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 In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,093
    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 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    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:
    7,662
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    According to Wiki, the US budget is 7 times more than China and more than China plus the 14 next countries COMBINED.

    China's population is what 1.5 bill? So if the US pop is 300 mill, then our per-capita spending on military is 35 times more than China's.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2007
  4. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

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

    All_Around_Brown In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,093
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

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

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,343
    Likes Received:
    301
    Ratings:
    +816 / 7 / -2

    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:
    7,662
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 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:
    7,662
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 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 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,343
    Likes Received:
    301
    Ratings:
    +816 / 7 / -2


    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 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    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:
    7,662
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 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 In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,093
    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:
    7,662
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 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:
    31,841
    Likes Received:
    268
    Ratings:
    +689 / 17 / -18

    #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 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,343
    Likes Received:
    301
    Ratings:
    +816 / 7 / -2

    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 Practice Squad Player

    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 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    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 2nd Team Getting Their First Start

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,524
    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:
    31,841
    Likes Received:
    268
    Ratings:
    +689 / 17 / -18

    #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:
    18,710
    Likes Received:
    258
    Ratings:
    +466 / 18 / -17

    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.
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>