Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Does anyone else think that most of the world's governments are spending too much when it comes to weapons and defence and too little on eliminating poverty, starvation, and global warming? I heard that the figure in the US is $500 billion for weapons/defence and $50 billion on green energy or something like that.

Thing is, the governments claim that we need new flashy weapons that kill more people faster. But do the terrorists have nuclear weapons or tanks? No. Is Russia planning a massive tank offensive? Probably not. Now, while I'm sure the figures will change under Obama, there's always someone pushing to spend more on the military.

If more were spent on global issues, we can prevent the world from sinking further into decay. When are we going to need lasers or missiles that can hit targets on the other side of the planet? And do you think people are starting to stop and think? I do, at least.

Cheese Elemental wrote:Does anyone else think that most of the world's governments are spending too much when it comes to weapons and defence and too little on eliminating poverty, starvation, and global warming? I heard that the figure in the US is $500 billion for weapons/defence and $50 billion on green energy or something like that.

Thing is, the governments claim that we need new flashy weapons that kill more people faster. But do the terrorists have nuclear weapons or tanks? No. Is Russia planning a massive tank offensive? Probably not. Now, while I'm sure the figures will change under Obama, there's always someone pushing to spend more on the military.

If more were spent on global issues, we can prevent the world from sinking further into decay. When are we going to need lasers or missiles that can hit targets on the other side of the planet? And do you think people are starting to stop and think? I do, at least.

Thats a rose tinted view of the world. It doesn't matter if it is on the scale of a school playground or nation states, if you let your guard down, someone is going to take advantage of you. I'm surprised more people didn't learn that as early as I did.

I understand the US military budget is gradually being shifted away from dealing out massive bitch slaps to superior surveillance and intelligence.

Ironically the 2010 defense budget is even bigger then last years without the flashy planes and lasers. So don't be to sure Obama will be cutting funding.

Source:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/07/congress.defense/index.html#cnnSTCText

Cheese,

Spend some time reading this site

http://www.strategypage.com/

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Attributed to George Orwell


edit- spelling

My complaint isn't about gun control or anything, it's about how much isn't being spent on global issues.

Well spend it. I'm tired of other people voting to take my money and spend it on other people's nonsense.

Spending too much on military?
If thats the case them why dont the troops get to see that? old failing weapons, plated vests that are falling apart, not enough gear to go around everyone.

someone out there is getting a nice pay bonus.

Yep. It ain't you. That umpteenth aircraft carrier costs bucks, and the airforce fleet carting around US Congress members doesn't pay for itself.

Heh, if your high up then life just gets better for you
I guess we do need all this gak we keep buying lol.


Now, why dont they start spending that money on things that help?
Speeding up on training up more SAS and SBS would be a nice help, or actually buying new gear from time to time so troops dont have to take turns wearing the helmet and praying it wont be thier time to go.

No no that won't due at all. How are we going to keep Lockeheed/Northrup/Boeing in the style they are accustomed to if we go around buying helmets? Helmets aren't going to bring the kind of campaign contributinos politicians need. Come on JD21290, you have to think of the big picture...

I am thinking of a very big pic frazz
and it does include alot of politicians, but of the dead variety.

Cheese Elemental wrote:Does anyone else think that most of the world's governments are spending too much when it comes to weapons and defence and too little on eliminating poverty, starvation, and global warming? I heard that the figure in the US is $500 billion for weapons/defence and $50 billion on green energy or something like that.

Thing is, the governments claim that we need new flashy weapons that kill more people faster. But do the terrorists have nuclear weapons or tanks? No. Is Russia planning a massive tank offensive? Probably not. Now, while I'm sure the figures will change under Obama, there's always someone pushing to spend more on the military.

If more were spent on global issues, we can prevent the world from sinking further into decay. When are we going to need lasers or missiles that can hit targets on the other side of the planet? And do you think people are starting to stop and think? I do, at least.

1: Based on your flag you are not American, So why do you give a darn what we spend our money on?

2: You do know that around half of the products we use every day are directly related/came from military spending right?

3: So judging by your post (if I read the tone right) you want the US to spend even more money to bail out the world. Why? You condem US actions then want us to bail you out.... Typical.

4: Two Words..... Dirty Bomb. Russia has a few hundred nukes missing from its stockpiles. Id have to say thats on my scary list. It should be on yours too.

5: Ever hear of the Policy called M.A.D? That alone has kept the world free from WW3 a couple of times now.

6: Last but not least..... here is yet another thread where the US is the butt of a bad foreign example. Getting a little tired of it. I for one say we should try that thing callled Isolationism again... Just sit back and watch as the world tears itself apart.

You're just going to be called an isolationist neanderthal JP400. We're evil if we pull back. We're evil if we don't. I wish the world would make up its mind.

Frazzled wrote:You're just going to be called an isolationist neanderthal JP400. We're evil if we pull back. We're evil if we don't. I wish the world would make up its mind.

True That!

I wish we we were isolationist. I'm tired of other damned countries trying to pretend like we are all going to get along. My government shouldn't be taking care of somebody else's. If a private organization wants to do it, awesome. I'm just not too high on my pay check going to foreigners. unless its the band.

Frazzled wrote:You're just going to be called an isolationist neanderthal JP400. We're evil if we pull back. We're evil if we don't. I wish the world would make up its mind.

Yeah.... But just think how great it would be to flip on CNN and watch as the world descends into anarchy.

Pass the Popcorn would you Frazz?

Here, hope you like gobs of butter and salt. You can even have some rum.

Mmmmmmmmm.......

Rum!

Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

Rum!

See, the Western nations could be spending more of their money on eliminating poverty. If they pitched in, the problem could be solved easily.

But they don't, because they're paranoid. Russia or China aren't stupid enough to invade the west, especially considering nuclear warfare. Doubtless a certain president/PM whatever will go ahead and bomb civilian cities.

jp400 wrote:
1: Based on your flag you are not American, So why do you give a darn what we spend our money on?

The same reason we care about what Russia spends its money on. Arms proliferation is not solely the interest of the nation doing the proliferating.

jp400 wrote:
2: You do know that around half of the products we use every day are directly related/came from military spending right?

They're also the direct result of private industry, the space race, and any number of other MacGuffins you could utilize as causal explanations in order to support an equal number of misleadingly narrow arguments.

jp400 wrote:
3: So judging by your post (if I read the tone right) you want the US to spend even more money to bail out the world. Why? You condem US actions then want us to bail you out.... Typical.

Wow. Think in terms of 'us' and 'them' much?

jp400 wrote:
4: Two Words..... Dirty Bomb. Russia has a few hundred nukes missing from its stockpiles. Id have to say thats on my scary list. It should be on yours too.

I remember something about this a while ago. I also remember hearing that those weapons were later accounted for. It also isn't in any way related to Cheese's objection to US military spending. Terrorists don't care about M.A.D.

jp400 wrote:
5: Ever hear of the Policy called M.A.D? That alone has kept the world free from WW3 a couple of times now.

Detente didn't stop WWI, or WWII. Just because it now has a nuclear character doesn't render it more effective.

jp400 wrote:
6: Last but not least..... here is yet another thread where the US is the butt of a bad foreign example. Getting a little tired of it. I for one say we should try that thing callled Isolationism again... Just sit back and watch as the world tears itself apart.

I assume you fancy commuting to work via horse and buggy following the inevitable oil shortages.

jp400 wrote:
Yeah.... But just think how great it would be to flip on CNN and watch as the world descends into anarchy.

Pass the Popcorn would you Frazz?

You massively overate the role the US plays in enforcing global stability.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cheese Elemental wrote:See, the Western nations could be spending more of their money on eliminating poverty. If they pitched in, the problem could be solved easily.

But they don't, because they're paranoid. Russia or China aren't stupid enough to invade the west, especially considering nuclear warfare. Doubtless a certain president/PM whatever will go ahead and bomb civilian cities.

First off, all cities are civilian.

Second, its doubtful that the West could provide enough resources to lift the world out of poverty. If the current economic crisis has taught us anything its that resources tend to be more limited than the money supply indicates.

Cheese E, the changes you talk about take a generation to implement, but they are coming. The US Military had to damn near loose a war in Iraq to force a change. That’s generally the norm for us. As you have noticed, there has not been a major global war in over 60 years. There has not been an actual threat of global war in over 20 years. There is no threat of regional war. There is no present threat the US Military cannot easily handle, and there is not one on the horizon.


However, there have been over 100 small wars, rescue operations, peacekeeping mission, and the like that the US Military has taken on in the last 20 years. All of them concentrated around the edges of the undeveloped, impoverished regions of the world. Here is where the US Military does its real work; here is where it is finally shifting its material and manpower focus. The Soldiers and Marines will get the body armor and equipment they need, at the expense of major weapon systems that are focused on a major war we will never fight. The US Military will get larger; it will spend more money; its ability to stabilize, make secure, and rebuild will improve. Possibly, the State Department, and/or the proposed Service Corps will take on a large portion of actual nation (re)building. Listen to the President. Listen to the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State. These are their stated goals. Expect more pressure on NATO, Europe, and hopefully China to get off their butts and pitch in. BTW, China is already cutting resource deals around the globe, but they don’t give a damn about local corruption. Expect that to change, too.

Russia or China aren't stupid enough to invade the west

I wouldn't put it past them if they thought they could get away with it. Chinese hackers have already comprimised quite a bit of the US infrastructure that can be accessed from the net. That large worm virus that was found around feb/mar is one example.

at the expense of major weapon systems that are focused on a major war we will never fight.

Its exactly that kind of thinking that caught them flat footed at the beginning of WW 2.

A nations military should always be one of its highest priorities as the protection of that nations people and interests are the paramount responsibility of the government. A nation that forakes its own safety does not deserve to be a country and will not remain one for very long. You cannot count on allies. Look what happened to Georgia.

Ratbarf wrote:

Russia or China aren't stupid enough to invade the west

I wouldn't put it past them if they thought they could get away with it. Chinese hackers have already comprimised quite a bit of the US infrastructure that can be accessed from the net. That large worm virus that was found around feb/mar is one example.

at the expense of major weapon systems that are focused on a major war we will never fight.

Its exactly that kind of thinking that caught them flat footed at the beginning of WW 2.

A nations military should always be one of its highest priorities as the protection of that nations people and interests are the paramount responsibility of the government. A nation that forakes its own safety does not deserve to be a country and will not remain one for very long. You cannot count on allies. Look what happened to Georgia.

Read much Machiavelli in your time?

There are people who DONT get a job because if they do, they will no longer get wellfare checks...

im all for helping people who NEED the help... but lazy fethbags like that need to be taken out back and intrdouced to the bussiness end of a chainsword.


and what part about our troops being able to shove a missile up a gants tail end and our enemies woundering what end of the ak-47 do you point away from you do you not like????

tech is good... and those fething laser cannons if only we could figure out away to attach them to sharks fricken head.

Read much Machiavelli in your time?

Actually I have read the Prince (great book by the way) and excerpts from his art of war... I think he was a great man. But most of that stuff came from Heinlein.

Starship Troopers (the book) for the awsome!

Ratbarf's Roughnecks!

I couldn't resist.

Anyone here honestly believe that US Military information warfare does not attempt to exploit other countries IT security? Heck, we openly use electronic surveillance of countries like Russia and China. Does that mean we would invade them if we can get away with it? We’ve had 20 years of fantasizing about a return the Cold War. That’s great for folks who sell expensive weapon systems, and the Navy and Air Force who specialize in fighting a Big War. But there is not going to be a Big War. China is our greatest trade partner, and our largest creditor. They have absolutely no reason to fight us, and no ability to fight us. Russia is trying to reestablish itself as the dominant power in its sphere. That bears watching, but they have no ability to fight a Big War, either. This is not like WW2, where we were outmatched by other militaries. We outmatch all other militaries. We have no military challengers. We defeated one of the largest militaries in the world, halfway around the globe, with less than 200 casualties. And, we did that 18 years ago. Our weapon systems are now much more deadly and much more efficient. Refocusing on actual threats makes much more sense than spending vast sums on non-existent threats. The Secretary of Defense said that last week.

Aid to other counties is some of the best money the US spends. Not only does it save lives and improve standards of living, it also promotes good relations with people who could have been our enemies. We spend very little and get a lot in return.

More like we spend alot and get very little in return.

The US civilian aid budget is absolutely minuscule in comparison to any other contiguous component of government spending. Its also, arguably, the most effective program of its type in the world; outstripping all but the Red Cross in terms of efficient delivery. Economic and humanitarian aid programs are probably the most important means of maintaining global stability that we currently have.