accurate GNP is really irrelevant. With the current wars demanding more personal and fast emerging battlefield technology the U.S. will be seeing trillion dollar plus defense budgets shortly.
My concern is not the money, it must be spent if the U.S. is to be a world power, but that it is spent wisely and that means for the war(s) we are currently fighting and not on some “what if”, game being played by Admirals and Generals at weekend retreats, or fixed war games paid for by think tanks and defense contractors who have a vested interest in the outcomes.
The weapon systems being questioned are just such systems, over priced, over sized and would have little if any value in resolving and WINNING the three current hot wars we are fighting, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq.
It must be said and it hasn’t yet, is if the U.S. doesn’t win these wars you can forget about planning for the next one. It time for the adults to take over in the DoD and understand this, it is life or death. If this opinion if liberal or conservative I don’t know and if the U.S. can’t win these wars I guess I won’t make any difference anyway.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
One thing I love about this country is reading a pro-military (conservative) blog like this and seeing a fair amount of agreeing comments concerning the (relatively) low level of military spending.
After three tours (just since 9/11), I have yet to see any increase of funding come in my direction. We are STILL flying 40 year old HC-130’s, battered HH-60’s, and were refueled by 1950’s era KC-135s. This is nothing less than atrocious and PROVES that the DoD CANNOT be counted on the spend thier money wisely.
If we cut these rediculously expensive and ineffective programs and just get back to refueling, rearming, and resupplying the forces we have than we could get by with a smaller budget. We’ve been doing more with less for so long I can’t remember when we didn’t have too (i.e. The Cold War).
Here is a short list of things that need to be produced or developed. Like it or not we can’t keep the same old things working forever, and work on future projects has to start somewhere.
–F-15 replacement (need more F-22s)
–F-16 replacement (F-35 is the current plan)
–AV-8B replacement
–KC-135 replacement
–AAVP-7A1 replacement (EFV is current plan)
–Amphibious warfare ships for the USMC
–HMMWV replacement (JLTV and M-ATV)
–M1 Abrams, M2 Bradley, M109A6 PIM maintenance/upgrades (short term)
–New family of armored ground vehicles to replace the above (long term)
–Upgrades to Stryker family for our “light” mechanized units now that FCS Manned Ground Vehicles are canceled.
–A small, frigate/corvette sized ship to fill out the Navy’s numbers and replace the FFG-7s (should have been LCS)
–Eventual replacements for the M4, M16, M249 in both short and long term.
Plus the work on these projects has to start somewhere. If not in these (hopefully only four) Obama years, the administration after his needs to ensure work on these gets started.
F/A-XX (Super Hornet replacement)
Next Generation Bomber
New generation of UAVs (like the X-47B)
CVN(X)
CG(X)
Upgraded DDG-51s or DDG-1000s.
Plus there are other things that would certainly be nice to have.
Ran across a reminder today that more defense spending is not always good defense spending, ESPECIALLY in the case of the Cold War. Remember the $9,600 allen wrenches and the $7,600 coffee pots in the ’80’s?
http://procureinsights.wordpress.com/2007/08/16/dod-procurement-practice-then-and-now-a-public-versus-private-sector-comparison-part-1/
I’m not sure if we can afford to cut defense spending quite as much as the Heritage Foundation thinks we will, but we don’t need a 1982 Pentagon budget to be safe.
Mang, thanks for bringing up that article.
A better link for your article is the original (http://www.dau.mil/pubs/arq/99arq/bessel.pdf) where the link you cited lifted the material directly or indirectly. I agree it is instructive.
Others should note:
1. The info and article is a decade old
2. The info and article/paper are the product of the DoD, so those who might scream ‘wastels’ should acknowledge the effort as a self-policing one.
3. Dr Besselman et al scrupulously note that the topic is about commodities purchases and NOT major weapon systems.
4. One of the best points made in the paper is that even with Six Sigma quality acquisition , given the number of acquisition actions undertaken each year, there could be a handful of disasters (I note here how easily Wankers can use exceptions to falsely claim as evidence of systematic problems)
Highly recommend anything I’ve read by Besselman on the subject.
@Walt… Come on, if you were on some UK Ministry of Defense forum and someone told you “NO FOREIGNERS,” you’d laugh them off. It’s a free internet.
@flying fart… relax, man
Big wars are over. Noonan’s discounting of nuclear weapons doesn’t make that the slightest bit less true. It’s been true for sixty years, so Noonan really shoulda noticed by now. A President and former general of Noonan’s own party said much the same thing, chopping the military’s size over half a century ago, as well (the Republican whose budget Noonan ignored). It’s not going to change anytime in the next sixty years, either, so shouldn’t we be spending smaller and better-targeted amounts for smaller wars.
More money for more people and more training and hospitals and lotsa’n’lotsa V22s — it’s all good, I say. Lotsa F-22’s, though — why?
Here’s a piece from the American Center for Progress on what missile defense the 2010 defense budget will actually cover, which I found informative. Byron Skinner touched on THAAD and some of the other content already. AEGIS sea-based defense gets a 62% budget increase.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/06/credible_missile_defenses.html
The Soviet Union never lost WW3, because it went bankrupt before it could start. Last push was given by Reagan (thanks Ronnie!)and some mujaheddin somewhere. The lesson learned is that you can’t stay a superpower if you don’t have the money. I don’t know if the US government is making the right decisions, but if you can be declared bankrupt by your biggest opponent (China) and you are also fighting some mujaheddin somewhere it’s wise to learn from the Russians. It’s the economy stupid!
PS: but I am Dutch and we Europeans are communist anyway.
I’ve got nothing more to say than to direct you here:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/06/25/misinformation-from-heritage/
Basing government spending on percentage of GDP is logically fallacious, and I thought you were smarter than that.
Yes, the Constitution does indeed invoke a mandate, in the Preamble, to “provide for the common defence” but let’s review the entire paragraph, shall we?
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.“
Defence (sic) is only one out of six such mandates and not even the first.
Of course, one could ask whether an apparently ever-expanding empire really does promote a common defense or simply put us on an eternal war footing, but I’ll leave that to others to debate, as will I leave the current excesses and omissions by our Federal Government and its surrogates.
I simply point out that “defense”, however you define it (or spell it), is not the only function of government. I suspect that puts me in the minority in this forum but so be it.
The Soviet Union never lost WW3, because it went bankrupt before it could start. Last push was given by Reagan (thanks Ronnie!)and some mujaheddin somewhere. ———-
WHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.. dude you have to take history lessons.
Come on!!! we can get to 100 easy! with people like fart and please who make no sence!!!!!!!!!
YES WE CAN!!
roflmao
Well now let
Good Morning Folks,
So much and so little time.
To bambooviper: I haven’t a clue of what you are talking about, you might try introducing a supported point of view some time instead of attacking the person making the statement. Your typical response to anyone here seldom rises above the macho talk of a Middle School play yard. Also if you want to be take seriously use your own name and don’t hide behind childish words, that is of course if you are older then 13.
Wes: How do we differ. All of the “old” systems that you have mentioned a couple over 50 years old have been constantly overhauled and modernized and in fact perform at the levels of the newer systems. The nearly 60 year old M-109 is in it A5 or is it A6 upgrade and is technologically ahead of Crusader, the OH-58 is the 50 year old Bell Ranger and is still able to fill the Army’s Scout requirements, Comanche was neat and I like it but it didn’t give the Army anything it wanted that it didn’t already have in the OH-58, the Stryker is a failed system, I could go on, but I don’t see where we disagree?
eric: Reagan didn’t discover out spending the Soviets would bring about their down fall, you would have to go back to Truman and George C. Marshall. I have yet to find that at anytime during the cold war the Soviets had and advantage militarily over the United States and would like any to show me where I’m in error. The fact is that the Soviets were a hallow threat that was exploited by both our own military and a defense industry that saw the golden egg. So who is going to take up my challenge?
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Our Defense Capability grows weaker in corrolation to the dollar! As we continue to spend wildly and refuse to bring any kind of restraint to existing domestic programs.…we are proving that we can outspend our means! As we continue to float increasingly worthless bonds to some of our friends (? China, Saudi, etc.)we have deluted our financial independence, in the name of maintaining the appearance of strength.
Inconjunction with the spend-more Congress we have nealry wiped out our industrial capacity.…as an example we had great difficulty producing the basic load of rifle ammo at the start of this last dust-up. We have regulated, taxed, lawyered our industry into oblivion and have weakened our industrial capacity along with a rapidly declining middle class.
Now couple all of this with a leftist, envirowacko Congress and White House.…and we have a real problem.
I guess some people missed the rest of it:
”…establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…“
Just because you’re not making money out of it doesn’t mean it isn’t important. If the author insists on throwing these gauntlets, I’ll have to respond. Not that he cares about my Constitution, apparently.
dave, sounds like you are gonna have as miserable a time over the next 8 years as I did during the last 8 :/
Lighten up guys, there is great discussion going on here apart from the ad-hominem attacks!
“The US defense budget is easily affordable and should be increased.”???
How is it possible to think so as long as federal budget and trade balance have a deficit?
You can think away some ‘entitlement’ expenses, but that’s no ceteris paribus change. Half of the ‘entitlements’ flows back as taxes and there are many other effects (that’s their purpose).
So you cannot really cut the deficit by 1 $ by cutting ‘entitlements’ by 1 $. It’s more like 30–40 cents and 1$. Plus you get some social troubles.
In the end it looks as if the defence budget is NOT affordable (especially if you think about setting aside reserves for the $ 30 trillion you mentioned).
To the poster “flying fart proudly joned”:
The Truth is: What doomed Communism in the Eastern countries (since the very beginning) was lack of oil and lack of wheat, never lack of weapons or even of soldiers. Militarily, the Soviets could have had (or at least destroyed) all of Europe beyond the Oder-Nei?e-Line whenever they wanted, driving right over the faces of the U.S. American First Army’s V Corps, and there was nothing you could have done to stop them.
.….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….…
To the poster Mr. Byron Skinner:
You wrote: “I have yet to find that at anytime during the cold war the Soviets had and advantage militarily over the United States and would like any to show me where I’m in error.“
AAARGHH … ??! Which weapons did the Soviet Union have in smaller numbers than the U.S.A., except maybe aircraft carriers and heavy bombers?
Excuse me, Sir, but you officially reached the age limit for pos(t)ing in this forum. You have to leave.
Good Morning Folks,
To FFB other the spitting old generalizations you have said nothing. The fact that American forces chose not to trash a country when we invade is testimony to our values. The old Soviets with their Victories in Afghanistan and Chechnya show what they leave behind.
As far as the numbers of troops that you stated recent disclosures show that the “Regular Soviet Army” was somewhat smaller the American Army. With the majority of troops stationed on the Chinese border, where they still are and in the Eastern European countries where after Hungary 1956 the Soviet became obsessed that an uprising would succeed. The majority of their troop count were two year conscripts and reservist who had no formal military training. The U.S. never counted our NG in out troop counts.
On tanks, depot record show that from the late 1960’s on the Soviets had about 3800 T64B and higher number hauls ready for service. Not the 10–20,000 that the US DoD claimed they had. Their daily red line ran about 30–40%. The only meeting of U.S. crewed M-60’s, crewed by USMC, and Soviet T-72 was in Kuwait and nearly all the T-72’s were destroyed in Tank on Tank but none of the M-60’s.
As for combat the Soviet Army never ventured out side of it’s own borders when attacking a country. The U.S. military was and still is a world wide force.
The USN is a true “Blue Water Navy” the Soviet fleets were never more then costal defense forces. The Soviet submarine fleet was never and still isn’t al all Nuclear force with boats at sea 24/7/365.
The Soviets never had a nuclear first strike ability and still don’t today. The U.S. form the end of WW II had first strike with bombers based in Norway, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan and Japan as well as in Alaska. Soviet missiles never and still don’t have the alert status that the U.S. has.
Since you are so critical of the U.S. military I assume you to be a career member of the U.S. armed forces. So as well as using you own name please identify witch branch and war you served in, I’m sure many of us would be interested.
On Tanks which during the cold war were lead to believe the Soviets had 10-20K ready to go, well actual depot counts of available Soviet durning most of the cold was about 3800 and that number declined during the 1990’s. All Soviet and now Russian tanks, including the T-90, are variants of the 1960’s era T-64 haul, guns, turrets and all still have manual fire control systems.
As for the age issue, if you level of intellect is typical of what the next generation, the country is really in trouble.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
A country has to be an economic superpower before a country is a military superpower.
Good Morning FFB,
I see that you have assembled all the old cold war propaganda numbers. I’m not even go to bother to amuse myself with disputing them.
Again how about a name, only faceless cowards and conservatives hid behind silly little made up names, be a man, if you are you could be a woman I guess but most of them seem to be more rational then you seem to be. I guess through you latest extensive efforts I have to ask who is paying you. Since I got you so excited somebody feels threatened out there.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Sven Ortmann said (in reply to my post) — In the end it looks as if the defence budget is NOT affordable (especially if you think about setting aside reserves for the $ 30 trillion you mentioned).
That’s quite the logical fallacy. It is like the drug addict saying I can’t afford food because of the cost of cocaine. In fact your whole argument based on economic theory is wrong. If as you say entitlement spending gets paid back through taxes why not cut entitlements by the same percentage and not tax them? Unfortunately a blog site does not give me the forum to completely refute the entirety of your argument, so let’s agree to disagree.
@Bobbymike:
Did you attempt to think that through?
Good Afternoon Mr. Ortman,
I usually don’t give out that type of information but you want to get in the business and I’m only in it for fun I will make an exception. If your starting cold I suggest you go over to Osprey Publishing and check out their titles, but don’t buy any from Osprey, go over to amazon, put in the title and check out the USED books, big savings but don’t forget to add $3.99 shipping per title. Amazon will show show you other title on what they think is the same topic,often from non U.S. publishers repeat step one.
The Osprey books are thin, but kinda dense, so you can go outside the given subject matter quickly. For example one on a title that dealt with a specific tank, it lead me to information about production and vehicle performance, then go over to google, get a cup of coffee, and start digging.
On cold war look for information that is Russian or British first, be careful of some of the Russian sites, they can have critters attached to them. Go deep into the information there are gems of information past the 250,000 entry mark.
The amount of information might overwhelm you, but be patient, just as any grad student would do check one piece against another piece, look for minor differences, like a name or date that is not the same then go back and google the event and the names.
It take a while to learn but it’s a productive way to get a lot of information. As for myself I don’t save but make notes, you will attract attention and there is no use saving information that can be corrupted in your computer. Never the less, I have in the ten years or so, I’ve been doing this, have had a computer last a year, every one has had it hard disc blown out, so buy the cheapest ones you can.
Good Luck Sven and keep us informed.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
LOL
at all the U.S. American posters here! A dime a dozen of them!
First I’ve heard countless patriots (I forgot their names) swearing that the U.S.A. exited Korea and Nam “victoriously”. Then we’ve had good Sergeant Mac repeating loud and clear that (attention: ) the Japanese were beaten numb by the U.S. Navy at Pearl Harbour. Reading his posts caused me serious focusing problems, and I’m a ruthless troll!
And now we have silly old Mr. Byron Skinner saying this mad phrase here: “The Soviets never had a nuclear first strike ability and still don’t today”… Apparently, their unparalleled, 70 years long efforts to doom the World with multiple overkills yielded “simply no results”.
Next, someone will make the audacious claim that the U.S.A. can defeat France militarily… (Back in World War Two, the U.S.A. didn’t even DARE to invade Europe without the heroic R
So Sven Ortmann according to freefaillingbomb you’re European? If so now I understand why you have no understanding of the Constitution or Declaration or have not read the Federalist Papers or other writings of the Founders.
You would not be able to post on a blog without the freedom the US provided. So to quote Colonel Nathan R Jessup “Just say thank you and be on your way”.
@Bobbymike:
Ad hominem, that’s all you got?
The U.S. wouldn’t even exist without Europe. It would instead still be settled by stone age tribes.
Come on, it’s not my fault that your fiscal idea was a harakiri of logic.
Good Morning FFB,
What am I going to do with you. Clearly you don’t understand what first strike capability is, it has nothing to do with accuracy. The Soviets never had and still don’t have a first strike capability. Two reasons their Command and Control system and the in ability to pre fuel a missile and then let it sit.
In recent years both Topal (M) and Bulava missiles has failed every test launch. While just last week the U.S. test fired a Minuteman III down the Pacific Test range and the 3 dummy warheads hit their targets at 2400 miles.
Currently the Russian have 8 Delta IV SSBN’s that have been sitting at the docks for at least 10 years, unarmed because currently the Russian have no missile for them or for that matter crews.
The Russian currently under treaty are allowed 39 missile cylos, but none contain a missile. The Russian currently have 6 mobile launchers for whenever the Topal M become available.
Satellite observation. The U.S. had Space Based Imaging up and operating by 1961, the Soviets would not have this capacity till the end of the 1960’s. In the 1980’s the US. had real time satellite imaging and SAR , the Soviets never did fully achieve this.
Lets see now I’m european, the fact that I’ve yet to visit Europe doesn’t matter, I guess. As for yourself we still don’t know a name, the brach of military service you served in, or who is paying you to post, I would suggest by you lack of mastery of the language and knowledge of the subject matter they are not getting their monies worth.
If it weren’t for profanity, personal attacks and lack of knowledge of the subject matter you wouldn’t have anything to say at all. But I’m getting to you and that amuses me, but only so far.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Good Morning Folks,
It appears that the Russian are readers of defense tech, a little while ago a Russian New Agency posted that the Russian Army will reduce it current inventory of 22,000 tanks to 2,000, all of which be T-90’s converted for T-72’s. the larger haul T-64/T-80 tanks will be scrapped. The T-95, “Abrams killer”, is expected to be in testing by the end of 2009 and in production in 3–4 years, good luck, it also will be a constructed on the smaller T-72 haul but will have a welded turret, laser rangefinder, laser defensive system, and perhaps a new main gun, a auto loading 130mm Smooth Bore ?, the power plant is expected to remain diesel, we will just have to wait and see I guess.
The current status of tanks in the Russian Federation Army are 6,000 serviceable, about 1,000 to 1,500 in active units.
China is estimated to have a total of 4–5,000 total mostly old Soviet T-54’s and T-55’s with about 2,000 Chinese manufactured Type 90’s.
NATO less the United States is estimated to have about 6,000 tanks. The U.S. claims to have 7,500 M1A1’s in units and in strategic storage and an unknown number of M-60’s in reserve.
Again FFB lays a DUD.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
To the poster Mr. Byron Skinner:
In very, very general terms: BEFORE you even start to write or even to think anything: Are you quite sure that you manage to distinguish clearly between the extinct Soviet Union (1917 — 1991) and extant Russia (1991 — now)?
Everybody: Check out once Mr. Byron Skinner’s chrono“logical” sequence of phrases, for example merely in his last answer to me (and this time totally irrespective of their remaining contents) :
Phrase nr. 3: “The SOVIETS never had and still don’t have a first strike capability.“
Phrase nr. 5: “In RECENT YEARS both Topal (M) and Bulava missiles has failed every test launch.“
Phrases nr. 8 and 9: “The Russian CURRENTLY under treaty are allowed 39 missile cylos, but none contain a missile. The Russian CURRENTLY have 6 mobile launchers for whenever the Topal M become available.“
Phrases nr. 11 and 12: “The U.S. had Space Based Imaging up and operating by 1961, the SOVIETS would not have this capacity till the end of the 1960’s. In the 1980’s the US. had real time satellite imaging and SAR , the SOVIETS never did fully achieve this.“
These are HALF-CENTURY LEAPS which you constantly make! ARE YOU EVEN MINIMALLY AWARE of the real differences between the former Soviet Union and modern Russia??! Maybe you got stuck in time?
Regarding my lousy English skills: After you learned any other language besides your mother tongue English, we talk again. In your second language. (I speak only five, but that’s because I’m a dumb Euro…)
By the way: Your English spelling sucks (missile “cylos”?), just like your grammar, your capitalization, your punctuation and your syntax, everything! Back in school I would NEVER have been allowed to write as bad as most U.S. Americans here, although my English teacher was a very tolerant U.S. American herself.
P.S.: But thanks again for your daily supply of fresh, amusing, unsurmountable nonsense: “…You don’t understand what first strike capability is, it has nothing to do with (a missile’s) accuracy.“
True, I.C.B.M.s only need relatively crude guidance systems. That’s jolly old Byron Skinner, unabridged!
P.P.S.: You’ve got cancer.
.….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….…
To Mr. Sven Ortmann:
Can you forgive me for exposing our TERRIBLE , TERRIBLE secret, the fact that we’re N-O-T pure U.S. Americans, although we sometimes gather here incognito to post, and even enjoy our little desecrations of this temple of High Americanism?
I admit it, profoundly ashamed, my head covered with ashes: That was soooo irresponsible of me, so mindless! What is going to happen to us now?! WE HAVE BEEN EXPOSED !
“It appears that the Russian are readers of defense tech, a little while ago a Russian New Agency posted that the Russian Army will reduce it current inventory of 22,000 tanks to 2,000, all of which be T-90’s converted for T-72’s. the larger haul T-64/T-80 tanks will be scrapped.“
Problem:
They used some T-62’s in the second MRD that intervened in South Ossetia. It was both unknown and unexpected in the public that T-62’s were still in service.
This casts some doubts about Russian tank inventories and use in general.
Good Morning Mr.Ortman,
I’m sure the Russian inventory goes all the way back to the 1940’s and the T-34–85’s who last modernization was in 1969, but are still active in the Syrian and Egyptian militaries.
As for the T-62’s, the last of the T-54 variant if you recall they were the ones the US bought and provided to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. They were is such poor operating condition that with in two weeks all were broken down on the side of the road. For the U.S. this is saving $ billion in useless armored vehicles that would have been bought trying to second guess the Russian Federation. That’s money that go for healthcare, job creation and other worth while projects that the current Administration wants to do.
This is a good step for both the Americans and Russians. For the Russians it will get rid of a lot of junque that is costing Rubles to store and would be of no use in the event of War. and it will be fielding a modern armored force.
For the United States it give us a true indicator of Russian armor forces and what they have and will have. One thing for sure this make the decision to now buy the FCS a very good one. We know what the T-90 is and what it can do and we can put our efforts in dealing with the T-95 if and when it becomes operational.
In the war on terror this heroic decision on the part of the Russian will keep these old but still serviceable tanks out of Africa, Latin America and other places that the Islamic or other brands of terrorists might decide to operate out of.
This is the post CW environment one small victory at a time, that works for both sides.
A Chamber of Commerce note here. For those really interested in military technology and not just using “potty language” on line. In San Diego today the SS Dolphin goes on display as part of our Maritime Museum. It is the only place in the world that I know of where, for small fees, you can go on board a, Soviet K Class Submarine, the SS Dolphin a U.S. is a diesel Submarine, the last on active duty in the USN, and then you can visit the most recent vintage U.S. carrier on public display, the U.S. Midway. All with in easy walking distance. If one has a little more time in town there are excellent free museums at the Command Museum Marine Corps Recruit Depot, just around the corner from the Maritime museums, the aviation museum at Marine Corp Air Station Miramar and the armor exhibits at Camp Pendleton.
Not to be for gotten our Aero Space Museum in Balboa park where you can see both a Sea Dart and an A10, for free on display as well as again for a small fee a first rate aviation museum. By the way the USMC Museums are free.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
4%, 5%, or 10% of GDP spent on Defense would be acceptable to me. The important part is that it is paid for.
For FY2008 about 30% (743 billion) of the budget is not being paid for (if Social Security income is treated as debt to the Social Security trust fund and Social Security payments are treaded as servicing that debt).
To those who scream ‘cut to entitlement programs’ lets ask a few questions.
1. Do you like to drive on roads for extremely low cost?
2. Do you like receiving electricity at your home at prices you can afford?
3. How much is it worth to you to know that if you are driving in a city at night and you stop at a red light that it is not guarantied that you will be car jacked and kidnapped?
4. Do you like having the fire brigade come and put out the fire in your house?
Every one of those things is paid for by entitlement programs. (1: highway spending bill. 2: Rural electricity cost and build out subsidies. 3: Welfare. 4: Government Fire Departments.)
This country would be a craptastic place to live if these programs didn’t exist. If you want to see what it is like to live in a place where social safety nets don’t exist take a look at Brazil or India.
It all well and good to say ‘cut entitlement programs’ but I have never seen a group of Americans stand up and say you should cut the entitlement that benefits our group. (Trucker and gas subsidies, Loggers and cut rate pricing on forest logging rights, Soldiers and tax free combat pay, American workers and the government buying American products regardless of cost of the same non-American products.)
Obama is a USURPER and a COMMUNIST! He’s trying to destroy the USA. Wake up Idiots!
Clearing the Smoke on Obama