backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 231 comment(s) - last by rcc.. on Jan 19 at 1:07 PM


An artist's conception of Nasa's Ares Rocket
President-elect's transition team planning to use decades-old military rockets instead, say insiders.

President-Elect Obama's transition team is planning to scrap NASA's Ares program, the successor to the Space Shuttle, say NASA advisors.  The transition team is demanding deep cuts from the agency, and is investigating whether old military rockets such as the Delta IV and Atlas V could be used in place of Ares.

NASA plans a permanent moon base by 2020, followed by a manned mission to Mars; plans which the agency says require Ares.

The Space Shuttle is due to make its last flight in 2010. Without a replacement, NASA may be without a manned space capability entirely, for the first time since the 1960s, a gap that NASA says would destroy the U.S.'s primacy in space technology.

Prior news reports have hinted at a great deal of tension between Obama's team and NASA, a report that NASA Administrator Michael Griffon has denied.

On the campaign trail, Obama blew both hot and cold on plans for NASA's budget. In the NASA-friendly states of Texas and Florida, he promised to expand NASA's budget by more than 10%. In other states, however, he promised cuts and delays to the agency, in order to help fund his education policies.

Lori Garver, a space policy advisor for Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, was selected by Obama to lead the NASA review transition team. Despite being criticized for her lack of an engineering or scientific background, Garver has been called a favorite to be the next NASA Administrator.

Ares program manager Steve Cook says that, with Ares due for its first test flight next summer, halting the program now would be an expensive mistake. "We would be really stepping backwards" by opting for a different launch platform.

Space Historian Andrew Chaikin said that, "Obama's first priority for NASA should be to get the Shuttle's replacement on track".



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Military?
By martinrichards23 on 12/22/2008 10:29:59 AM , Rating: 4
The savings made would be a drop in the ocean compared to military spending.

If cuts have to be made don't do it to NASA.




RE: Military?
By MrBungle123 on 12/22/2008 10:58:47 AM , Rating: 4
I agree, however don't cut the military either.


RE: Military?
By kattanna on 12/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: Military?
By greenchasch on 12/22/2008 11:06:24 AM , Rating: 5
I'm afraid of Russia, China, Iran, or someone else attacking some of our allies in the next 10 years, yeah.

In case you missed it, Russia created a pretext then ran all over Georgia just last year, and China has been planning an invasion of Taiwan for a long time now.

Oh, and Iran is busy building nukes. But it promises it won't ever use them except in defense. :p


RE: Military?
By Spivonious on 12/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: Military?
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 11:48:05 AM , Rating: 3
> "China is definitely not a stupid country."

Germany was definitely not a stupid country, yet it attacked all its own trading partners, and began wars that decimated its economy and infrastructure beyond belief.

> "The world is a lot different from 50 years ago"

If you mean that to imply we're now too smart to engage in widespread, destructive warfare, I fear you're sadly mistaken. In fact, I'd lay money that we'll see our first full-scale war between nuclear-armed opponents in less than 25 years.


RE: Military?
By sgw2n5 on 12/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: Military?
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 12:17:05 PM , Rating: 5
> "What on earth makes you think that there is going to be a major (WWII scale) war within the next 25 years? "

That's not what I said. I said there was going to be a full-scale war between two nuclear-armed opponents within that period. The possibility of it escalating into a global conflict is far smaller.

Still, the notion that we've somehow "outgrown" world wars entirely is rather sophomoric, don't you think?


RE: Military?
By sgw2n5 on 12/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: Military?
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 1:11:48 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
"The notion of a world war, at this point in time, is far fetched.
After the poison gases and trench warfare of the "Great War", most observers said the same thing. Then, WW2 came along.

> "just in case some Iranian guy figures out how to fire an ICBM from the ass of a camel..."

Cute, but Iran is already developing a missile with a 6,000 km range:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JP...


RE: Military?
By sgw2n5 on 12/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: Military?
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 1:38:54 PM , Rating: 2
> "So since you didn't actually answer or respond in any meaningful way..."

How did I not? You claim global war is now "unthinkable". I demonstrated that such claims have been widespread -- and very wrong-- before.

After poison gas rolled across Europe in the Great War, observers widely said world wars were now "too destructive" to fight. Yet soon after, another occurred, with both sides simply maintaining their gentleman's agreement to not use their most destructive weapons. The idea that it can't possible happen again is, I fear, sorely misguided.


RE: Military?
By sgw2n5 on 12/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: Military?
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 1:57:22 PM , Rating: 4
> "What about that statement rubs you the wrong way, friend?"

I'm always rubbed wrongly when people fail to learn from history. It's the fault of modern-day historians, in my opinion: most classes fail to adequately present the lessons of history in proper context.

> "Don't you think that a thermonuclear device is kinda sorta maybe just a little bit different? "

Not in the least. A machine gun or mustard gas shell can kill you just as dead as a nuclear weapon. And we can build enough of any of them to kill the entire world population a hundred times over.

In fact, in the long run, I'd say that H-bombs are less of a threat than biological weapons, especially now that anti-missile technology has improved so much.


RE: Military?
By sgw2n5 on 12/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: Military?
By ViroMan on 12/22/2008 7:00:39 PM , Rating: 3
That fighting with masher on a ANY point is just STUPID. j/k
no really, don't fight each other over a news story... jeez.


RE: Military?
By gus6464 on 12/23/2008 4:30:12 PM , Rating: 2
But when are we going to get Mobile Suits? :D


RE: Military?
By Oregonian2 on 12/23/2008 2:50:04 PM , Rating: 4
So you're saying that just because history shows people will have great wars with tremendous killing on massive scales (percentage of the existing populations of the time) and have done so continuously for as long as history record go back -- that "we" haven't seen the light and won't stop doing that because we're so much smarter now despite even having places like Chicago be corruption free and sing shangrala all together now with great glee? Goodness gracious!


RE: Military?
By phxfreddy on 12/24/2008 11:59:29 AM , Rating: 2
Correct phrase is not "I FEEL" ...replace that with ....."HISTORY SHOWS"


RE: Military?
By MrBungle123 on 12/22/2008 1:50:31 PM , Rating: 2
chemical weapons are a good analogy to go on with regard to nuclear weapons... both are meant to kill large numbers of people indescriminantlty, both were the pinacle of weapons technology at the time of their development, and both are things that would only be used in a total war.

Saddam Hussien used gas to kill hundreds of thousands of people just like the atomic bomb was used to kill hundreds of thousands of people. Whats the difference?


RE: Military?
By sgw2n5 on 12/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: Military?
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 2:02:29 PM , Rating: 5
> "...the inevitable starvation, disease, and misery of a 20 year long nuclear winter."

Err, the psuedo-science behind nuclear-winter was pretty much debunked long ago. In any case, the notion that two nuclear-capable warring states must automatically exchange nuclear fire is fallacious. WW2 was fought without chemical weapons, though nations could have easily deployed them.

Finally, anti-ballistic missile defenses are invalidating the entire concept of nuclear missiles.


RE: Military?
By sgw2n5 on 12/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: Military?
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 3:00:40 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
your telling me that if the US, Russia, France, and the UK exhausted even 10% of their nuclear arsenal, that there wouldn't be a nuclear winter?
Exactly so. Nuclear winter was political policy masquerading as science. I remind you that Carl Sagan-- the man who popularized nuclear winter-- predicted similar effects from the Kuwaiti oil fires, with the massive amounts of soot released causing widespread regional climate change. Yet nothing of the sort ocurred.

Quite a few prominent physicists have called out nuclear winter, including names as esteemed as from Dyson and Feynman. NCAR (the National Center For Atmospheric Research) said of it:
quote:
"...on scientific grounds the global apocalyptic conclusions of the initial nuclear winter hypothesis can now be relegated to a vanishingly low level of probability."


RE: Military?
By arazok on 12/22/2008 4:15:47 PM , Rating: 2
I would add that during the cold war, both the US and USSR detonated thousands of bombs simply to test them. The US detonated 331 atsmopheric tests alone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_testing

People have this perception that nukes are some earth ending device. The people in charge of using them have no such illusions, and would not hesitate to use them if they felt it was in their best interests to do so.


RE: Military?
By Marduke on 12/22/2008 4:36:01 PM , Rating: 2
But those tests were mostly smaller than what is in the arsenal, and scattered over 18 years. Imagine the difference with hundreds of times that many happening over a period of 18 minutes!!


RE: Military?
By sgw2n5 on 12/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: Military?
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 6:04:01 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I'm calling shenanigans.

If a couple of hundred modern warheads were detonated (1 warhead being ~100 megaton),
Whoa, whoa. Modern strategic nuclear weapons are *not* 100 MT devices. That's the size of the largest weapon ever built, the "Tsar Bomba" the Soviets created as a demonstration.

The typical warhead is a boosted-fission device in the 300KT range (i.e. 0.3% of 100MT).

quote:
The billions of Curies of newly formed I-125 and I-131 alone...
Whups again. I-125 isn't a fission daughter. I-131 is...but its quite easy to guard against-- a few iodine pills will generally prevent thyroid cancer, and its not normally a deadly cancer anyway. If you want to sound alarm bells, you should bring up something like strontium or cesium.

As for the level of fallout, several hundred-- or indeed several thousand-- of such devices would not "poison every living thing on the planet". That was indeed the entire point of the nuclear winter scenario -- it was an attempt to convince people that nuclear war was unsurvivable, even though the fallout was manageable.


RE: Military?
By sgw2n5 on 12/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: Military?
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 6:45:09 PM , Rating: 3
> "I'm not a nuclear engineer, but wasn't Tsar Bomba 1950's tech?"

Yes, but nuclear weapons engineering since then has focused on reducing size, critical mass requirements, increased reliability, and other areas. For technical reasons I won't go into here, yields of 100MT+ are very wasteful. That was the rationale behind the development of MIRVs -- a lot of smaller nukes are much more destructive than one massive one.

Even in the 1950s, we had the capability to build weapons much larger than 100MT. Unlike a fission bomb, there's no theoretical limit on H-bomb yields. There's just no point to making ones that large.

> "So, basically, you're saying that a large scale nuclear war isn't anything to worry about then? "

Surely you can grasp a scenario somewhere between "nothing to worry about" and "everyone on the planet will die". A full-scale exchange with the US and Russian arsenals would kill many tens of millions from fallout alone. But sterilize the entire planet? Not even close.


RE: Military?
By MrBungle123 on 12/22/2008 2:12:07 PM , Rating: 2
Mustard gas killed tens of thousands of people in the trences of WWI with only relatively primitive delivery systems like artilery shells and bi-planes. Poison gas killed hundreds of thousands of people in the provicial regions of Iraq when saddam decided to go genocidal on his own people.

What do you think it could do with modern bombers that can carry hundreds of tons of the stuff? What do you think it could do when we have newer compounds like VX gas which is fatal in quantities barely able to cover lincoln's eye on a penny? Put the two together, 10 B-52's drop 400 tons of VX gas over any region and everything for hundreds of miles withers and dies as the most poisonous cloud of gas in history gets blown around by the prevailing winds. The devistation is absolutely comparable to that of a nuclear detonation.


RE: Military?
By Dark Legion on 12/22/2008 3:26:26 PM , Rating: 2
Most likely India and Pakistan. There's a much bigger conflict between them than most people think.


RE: Military?
By MrBungle123 on 12/22/2008 12:25:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What on earth makes you think that there is going to be a major (WWII scale) war within the next 25 years? You do realize that this isn't 1955 don't you?


Has it ever occured to you that American miliatry superiority is the reason there has been no major conflicts since 1955? This last half century of peace is the exception to the rule. Things like the atom/hydrogen bomb, ICBM's, and nuclear powered supercarriers are what keep the peace. They are there so you don't have to use them. Take them away and the fighting will start again.


RE: Military?
By sgw2n5 on 12/22/2008 1:05:04 PM , Rating: 2
And I never once advocated dismantling our nuclear arsenal, for the very reason you described.

I am arguing that there will never be another ground war even 1/10 the scale of WWII, and it would be prudent of the US to reflect that sentiment in its military budget.


RE: Military?
By MrBungle123 on 12/22/2008 1:26:54 PM , Rating: 3
You cannot cut military spending by 70% as you are advocating without large reductions in military hardware. A nuclear arsenal is useless without proper delivery systems. Things like 2 Billion dollar stealth bombers, 3 billion dollar ballistic missle submarines, and 4 billion dollar aircraft carriers are essential to the viablity of our nuclear deterrent.

If we simply mothball our current hardware and reduce man power then the entire system will fall into disarray like what happened to the soviet military after the USSR colapsed, most of their arsenal is rusting away and even if it were functional it is all obsolete.

To maintain our super-power status it will cost a lot of money. As a percentage of GDP the US really doesn't spend that much more than many european countries its just that our economy is so much larger that it allows us more freedom to maintian a much larger more technologically advanced military.


RE: Military?
By sgw2n5 on 12/22/2008 1:35:37 PM , Rating: 1
Let there be DRASTIC reductions in hardware then. If there is not an unnecessarily large ground force, you won't need too many tanks, APC's, bullets, armor, (payroll, hazard pay, insurance, medical care...)

By all means, keep spending the money to keep our nuclear arsenal fully functioning and up to date (including bombers, ICBM's, research facilities, Hangars, Silo's, etc.)

As is, the US military is a inefficiently ran money pit, and most of it has outlived its usefulness. What good is a 2 million dollar tank if it can be destroyed by a 200 dollar shaped charge being detonated by a 12 year old?


RE: Military?
By MrBungle123 on 12/22/2008 1:43:38 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
What good is a 2 million dollar tank if it can be destroyed by a 200 dollar shaped charge being detonated by a 12 year old?


The only reason such tactics are effective is because we tie the hands of the men driving the tanks with rules of engagement that said 12 year old does not abide by.


RE: Military?
By sgw2n5 on 12/22/2008 1:52:34 PM , Rating: 2
So....... you're saying that wars (or "conflicts") are fought much differently than they used to be? You're saying that traditional hardware and tactics aren't that useful in a modern battlefield?


RE: Military?
By MrBungle123 on 12/22/2008 2:28:30 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
you're saying that wars (or "conflicts") are fought much differently than they used to be?


60 years ago we went into a war to kill as many people on the other side as possible and break their will to fight and it was over when they surrenderd. Now we go into a war and try to kill as few people as possible so we don't make them mad at us. That is a job for a police force, a military is there to break things and kill people not patrol the streets of major cities waiting to get shot at so they can respond.

quote:
You're saying that traditional hardware and tactics aren't that useful in a modern battlefield?


I'm saying that traditional tactics with modern hardware would be far more effective than what we are doing now.


RE: Military?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/22/2008 11:57:10 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
60 years ago we went into a war to kill as many people on the other side as possible and break their will to fight and it was over when they surrenderd. Now we go into a war and try to kill as few people as possible so we don't make them mad at us. That is a job for a police force, a military is there to break things and kill people not patrol the streets of major cities waiting to get shot at so they can respond.


Yes the " Total War " doctrine. But sadly that doesn't apply in Iraq because..

1. We're not fighting a uniformed army with clear logistical assets and supply lines.

2. Terrorist live among civilians purposely as human shields to discourage counter attack.

quote:
I'm saying that traditional tactics with modern hardware would be far more effective than what we are doing now.


Like what ? Carpet bombing cities ?

The surge worked. The fighting is over. When is the last time there was even a major battle fought in Iraq ? We're pretty much down to a moping up / police action.


RE: Military?
By MrBungle123 on 12/23/2008 10:44:02 AM , Rating: 3
What has been done over there is a half-ass, I'm not saying the troops haven't done a good job, what I'm saying is that the entire thing is being ran by a bunch of politicians. If we're going to go to war then fine, go to war, but spending 5+ years over there dinking around trying not to cause any damage is just stupid.


RE: Military?
By elgueroloco on 12/25/2008 3:24:24 PM , Rating: 2
You misunderstand. When we first came here, we did go to war. We mowed right through Iraq's military in record time. Shock and awe, all that.

The error was in the foolish management of affairs after that. Rumsfeld was an idiot, and disbanded the Iraqi Army, sending tens of thousands of trained fighters home with no job. Then, along come the terrorists with money, and we've got us an insurgency. However, since we were trying to rebuild the country so we could leave, we didn't want to blow it up, or needlessly kill people, as that would have just fueled the insurgency and further hampered our efforts to leave.

Since Dumbsfeld was forced to resign, things have actually been run with some sort of thought and intelligence, and now the insurgency is pretty much over.

The only pockets of fighting left are mostly Al Qaeda types. Actual Iraqis are tired of the bloodshed and just want to live in peace and prosperity for the most part.


RE: Military?
By thepalinator on 12/22/2008 1:50:23 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
most of it has outlived its usefulness. What good is a 2 million dollar tank if it can be destroyed by a 200 dollar shaped charge being detonated by a 12 year old?
Wow, thats the most ignorant statement I've seen in a while. What good are tanks? Do you think shaped charges weren't around in WW2? Tanks may not be much help in jungle warfare, but they rule in the desert. Do you think it was an accident that we destroyed the entire Iraq Army, while US soldiers were safer doing it than if they had been back home in Chicago?


RE: Military?
By sgw2n5 on 12/22/2008 2:03:16 PM , Rating: 1
Excellent. Our Tank Calvary saved the day and won the war!!!

This is truly good news! When did this happen? All of our soldiers are going to be home any minute now eh?

Silly me, all of this time I was thinking that they were engaged in unconventional warfare and function predominately as a security force.


RE: Military?
By rcc on 12/22/2008 2:24:19 PM , Rating: 3
Perhaps you should read up on the war with an unbiased eye. Separate the actual war from your security/police action. The forces, requirements, and goals are not very similar.

I'm guessing you never served.

Oh, and what do tanks have to do with religiously significant hills anyway? For the slow student.. Calvary was a hill. Cavalry is a fast moving, hard hitting military force.


RE: Military?
By sgw2n5 on 12/22/2008 2:49:05 PM , Rating: 3
The operation(s) in Iraq were a tremendous military success. Nobody is going to argue that. The US has the most potent military and is the fiercest fighting force the world has ever known.

Policing a newly conquered nation, on the other hand, has proven to be quite difficult, yes?


RE: Military?
By rcc on 1/19/2009 1:07:12 PM , Rating: 2
We may have problems with semantics here.

We'll call it liberated, not conquered. And despite the conspiracy theorists, the US has no desire to be there any longer than necessary. Necessary is of course a variable target. It varies from yesterday to once they are stable.

However, that was my point. The military action is very different than the police action.


RE: Military?
By rhodydog on 12/22/2008 2:03:56 PM , Rating: 2
"As is, the US military is a inefficiently ran money pit, and most of it has outlived its usefulness. What good is a 2 million dollar tank if it can be destroyed by a 200 dollar shaped charge being detonated by a 12 year old?"

Your paragraph about a 12 year boy taking out a 2 billion dollar tank made my day. You've convinced me, cut the military budget by 70% and hand 30% of the savings to NASA. Although anecdotal, I've worked on one military related project and it was indeed a waste of money, nothing came of it.


RE: Military?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/22/2008 2:33:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As is, the US military is a inefficiently ran money pit, and most of it has outlived its usefulness. What good is a 2 million dollar tank if it can be destroyed by a 200 dollar shaped charge being detonated by a 12 year old?


Was that a serious question ?

The Abrams main battle tank was designed to combat Russian MBT's back in the cold war. It is not a gorilla warfare vehicle. This does not mean, however, that its outlived its usefulness.

Its been said time and time again that this is a new kind or war and we ARE adapting to it. Things don't happen overnight.


RE: Military?
By Dark Legion on 12/22/08, Rating: 0
RE: Military?
By MadMan007 on 12/25/2008 4:51:42 AM , Rating: 2
We need a gorilla warfare vehicle badly...without one there's a chance those damn dirty apes might take over!


RE: Military?
By Dark Legion on 12/22/2008 3:26:30 PM , Rating: 2
Or by Iron Man ;)


RE: Military?
By Noliving on 12/23/2008 5:38:25 PM , Rating: 2
Whats the point of building a $200 bomb if I can take him out with my bare hands or take him it with a knife or an axe or a bow and arrow?


RE: Military?
By Yaron on 12/25/2008 5:17:40 AM , Rating: 2
sgw2n5,

I'm sorry man, but it is clear to me as an ex-infantry soldier that you know nothing about war and armed conflict.
Really, I am not patronizing here - it's the truth.

The only thing that holds territory are boots on the ground. And I mean BOOTS. And boots need tanks, attack gunships, jets and ships. And you need to control territory in order to win. It will never change - EVER.
Even if technology advances and combat platforms change.

You cannot win ANY kind of war without conventional forces and plenty of them.

The irony of what you are saying is that if the only viable military solution you have is nuclear weapons, than the result you will have is certain nuclear war, and this is game over.

Nevertheless, I can attest personally, that what you say about military spending is true. Too often, it is unchecked, disgracefully wasteful, stupid and short sighted. We do need to - ALWAYS - check, double check and balance our military spending and reform what needs to be reformed.

Furthermore, militaries and generals throughout history make the same old mistake: they prepare themselves and their armies to the PREVIOUS war, not the next one. When they don't do this mistake, you have amazing victories such as the one won by the US in the first Gulf War, or the one won by Israel in the Six day war. If this is what you are trying to say, than you are spot on. We must adapt.


RE: Military?
By rcc on 12/22/2008 2:14:29 PM , Rating: 3
If you take away our ability to response "in kind" or "appropriately", you limit us to the nuclear option.

Which is a bit like spanking the baby with an axe, isn't it?


RE: Military?
By sgw2n5 on 12/22/2008 2:23:45 PM , Rating: 1
Who said anything about taking away our capability?

Scaling down our capability to an appropriate yet affordable level would be much more sense don't you think?


RE: Military?
By rcc on 12/22/2008 2:28:07 PM , Rating: 3
You did. You wanted to cut 70%, but leave the nukes intact. That pretty much guts the conventional forces, don't you think?

Even without the war(s)/actions in progres our conventional forces are not excessive. With them our forces are stretched very thin. Go down to your local military base and talk to the families about current deployment schedules.


RE: Military?
By Solandri on 12/22/2008 3:03:01 PM , Rating: 4
Our spending on the military, relative to the size of our economy, is actually close to the lowest it's been since WWII. (The chart only goes to 1962, but spending in 1945-1962 was actually higher than what's on the chart.)

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetCh...


RE: Military?
By tastyratz on 12/24/2008 9:16:38 AM , Rating: 2
Personally I believe we should cut our military spending but far less drastically than 70%. While it is lower on average right now we also have other needs as a country to tend to.

Right now the actual fiscal budget for 2007 military spending was 19.4% of the total. I have a chart too:
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_about_b...

It is my belief that we could reduce that by just a few percent and reallocate some of that money to areas where we need it during the recession. We need to take care of our own right now much more so than we need it in the military. Don't kill the military but you have to admit we could certainly trim some fat.


RE: Military?
By rcc on 12/22/2008 2:06:20 PM , Rating: 3
So, what in your mind does 1955 have to do with WWII scale wars?

As for the rest of your rant.... in my opinion you are out of your frikkin' tree.


RE: Military?
By sgw2n5 on 12/22/2008 2:27:48 PM , Rating: 2
context. Learn it, live it, love it.


RE: Military?
By rcc on 12/22/2008 2:29:41 PM , Rating: 3
Accuracy, learn it, live it, love it. It'll rock your world.

WWII ended in 1945. You are out of context.


RE: Military?
By sgw2n5 on 12/22/2008 2:57:06 PM , Rating: 2
You are absolutely correct, WWII ended in 1945, good for you, you obviously attended a middle school at some point.

When referring to context, I meant the prevailing societal fear people held in the 50's, that people were generally uneasy to scared shitless of a possible full scale ware with the USSR. People expected a full scale war to happen at some point.

That type of thinking isn't the norm anymore, and we are unlikely to see any conflict near the enormity of WWII. All I'm saying is that our military budget should reflect this, especially when that money could be better spent elsewhere.


RE: Military?
By Solandri on 12/22/2008 3:07:16 PM , Rating: 4
Sorry to repost, but I'm going down the posts and realized this is more relevant here. The size of our military budget *does* reflect the end of the cold war. It's come down 50% since before the Berlin Wall fell, and is less than half what it was in the '50s and '60s.

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetCh...


RE: Military?
By rcc on 12/22/2008 3:21:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The size of our military budget *does* reflect the end of the cold war. It's come down 50% since before the Berlin Wall fell, and is less than half what it was in the '50s and '60s.


What he said, more or less.


RE: Military?
By Expunge on 12/22/2008 3:08:35 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
by sgw2n5 on December 22, 2008 at 12:11 PM
Military funding is ridiculously excessive. The US spends more on its military than every other nation in the world combined. We should not be expected to be the world's police force, and it is bankrupting us. We should cut our military by 70%, re-distribute 40% of the savings into WPA like programs, and the other 30% to NASA.


Seriously.. where the hell do you come up with this crap? Is this taught to you, or is it some wild ass guess of yours? Because either way you or the people who you hear spouting this crap are IDIOTS.

First our miltary budget while a significant portion of our total budget is not bankrupting us. Medicare and Social Security is what is bankrupting the U.S., along with the inept socialistic Democratic congress.

Cut the budget of the military by 70%.. you are either a child or tree hugger. Because even the peace nics know that is a receipe for disaster. The world is dangerous, now more than ever with Iran, Syria, China, Russia, and Venezuela. And you want to cut funding to the military???

NASA funding is about 1/2 of 1 percent of the total US budget.(17.8B out of a 2.9T budget) While social security, medicare, medicaid, and other mandatory programs total
1.78 TRILLION

Linkage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal...

$608 billion - Social Security
$386 billion - Medicare
$209 billion - Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
$324 billion - Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending
$261 billion - Interest on National Debt

-------------------------------------

$481.4 billion - Department of Defense

Seriously dude, move out of podunkville and get a real education on world events and policies.

If the government needs to do anything it needs to reign in the mandatory programs and start paying down our debt. 261B buys a whole lot of programs, but instead it is going to pay interest on 10+ tril of debt!

P.S. I normally dont use Wiki as a stat source, but I don't have time to really dig for some good links


RE: Military?
By sgw2n5 on 12/22/2008 5:24:11 PM , Rating: 2
So because I am in favor of cutting the Military budget, you automatically assume that I would NOT be in favor of heavily gutting wasteful entitlement programs?

Damn fine logic sir. Damn fine.

quote:
Cut the budget of the military by 70%.. you are either a child or tree hugger. Because even the peace nics know that is a receipe for disaster. The world is dangerous, now more than ever with Iran, Syria, China, Russia, and Venezuela. And you want to cut funding to the military???

Ah yes, everyone is out to get us. I forgot that all of those evil countries keep trying to invade us, what, like every other year or so? What the hell was I thinking, going on about having a bloated military and whatnot.


RE: Military?
By Spuke on 12/22/2008 5:59:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What the hell was I thinking, going on about having a bloated military and whatnot.
Reason number 637,593,296 why debates are useless and idiotic. No one EVER changes their mind because of something said in a debate. The only thing that gets accomplished is a rise in blood pressure and a reinforcement of whatever "beliefs" you had before the debate. Why bother.


RE: Military?
By Jim28 on 12/23/2008 9:28:00 PM , Rating: 2
Depends if some one is honest and open minded or too stupid and prideful to change their mind. I guess that guy thinks the rest of the world plays nice and we are the only ones with a military?


RE: Military?
By hashish2020 on 12/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: Military?
By whiskerwill on 12/22/2008 11:39:27 PM , Rating: 4
Wow, so many wrong statements, where to begin? Let's start with social security. If by "solvent" you mean fully-funded, its not even close. Our commitments to SS (the amount we've promised to pay) are trillions of dollars more than expected payments will be over the next 30 years. SS only works because (so far) the population and economy expanded faster than benefits. But the baby boomers are going to break the program. Either we cut benefits or we raise taxes. No other options.

Now, on to Medicare and Medicaid. Yeah, they have Copays. Do you think that means no one else pays the rest? My grandmother buys a drug thats $600/month. She pays $30. Who you think pays the rest, smart guy?

quote:
if we're gonna spend so much funking money in the government, let's at least spend it on AMERICANS.
I'd rather spend my tax dollars paying AMERICAN scientists, engineers, soldiers, and intelligence analysts to protect us and develop new technology than I would paying lazy American bums to not work.


RE: Military?
By MrBungle123 on 12/23/2008 5:53:14 PM , Rating: 2
+1


RE: Military?
By hashish2020 on 12/25/2008 2:00:32 AM , Rating: 1
It would be impossible to "fully-fund" a program with no end or horizon date. It would require infinite dollars. So let's be honest. SS would only start pulling on the bonds that are in its accounts in 2019...it has been solvent for over 60 years. And here's a solution to your problem---IMMIGRATION.

"I'd rather spend my tax dollars paying AMERICAN scientists, engineers, soldiers, and intelligence analysts to protect us and develop new technology"

How are they protecting us when grants go to Tulsa, OK over NYC? I mean, read the freaking news (except that obviously has a liberal bias---good thing I'm no liberal) the government is drowning in defense budget handouts. My dad was paid for three years to plan out housing structures in Iraq that were never built---he never developed new tech. He only did that when he worked for a not for profit.

"paying lazy American bums to not work."

Better than paying lazy Iraqi bums not to drill the joints of their sectarian enemies though

I mean honestly, you think there is more bang for the buck in DEFENSE contracting (the most NOTORIOUSLY wasteful welfare program in the world, ask anyone who has worked in an aquisition program)?


RE: Military?
By MadMan007 on 12/25/2008 4:55:31 AM , Rating: 4
psst...SS would be fully solvent with no apparent end in sight if the pols didn't take (steal) from the SS trust fund and use it in the general budget. But they just can't stand seeing that money sitting there when it could be spent buying favors and pork.


RE: Military?
By MadMan007 on 12/25/2008 4:59:48 AM , Rating: 2
Where did a good chunk of that $10T of debt come from?


RE: Military?
By Cincybeck on 12/25/2008 1:24:20 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
We should cut our military by 70%, re-distribute 40% of the savings into WPA like programs, and the other 30% to NASA.


So you're telling me you want to cut 70% of military personnel, add them to the already substantial amount of jobless. Then provide 40% of that to a program that was closed down by Congress in 1943? Sounds great.

I'm no economics experts, but the reason the WPA was closed by congress was that WWII provided enough jobs where the WPA was no longer needed. We've been at war for the past 7 years and the economy just keeps getting worse, with more jobs lost every day.

The way I see it, it's been getting worse ever since 2001 when China was accepted to the WTO, In big part to Bill Clinton push to getting China accepted.

"The rise in the U.S. trade deficit with China between 1997 and 2006 has displaced production that could have supported 2,166,000 U.S. jobs."

oh and

"Since China entered the WTO in 2001, job losses increased to an average of 353,000 per year—more than the total employment in greater Akron, Ohio."

I could copy and paste the whole article. Why don't you just read it for yourself.
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/bp188