Welcome to PatsFans.com

Lets Face It

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by All_Around_Brown, Feb 12, 2007.

  1. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    For the amount of money we pay towards it, our military is pretty weak. I just don't get how in the middle of what everyone agrees is a need to get more conventional - with boots on the ground- we instead throw good money after bad and buy a bunch of technologically wonderous crap that makes virtually no difference in TWAT.

    Oh, and why can't we have the Israeli anti-RPG system?? That would save lives! But no. Alas, the US military industrial complex is one hungry fat, inefficient beast that won't be ignored, but can't be touched either.

    I would love to see the per capita defense expenditure of the US vs. China. It would be interesting to see what kind of "bang" we get for our buck.

    Good day, mates.
  2. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    The problem with our military is pork. Useless programs get funded if they bring jobs to areas with powerful members of congress.
  3. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0

    Last edited: Feb 12, 2007
  4. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    B to the INGO! Pujo got BINGO!
  5. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    wow.....maverick, thats some quick and enlightening stuff. Thanks.
  6. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -1

    If we faught a conventional war against China I'd take our military 150 times out of 100.

    The problem with out military is that we had the concept of a smaller, more technically advanced, rapid moving force right, but then decided to go fight a long, arduous, ground war, that entailed a 10 year occupation. Had we acted as we usually do, as a defender of freedom and not an invader, we'd be ok.
  7. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0

    It is interesting to note on Wiki that the money for Iraq and Afghanistan is NOT counted as part of the federal military budget, but rather through supplemental spending bills, so the per-capita number is actually much higher than the x35 I sad.

    Wiki:
    "Finally, it must be stressed that the recent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are funded outside the Federal Budget (i.e. are paid for through supplementary spending bills) and are therefore external to the military budget figures listed above.[6] In addition, the United States has long had a history of black budget military spending which is not listed as Federal spending and is not included in published military spending figures. Thus, the true amount spent by the United States on military spending is significantly higher than the given budgetary figures."
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2007
  8. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0

    No sh*t sherlock. We spend more than anyone else in the world by far on war. We rule the world through rule of might, not rule of right as we may like to think.
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2007
  9. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -1


    Obviously, they are not part of their annual budget. You don't budget in a war ahead of time, as you would only be budgeting in operating costs. During war you have combat pay, loss of equipment, the need of additional equipment for combat operations, replacement munitions, fuel, etc...
  10. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    I don't think he's saying there's something sketchy about that, only that you have to add those things if you want to get a true cost.
  11. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0

    Right, but it means for war, weapons, soldiers, etc we pay probably close to 60 times per-capita higher than China, and maybe more money on war than the next 25 countries combined.

    The military-industrial complex, baby.
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2007
  12. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Yes, it should be obvious that while we are burying our future generations in debt, we are not giving them any idea how truly huge that debt will be.

    1) because the operational costs of these wars are being conducted "off the books" and,
    2) because the true costs of these wars in terms of medical support for returning vets will not be realized for some time, but will be staggering.
    3) because the reparations we may be asked to pay, if we are found responsible for war crimes, could amount to another trillion or more
  13. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0

    Well that's a big problem that we will have to face, and frankly I don't see an easy way out. I don't see how this government is going to remain fiscally solvent 15 years from now. One method is to take things/resources through war and force, which we are doing, but that seems like a desparate action to me.
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2007
  14. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,088
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +37 / 2 / -3

    #24 Jersey

    Actually, our military is very good. The problem, if you call it that, is that we can't kill people and destroy things a lot of times for political, moral or ethical reasons. Even without nukes we could kill all the bad guys in Iraq very quickly - but we'd take a lot of "innocents" along for the ride. The country and world isn't willing to do that. No matter what your technology, if you're trying to kill a bad guy who's dressed to look like a good guy - you've got a problem.
  15. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -1

    Yeah but we're at war. Obviously we're going to be spending more if we're at war. Comparing budgeted money is fair. Adding in the cost of an ongoing war is going to fudge the numbers.
  16. bigdgp

    bigdgp Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2005
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I would think examining the casualties of the most recent modern wars would be better indicator of how effective our military dollars have been.


    World War I (1917–1918)3
    Total servicemembers 4,734,991
    Battle deaths 53,402
    Other deaths in service (nontheater) 63,114
    Nonmortal woundings 204,002
    Living veterans fewer than 500

    World War II (1940–1945)3
    Total servicemembers 16,112,566
    Battle deaths 291,557
    Other deaths in service (nontheater) 113,842
    Nonmortal woundings 671,846
    Living veterans 4,762,0001

    Korean War (1950–1953)
    Total servicemembers 5,720,000
    Serving in-theater 1,789,000
    Battle deaths 33,741
    Other deaths in service (theater) 2,827
    Other deaths in service (nontheater) 17,730
    Nonmortal woundings 103,284
    Living veterans 3,734,0001

    Vietnam War (1964–1975)
    Total servicemembers 8,744,000
    Serving in-theater 3,403,000
    Battle deaths 47,410
    Other deaths in service (theater) 10,789
    Other deaths in service (nontheater) 32,000
    Nonmortal woundings 153,303
    Living veterans 8,295,0001

    Gulf War (1990–1991)
    Total servicemembers 2,225,000
    Serving in-theater 665,476
    Battle deaths 147
    Other deaths in service (theater) 382
    Other deaths in service (nontheater) 1,565
    Nonmortal woundings 467
    Living veterans 1,852,0001
    (above copied from http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html)

    Iraq War

    Casualties Since war began (3/19/03-02/11/07): 3123

    (cited from http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/)
  17. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    It depends on what you're trying to show. Spending on war is just as real as operational spending. If you were creating a corporate financial statement, you would show both the operating costs along with the war costs. They would be seperate line-items, and you might be able to treat them slightly differently... maybe you could spread the war costs (depreciate or amortize them) over a number of years on the P&L (statement of operations) side of things, but you'd need to show the total costs - no matter what they were incurred on - on the balance sheet right away, since that's the only thing that represents actual money being spent.
  18. mr3putt

    mr3putt Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,525
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0


    Different technology
    Different battlefield
    Different tactics
    Different War

    Developement of high tech "stand off" weapons minimizes casualties.
    UAV's will continue the trend going forward.
    Satellite intel and GPS targeting minimizes collateral damage.
    No comparisons with previous conflicts.
  19. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,088
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +37 / 2 / -3

    #24 Jersey

    I think that was his point. The technological advances which are being ripped in this thread have minimized casualties.
  20. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,253
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    While it's reasonable to use casualties as a measure, it's difficult to compare, especially since we're often the invader and travel thousands of miles to wage war. If China invaded a distant country like Iraq, we have no idea how many casualties they would have.
  21. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Be those stats as they may...the above statement is patently untrue! (Misleading is more like it.)

    We have well over 25,000 DOD acknowldeged casualties currently as a result of these two wars. The actual US casualty count may be much higher given the special definition of casualty presented and administered under Rumsfeld and currently working.
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2007
  22. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,230
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -3

    There are a couple of sides to that story. Sometimes youfund projects to keep a facility going WHY?

    To preserve intellectual capital. Take a place like Electric Boat in Groton. Do we absolutely need sea wolf? Probably not, but if you were to shut the place down you lose 80+ years experience and expertise in designing and building state of the art submarines. If our situation changes (The Chinese want a blue water navy?) and we need to have the capability to deliver those weapon systems to protect our country, it would be tough if all that talent is gone.
  23. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,671
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Prior to WWII, the US military was pretty much on a peace-time footing, as we should be when we're not at war. Wasting our resources so that we can "practice" building weapons is probably the most foolish thing we could do right now. The Chinese are not now and never have been a threat to US security. Dreaming up a real enemy and pretending that we have to develop new weapon systems to counter an imaginary threat is absurd, hurts Americans more than anyone else, and costs us a fortune.

    You're crazy to propose such a ridiculous idea when you complain about government waste (rightfully so). :confused:
  24. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,230
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -3

    When you were separated from potential enemies by an ocean that was a viable approach. In a world of airplanes and missiles than can destroy your country in a couple of hours it doesn't work so well.
  25. PatsWorldChamps

    PatsWorldChamps Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,406
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    right.. we should just give the money to "unemployed" posters of patsfans boards? instead of telling them to get a job? no excuse for a person over 40 to not have a job; yet blabber his will on actual working americans who pay for his disability.
  26. Seymour93

    Seymour93 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,681
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    Just like that conventional war against Vietnam?
  27. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,671
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Are you talking about me or you? My guess is that some of the posters don't work, but for some it's because they're rich and don't have to.

    If you thought about it for a second, you'd know that I am against the government taxing us as much as they do. I'm also against funding a cold war military when there is no cold war. It's like spending billions to find a cure for polio. We don't need 15 Trident Subs or a jet that flies at the speed of light. We need to pull our military out of the territory of other nations and base them at home like everyone else does. There's no Chinese bases outside of Chinese soil that I'm aware of. Why on earth do we need bases in Germany, the Phillipines and Iceland?
  28. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    On the other hand, while we bicker about the usefulness of a new stealth bomber or a new nuke sub, there are systems that are available to us that could save lives now.

    Why can't be get the Trophy system now to protect our troops?

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0110/dailyUpdate.html
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16545885/

    It seems to me that our concern is less for the safety of our troops than it is developing our own anti-RPG system solely for the sake of profiteering.

    It would cost alot more to develop our own system, and take years. We dont have that time or money. But alas, the military is parasitized by corporate greed.
  29. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,230
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -3


    I agree there cetainly a measure of the Not Invented Here syndrome. A system like this should be deployed ASAP. I have also seen testing of systems to detect and defeat roadside bombs.
  30. ArmyPatsFan

    ArmyPatsFan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2007
    Messages:
    285
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    As an Army officer I agree....but its Congress that holds the cards when it comes to funding military programs and its congressmen's districts that get hurt when funding for a program like the APS (Active Protection System being currently developed) is removed. I fully agree that Trophy should be in the inventory now as a Rapid Fielding Initiative...there are interoperabiltiy issues that need to be worked out for our platforms...B kit issues.....etc etc etc..but it is a viable solution now instead of later.

    While the military holds a piece of the blame...funding streams come from Congress...and that is where the roadblocks are put up on things like this. We pull funding from Congressman's X district forr APS and shift it to Trophy (Which requires congressional review to shift money already allocated to programs btw) who then decides not to vote for funding programs like Longbow or Apache since funding was diverted from his/her district...etc etc etc. Not a good situation when we are dealing with lives...... but it never is when politics gets involved in it.
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2007

Share This Page