Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 06-09-2004, 11:44 PM   #1 (permalink)
Mencken
 
Scipio's Avatar
 
Location: College
USA Number 1 (by far!) (in arms at least)

Quote:
Military spending rose by 11 percent, which the group called a "remarkable increase." The amount was up 18 percent from 2001.

The $956 billion spent on defense costs worldwide corresponded to 2.7 percent of the world's gross domestic product, according to the annual report.

"It's very close to the Cold War peak in 1987," said SIPRI researcher Elisabeth Skoens, who co-authored the report.

......

The United States led the world in defense spending, accounting for 47 percent of the total, followed by Japan with 5 percent and Britain, France and China, with 4 percent each.
Mind boggling numbers. I suppose I'll just throw them out there, and not try to make a point with them. It's just something to think about.
__________________
"Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."
Scipio is offline  
Old 06-10-2004, 12:04 AM   #2 (permalink)
Eh?
 
Stare At The Sun's Avatar
 
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
That is a very high, and very unneeded number. I don't see the need for the navy anymore, honestly. I also don't see why they don't combine the Marines and army. But this is coming from a non serving 19 year old civilian. So, meh, take that as it is.
Stare At The Sun is offline  
Old 06-10-2004, 01:00 AM   #3 (permalink)
Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate
 
Location: Los Angeles
Er I can see a place for the Navy, Marines, Army, Air Force, Coast Guard, and other branches as they are, and IMO, they are fine.

But I do think spending has been high in a time when it should be focused on specific areas but instead has been put on a broad range.

There is no other superpower but we treat it as there is. Specialization to fight the wars we are now (urban one for example) would help. More into research and development and less into areas left over from the Cold War would help too.
Zeld2.0 is offline  
Old 06-10-2004, 03:21 AM   #4 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Location: Leicester, UK
Maybe we should be helping third world debt as opposed to throwing money at ways to blow things up and then blow the rubble up 50 more times for good luck.
llama8 is offline  
Old 06-10-2004, 03:37 AM   #5 (permalink)
WoW or Class...
 
BigGov's Avatar
 
Location: UWW
Well spending is high, it doesn't help anything that we are at war.

However Zeld, there is a superpower looming. China is growing very rapidly, and their weapon technology isn't something to laugh at.
__________________
One day an Englishman, a Scotsman, and an Irishman walked into a pub together. They each bought a pint of Guinness. Just as they were about to enjoy their creamy beverage, three flies landed in each of their pints. The Englishman pushed his beer away in disgust. The Scotsman fished the fly out of his beer and continued drinking it, as if nothing had happened. The Irishman, too, picked the fly out of his drink but then held it out over the beer and yelled "SPIT IT OUT, SPIT IT OUT, YOU BASTARD!"
BigGov is offline  
Old 06-10-2004, 04:36 AM   #6 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
Preparation is for wars of the future not necessarily wars of the present. It's difficult as hell to play catch up when faced with war.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 06-10-2004, 04:52 AM   #7 (permalink)
Getting it.
 
Charlatan's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
Quote:
Originally posted by onetime2
Preparation is for wars of the future not necessarily wars of the present. It's difficult as hell to play catch up when faced with war.
I thought the goal was to work towards a world of peace...

Frankly if the US just stopped interfering with other nations they wouldn't be in a position where they have to prepare for war.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke
Charlatan is offline  
Old 06-10-2004, 05:16 AM   #8 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
Quote:
Originally posted by Charlatan
I thought the goal was to work towards a world of peace...

Frankly if the US just stopped interfering with other nations they wouldn't be in a position where they have to prepare for war.
Ahh yes, it's the USA that's standing in the way of world peace. I guess 200+ years ago the world didn't build armies.

The goal is to continue living in a democracy that requires a military that can respond to opposing forces.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 06-10-2004, 05:18 AM   #9 (permalink)
Wah
 
Location: NZ
Quote:
Originally posted by onetime2
Preparation is for wars of the future not necessarily wars of the present. It's difficult as hell to play catch up when faced with war.
that is true - if you want peace then prepare for war, or whatever the quote is

I don't think there's much danger of the US having to play catch up though, do you?
__________________
pain is inevitable but misery is optional - stick a geranium in your hat and be happy
apeman is offline  
Old 06-10-2004, 05:24 AM   #10 (permalink)
Who You Crappin?
 
Derwood's Avatar
 
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
Considering that the GOP sees Reagan as some sort of God, it isn't surprising that they are trying to best him in defense spending.
__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel
Derwood is offline  
Old 06-10-2004, 05:25 AM   #11 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
Quote:
Originally posted by apeman
I don't think there's much danger of the US having to play catch up though, do you?
There is always a danger. And there is little doubt that there are many countries out there preparing for future wars. China makes no secret of their desire to modernize their military further, explore space, develop increasingly accurate and effective missiles, etc. Russia, despite its recent decline, remains a potential superpower.

The goal of the military is to keep as many of their soldiers alive as possible in a conflict. The preparations we make now save lives in the future. These preparations not only save our own lives but the lives of others. Discounting the arguments around why we went into Iraq, the simple fact is that our preparations allowed us to take the country with incredibly few casualties (on our side and Iraq's). Certainly people will decry the deaths that occurred in the invasion but, given the scale of invasion, it's among the most successful and casualty free military actions in history.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 06-10-2004, 06:15 AM   #12 (permalink)
Muffled
 
Kadath's Avatar
 
Location: Camazotz
$956 billion on defense, $324 billion on education.

I understand the need for defense spending. I'd just like it to not outstrip education by 200%.
__________________
it's quiet in here
Kadath is offline  
Old 06-10-2004, 07:01 AM   #13 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
it seems naieve to limit consideration of american miltiary expenditures----look (for example) at the international arms trade in general, of which military expenditures constitute a part:

some data for your delectation:

http://www.globalpolicy org/empire/intervention/2004/0421weapons.htm

http://datacentre2.chass.utoronto.ca/military/

http://web.amnesty.org/web/ttt.nsf/j.../proliferation

(i know, i know--conservatives will see amnesty and go "eeew...." but just read the article---it is short, had a pretty graph showing long-term trends in weapons production and has some links at the end)

http://ad.doubleclick.net/adi/jdw.ja...=061004144701?

if you are curious about more general stasticial/information sources on international trade/globalilzation, which can be narrowed to look at the weapons trade in particular (takes some work):

http://jolis.worldbankimflib.org/nldbsmi.htm

so let's think about this for a minute. leading all others, but not alone in this regard by any means, american firms sell all kinds of weapons systems to anyone who can pay (within certain legal limits of course--and righteous private firms, those paragons of efficiency, would **never** circumvent legal restrictions on arms sales--think about the fine example provided by the reagan administration with reference to nicagarua). political instability is intensified by the availability of weapons. the american military, under the umbrella of certain policy guidlines, no matter how irrational (witness iraq), can get sent in to "Deal With " local fiasco by--well what?

at every step of this (obviously simplified, but not unreasonable) scenario, people die but profits continue to flow in to weapons systems manufacturers.

sounds good for business.

weapons systems manufacture does not really have to deal with problems of overproduction in the way say a refrigerator firm would. wars, big or little, address overproduction. the fact that actual human beings die is secondary.

profit is of course, in this political climate, above reproach, an unqualified good

therefore the situation above would have to be seen as win-win.

just a perspective to consider. for your amusement.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 06-10-2004, 07:04 AM   #14 (permalink)
Cracking the Whip
 
Lebell's Avatar
 
Location: Sexymama's arms...
Ahem, more relevence on a few of the preceding posts would be nice.

Anyway, while I am big on defense, I think that we need to reexamine some of our spending, especially on the new weapons systems (which we are doing) as well as on how our troops are positioned (which we are doing).

For example, as much as I like new toys, there is a question as to whether we really need the F22 Raptor at so many billion a plane as well as if we really need so many troop bases in Germany.

I DO think that we will continue to need large carrier groups, primarily because this is how we now project force in the world in lieu of those troop bases.
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!
Lebell is offline  
Old 06-10-2004, 08:15 AM   #15 (permalink)
42, baby!
 
Dragonlich's Avatar
 
Location: The Netherlands
As far as I could tell from news reports, this US defence spending includes the costs of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Therefore, it's only natural that the spending increased...
Dragonlich is offline  
Old 06-10-2004, 08:39 AM   #16 (permalink)
Getting it.
 
Charlatan's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
Quote:
Originally posted by onetime2
Ahh yes, it's the USA that's standing in the way of world peace. I guess 200+ years ago the world didn't build armies.

The goal is to continue living in a democracy that requires a military that can respond to opposing forces.

I was not inferring that the US is standing in the way of peace per se.

It is a fact that the US military and intelligence services have involved themselves in many (by that I mean a lot of) foriegn conflicts on the pretense that it was looking after American interests. This has inevitably lead to some in those nations not being all that happy with the US (just look at Latin America, South East Asia or the current Middle East conflict).

If America did not continue to stick its finger in other nations pies those nations might not have reason to want to harm Americans on their own soil.

Sure there are other nations who cause and perpetrate conflicts but we are only talking about the US and its military spending here.

I don't disagree that a nation needs to protect its sovriegnty is just thing the US spending on defense is a bit out of whack...

Maybe if they really spent it on defense rather than offense you might see a change in the numbers.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke
Charlatan is offline  
Old 06-10-2004, 12:00 PM   #17 (permalink)
Mencken
 
Scipio's Avatar
 
Location: College
I'll take responsibility for the lack of relevance on some posts, as I never really suggested a direction for the thread to take. That said, perhaps discussing whether or not this level of military spending is appropriate would work.

==========

I'm a Democrat, but I'm a hawk. I think it's great that we have a strong military, as long as we aren't tempted to use it for the wrong reasons. I think that our large military, and our commitment to shared defense with a number of counties (notably Europe, Austrailia, Japan, and Taiwan) results in less defense spending by those countries. Also, it might be more accurate to lump the military spending of the European NATO countries together.

So in other words, if we spent less, other countries would spend more. Our military protects not just the US, but a ton of other countries as well.

I'll go ahead and agree with lebell on two points. First, that we need to rethink our forward basing structure, particularly Germany, and that we need to keep aircraft carrier battle groups.
__________________
"Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."
Scipio is offline  
Old 06-10-2004, 02:46 PM   #18 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Seaver's Avatar
 
Location: Fort Worth, TX
1) Wars cost money... we're fighting two at the same time.

2) Having a large active military takes lots of money.

3) Your quote is false:

Quote:
It is a fact that the US military and intelligence services have involved themselves in many (by that I mean a lot of) foriegn conflicts on the pretense that it was looking after American interests.
No, your elected politicians have involved the military and intelligence services into these countries. The military doesnt do any active involvement in anything not ordered by your elected civilian forces.

4) Your quote:

Quote:
Sure there are other nations who cause and perpetrate conflicts but we are only talking about the US and its military spending here.
Any Military leader is well aware of this discussion, it comes up after ever major conflict since the revolutionary war. It left us with our pants down for every war from the War of 1812, all the way to the Korean War.

5) Your Amnesty site takes facts and derives crap from them. They include 80s arms poliferation yet dont look at the reason behind it. You ever think that the Afghan War helped that?

China, France, Germany, Israel, the US, Japan, etc. all hated the Soviet Union and wanted them to fail, so helped the Mujahadinn. The US werent the only country to do this.

Scipio you're correct when you said:

Quote:
So in other words, if we spent less, other countries would spend more. Our military protects not just the US, but a ton of other countries as well.
We do need to do an overview on military bases and changing world. It's already been done and we are planning to pull out of Germany (funny thing... they hated us when we were there now they're begging us not to go in fears they'll go into a depression).

Quote:
so let's think about this for a minute. leading all others, but not alone in this regard by any means, american firms sell all kinds of weapons systems to anyone who can pay
Can you name a single country with any halfway decent military industrial setup that doesnt? Amazingly enough France/Germany (those most opposed to the Iraq war), were found to be doing the most dealings with them. Billions in brand new surface-to-air missiles, anti-tank weaponry, and body armor have been found... with the date as soon as 2000 on them. Oh wait... what happened to the UN agreement that was *gasp* co-written by them.

My point? Every country with a military base sells their weapons, it keeps the costs down. But if you want to blame someone the US isnt *quite* as bad as most other countries. China selling their anti-ship missiles and sea-mines to Iran (who in turn used it on US ships killing our sailors. France selling to Iraq and Argentina (knowing of their planned attack on the Faulklins).
Seaver is offline  
Old 06-10-2004, 03:38 PM   #19 (permalink)
Insane
 
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_exp_dol_fig

http://www.e-tractions.com/truemajority/run/oreo?rd=436

http://www.unitedforpeace.org/downlo...litary_map.pdf

http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm

It's not just the Iraqi war that has made our military budget so huge. Even our peacetime budget is larger than like the next 50 countries combined. When is enough, enough?

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience... we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
--Dwight D. Eisenhower; farewell speech as President, January 17, 1961.
hammer4all is offline  
Old 06-10-2004, 06:18 PM   #20 (permalink)
Thank You Jesus
 
reconmike's Avatar
 
Location: Twilight Zone
That Warresisters site is pretty funny thanks for the laugh,
Advocating non-payment of IRS tax as almost risk free I am still smiling over the site. (bookmarked also for when I need a good chuckle).

Is there a site somewhere so I can refuse to send my tax dollars to welfare, and government handouts?

I think it is better to pay to be protected, or one day the situation might occur where you might have to pick up a rifle, or run.
__________________
Where is Darwin when ya need him?
reconmike is offline  
 

Tags
arms, number, usa

Thread Tools

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:09 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360