It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Spending cuts in the military is the latest political issue.

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2016 @ 05:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99


I know little about the subject of cyber attacks, yet from what little I've seen, the 'attacker' ends up identified at least the source of the attack.

In that case, wouldn't fear of consequence/retaliation, be it cyber or outright military response be a deterrent? There's a big difference between informational cyber attacks and one designed to paralyze a nation which would be seen as an act of war?

If this is the case, and very few nations have that capability, perhaps deterrence is the reason it hasn't occurred rather than 'it can't be done'.

edit on 16-5-2016 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 16 2016 @ 06:01 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

Cyber attacks are a bit more complicated. Yes, every attack can be traced back to it's origin eventually, but depending on the determination of the attacker, that time can vary quite a bit.

Keep in mind, in the case of cyber attacks, governments can always say they didn't do it, because it only takes one person to execute them, and being a "world-wide-web" the attacker can initiate the attack literally from anywhere on the globe with internet access.



There's a big difference between informational cyber attacks and one designed to paralyze a nation which would be seen as an act of war?

The movie style hacks just don't exist. You can't just hack into a power grid and send it a kill signal. The internal systems of infrastructure aren't online.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 06:17 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit


The overall point you make, I have no disagreement with.

Your example of Halliburton, I wince at. Halliburton is NOT a private military company. It is an oil service company, predominantly, that has branched out into servicing military bases, etc. As far as the ME issues where concerned, the only other company that could have serviced the volume/size required by the Gulf War was Schlumberger, a French concern and as France was very much involved with the overthrow of the Shah of Iran and inserting the current morons in Iran, it is unlikely that that contract would be awarded to them.

I believe it was Schlumberger that started the attacks on Halliburton due to the fact that they weren't allowed(?) to bid for these services.

Not unlike the federal gov't uses U.S. manufactured cars and vehicles, not foreign ones.


On a personal note, I went through the process of applying to a company owed by Halliburton to drive tankers from Kuwait into Iraq. The position paid 80K per year, non-taxable with all expenses paid and one month vacation per year, also with travel expenses paid by them.

I could have easily banked 50K plus and the expenses incurred by Halliburton would easily be over 250K per year-my guesstimate- and I eventually decided it wasn't worth it.

This was just for a damned truck driver position with Hazmat endorsement! Envision, if you will, what other, higher trained positioned demanded!

The attack on Halliburton was politically motivated, first by France, then by the Democrats.

Culpability? Yes. However, no different than any other major corporation-where your eg is applicable- and no different in regards to Cheney as well. The number of politicians/elite that sit in the good old boy network in both parties have held major positions/ on the boards of directors of these same and similar corporations.

Halliburton, IMO, was pulled out of the MASSIVE group of Corporations that operate identically, as you say, and was selectively targeted for political purposes.

Guilty, yes, but no more so than those pointing the fingers at Cheney and Halliburton, themselves. Gore, Clinton et al.

Agreed Obama has nothing to do with this one....



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 06:29 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

The point I am trying to make, is that Haliburton and every company like it which operates either on behalf of, or in partnership with the USA, are rinsing the lifeblood of the United States of America out of the place, diverting it, subverting it, stealing from the people.

It does not matter what kind of company they started as, it only matters what kind of people they are and whether their practices are moral, legal, and just. They are not, yet are allowed to continue to fleece taxpayers. And as for Haliburton not being a PMC...if it lists personnel on its books who tote rifles and drive up armoured hammers with cannons on the back of them, I do not give a god damn if they list "Kindergarten admin support" on their tax form, they are a godamn PMC and that's the end of it. All that makes them different from Blackwater XE, or whatever their name is for legal purposes this month, is the stated aim of their company, not what it actually does, or the reasons it actually does it.

They are both companies entirely and fully run for the purpose of getting things done that should never have been done, and both companies need burning down around the ears of everyone who ever bought a share in them. They CERTAINLY should not be allowed to fleece the people as much as they do, and should not be permitted to run clearly illegal shadow wars in the absence of a political mandate to legitimise action, which is something ELSE that both companies very much are involved in.

Hell will chew on their bones, but until they get between the jaws, they must be pushed out of the money chain and their owners and operators tried for violating at least forty articles of the "Do not be a filthy scumbag" Act of 1960ohwaitthisdidnotneedwritingdownbecauseitisbasicmorality.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 07:08 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit



And as for Haliburton not being a PMC

They have been for quite a while, they even made one vice president.
meh, you probably don't want to read this
Not you specifically TrueBrit, just people in general.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 07:21 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

And they pay those stupidity high wages and expenses because they are fleecing the US tax payer.

These big cooperation be them Defence contractors , PMC or just civilian transport and servicing companys s charge the government far far far more than they need too or would someone in the private sector.

You have to ask why?

Is it because they know the government are soft touches and would never negotiate or play hard ball with them so they know they will get away?

Or

Is it because they have friends sitting in high places in congress, the white house and yoru civil service willing paid off or greased.

Or

Is it a mixture of the above?

Hell even on a small scale I see it.
I have a family member who cleans windows near RAF Lakenheath. He LOVES American customers. Why? Because instead of £20 a house he can charge them £40 a house! Purely because the USAF will pay that through expenses without raising an eye brow. Which like my theory one the US government just doesn’t bother to actually negotiate or look at the real prices of things!
If they cant even get the cost of cleaning windows right then god knows what the big corprations with fancy lawyers and markters are getting away with!
edit on 16-5-2016 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-5-2016 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-5-2016 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 07:36 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok




You have to ask why?

Well in the simplest terms, they sell stuff to our government.

The things they manufacture are meant for use, or they wouldn't be able to sell more.

Do you think it's just coincidental that Cheney was vice president when 9/11 happened?



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 07:53 AM
link   
My thoughts? If 610 to 735 BILLION annually, depending on what estimate you believe, isn't enough, then we have a real problem. It's absolutely ridiculous. We have people in this country that want over a TRILLION dollars spent annually on nothing but the military!! It's absolute stupidity, forget insanity, it's way beyond that.
edit on 16-5-2016 by SpeakerofTruth because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-5-2016 by SpeakerofTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 07:57 AM
link   
I will also point out that the USA has wepaons or at least one weapon anyway that would make a war with Russia or China pointless.

You dont need big armys and navys when you would just zap your enemys in a few minutes .



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
There isn't a cyber attack capable of shutting down our grid, or it would have already happened.


According to the government, both Russia and China have the capability to do so. I realize it's not as simple as hitting a single button, but our power grid does operate on a network, and the power grid is prone to cascading failures if you hit the right point at the right time.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
The movie style hacks just don't exist. You can't just hack into a power grid and send it a kill signal. The internal systems of infrastructure aren't online.


In the case of the power grid it is, because different power plants communicate to each other to raise/lower output. It's secured in some fashion I'm sure, but it is online.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Spending cuts for the military are fine if done in the right way. To much of military spending is determined by Congress in direct opposition to what the military wants of requests. Weapons systems get built because what congressional district they are in and not if we need or want them. Money the military wants to spend on something else is used on something they did not want and then they have to come up with the money to maintain the things the never wanted to begin with.

The US military operates over 13,000 aircraft, where China operate 3,500 and Russia 2,900.

The US Navy is simply unmatched and so dominate that the a nation like China in a conflict with the US would never let its Navy leave the air a missile support of the mainland removing its ability to project power. And Russia's fleet is nothing but, a target if it leaves port.

The smallest branch of the US military the Marines would be the 28 largest military on Earth on its own. The USMC is larger than the entire active miltaries of countries like the UK, Israel, Spain, Italy, Greece, Canada etc.

Globally miltaries are shrinking. China is cutting another 300,000 men. And with its economic slow down its days of heavy military spending will slow as well. And with the US working with Japan, ASEAN, ANZUS, Taiwan and India to contain China it will be a long time before China would be in a position to move against its neighbors. When you look at other potential US enemies conventional threats, their is not much to speak of. Russia is trying to be a military power on an economy the size of Mexico's, trying to sustain that is will not end well. North Korea is already matched by the South in a conventional sense, the nuclear problem is is another ball of wax. Iran's days are numbered as the moderates backed by western capital slowly take the reigns of power, Venezuela is in a state of collapse, Cuba has come over. Their is no conventional threat to the US.

Frankly the chances of traditional conventional war are nil. Insurgent and radical groups will now be fought by locals with support from the US using Arab League or African Union forces.

So wise cutting to the military is a no brainier.
edit on 16-5-2016 by MrSpad because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Stupidly high wages??

The reason my example paid that much was because it sucked! Tankers were targets for sniper...do you want to be the driver?? Add in, as civilians, we wouldn't be permitted any arms.

No hot water.....ever and SAND FLEAS. No booze, no broads, no football....no life.

I said no. Supply and demand.

Stupidly high wages? I say stupid to accepting lower wages....Do you really think these guys would pay that much if they could get guys for less??

I had a recent conversation with a spec-op member who had not re-upped. I asked him the current rate the Gov't was offering him to re-sign. He said 100K . He then mentioned Blackwater has offered him 1 meg for signing a 10 year deal.

Gave both of them the one fingered salute. Supply and demand.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: MrSpad

Interesting. I see your point and it's well made.

The caveat is Putin and his moves in Georgia, Crimea and the Ukraine. I see a blatant and slick series of move by the guy. Still, Europe should be more than capable of handling Putin. They have their own MIC, great aircraft, tanks and surface/submarine force.

The other point I'd like your take on is the age of those massive numbers of planes you cite. Cut/reduce the F-35? More F-22s or not?


Only around 300 of those numbers you quote are under 10 years old.....

edit on 16-5-2016 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

My thoughts on this are that it's ridiculous to use a civilian supply line for the military. Civilians have to be paid way more, and being non military can't be expected to fight back. It seems to me that it just increases the cost more than if it were all military run, and in the event the military can't maintain the supply lines maybe that's a sign we shouldn't be trying to in the first place.

As far as rates go, 100k right now almost seems reasonable considering Walmart is paying truckers $82k/year at this point. But I still suspect the military could instead be paying E2's and E3's 1/4 to 1/3 of that for pretty much the same thing.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan


Good points.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker
Thoughts? It's simple. To pay for all of the welfare to pay for all of the growing problems and expectations people have, the military MUST have cuts. There's no other way for the US to keep up its image and pay its debts.

So what do we do to maintian security if our military is being cut? Idk. That's their job. Lets see what they do. It's not like life was ever easy. I expect to be bothered by whatever they do. But not surprised.
edit on 5/16/2016 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 07:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
I will also point out that the USA has wepaons or at least one weapon anyway that would make a war with Russia or China pointless.

You dont need big armys and navys when you would just zap your enemys in a few minutes .


What isn't mentioned in your post the 'weapon/s' you refer to were developed with massive R&D expenditures. It likely took a chunk of that coin invested in the military.

That development isn't static, as you well know, either. It isn't that simple to say we have ****** weapons that rule the sky so we don't need a big navy or army.

I'm kind of reminded what Bush 41 did after the collapse of the Soviet Union. He placed a stay on new weapons procurement while maintaining R&D which was restricted to prototypes. Of Course, Clinton took it a lot further and we ended up with a military 1/2 the size by the time W got in office.

Good thing or not? Jury's still out....



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: jonnywhite
a reply to: nwtrucker
Thoughts? It's simple. To pay for all of the welfare to pay for all of the growing problems and expectations people have, the military MUST have cuts. There's no other way for the US to keep up its image and pay its debts.

So what do we do to maintian security if our military is being cut? Idk. That's their job. Lets see what they do. It's not like life was ever easy. It has never been easy. Modern technology won't change that.

Let me ask you: How're we going to erase our debt?


Default? Monetize? That's beyond me...

I will say one thing, I thought back in the Reagan era that the way to finally get rid of the military would be massive increases in social programs and that would force marginalizing the military.

When Eisenhower warned of the MIC in the 50s, the % of the GPD spent on the military was over 10%. Today? About 3.5 % last I heard....

First and foremost is level the playing field economically. If we can somehow pull that off, the economy would grow. Obviously never to the high water mark of days past, but we can compete if we aren't sold out under the guise of "free trade".....



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 07:23 PM
link   
I'll say one thing for the MIC, it's been an effective way to create new technology. I'm not all together certain the private sector could do it more efficiently. What I do know is that a lot of the people who supply products and services to the military are definitely overcharging. The governments tolerance of the concept of "necessary profit" is one of the leading reasons as to why, and it needs to be challenged.




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join