Should military spending be reduced?

Status
Not open for further replies.
WarMachine said:
When i was here last time before memebers like you joined i could actually get a decent conversation going without people's hubris getting in the way. All you've told me is that i'm wrong and for some reason you're right. Please, i implore you, what's your justification for having cold war era weapons being used against third war countries? Or any other actual response to the topic.
Click to expand...

Before informed members joined?

The thing is, you've been told a few times how you're "wrong." You've also been asked to claifiy your statements, but you ignore the questions that have been asked.

You still haven't answered what specific civilian social programs are hurting because of the military budget and a ton of other questions.

You argue and advocate weaking the military, but you can't explain why other than you want more money to go to these suffering civilian social programs or to foreign aid.

There are a ton of questions people have asked concerning claims you've made that you've not bothered to answer, maybe that's why we can't take you seriously.
 
PJ24 said:
Before informed members joined?

The thing is, you've been told a few times how you're "wrong." You've also been asked to claifiy your statements, but you ignore the questions that have been asked.

You still haven't answered what specific civilian social programs are hurting because of the military budget and a ton of other questions.

You argue and advocate weaking the military, but you can't explain why other than you want more money to go to these suffering civilian social programs or to foreign aid.

There are a ton of questions people have asked concerning claims you've made that you've not bothered to answer, maybe that's why we can't take you seriously.
Click to expand...
*nods head vigorously in agreement*
 
Not to mention, telling us what is what about fundamentalist Islam yet not knowing what is going on in his own back yard.

Senior Chief said:
Even someof the mainstream Muslims support what the radicals are doing. I worked with a couple of guys that were good co-workers. They were decidedly for the 9/11 attacks and were not ashamed to hide their approval of that attack.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I have experience something around the same thing too, although they were so open about it, and yes also they were good co-workers. And I live in California.
 
WarMachine said:
When i was here last time before memebers like you joined i could actually get a decent conversation going without people's hubris getting in the way. All you've told me is that i'm wrong and for some reason you're right. Please, i implore you, what's your justification for having cold war era weapons being used against third war countries? Or any other actual response to the topic.
Click to expand...

What is your definition of a cold war weapon? The number of nukes we had during the cold war have been reduced greatly. Other than those weapons, what are you talking about? Not to brag, but I served for 28 years and most of those years were during the cold war.

The weapons systems we now have are not the same "one big bang and you wipe out your enemy" as you seem to be suggesting that we still have. The larger part of our weaponry is of the type that we can surgically impare anyone's ability to cause damage to the U.S. or to our friends.

Please clarify what you are decrying, I can't see anything in our current arms that could even come close to giving you a foundation for your argument.
 
Please, i implore you, what's your justification for having cold war era weapons being used against third war countries? Or any other actual response to the topic.
Click to expand...

Because those third world nations have russians latest and greatest sam-sites, the arms race is not over my friend. We wont be fighting the russians but were still going to be fighting ever improveing russian/chinese weapons. If we let ourselves laps we may no longer have the ability to take the hurt to the bad guys.
 
Hey Warmachine,

I'm still waiting for some kind of explanation from you regarding your stance on military capability and what it has to do with the current situation vs. the cold war.
 
I'm not against upgrading weapons if that's what you guys think. Any Russian/Chinese weapon systems are inferior against the USA as they are. I haven't see a credible development from those areas for a while. We need new fighter jets just because the previous ones are getting older,fine. But you don't need a grossly expensive overkill like the f22, there's no point in buying in and imo the design for a next gen fighter should've have been reconsidered after the USSR fell. Something that was cheaper but had all the features necessary to keep america in control of the skies. Over 300 million or so a piece for these fighters is waaay too much. I bet China and Russia are looking at this with some skepticism since their fighters are cheaper but fairly decent anyway. Besides, it's the training of the pilots that makes for an excellent airforce, not necessarily good fighters, the korean war showed us that.

So what i'm saying is the cold war ere weapon designs are unnecessary for current gen capabilities becuase they were meant to fight a different kind of enemy and in different situations. Not to mention their great cost which is unjustifiable unless you have a high tech rival to go up against which we don't anymore. It's common sense to use practical weapons that work rather than cutting edge machines that look intimidating but can't be implemented against anyone. I'm for smarter spending not exorbitant spending.
 
WarMachine said:
I'm not against upgrading weapons if that's what you guys think. Any Russian/Chinese weapon systems are inferior against the USA as they are. I haven't see a credible development from those areas for a while. We need new fighter jets just because the previous ones are getting older,fine. But you don't need a grossly expensive overkill like the f22, there's no point in buying in and imo the design for a next gen fighter should've have been reconsidered after the USSR fell. Something that was cheaper but had all the features necessary to keep america in control of the skies. Over 300 million or so a piece for these fighters is waaay too much. I bet China and Russia are looking at this with some skepticism since their fighters are cheaper but fairly decent anyway. Besides, it's the training of the pilots that makes for an excellent airforce, not necessarily good fighters, the korean war showed us that.

So what i'm saying is the cold war ere weapon designs are unnecessary for current gen capabilities becuase they were meant to fight a different kind of enemy and in different situations. Not to mention their great cost which is unjustifiable unless you have a high tech rival to go up against which we don't anymore. It's common sense to use practical weapons that work rather than cutting edge machines that look intimidating but can't be implemented against anyone. I'm for smarter spending not exorbitant spending.
Click to expand...

Name the cold war era weapons systems that we now have. I don't believe that you have a clue as to what weapons systems we have and I don't believe you have a grasp on military technology in any regard.

You seem to have a bone to pick with someone and are using old rhetoric to try to prove your point.

Just for the record, the weapons systems that have survived the end of the cold war have survived not because of what they are, but because they are still viable in today's world.
 
No they're not viable. I don't have a bone to pick with anyone except those who allocate funds to these useless systems. Since none of you allocate funds, i have no problems here. There are probably some officials at the pentagon that don't like the idea of their defense budget being sunk into these things that they know will probably never be used, especially in the combat situations that they were designed to be used in. I'm not listing the programs again, i've listed them several times before so just look them up in past posts.
 
From what I found you vaguely listed them: "Those two categories are inflating the cost and i'm tired of having to worry about civilian services always being cut to satisfy the Pentagon's appetite." and "You're cutting money to schools, health, and virtually every other field of the budget." Is this your idea of "listed them several times before"?
 
WarMachine said:
No they're not viable. I don't have a bone to pick with anyone except those who allocate funds to these useless systems. Since none of you allocate funds, i have no problems here. There are probably some officials at the pentagon that don't like the idea of their defense budget being sunk into these things that they know will probably never be used, especially in the combat situations that they were designed to be used in. I'm not listing the programs again, i've listed them several times before so just look them up in past posts.
Click to expand...

This is you and me, answer the question! What systems do you see as useless?

What systems do you see as useless?????????

What systems do you see as useless?????????

What systems do you see as useless?????????

What systems do you see as useless?????????

What systems do you see as useless?????????

What systems do you see as useless?????????

All you have to do is answer the question, it's easy and you seem to be deflecting. I still think that you don't have a clue as to what is happening.

Have you ever been in the military or are you basing your comments on what you read and have others tell you what you really think?
 
If I was a pilot going into combat or flying missions over territory loaded with SAMs, I would want all the brain power possible designing my plane. I think that's where the F22 comes in. No one can judge how good weapons systems are until they take them into combat. Being and staying number one is not cheap, "second place is just the first loser."
 
Missileer said:
If I was a pilot going into combat or flying missions over territory loaded with SAMs, I would want all the brain power possible designing my plane. I think that's where the F22 comes in. No one can judge how good weapons systems are until they take them into combat. Being and staying number one is not cheap, "second place is just the first loser."
Click to expand...

You sir are very correct!

I don't think our friend Warmoron understands that even if a weapon was designed during the Cold War that it has many uses that are not related to the time frame of when it was designed. If that were the case we wouldn't have smart bombs, laser guided bombs, cruise missiles that can hit your desk from over 500 miles out, etc.

My guess is that he is either 14 or someone that was abused severly when he was 14 and hasn't gotten over it.
 
College freshman Senior Chief and has been listening to the prof's a little too much... lord knows, it happened to me too.
 
Last edited:
No profs guys, i learned about it on my own over the years and i don't like it. Hello. i named myself warmachine, that means i like the military and its abilities. It interests me, that's why i like talking about it. Nobody really influences me about these topics, everyone just talks about gas prices.

My largest gripe is the B2 bomber. It was designed to penetrate soviet air defenses, there's no way of getting around that fact. But when your main reason for building these planes ceases to exist, then you can't justify spending a billion dollars each for them. They cost 100,000s to maintain and they aren't being used for their main purpose, nuclear deployment. Instead they're used to bomb countries that have antiquated radar systems that don't need to be countered by these hugely expensive planes. Why keep them? Well apparently someone thought they had to and now we have over 2 dozen of them. What a fleet of these will ever except waste money is what bothers me. Get rid of them if at all possible, we have smart engineers who can build a cheaper bomber.

If just the B2 program was shelved, i'd be happy and not even care anymore about military spending. The other programs like the raptor and such have a tiny bit of justification, but not the B2.
 
WarMachine said:
No profs guys, i learned about it on my own over the years and i don't like it. Hello. i named myself warmachine, that means i like the military and its abilities. It interests me, that's why i like talking about it. Nobody really influences me about these topics, everyone just talks about gas prices.

My largest gripe is the B2 bomber. It was designed to penetrate soviet air defenses, there's no way of getting around that fact. But when your main reason for building these planes ceases to exist, then you can't justify spending a billion dollars each for them. They cost 100,000s to maintain and they aren't being used for their main purpose, nuclear deployment. Instead they're used to bomb countries that have antiquated radar systems that don't need to be countered by these hugely expensive planes. Why keep them? Well apparently someone thought they had to and now we have over 2 dozen of them. What a fleet of these will ever except waste money is what bothers me. Get rid of them if at all possible, we have smart engineers who can build a cheaper bomber.

If just the B2 program was shelved, i'd be happy and not even care anymore about military spending. The other programs like the raptor and such have a tiny bit of justification, but not the B2.
Click to expand...

I first thought that you were just unaware of the situation. I now see that it's not that you don't know anything, you don't even f***** suspect anything!

What types of weapons can the B-52 carry? Care to venture a guess? I'll enlighten you, the weapons that are used can be steel bombs, cluster bombs, as well as SFW, CEM and other stand off weapons. It also carries the MOAB (no other bomber type aircraft has the lift necessary to carry those).

What you totally failed to realize is that the system is adaptable to current needs and strategies.

The B2 stands on it's own and is capable of delivering additional standoff weapons as well as being a very small radar target.

I've only mentioned a very few uses for the two aircraft that we have in our inventory. We have not even begun to consider the difference of maintaining a B-52 vs building a single F-22. (Just in case you are not aware the F stands for Fighter) and although it is a stealth platform it does not have the load capacity of some of the current fighters we now have in our inventory.

I think you would be better off tackling something more in your league, like some of the Captain Marvel comic books in your bedroom.
 
Toche Senior Chief, touche. I didn't realize i could have an engaging arguement with spider man pictures.

I'd also like to mention that the B2 is oversized for dropping precision guided munition instead of say, 20 megaton warheads like it was supposed to. A jet fighter could do its job and at a lot cheaper cost. If you want a platform for carpet bombing then our B52 fleet does an admirable job at that. If you think the 52 is too old, well you can thank the USAF for keeping the most expensive bomber it could develop instead of a more conventional weapons platform that could've done the same thing for cheaper.

But the main advantage of not spending so much on these weapon systems is that you'll have more money available for soldiers on the ground. Better equipment for each man as well as support for individuals out on the field. The Popular Mechanics Letter of the Month says the same thing.

"As contributor Bing West suggested in his piece “Invest in
Our Troops” (“The Great Weapons Debate,” April 2006),
how about giving up one DD(X) destroyer or a couple
of hundred Joint Strike Fighters to give our guys on the
ground better lightweight armor and portable comm gear?
This would allow direct tasking from the ground for air
support. MICHAEL SCHLABACH GREAT FALLS, VA"
 
WarMachine said:
Toche Senior Chief, touche. I didn't realize i could have an engaging arguement with spider man pictures.

I'd also like to mention that the B2 is oversized for dropping precision guided munition instead of say, 20 megaton warheads like it was supposed to. A jet fighter could do its job and at a lot cheaper cost. If you want a platform for carpet bombing then our B52 fleet does an admirable job at that. If you think the 52 is too old, well you can thank the USAF for keeping the most expensive bomber it could develop instead of a more conventional weapons platform that could've done the same thing for cheaper.

But the main advantage of not spending so much on these weapon systems is that you'll have more money available for soldiers on the ground. Better equipment for each man as well as support for individuals out on the field. The Popular Mechanics Letter of the Month says the same thing.

"As contributor Bing West suggested in his piece “Invest in
Our Troops” (“The Great Weapons Debate,” April 2006),
how about giving up one DD(X) destroyer or a couple
of hundred Joint Strike Fighters to give our guys on the
ground better lightweight armor and portable comm gear?
This would allow direct tasking from the ground for air
support. MICHAEL SCHLABACH GREAT FALLS, VA"
Click to expand...

What kind of time does a fighter have to loiter over or near a target? What is the capacity of the fighters? You still don't have a clue as to what the B52's are used for. What is the load capacity of a B-52? What type of weapons can the B52 be configured for? I think you are extremely short sighted on what we have and how they are used.

You not only cannot see the difference between the services but you, and your quoted commentary, also show a distinct incapability of attempting to see the difference. Money saved by not building a ship would not be transferred to the Army for body armor, nor would the Air Force budget be transferred to another service.

You should give up while you are behind, you are spiraling downward with no hope for recovery.
 
nstead they're used to bomb countries that have antiquated radar systems that don't need to be countered by these hugely expensive planes.
Click to expand...
Your just flat wrong there, these countries dont have antiquated radar systems. They have top of the line russian sams (S-300) and many many many other types of anti-air weapons. Put on top of that i could probally make a radar capable of detecting a B-52 we most certainly need the B-2 to do the missions we need to do.

The DDX I can sorta agree on the ABs do the job just fine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top