Will Obama and his Democrat Congress slash the military budget?

[pocketfullofshells]

Well we are the world superpower...hyperpower even. China does not face the same threats we do, neither does Russia. Further, we are coping with aging forces and are not allocating money to replace them. This is a serious problem in my view. We need to ensure that we are capable to face any threat at any time anywhere. I think that at current rates we are still below where we need to do be, but at lower levels, we are certainly below where we need to be.

I think the analogy of defense spending to an insurance policy is a pretty good way to look at it.

in a way yes, but sometimes you find out your paying 5000 a month for coverage on your car,...only to see that 100 would have gave you more then enough coverage.

 

[GenSeneca]

Obama does want to cut missile defense, but in his defense, he is cutting boost phase targeting systems.

The boost phase is the best time to take out missiles because they are moving the slowest and at their most vulnerable phase. Additionally, missiles with multiple warheads need to be taken out as close to the launch pad as possible.

On top of that, while I am a big supporter of missile defense, it is not going to make nukes obsolete.

People didn't think the advent of the Airplane would make transatlantic dirigible and ship travel obsolete. It will take less time to develop defenses that make nuclear missiles obsolete than waiting for the UN to do something about limiting and reducing nuclear stockpiles of member nations.

 

[GenSeneca]

I read a article in Newsweek, stated that the cost in cost overruns alone for the US military, where greater then the total spend on military for China, Russia, Britain and France...But yet when anyone talks about cutting the military budget...people act like it means we are going to be weak and die or be unsafe...If we cant be safe with outspending anyone else by more then 2 -1 ...I think maybe we should get attacked then..for poor use of money.

Did that article mention how much more we spend on entitlement programs than China, Russia, Britain and France? What happens when we talk about cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Welfare? People act like we're suggesting mass genocide anytime its mentioned. If we can't take care of our poor/sick/elderly without outspending anyone else by 2-1, then maybe we should build concentration camps and start gassing the poor sick and elderly.

 

[Pandora]

If we can't take care of our poor/sick/elderly without outspending anyone else by 2-1, then maybe we should build concentration camps and start gassing the poor sick and elderly.

Dont give them any ideas

 

[BigRob]

The boost phase is the best time to take out missiles because they are moving the slowest and at their most vulnerable phase. Additionally, missiles with multiple warheads need to be taken out as close to the launch pad as possible.

Well, I agree with you here, I think it is a bad move to cut the boost phase programs. That said, I could have potentially dealt with it if they had increased the MKV program, but that is being killed as well. I would argue more for boost phase defense based on redundancy, more so than anything else.

We need more missiles as part of the GMD and Aegis programs if that is what we are going to rely on simply because once a nation like North Korea can get a workable missile that can reach the United States, they will be able to duplicate it, and then overwhelm the small amount of defense we have against this threat.

People didn't think the advent of the Airplane would make transatlantic dirigible and ship travel obsolete. It will take less time to develop defenses that make nuclear missiles obsolete than waiting for the UN to do something about limiting and reducing nuclear stockpiles of member nations.

Well if you want to claim it can make the nuclear missile obsolete perhaps I can buy into that in a limited fashion, but it will never make nuclear weapons obsolete. I should have read your previous comment more carefully, since that was specifically what you were referring to.

That said, the UN is never going to get to the goal of zero, and no one in the US really wants a goal of zero, except for maybe a few fringe types.

I think this goes back to my post on the role of nuclear weapons. If you agree with option 2 (as I do, and it would seem you do as well) then defenses are vital because there is no certainty that deterrence is a viable option. It seems however that the current administration has bought into the logic that everyone is able to be deterred and defenses are of little use. I think this is a dangerous road to go down.

 

[GenSeneca]

Dont give them any ideas

Don't worry, they know gassing the poor/sick/elderly is seen as unpopular.... Universal healthcare achieves the same goal and its popular among voters who haven't had experience with such a system.

 

[Pandora]

Don't worry, they know gassing the poor/sick/elderly is seen as unpopular.... Universal healthcare achieves the same goal and its popular among voters who haven't lived had experience with such a system.

I think you are right

and with the new high energy bills they should be able to off a few of the old sooner than later by freezing them to death

 

[PLC1]

Don't worry, they know gassing the poor/sick/elderly is seen as unpopular.... Universal healthcare achieves the same goal and its popular among voters who haven't had experience with such a system.

Universal healthcare is also popular among people who live in nations that have universal healthcare.

At least, I've never yet read a post on this or any other forum from anyone who lives in such a nation lamenting not having an American style system.

Have you?

 

[GenSeneca]

Universal healthcare is also popular among people who live in nations that have universal healthcare.

At least, I've never yet read a post on this or any other forum from anyone who lives in such a nation lamenting not having an American style system.

Have you?

Its only the people who are denied care or have to be put on years long waiting lists, or are the victims of government rationing, or who shoulder the largest tax burdens that complain. As long as you don't need any serious medical treatment, your not too old, there are resources available and you're one of the people who pay little in taxes, you probably think the system is fantastic.

The pain in Bill Murray's arthritic hip throbbed for more than a year while he waited to see a specialist.

When he finally got an appointment, the specialist said Murray needed a cutting edge hip-resurfacing treatment. Murray, a 57-year-old living in Alberta, Canada, tried to schedule the procedure, but was flatly rejected.

It wasn't an insurance company that turned him down or even a hospital worried about his ability to pay. In fact, Murray tried to pay for the procedure out of his own pocket.

Instead, Murray was denied by the Canadian government's health care bureaucracy, which declared that he was just too old to appreciate the benefits of the procedure. Simply put, his pain wasn't worth the cost.

Anyone who thinks a health care horror story like this couldn't happen in the United States needs to think again.

Government is the poison that has caused, and continues to cause, ever increasing costs for our healthcare industry. Remember catastrophic care? Most people don't. Government eliminated that practice by mandating that all insurance be all inclusive. If government mandated your car insurance to cover every tank of gas, every broken belt, every tire replacement, every oil change, the cost of car insurance would be just as astronomical as health insurance. But people don't seem to learn from this reality and they let the same shyster politicians that made healthcare unaffordable talk them into turning over even more of their liberty and money for the promise of security.

The solution to this ongoing crisis is to recognize that the very idea of a "right" to health care is a perversion. There can be no such thing as a "right" to products or services created by the effort of others, and this most definitely includes medical products and services. Rights, as our founding fathers conceived them, are not claims to economic goods, but freedoms of action.

You are free to see a doctor and pay him for his services--no one may forcibly prevent you from doing so. But you do not have a "right" to force the doctor to treat you without charge or to force others to pay for your treatment. The rights of some cannot require the coercion and sacrifice of others.

No need to applaud, I know I'm brilliant.