Comments on: JFCOM’s JOE Whacks Defense Industry

By: Cortland

Cortland — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 20:39:02 +0000

One means of defeating an enemy is to cripple his ability to build weapons and field armed forces. The US was able to contribute to victory in WW-1 and WW-2 because we had industrial capacity that could be used to build weapons. That capacity has over the past decades fallen into decline because we prefer to buy more cheaply from abroad.

And from a potential enemy’s point of view, it is MUCH cheaper than strategic bombing!

IMO.

By: calw

calw — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 20:21:38 +0000

Welfare and warfare are necessary. The argument on how much of each goes on forever.

By: Vitor

Vitor — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:49:23 +0000

The USA is close to bankruptcy, the FED manipulates the interest rate, not allowing a real recovery. It’s like a drunk guy that refuses to face the hangover, and gets even more drunk to avoid the necessary correction.

Frankly, both welfare from Dems and warfare from repubs is economical suicide, forget the ideology for a moment.

By: SMSgt Mac

SMSgt Mac — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 07:06:47 +0000

RE: “The JOE discusses at length perilous federal budget imbalances, oil dependency, the damage inflicted by the 2008 economic meltdown, declining resources, climate change and a number of the familiar and unsavory effects of globalization“
That list is very similar to “99% of men , like cars,have two testes, or beat their wife.” The only relevant factors listed are at the top of the list the tail end of it makes this a politiclal document.

RE: “Yes, let’s ignore a thing that 90% of scientists who study weather agree upon”

90%? Name them.
Maybe 90% think the world is warming slightly, but 90% will hardly stand up for ‘man-made’ warming. Langmuir’s Laws apply to the AGW issue perfectly.

And what was it that “Eisenhower Warned us” about? I do hope the reference is to too big of a government slice of the GDP and NOT the now fabulous [ “purely imaginary”] ‘Military-Industrial Complex’. (As always, if one answers –answer carefully.)

By: nraddin

nraddin — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 01:51:57 +0000

I don’t know why we pay a single dollar to defense companies to research something. No public company would ever do that, they would do it in house or not do it at all. The military is more than capable of assessing it’s own needs and improving on it, while outside vendors should be working R&D costs into the final product they try and sell. I realize that this leads to lots of smaller changes in design as companies try and put out a better XYZ every year to sell, but isn’t that sort of evolutionary change just the kind of thing you need to keep your enemy from knowing exactly what you can do?

By: gmanaz

gmanaz — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:18:08 +0000

It’s a reduction in spending compared with current spending. If we kept the status quo we would be $130 Billion more in debt in 10 years than if we pass it. Pretty simple if you use that thing that is located above your neck. This comes from the CBO…their figures are usually spot on and they are very non-partisan.

By: Kole

Kole — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:01:00 +0000

Not to hijack this thread and turn it into a health-care debate but can you show me a federally funded social program that has ever reduced deficits or operated within budget???

By: JZizka

JZizka — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:46:20 +0000

“Health Care bill would destroy what we can do on future spending…”

The CBO estimates that the Health Care bill will reduce the Federal Defecit by 130 B over 10 years.….…wrong again Carlos.

By: JZizka

JZizka — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:42:20 +0000

The Pentagon has acknowledged that climate change is ream and poses serious challenge to future operations and/or contingencies.…but I’m sure you know better than them Carlos. Oh and I’m sure those silly scientists are all wrong too.….

By: gmanaz

gmanaz — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:38:15 +0000

Yes, let’s ignore a thing that 90% of scientists who study weather agree upon. They can tell you the weather next week, and it’s usually pretty accurate. You can’t base your assumptions on their accuracy on past performance prior to the 90’s. Computers have made weather forecasting a very accurate science. Just because we are basing the rise on an average temp in the past doesn’t mean that the consequences of that average rising aren’t substantial.

That last paragraph in the post is a no-brainer. Of course China can develop these weapons faster than us or the Russians…it’s because it takes more time and effort to design weapons than it is to steal and reverse-engineer them. Unfortunately not many countries have military tech that the US could benefit by reverse engineering.