The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Off Topic Discussions > Military Spending
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-15-2009, 09:01 AM
MrQ1701's Avatar
MrQ1701 MrQ1701 is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Espanola, New Mexico
Posts: 3,940
Default Military Spending

Okay, I'm not trying to start a left or right argument.

It has been in the news recently that the Obama administration is cutting the F-22 purchases in order to divert that money to other less expensive things. I know Robert Hates is the current Defense Secretary, but he doesn't seem like a "yes man" and he agrees this is a good move. McCain is also in agreement.

It doesn't really take Military experience to have an opinion on this. I think the move is a good one. I would love to see the military replace the aging M-16/M-4 platform and to upgrade their small arms. Better ground vehicles and equipment for the average soldier are where I would spend the money. I'm not an accountant and I don't know if these things would be possible just from the F-22 savings, but that is where I would start.

What are your thoughts?
__________________
To secure the peace is to prepare for war. -Metallica
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-15-2009, 09:10 AM
Zardoz's Avatar
Zardoz Zardoz is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere In The Future
Posts: 31,432
Default

It's time to cut back the military, and military spending. Obama is trying to make America finacially viable again. I think it will take him 2 terms to get near that goal.
__________________
"High Priestesses Of Zardoz" By Eliza's Starbase Of Avatars Copyright 2009."
"Zardoz Speaks To You, His Choosen Trek Fans."
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-15-2009, 09:13 AM
tomcatjosh's Avatar
tomcatjosh tomcatjosh is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 3,800
Default

obama doesn't want a military. he wants us to do piece talks, and forget about armed action.
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-15-2009, 09:15 AM
Zardoz's Avatar
Zardoz Zardoz is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere In The Future
Posts: 31,432
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomcatjosh View Post
obama doesn't want a military. he wants us to do piece talks, and forget about armed action.
tomcat, it's time for a peacetime military, which means downsizing, and getting more specializtion, not getting rod of it. Not all issues need armed resolution, if that were the case, I wouldn't have a job.
__________________
"High Priestesses Of Zardoz" By Eliza's Starbase Of Avatars Copyright 2009."
"Zardoz Speaks To You, His Choosen Trek Fans."
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-15-2009, 09:16 AM
jerhanner's Avatar
jerhanner jerhanner is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Deep in the 100 Acre Wood
Posts: 3,905
Default

If a weapon is obsolete, scrap it. That's just plain good sense. If you look at how much we spend on our military in comparison to every other country in the world, well, it's depressing that no one could have heeded General Eisenhower's warnings. Things like the ray gun I saw on 60 Minutes that they are gonna use for crowd control - now that's a good idea, and we should be looking for advances like that.

I'm not saying don't provide for the common defense. I'm just saying that we don't need a nuclear bomb for every man, woman and child in Russia anymore.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-15-2009, 09:16 AM
jerhanner's Avatar
jerhanner jerhanner is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Deep in the 100 Acre Wood
Posts: 3,905
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomcatjosh View Post
obama doesn't want a military. he wants us to do piece talks, and forget about armed action.
Funny, he just upped the troop #'s in Afghanistan. Or did you not hear about that on the news?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-15-2009, 09:20 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jerhanner View Post
I'm not saying don't provide for the common defense. I'm just saying that we don't need a nuclear bomb for every man, woman and child in Russia anymore.
Or rather not the nuclear potential to eradicate humankind ten or hundred times. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ean3Wrfbew

Concerning this airplane, as America is involved in two wars on the ground at the moment, shifting resources into that area makes perfect sense.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-15-2009, 09:36 AM
MrQ1701's Avatar
MrQ1701 MrQ1701 is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Espanola, New Mexico
Posts: 3,940
Default

I really don't want to go down the road of debating how much the U.S. government should spend on the military. That discussion could easily turn into a right versus left argument.

TomCat, no offense, but you are rather young and it is probable you don't entirely understand the politics involved. Obama has NOT proposed any military budget cuts. What IS proposed is changing WHERE and HOW the military spends it's money.

Jerhanner, the F-22 is the world's most advanced fighter jet. I think the U.S. Air Force ordered something like 220 of these fighters. Now the talk is reducing the total number to 160. I may have the numbers wrong, but it is a reduction not a scrapping.

The argument is that we already have air superiority and that spending billions of dollars on high tech craft is wasteful when we could be providing more things like better assualt rifles or body armor to more troops.
__________________
To secure the peace is to prepare for war. -Metallica
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-15-2009, 09:51 AM
Botany Bay's Avatar
Botany Bay Botany Bay is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Berlin
Posts: 2,112
Default

The British Empire had a doctrine (forgot the name of it): At all times ought the Royal Navy have twice the strength as the two strongest foreign navies on earth alltogether.

The United States military budget today is the highest in the world. Its as high as the budgets of the next 9 weaker nations all together (that is according to numbers I read today in a german magazine called FOCUS).

Now, some people say Europe must take more responsibilities and increase its military spending. Would that mean, that the US will cut their military spending then, or will they then also increase their spending to stay as strong as the next 9 weaker nations all together?

Do you remember how they said the West armed the USSR to death?

However, I have no clue wether all this military spending is necessary, nor wise. But I cant help the feeling it is a massive waste of recources. But heck, when did proud nationalists ever prefer the wisest action over winning a peeing contest?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-15-2009, 09:56 AM
MrQ1701's Avatar
MrQ1701 MrQ1701 is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Espanola, New Mexico
Posts: 3,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jerhanner View Post

I'm not saying don't provide for the common defense. I'm just saying that we don't need a nuclear bomb for every man, woman and child in Russia anymore.
Did you see that portion on my MySpace blog?
__________________
To secure the peace is to prepare for war. -Metallica
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:33 PM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.