PDA

View Full Version : Why Obama won't win the General Election...


recxjake
02-27-2008, 12:30 PM
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dl32Y7wDVDs&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dl32Y7wDVDs&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

HolmeZz
02-27-2008, 12:38 PM
Yes, that certainly proved it.

jAZ
02-27-2008, 12:44 PM
Because you KNOW how to pick a winner.

ROFL

Chiefnj2
02-27-2008, 12:50 PM
Hillary and Rudy are going to co-author a book entitled How To Blow An Election in 30 Days.

BigRedChief
02-27-2008, 12:51 PM
Because you KNOW how to pick a winner.

ROFL
I've voted for the winning candidate in every election (besides the 2 George W elections) since Jimmy Carter.

I said that Obama would be the next president of the United States before the Iowa vote.

Now, how can I make money off this?

HolmeZz
02-27-2008, 12:51 PM
Hillary and Rudy are going to co-author a book entitled How To Blow An Election in 30 Days.

It is funny considering the video Jake posted is from a Hillary supporter.

jAZ
02-27-2008, 12:59 PM
I've voted for the winning candidate in every election (besides the 2 George W elections) since Jimmy Carter.

I said that Obama would be the next president of the United States before the Iowa vote.

Now, how can I make money off this?

https://www.intrade.com/

BigRedChief
02-27-2008, 01:16 PM
https://www.intrade.com/
Wow. Cool.

Taco John
02-27-2008, 02:09 PM
"Hahahaha! Ron Paul won't finish ahead of Rudy in a single state!"

|Zach|
02-27-2008, 07:47 PM
I am sure the Obama camp paid Jake for this thread. I would...it makes his canidacy a sure thing.

chagrin
02-27-2008, 08:47 PM
"Hahahaha! Ron Paul won't finish ahead of Rudy in a single state!"

Considering Ron Paul is also out of it, you should shut the hell up, loser.

chagrin
02-27-2008, 08:50 PM
Matter of fact, this forum should host Political survivor - everyone whose candidate is out of it, also goes home until November - ahh yes, that would be cool

patteeu
02-27-2008, 08:57 PM
OMG, I just watched this video. The guy sounds like he wants to completely disarm the country. Was that for real?

a1na2
02-27-2008, 09:08 PM
Hillary and Rudy are going to co-author a book entitled How To Blow An Election in 30 Days.

I think Hillary should drop Rudy and pick up Monica Lewinski as her writing mate. Monica knows how to blow stuff!

|Zach|
02-27-2008, 09:44 PM
Matter of fact, this forum should host Political survivor - everyone whose candidate is out of it, also goes home until November - ahh yes, that would be cool

Do you have a candidate? All you seem to be made up of is anti-Paul posts these days. Which is strange because he isn't a factor anything. Surely there is more to it.

Taco John
02-27-2008, 10:08 PM
Do you have a candidate? All you seem to be made up of is anti-Paul posts these days. Which is strange because he isn't a factor anything. Surely there is more to it.



The "more to it" is that I live under his skin...

|Zach|
02-27-2008, 10:21 PM
The "more to it" is that I live under his skin...

I think the whole board does. ROFL

banyon
02-27-2008, 11:28 PM
Do you have a candidate? All you seem to be made up of is anti-Paul posts these days. Which is strange because he isn't a factor anything. Surely there is more to it.

The Ron Paul acolytes were ubiquitously annoying with the constant stream of B.S. for the last 5-6 months. I think that merits some vitriol, and who better to hand that out than chagrin?

RINGLEADER
02-27-2008, 11:28 PM
"I'll slow our development of future combat systems."

Why? So the Russians and Chinese can have them before us?

SBK
02-27-2008, 11:33 PM
"I'll slow our development of future combat systems."

Why? So the Russians and Chinese can have them before us?

The guy is a dumbass. I don't use that word lightly.

He wants to cut spending from the systems that protect us so that he can replace is with free education and welfare type nanny state programs. Purely brilliant. We can be lazy, and defenseless. I can see why his wife is finally proud to be an American.

tiptap
02-28-2008, 07:31 AM
The question is do you think the strength of the US is economic first or military first. The example of the Nazi Germany and Soviet Union is that a total directed economy for military interests can go a long way. But not only is it not sustainable (it demands displacing populations from lands and usurping resources) it is contrary to the focus most of us would chose. Wring your hands but we already spend more on the military than the rest of the world combine.

I don't fear the Russians or Chinese for 50 years or so. And it is good police work that will be the most important tool in combating Terrorists. The Russians and Chinese have been stealing our systems forever. Building your own is totally a different thing. Neither one of them will be able to get ahead. It is our economy and our people that is most important to encourage. That has been our real strength.

patteeu
02-28-2008, 07:48 AM
You don't turn this stuff off and then, when you need it, flip a switch and turn it back on again. This video makes Obama sound worse than Jimmy Carter.

tiptap
02-28-2008, 08:23 AM
Some time in 2005, Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, who also served as an economic adviser under Clinton, noted that the official Congressional Budget Office estimate for the cost of the war so far was of the order of $500bn. The figure was so low, they didn't believe it, and decided to investigate. The paper they wrote together, and published in January 2006, revised the figure sharply upwards, to between $1 and $2 trillion. Even that, Stiglitz says now, was deliberately conservative: "We didn't want to sound outlandish."

So what did the Republicans say? "They had two reactions," Stiglitz says wearily. "One was Bush saying, 'We don't go to war on the calculations of green eye-shaded accountants or economists.' And our response was, 'No, you don't decide to fight a response to Pearl Harbour on the basis of that, but when there's a war of choice, you at least use it to make sure your timing is right, that you've done the preparation. And you really ought to do the calculations to see if there are alternative ways that are more effective at getting your objectives. The second criticism - which we admit - was that we only look at the costs, not the benefits. Now, we couldn't see any benefits. From our point of view we weren't sure what those were."

Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel prize-winner in economics goes on to say 3 trillion dollar price tag for this war.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/28/iraq.afghanistan

Neither can we just turn on or off the economy as a whole.

tiptap
02-28-2008, 08:34 AM
Let's add this from the articles as a sign of the Republican transfer of government money.

The fact that a contractor working as a security guard gets about $400,000 a year, for example, as opposed to a soldier, who might get about $40,000. That there is a discrepancy we might have guessed - but not its sheer scale. . .

Then there was the discovery that sign-up bonuses come with conditions: a soldier injured in the first month, for example, has to pay it back. Or the fact that "the troops, for understandable reasons, are made responsible for their equipment. You lose your helmet, you have to pay. If you get blown up and you lose your helmet, they still bill you." One soldier was sued for $12,000 even though he had suffered massive brain damage. . . .

s we now know, this couldn't continue - in part because of yet another effect of the war. Whatever the much argued reasons for bombing Baghdad, cheap oil has not been the result. In fact, the price of oil has climbed from $25 a barrel to $100 in the past five years - great for oil companies, and oil-producing countries, who, along with the contractors, are the only beneficiaries of this war, but not for anyone else. After calculations based on futures markets, Stiglitz and Bilmes conclude that a significant proportion of this rise is directly due to the disruptions and instabilities caused by Iraq. This price rise alone has cost the US, which imports about 5bn barrels a year, an extra $25bn per year; projecting to 2015 brings that number to an extra $1.6 trillion on oil alone (against which the recent $125bn stimulus package is simply, as Stiglitz puts it, "a drop in the bucket"). . . .

$1 trillion
The interest America will have paid by 2017 on the money borrowed to finance the war

DEAR PRICE FOR SO LITTLE GAIN!

patteeu
02-28-2008, 08:59 AM
Some time in 2005, Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, who also served as an economic adviser under Clinton, noted that the official Congressional Budget Office estimate for the cost of the war so far was of the order of $500bn. The figure was so low, they didn't believe it, and decided to investigate. The paper they wrote together, and published in January 2006, revised the figure sharply upwards, to between $1 and $2 trillion. Even that, Stiglitz says now, was deliberately conservative: "We didn't want to sound outlandish."

So what did the Republicans say? "They had two reactions," Stiglitz says wearily. "One was Bush saying, 'We don't go to war on the calculations of green eye-shaded accountants or economists.' And our response was, 'No, you don't decide to fight a response to Pearl Harbour on the basis of that, but when there's a war of choice, you at least use it to make sure your timing is right, that you've done the preparation. And you really ought to do the calculations to see if there are alternative ways that are more effective at getting your objectives. The second criticism - which we admit - was that we only look at the costs, not the benefits. Now, we couldn't see any benefits. From our point of view we weren't sure what those were."

Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel prize-winner in economics goes on to say 3 trillion dollar price tag for this war.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/28/iraq.afghanistan

Neither can we just turn on or off the economy as a whole.

Nobody is turning the economy off, but if you are concerned about choking it you might look to the tax burden that has become necessary as a result of poorly conceived liberal entitlement programs and other domestic spending.

Expenditures as a percentage of the Federal Outlays (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/hist.pdf):

Defense Human Resources
1986 27.6 48.6
1990 23.9 49.4
1994 19.3 59.5
1998 16.2 62.5
2002 17.3 65.5
2006 19.7 68.0

During the same time period, National Defense spending as a percentage of GDP
has dropped from 6.2% to 4.0% while domestic spending has risen from 10.9%
to 12.8%.

RINGLEADER
02-28-2008, 09:04 AM
The question is do you think the strength of the US is economic first or military first. The example of the Nazi Germany and Soviet Union is that a total directed economy for military interests can go a long way. But not only is it not sustainable (it demands displacing populations from lands and usurping resources) it is contrary to the focus most of us would chose. Wring your hands but we already spend more on the military than the rest of the world combine.

I don't fear the Russians or Chinese for 50 years or so. And it is good police work that will be the most important tool in combating Terrorists. The Russians and Chinese have been stealing our systems forever. Building your own is totally a different thing. Neither one of them will be able to get ahead. It is our economy and our people that is most important to encourage. That has been our real strength.

Um, OK.

Getting back to the Obama video, I don't understand why he's against missile defense and developing other weapons technologies (and, side-note to Obama, you can't have proven missile defense systems until you develop them...and test them...and develop them some more). Having a nuclear-free world, while probably naive, is a nice aspiration to have but to say you're going to slow down development of the weapons that are saving the lives of American soldiers (now and in the future) is really hard to believe. I half don't believe this video is real.

tiptap
02-28-2008, 09:10 AM
Nobody is turning the economy off, but if you are concerned about choking it you might look to the tax burden that has become necessary as a result of poorly conceived liberal entitlement programs and other domestic spending.

Expenditures as a percentage of the Federal Outlays (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/hist.pdf):

Defense Human Resources
1986 27.6 48.6
1990 23.9 49.4
1994 19.3 59.5
1998 16.2 62.5
2002 17.3 65.5
2006 19.7 68.0

During the same time period, National Defense spending as a percentage of GDP
has dropped from 6.2% to 4.0% while domestic spending has risen from 10.9%
to 12.8%.

Do these expenditures include the off budget expenditures for the War? I don't find it looking through the government document. How long do we pretend it is not part of the budget?

tiptap
02-28-2008, 09:16 AM
Um, OK.

Getting back to the Obama video, I don't understand why he's against missile defense and developing other weapons technologies (and, side-note to Obama, you can't have proven missile defense systems until you develop them...and test them...and develop them some more). Having a nuclear-free world, while probably naive, is a nice aspiration to have but to say you're going to slow down development of the weapons that are saving the lives of American soldiers (now and in the future) is really hard to believe. I half don't believe this video is real.

It is the difference in negotiating peace such as ABM treaties and SALT reductions vs driving a procurement race. If you own stock in Defense industries (like patteeu in some of his jobs) I can understand your wish to increase that expenditure. But I take my cue from Eisenhower's assessment that the Military Complex is not the focus to secure a strong America. This systems are exactly the example of leading with your fears.

patteeu
02-28-2008, 09:18 AM
Do these expenditures include the off budget expenditures for the War? I don't find it looking through the government document. How long do we pretend it is not part of the budget?

I see no reason to believe that expenditures for the war are not fully captured by those numbers. There is a substantial increase in defense spending during the Bush years, but even with that increase the trend is obviously worse on the domestic side of the budget, IMO.

tiptap
02-28-2008, 09:32 AM
I see no reason to believe that expenditures for the war are not fully captured by those numbers. There is a substantial increase in defense spending during the Bush years, but even with that increase the trend is obviously worse on the domestic side of the budget, IMO.

Can you really say that with a straight face (use smillies). The appropriations was in excess of 300 billion through 2006 for the war.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/09/AR2006050901502.html

The rise in military budget actually drops from this pamphlet in 2006 from 2005 and totals no more than average of 50 billion increase from 2001 levels. (see page 117) This only estimates 2005 and 2006 expenditures for the military budget so its a little dated and from a time when we were using Bush bozo economics reporting.

If you look at page 152 and 156 you see the appropriations miss match for 2004 for Defense Budget and total outlay. But that goes down in the estimates for 2005 and 2006 as opposed to a pretty constant 10 billion a month expenditure. No no no while the cost is sprinkled in here now and again your little chart doesn't catch those expenditures at all.

tiptap
02-28-2008, 09:57 AM
If you guys wanted to spend money on those Military Systems you should have been more responsible in obtaining a good outcome against terrorists without invading Iraq. DEAR PRICE FOR SO LITTLE GAIN. That means you don't get your star war toys as timely as you want.

Cochise
02-28-2008, 10:01 AM
OMG, I just watched this video. The guy sounds like he wants to completely disarm the country. Was that for real?

I forgot to watch the video when I was at home... Is this really a unilateral disarmament strategy?

patteeu
02-28-2008, 10:42 AM
Can you really say that with a straight face (use smillies). The appropriations was in excess of 300 billion through 2006 for the war.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/09/AR2006050901502.html

The rise in military budget actually drops from this pamphlet in 2006 from 2005 and totals no more than average of 50 billion increase from 2001 levels. (see page 117) This only estimates 2005 and 2006 expenditures for the military budget so its a little dated and from a time when we were using Bush bozo economics reporting.

If you look at page 152 and 156 you see the appropriations miss match for 2004 for Defense Budget and total outlay. But that goes down in the estimates for 2005 and 2006 as opposed to a pretty constant 10 billion a month expenditure. No no no while the cost is sprinkled in here now and again your little chart doesn't catch those expenditures at all.

I tried to follow your complaint here, but I couldn't. The numbers on the pages you refer me to show substantial increases in defense authorizations over the course of the GWoT. I have a hard time believing that the over $200 billion increase from the 2001 national defense outlay ($304 bil) to the 2006 national defense outlay ($521 bil) is just weapon modernization and an increased emphasis on missile defense. Maybe the costs of Iraq aren't included, but I still don't see the evidence of that. Be that as it may, there is no denying that the domestic component of the budget is following an upward trend, driven largely by entitlement growth, and unlike Iraq, there is no reason to believe that the trend is a temporary surge. Add to that, both democrat presidential candidates want to divert the money that is currently being spent on Iraq to even more expansive domestic programs and you've got your recipe for economic strain.

patteeu
02-28-2008, 10:49 AM
I forgot to watch the video when I was at home... Is this really a unilateral disarmament strategy?

I can't watch it right now, but from my memory he talked about ending (or significantly curtailing) the spending we are doing on missile defense and getting rid of nuclear weapons. He may have mentioned other defense cutbacks that he'd favor too, but I don't remember any other specifics right now. He did mention negotiating with other nuclear states on the issue of getting rid of our nukes so I wouldn't go quite as far as saying he's for "unilateral" disarmament, but what he said sounded pretty radical to me. Maybe someone else with better recall or who can watch the video today can give you a better rundown.

When Baby Lee speculated yesterday about what it would take to deflate Obama's prospects in the election he suggested that it would take exposure of policy positions that took a wild left turn. Personally, I'd put this national defense policy statement in that category.

Cochise
02-28-2008, 11:01 AM
When Baby Lee speculated yesterday about what it would take to deflate Obama's prospects in the election he suggested that it would take exposure of policy positions that took a wild left turn. Personally, I'd put this national defense policy statement in that category.

I'm certain that his popularity will sink at least somewhat when he's got to defend far left positions to the general public. McCain I think should run that kind of unmasking operation at first. Show the public his votes on PBA, show them quotes like this.

They need to move the campaign from being about 'cute' to being about who they each are and who is closer to the mainstream in America.

RINGLEADER
02-28-2008, 11:05 AM
It is the difference in negotiating peace such as ABM treaties and SALT reductions vs driving a procurement race. If you own stock in Defense industries (like patteeu in some of his jobs) I can understand your wish to increase that expenditure. But I take my cue from Eisenhower's assessment that the Military Complex is not the focus to secure a strong America. This systems are exactly the example of leading with your fears.

I don't remember saying money should be wasted. But development (of most anything) requires investment. Some leads to new systems, others do not. But if your general approach to the problem is that you're going to slow the development process irrespective of the needs of new technologies (whether it be drones, armor, laser technology, or other forms of bang-bang) then you're going to end up paying the price in the future when you're trying to play catch-up. And that pre-supposes, of course, that your enemy gives you the opportunity to play catch-up.

Cave Johnson
02-28-2008, 11:07 AM
Be that as it may, there is no denying that the domestic component of the budget is following an upward trend, driven largely by entitlement growth, and unlike Iraq, there is no reason to believe that the trend is a temporary surge. Add to that, both democrat presidential candidates want to divert the money that is currently being spent on Iraq to even more expansive domestic programs and you've got your recipe for economic strain.

So the growth in military spending is being driven by the prescription drug benefit and increased expenditures in Medicare and Social Security? Gotcha.

RINGLEADER
02-28-2008, 11:12 AM
If you guys wanted to spend money on those Military Systems you should have been more responsible in obtaining a good outcome against terrorists without invading Iraq. DEAR PRICE FOR SO LITTLE GAIN. That means you don't get your star war toys as timely as you want.

This is a different discussion. I don't think Obama's POV, on that video at least, is an intelligent way to go and I doubt most others would either.

That said, the guy just needs to have a press conference and he'll have everyone thinking he wants just the opposite. Dude is that good. LOL.

patteeu
02-28-2008, 11:19 AM
So the growth in military spending is being driven by the prescription drug benefit and increased expenditures in Medicare and Social Security? Gotcha.

Huh? Not sure where this comes from. Are you making a joke that just went over my head?

tiptap
02-28-2008, 11:59 AM
I am looking on page 115 to 119. The numbers at the bottom for percentage of outlays match you percentage numbers for the National Defense numbers. But the Nondefense number, payment to individuals, does not match the numbers you listed and are too high by 3 to 8 points going from '84 to '06 should read 45.6, 46.7, 56.4, 59.4, 61.7 and 61.9 . And then you switch scales from percentage of expenditure to percentage of GDP. And here again I have nondefense going from 10.2 to 12.3 rather than your 10.9 to 12.8. I am not sure where the Defense numbers come from either then. So why don't you pinpoint the pages for your numbers. I can then see for myself whether the war expenditures are being represented by your numbers.

tiptap
02-28-2008, 12:19 PM
Ok I go to 2006 Defense Dept data. It places Defense Dept budget at 426 billion then goes on to include another 21 billion coming from Energy, Homeland and such budget for weapon research and the Coast Guard for example. Then you have the supplemental bill of 120 billion to finance the war. That would be 575 billion dollars not the 427 billion mention in your pdf file. That would be 22% of not 19.7% of federal monies spent.

http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2006/

tiptap
02-28-2008, 12:28 PM
One of the things I liked about Ronald Reagan was that he thought atomic weapons were immoral and was willing to "neutralize" them by Star Wars (doesn't really work) and SALT talks. He was very willing to remove nuclear weapons off the stage by negotiation. Trust but verify, that was his call and we moved forward when the goal is removal of the threat of Nuclear Weapons for ALL and not just Star Wars ABM umbrellas to protect our stockpile.

tiptap
02-28-2008, 12:36 PM
So when Obama speaks of scrapping the ABM system, he does so because we have bought off Korea and the threat from Russia and China cannot be met by the limits of the ABM system. So far there has never been a shoot down of a missile where the ballistics are not already known. Usually there was even a signal. Both countries already have over whelming numbers of Nuclear Weapons that we can't begin to neutralize. Other weapons systems are still based upon Soviet threats and we have come nowhere near the intergration of the different services. Interrupted by the Iraq War.

patteeu
02-28-2008, 01:30 PM
I am looking on page 115 to 119. The numbers at the bottom for percentage of outlays match you percentage numbers for the National Defense numbers. But the Nondefense number, payment to individuals, does not match the numbers you listed and are too high by 3 to 8 points going from '84 to '06 should read 45.6, 46.7, 56.4, 59.4, 61.7 and 61.9 . And then you switch scales from percentage of expenditure to percentage of GDP. And here again I have nondefense going from 10.2 to 12.3 rather than your 10.9 to 12.8. I am not sure where the Defense numbers come from either then. So why don't you pinpoint the pages for your numbers. I can then see for myself whether the war expenditures are being represented by your numbers.

Sure thing. My numbers came from pages 51-54.

patteeu
02-28-2008, 01:55 PM
Ok I go to 2006 Defense Dept data. It places Defense Dept budget at 426 billion then goes on to include another 21 billion coming from Energy, Homeland and such budget for weapon research and the Coast Guard for example. Then you have the supplemental bill of 120 billion to finance the war. That would be 575 billion dollars not the 427 billion mention in your pdf file. That would be 22% of not 19.7% of federal monies spent.

http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2006/

The number I'm using for 2006 "National Defense" is $521 billion, not $427 billion. There are some issues with which you could criticize the way my source categorizes the outlays, but the discrepancy isn't as large as you suggest. The two main criticisms I can see that you would appreciate are (a) some of the spending that goes through Energy probably is categorized as "Physical Resources" rather than "National Defense" and (b) veterans benefits are included in the "Human Resources" category instead of "National Defense". I didn't make any effort to find all the necessary details and make adjustments to the categories provided nor do I believe that such an exercise would change the general results of the analysis.

Silock
02-28-2008, 02:29 PM
OMG, I just watched this video. The guy sounds like he wants to completely disarm the country. Was that for real?

I have to agree with you here. That's scary shit. Won't weaponize space? Well, that's ****ed up, because the Chinese certainly will.

tiptap
02-28-2008, 02:30 PM
The number I'm using for 2006 "National Defense" is $521 billion, not $427 billion. There are some issues with which you could criticize the way my source categorizes the outlays, but the discrepancy isn't as large as you suggest. The two main criticisms I can see that you would appreciate are (a) some of the spending that goes through Energy probably is categorized as "Physical Resources" rather than "National Defense" and (b) veterans benefits are included in the "Human Resources" category instead of "National Defense". I didn't make any effort to find all the necessary details and make adjustments to the categories provided nor do I believe that such an exercise would change the general results of the analysis.

Ok I think you need glasses. While the numbers taken from pages 51 or so are correct for National Defense the numbers for Human Resources are not so true. And while you say YOU used the 532 (I would say it is more like 550 billion NOT counting appropriations from other budgets) billion dollar number that isn't what was used for the 2006 budget numbers. If you divide 532 by 2567 billion you get 20.7% not 17.4% of Total Federal Expenditure.

So if you want your point to be that we have raised out Military outlay closer to the Reagan era and that domestic spending wasn't culled like the Reagan era and that we have therefore generated large deficits that Keynesian drove the economy like the Reagan era then OK. It would have been nice to have spent that money on something truly productive instead of Iraq. But the Democrats are going to have to bail out the economy again. (Though I do concede that Bush I tax increase was helpful but the Clinton surtax, which I hated to pay, also moved the process.)

And like then the military will have to take a back seat to the economy before we can move on a scale on those big ticket items.

Silock
02-28-2008, 02:31 PM
If you guys wanted to spend money on those Military Systems you should have been more responsible in obtaining a good outcome against terrorists without invading Iraq. DEAR PRICE FOR SO LITTLE GAIN. That means you don't get your star war toys as timely as you want.

So because someone ****ed up in the past, we're stuck with it? The past is ****ed, so let's **** up the future, too, just to make sure it's ALL ****ed?

tiptap
02-28-2008, 02:39 PM
I have to agree with you here. That's scary shit. Won't weaponize space? Well, that's ****ed up, because the Chinese certainly will.

Yes because the Russians did it during the last half of the 20th Century. The Soviets were capable of weaponizing space and didn't because they knew it was opening to the US. As did we for them. It is mutually in both interests to not to. And to state so explicitly is our interest. Because once you make a race out of it you won't just have the Chinese or Russians; India and Pakistan and others will be flying weapons overhead.

Silock
02-28-2008, 02:46 PM
Yes because the Russians did it during the last half of the 20th Century. The Soviets were capable of weaponizing space and didn't because they knew it was opening to the US. As did we for them. It is mutually in both interests to not to. And to state so explicitly is our interest. Because once you make a race out of it you won't just have the Chinese or Russians; India and Pakistan and others will be flying weapons overhead.

Well, I think that's going to happen anyway.

tiptap
02-28-2008, 02:47 PM
So because someone ****ed up in the past, we're stuck with it? The past is ****ed, so let's **** up the future, too, just to make sure it's ALL ****ed?

The choices were ****ed up then as now. The choices Obama focused on in looking for negotiated settlements is more cost effective. We will still have the most powerful military, the largest nuclear arsenal, the most advance military technology, the best trained military personnel, the 2nd biggest standing army, which the Democrats want to increase and so on. It just that we will have to re supply the Nat Guard and the military do it with a more modest resources and means we put off those big ticket item till we have exhausted negotiations.

Silock
02-28-2008, 02:55 PM
The choices were ****ed up then as now. The choices Obama focused on in looking for negotiated settlements is more cost effective. We will still have the most powerful military, the largest nuclear arsenal, the most advance military technology, the best trained military personnel, the 2nd biggest standing army, which the Democrats want to increase and so on. It just that we will have to re supply the Nat Guard and the military do it with a more modest resources and means we put off those big ticket item till we have exhausted negotiations.

We have the most powerful military now, but after defense cuts . . . will we really? Nuclear arsenal doesn't do us much good because we're not going to use them and everyone knows it. We WON'T have the most advanced military technology if we slow development.

There's a lot of things wrong with what he's saying in that video. If he's expanded on those comments, maybe now would be a prudent time to post them up.

tiptap
02-28-2008, 08:02 PM
No there is nothing wrong with his statements. The priorities are correct. And it would take running our army into the ground in an over seas attempt to police a state half way the world around. Oh wait that is what we got now.

Silock
02-28-2008, 08:39 PM
No there is nothing wrong with his statements. The priorities are correct. And it would take running our army into the ground in an over seas attempt to police a state half way the world around. Oh wait that is what we got now.

:yawn: I want to bring the troops home, too. Iraq is a gigantic cluster****. But gutting the military by cutting defense spending because you're pissed about the way things turned out in the Middle East is a piss-poor way to throw a temper tantrum.

SBK
02-28-2008, 09:51 PM
No there is nothing wrong with his statements. The priorities are correct.

ROFL

Logical
02-28-2008, 10:04 PM
We have the most powerful military now, but after defense cuts . . . will we really? Nuclear arsenal doesn't do us much good because we're not going to use them and everyone knows it. We WON'T have the most advanced military technology if we slow development.

There's a lot of things wrong with what he's saying in that video. If he's expanded on those comments, maybe now would be a prudent time to post them up.


Look I work in the defense industry but even if we cut our Weapons IR&D by 1/3 we would still outspend pretty much everyone else in the world.

a1na2
02-28-2008, 10:31 PM
Look I work in the defense industry but even if we cut our Weapons IR&D by 1/3 we would still outspend pretty much everyone else in the world.

Based on your commentary I'm surprised that you haven't quit working in that industry due to your beliefs that war is bad and that the U.S. is killing innocent people in Iraq.

Silock
02-28-2008, 11:48 PM
Look I work in the defense industry but even if we cut our Weapons IR&D by 1/3 we would still outspend pretty much everyone else in the world.

So? They're the ones playing catch-up, and I'd personally like to keep it that way. If our economy continues to go south, a country like China could easily catch up and outspend us on defense. An anti-tank round from 20 years ago would barely dent today's tanks. The closer the enemy gets to our technological advantage, the more American lives we stand to lose if worst comes to worst and we get in another war.

wazu
02-29-2008, 12:24 AM
Nothing he said is as outrageous as deficit spending. Just sayin.

tiptap
02-29-2008, 07:07 AM
So? They're the ones playing catch-up, and I'd personally like to keep it that way. If our economy continues to go south, a country like China could easily catch up and outspend us on defense. An anti-tank round from 20 years ago would barely dent today's tanks. The closer the enemy gets to our technological advantage, the more American lives we stand to lose if worst comes to worst and we get in another war.


A war with 2 million Chinese, where will that take place exactly? It is true when we reached the border of China in N. Korea we ended up fighting them but where in the world is the Chinese army forward stationed? Are you looking to invade the mainland? That Army is tied up with India, no lack of people there and Russia, no lack of land to cover there and Vietnam. You do remember the border wars between Vietnam and China over the last 20 years. And unless we are in a ground war with China we won't have to.

And by the way it was the British who put the tank armor into the field. We got it from them. Same for lots of things. We can not afford to neglect our infrastructure and support moving away from oil dependency. That would be more likely to bring us in to conflict with the Chinese.

tiptap
02-29-2008, 09:20 AM
Here is an article of the democratization of threats. It won't be some nation state, all will be vulnerable, it will be easy access by so many people, to easily weaponized technology. This is just a discussion of robotics. There are plenty of people sophisticated in Biology and Chemistry to go along with that. Hell making a Uranium Nuclear Bomb isn't that hard once you have the Uranium. (Not like Plutonium bomb construction)

Robotics Prof Sees Threat in Military Robots
But are the dangers as overplayed as the Pentagon's dreams of robot battalions? By JR Minkel

The increasing deployment of gun-toting robots by the U.S. military and other armed forces around the world could end up endangering civilian lives and giving terrorists new ideas, warns a U.K. robotics professor.

The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has outlined plans to ramp up the use of remotely controlled robotic vehicles on land, undersea and in the air. The goal is to field increasingly autonomous robots—without a human controller—to dispose of explosives, stand guard and spot targets to attack. Nations such as South Korea and the Republic of South Africa have also begun adopting armed robotic systems.

The prospect of armed, autonomous robots is enough to rattle Noel Sharkey, professor of computer science at the University of Sheffield, England. "One of the fundamental laws of war is being able to discriminate real combatants and noncombatants," he says. "I can see no way that autonomous robots can deliver this for us." Even today's unmanned air and ground vehicles could do harm, he cautions, by teaching insurgents new ways to mount devastating attacks from a safe distance.

But aside from the technological challenges to developing autonomous weapons, it remains unclear how quickly military brass would adopt a high-tech approach that takes soldiers out of the equation or if terrorists would be interested in weapons that might not inflict as many casualties as traditional attacks.

Congress in 2001 mandated that one third of military ground vehicles must be unmanned by 2015. According to the DoD report, "Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032," the Pentagon plans to spend $4 billion by 2010 on unmanned systems technology, with an eye toward increasing autonomy to free up troops that would otherwise have to monitor the robots closely.

An autonomous Chevy Tahoe successfully navigated a 60-mile (96-kilometer) urban setting this past November in four hours to win the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's 2007 Urban Challenge. "It is quite realistic," Sharkey says, "to have autonomous vehicles that are not monitored—to take supplies and navigate from place to place."

Giving them license to kill would be another matter. Despite decades of research in the field of artificial intelligence (AI), computers remain unable to make simple visual discriminations such as picking a cow out of a barnyard scene. Robotic systems would be hard-pressed to tell friend from foe even in ideal conditions, let alone amid the smoke and confusion of battle, Sharkey says.

Mindful of these limitations, Sharkey, who moonlights as a judge in televised robot contests such as BBC Two's Robot Wars series, proposes a global ban on autonomous weapons until they can comply with international rules of war prohibiting the use of force against noncombatants.

The U.S. armed forces currently have more than 4,000 robots deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) such as Predator air drones, used for reconnaissance and missile strikes, along with smaller, hand-held fliers have logged more than 400,000 hours of flight time, according to the DoD report.

The report says that robotic ground vehicles, including the Talon, a miniature treaded tank in operation since 2000, have disposed of thousands of improvised explosive devices (IED) in Iraq and Afghanistan. Foster–Miller, Inc., the Waltham, Mass.–based manufacturer of the Talon, says that three armed units, called Talon–SWORDS (for special weapons observation reconnaissance detection systems), rolled into Iraq equipped with machine guns last year.

Sharkey's fear is that unmanned technology could fall into the wrong hands. Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite Islamic paramilitary group, reportedly flew UAVs (likely supplied by Iran) across the Israeli border in 2004 and 2006. He says it would be relatively easy for terrorist or insurgent groups to mount explosives on remote-controlled cars or airplanes.

Dennis Gormley, a senior fellow at The James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies's Washington, D.C., office and a specialist in missile systems, says that UAV technology in particular raises ethical issues, because it gives combat planners the opportunity to make lightning-quick strikes that were previously impossible. In one well-known example, the Central Intelligence Agency in 2002 killed six suspected al Qaeda members in Yemen by launching Hellfire missiles at their car from a hovering Predator.

But Gormley says that worries over robots-run-amok ignore the realities of military and terrorist decision making. He notes that Air Force officials in particular tend to drag their heels on technologies that might make their pilots appear obsolete.

He says that would-be terrorists could potentially deliver up to several hundred pounds of explosives by converting a build-it-yourself airplane into a UAV, but adds that the conversion would require several years of technically challenging work. "Frankly," he says, "I think that's beyond the capacity of any terrorist group."

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=robotics-prof-sees-threat-in-robots

patteeu
02-29-2008, 10:36 AM
Ok I think you need glasses. While the numbers taken from pages 51 or so are correct for National Defense the numbers for Human Resources are not so true. And while you say YOU used the 532 (I would say it is more like 550 billion NOT counting appropriations from other budgets) billion dollar number that isn't what was used for the 2006 budget numbers. If you divide 532 by 2567 billion you get 20.7% not 17.4% of Total Federal Expenditure.

So if you want your point to be that we have raised out Military outlay closer to the Reagan era and that domestic spending wasn't culled like the Reagan era and that we have therefore generated large deficits that Keynesian drove the economy like the Reagan era then OK. It would have been nice to have spent that money on something truly productive instead of Iraq. But the Democrats are going to have to bail out the economy again. (Though I do concede that Bush I tax increase was helpful but the Clinton surtax, which I hated to pay, also moved the process.)

And like then the military will have to take a back seat to the economy before we can move on a scale on those big ticket items.

I didn't have to do any calculations. I took the numbers directly from the pages of the report that I mentioned in the last post. And my point is still the same point I said it was when I brought this up. Taxation to support runaway domestic spending is what's creating any strain there might be on the economy, not defense spending in general or the war in particular. And I'll remind you one more time that both democrat presidential candidates want to redirect the money currently being spent on war to other pet spending programs not to debt reduction or tax cuts.

tiptap
02-29-2008, 10:59 AM
I didn't have to do any calculations. I took the numbers directly from the pages of the report that I mentioned in the last post. And my point is still the same point I said it was when I brought this up. Taxation to support runaway domestic spending is what's creating any strain there might be on the economy, not defense spending in general or the war in particular. And I'll remind you one more time that both democrat presidential candidates want to redirect the money currently being spent on war to other pet spending programs not to debt reduction or tax cuts.

The 2006 Human Resource number is 65.3 not 68 so that number drops from 2002. And the money number used to make these calculations, both the percentage of government spending and percentage of GDP, its at the top of the page, use 447 billion and not the 550 billion number that would go a long way to reflect the cost of the Iraq and Afgan Wars. The percentage of the Military Spending would be greater then reflected in the numbers you use.

The amount of the GDP reflected by government is very roughly 16% (high of 17.2 for early Reagan) for all the years you mention including the Reagan years. So the distribution of those resources is what we are discussing. And the nation does not see the return on investment in the Iraq War. It has been a dear price for little gain and it is time to invest in America, both her people and her infrastructure.

Actually the 16% should be more like 17% because I also failed to include the Iraq War Cost and simply copied what was on the page. So the additional expense of the War is the difference in the increase intrusion of federal spending compared to GDP.

patteeu
02-29-2008, 11:27 AM
The 2006 Human Resource number is 65.3 not 68 so that number drops from 2002. And the money number used to make these calculations, both the percentage of government spending and percentage of GDP, its at the top of the page, use 447 billion and not the 550 billion number that would go a long way to reflect the cost of the Iraq and Afgan Wars. The percentage of the Military Spending would be greater then reflected in the numbers you use.

The amount of the GDP reflected by government is very roughly 16% (high of 17.2 for early Reagan) for all the years you mention including the Reagan years. So the distribution of those resources is what we are discussing. And the nation does not see the return on investment in the Iraq War. It has been a dear price for little gain and it is time to invest in America, both her people and her infrastructure.

Actually the 16% should be more like 17% because I also failed to include the Iraq War Cost and simply copied what was on the page. So the additional expense of the War is the difference in the increase intrusion of federal spending compared to GDP.

I see that the 63 should be 68 now that I zoom in a bit, but none of the rest of your numbers match what I'm looking at.

As a result of this change I can concede that there is a minor counter trend going on during the Bush administration where national defense outlays are growing and human resource outlays are shrinking as a fraction of total outlays, but the overall trend over the longer run is still the same: national defense outlays are down substantially and human resource outlays are way up (both as a percentage of outlays and as a percentage of GDP).

I understand that you want to call spending on such things as welfare, medicare, and social security "investment", but I reject that characterization as spin. My conclusion continues to be that it is this domestic spending that is driving our ever increasing debt and heaping a greater and greater tax burden on our citizens, not military spending.

patteeu
02-29-2008, 11:38 AM
A war with 2 million Chinese, where will that take place exactly? It is true when we reached the border of China in N. Korea we ended up fighting them but where in the world is the Chinese army forward stationed? Are you looking to invade the mainland? That Army is tied up with India, no lack of people there and Russia, no lack of land to cover there and Vietnam. You do remember the border wars between Vietnam and China over the last 20 years. And unless we are in a ground war with China we won't have to.

And by the way it was the British who put the tank armor into the field. We got it from them. Same for lots of things. We can not afford to neglect our infrastructure and support moving away from oil dependency. That would be more likely to bring us in to conflict with the Chinese.

When we are no longer dependent on the same non-renewable energy resource as the Chinese and every other industrialized, militarily-ambitious country in the world, then we can revisit discussions about disarmament. Until then there will obviously be trade-offs to be made, but to Barack Obama's proposals in the OP I say no thanks.

tiptap
02-29-2008, 11:39 AM
I see that the 63 should be 68 now that I zoom in a bit, but none of the rest of your numbers match what I'm looking at.

As a result of this change I can concede that there is a minor counter trend going on during the Bush administration where national defense outlays are growing and human resource outlays are shrinking as a fraction of total outlays, but the overall trend over the longer run is still the same: national defense outlays are down substantially and human resource outlays are way up (both as a percentage of outlays and as a percentage of GDP).

I understand that you want to call spending on such things as welfare, medicare, and social security "investment", but I reject that characterization as spin. My conclusion continues to be that it is this domestic spending that is driving our ever increasing debt and heaping a greater and greater tax burden on our citizens, not military spending.

You know patteeu, you are consistently a hawk. Sometimes I think it is more than work and that you must have had someone personal die in the twin towers or something. But I look around and McCain or Bush or Lieberman all represent a group of people in the country like you who think only in military terms. It is simply that this group failed to manage this well. They chose an expensive course. And it has failed to provide any lasting security over less expensive choices to fight terrorism. I have no illusion that the Presidency will be a slam dunk but it will be a hard sell to think the present thinking is still warranted.

tiptap
02-29-2008, 11:47 AM
When we are no longer dependent on the same non-renewable energy resource as the Chinese and every other industrialized, militarily-ambitious country in the world, then we can revisit discussions about disarmament. Until then there will obviously be trade-offs to be made, but to Barack Obama's proposals in the OP I say no thanks.

And this is why we look to move from fossil fuels to a mix of energy sources. That requires a re education of people resources, investment in new infrastructure to move away from fossil fuels. The Chinese are the Iraq of Coal, the US the Saudi Arabia. Both countries could go it alone long after oil is depleted if we had no incentive to curb our appetite for fossil fuels. So the notion we have to have a collision on energy sources is misleading. Now if you want to say the oil companies want to play both against each other to support high prices in the short run. Well I am not privy to Dubai based Halliburton or Off shore based MobilExxon but I do think profit will drive their operations.

Silock
02-29-2008, 12:11 PM
A war with 2 million Chinese, where will that take place exactly? It is true when we reached the border of China in N. Korea we ended up fighting them but where in the world is the Chinese army forward stationed? Are you looking to invade the mainland? That Army is tied up with India, no lack of people there and Russia, no lack of land to cover there and Vietnam. You do remember the border wars between Vietnam and China over the last 20 years. And unless we are in a ground war with China we won't have to.

And by the way it was the British who put the tank armor into the field. We got it from them. Same for lots of things. We can not afford to neglect our infrastructure and support moving away from oil dependency. That would be more likely to bring us in to conflict with the Chinese.

You're totally missing the point about the tank armor. The point is that we have the most advanced military in the world and we need to keep it that way, or we risk more American deaths than necessary.

As for where we're fighting them, I doubt there would be an invasion of either mainland, but conflicts happen all the time in other countries on other grounds.

Silock
02-29-2008, 12:13 PM
The 2006 Human Resource number is 65.3 not 68 so that number drops from 2002. And the money number used to make these calculations, both the percentage of government spending and percentage of GDP, its at the top of the page, use 447 billion and not the 550 billion number that would go a long way to reflect the cost of the Iraq and Afgan Wars. The percentage of the Military Spending would be greater then reflected in the numbers you use.

The amount of the GDP reflected by government is very roughly 16% (high of 17.2 for early Reagan) for all the years you mention including the Reagan years. So the distribution of those resources is what we are discussing. And the nation does not see the return on investment in the Iraq War. It has been a dear price for little gain and it is time to invest in America, both her people and her infrastructure.

Actually the 16% should be more like 17% because I also failed to include the Iraq War Cost and simply copied what was on the page. So the additional expense of the War is the difference in the increase intrusion of federal spending compared to GDP.

Using GDP over long periods of time is misleading when the GDP is in constant flux. When GDP is lower, the percentage goes up. When it's higher, the percentage goes down.

tiptap
02-29-2008, 12:22 PM
You're totally missing the point about the tank armor. The point is that we have the most advanced military in the world and we need to keep it that way, or we risk more American deaths than necessary.

As for where we're fighting them, I doubt there would be an invasion of either mainland, but conflicts happen all the time in other countries on other grounds.

I am all for investing in the personnel and their immediate combat material. But lets look at the tank armor question. We already know that Iran has managed to devise a way to go through that armor in Iraq with copper directed explosives. I am not convinced that Star Wars or Aegis systems are answers to the military needs. And I am confident that it is our ideas and our economic power that will win out. It is misplaced use of resources at this time to look to invest in Military solutions. B

Silock
02-29-2008, 12:25 PM
I am all for investing in the personnel and their immediate combat material. But lets look at the tank armor question. We already know that Iran has managed to devise a way to go through that armor in Iraq with copper directed explosives. I am not convinced that Star Wars or Aegis systems are answers to the military needs. And I am confident that it is our ideas and our economic power that will win out. It is misplaced use of resources at this time to look to invest in Military solutions. B

There is no perfect system, but when you fail to try to achieve perfection, you've already lost.

tiptap
02-29-2008, 01:11 PM
There is no perfect system, but when you fail to try to achieve perfection, you've already lost.

Does that go for negotiated solutions?

Silock
02-29-2008, 03:03 PM
Does that go for negotiated solutions?

You're confusing me with some warmonger. I think Iraq is a huge mistake. I'm very anti-war. I'm NOT, however, anti-military. There are very few legitimate powers that the federal government has out of the ones it's currently exercising (IMO), and a strong military is one of them. We shouldn't police the world, but we shouldn't be so naive as to think we're NEVER going to have to use our military, whether to defend someone else (most likely) or defend ourselves (not very likely). Either way, when American lives are on the line, they need the best technology available to them to give them the best advantage we can to preserve theirs and as many innocent lives as possible.

tiptap
02-29-2008, 03:57 PM
A defensive war with anyone but Canada and Mexico would be fought over the ocean. I support a strong Navy and 2 fighting groups of mixed services rather than the division of services along air, sea and ground. (This is narrowly what Rumsfield was pushing for, resisted and pushed aside for the Iraq war.) Then I wish the Nat. Guard to be trained up for emergencies and act as reserves. So I am not against having a strong military. Just think we are misspending funds badly.

The military expenditure can be cut back to reflect the fact we are not at arms against a nation state except of our own making. As far as defending someone else, I don't see anyone being anymore successful than Sadam. He made no headway with Iran. And the nations would come together if Iran tried to invade Kuwait or Iraq or Saudi Arabia. Pakistan and India don't need us. China and Russia leaving only Western Europe. We now have the former Soviet bloc as buffer in that field and one only has to remember Russia has only 150 million people to know they don't have the numbers under control now to be launching offensive moves.

Maybe Brazil

Silock
02-29-2008, 04:10 PM
A defensive war with anyone but Canada and Mexico would be fought over the ocean. I support a strong Navy and 2 fighting groups of mixed services rather than the division of services along air, sea and ground. (This is narrowly what Rumsfield was pushing for, resisted and pushed aside for the Iraq war.) Then I wish the Nat. Guard to be trained up for emergencies and act as reserves. So I am not against having a strong military. Just think we are misspending funds badly.

The military expenditure can be cut back to reflect the fact we are not at arms against a nation state except of our own making. As far as defending someone else, I don't see anyone being anymore successful than Sadam. He made no headway with Iran. And the nations would come together if Iran tried to invade Kuwait or Iraq or Saudi Arabia. Pakistan and India don't need us. China and Russia leaving only Western Europe. We now have the former Soviet bloc as buffer in that field and one only has to remember Russia has only 150 million people to know they don't have the numbers under control now to be launching offensive moves.

Maybe Brazil

What if a situation came up like Kuwait and we moved in to defend that country? And the invading country then somehow got China on their side. It would end up being US vs. China without involving sea battles at all. Far fetched, sure. Possible, yes.

patteeu
02-29-2008, 04:17 PM
A defensive war with anyone but Canada and Mexico would be fought over the ocean. I support a strong Navy and 2 fighting groups of mixed services rather than the division of services along air, sea and ground. (This is narrowly what Rumsfield was pushing for, resisted and pushed aside for the Iraq war.) Then I wish the Nat. Guard to be trained up for emergencies and act as reserves. So I am not against having a strong military. Just think we are misspending funds badly.

The military expenditure can be cut back to reflect the fact we are not at arms against a nation state except of our own making. As far as defending someone else, I don't see anyone being anymore successful than Sadam. He made no headway with Iran. And the nations would come together if Iran tried to invade Kuwait or Iraq or Saudi Arabia. Pakistan and India don't need us. China and Russia leaving only Western Europe. We now have the former Soviet bloc as buffer in that field and one only has to remember Russia has only 150 million people to know they don't have the numbers under control now to be launching offensive moves.

Maybe Brazil

When you conclude that we'll be fighting over the ocean, you forget about the air and, ultimately, space. The most likely threat that our country will face to it's home soil comes in the form of missiles. Continuing research on missile defense, including live testing and and phased deployment, is a no-brainer, IMO.

And space is the ultimate high ground. Let's make sure it's us and not a rival who has the upper hand on that battlefield.

Silock
02-29-2008, 04:30 PM
And space is the ultimate high ground. Let's make sure it's us and not a rival who has the upper hand on that battlefield.

Yup. Much easier to hit a target going UP into space than it is to hit one coming down.

tiptap
02-29-2008, 04:33 PM
How many missiles patteeu does it take to put in a light bulb. None it has its own light saber. Who wants to be vaporized? Just how many more Nuclear Missiles do we have to have to be sure we can destroy say Iran. I do not find it credible that any country would seek the retaliation for such a deed. Now I could see how they might blow up Israel and see if we would nuke them for that or some other nation. And we could discuss who gets under the umbrella. How blind would we be to not know someone is beginning to put nuclear weapons in space? You don't think we couldn't target enough of OUR nuclear weapons to have them back down? You don't think if that were to happen we would just sit back and trust that our ABM system would be like Colgate's Gardol and those missiles would just bounce off. NO, no President could do that. We would be having a show down with our offensive missiles. It made some sense to threatened an ABM in negotiating with Korea, sort of. But now that they are done we can slow way down on actual procurement. Some research OK. Better spent elsewhere on refitting the National Guard.

Adept Havelock
02-29-2008, 04:41 PM
The most likely threat that our country will face to it's home soil comes in the form of missiles.

You really think we're more likely to be hit with an ICBM than a bomb delivered by a Buick? :hmmm:

Personally, I think we'd be better off putting those funds into reinforcing port and border security.

Silock
02-29-2008, 04:56 PM
How many missiles patteeu does it take to put in a light bulb. None it has its own light saber. Who wants to be vaporized? Just how many more Nuclear Missiles do we have to have to be sure we can destroy say Iran. I do not find it credible that any country would seek the retaliation for such a deed. Now I could see how they might blow up Israel and see if we would nuke them for that or some other nation. And we could discuss who gets under the umbrella. How blind would we be to not know someone is beginning to put nuclear weapons in space? You don't think we couldn't target enough of OUR nuclear weapons to have them back down? You don't think if that were to happen we would just sit back and trust that our ABM system would be like Colgate's Gardol and those missiles would just bounce off. NO, no President could do that. We would be having a show down with our offensive missiles. It made some sense to threatened an ABM in negotiating with Korea, sort of. But now that they are done we can slow way down on actual procurement. Some research OK. Better spent elsewhere on refitting the National Guard.

It's not about nukes. The Chinese could completely **** this country up without ever firing a single shot at American soil or using a nuke.

patteeu
02-29-2008, 05:15 PM
You really think we're more likely to be hit with an ICBM than a bomb delivered by a Buick? :hmmm:

Personally, I think we'd be better off putting those funds into reinforcing port and border security.

I think the Buick is more likely, but the missile is a more significant threat. I think we need port security and border security, but not at the expense of missile defense.