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: 5
4
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2016 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

hey there, sorry i forgot to quote what i was even responding to, which was one of your first responses mentioning how the world has been a safer place thanks to the police of the world...
my comment wasn't about your original post, but i do hope the military loses funding cuz i don't think most tax payers like the idea of their money going to death and destabilization abroad when there's tax money needed in the usa.. you think the world needs a strong military for it to be stabilized, i hold an opposite opinion, but i don't judge you for yours..
i know the days of imperialism were brutal, but simple human evolution with more efficient societies have occurred and they didn't need the american world police to make their environment more peaceful.. have you seen the movie team america world police? haha

so you don't believe in what crap?

aside from that, how many countries have been infultrated by the cia and the like which have caused public unrest, civil wars, coup d'etats, etc.. just to exploit resources from those countries.. the lesser mentioned wars instigated are also financial.. let's say by the usa lending money to poor countries- knowing they can't really pay off the interest, which leads to them conceding their natural resources along with a big debt... many countries have have puppet dictators installed by the usa too, which creates divisions within those countries... we have the nerve to stick our nose in everyone's business and consider it or duty as the unbenounced police of the world?... step outside of the states and ask people how they feel about american military occupancy on foreign soils all over the globe..
try "confessions of an economic hitman" by Perkins to get the details of this..
have you heard of Oliver Stone's Untold History of the United States?

anyway, most of the wars we see and hear about are actually bankers' wars and corporations' wars.
banks have been financing wars since before the english-french war..

i don't know everything about this subject, but i know enough to hold an opinion which rings true to me and that's totally fine if it doesn't resonate with you




posted on May, 17 2016 @ 10:14 PM
link   
a reply to: AwakenYaMind


I really didn't intend on the thread being about who starts or finances wars. Certainly it would come up.


I'm holding to the simplistic view that irrespective of starts them, they occur. (I hold gov'ts much more to blame than 'banks', personally. If one looks at the early days of banks, who held the 'power'? The banks or the gov't/King who had the standing army? The King could flay the money men alive, kill their families and seize their assets.

Not much threat banks could muster facing that, is there? Just a slightly different take on it....


I digress, seeing that war does occur and who's to blame for it is authored by the winner, it is largely an academic point.

Therefore, I do not care who starts it, I don't want to lose. I cannot buy into the unending argument that the wars are started by this or that group as the logic for cutting military spending. There were wars long before there were banks....and likely will be when they are gone. Gov't/leaders are far more culpable than 'Banks' IMO.

I can, however, heed the long term costs, efficiency and direction those monies go.

The problem lies with our civilian leadership. Not the Military , per say. Until such a day comes when all gov'ts are sane-including ours- militaries are a necessity....as are police forces, home defense and the like.


If you disagree with that premise, then sobeit. In the interim, we are stuck with very old aircraft and that needs fixing, How much, where to invest, where to cut-without the pork-barrel politics of it all, is the issue of this thread.

edit on 17-5-2016 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

I don't know much about war, except that it kills many lives, warriors and their families. But, perhaps the military has entered a "robotic" geared force instead of human troops. And new types of robotic weapons will replace big war machines. Human troops and/or private contractors require family subsistence, mental and medical care, salaries. You say there will always be war, so how can there ever be enough money when the costs out pace the receipts? It we cut every social program, how long would that last before the MIC needs more? I just can't see how the source of money and winning wars can be separate.



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
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.






You pick one point by fail to adress the fact that private companys are getting away with charging the military far beyond there cost simply because the military just hands out money without queation. If a simple window cleaner can charge twice the cost of his services then what on earth are the big defence corperations getting away with?



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok


I still say it's an oversimplification. There IS truth in what you say, but on the other hand, by federal law gov't agencies cannot accept bids from non-union companies that pay less than the equivalent union scale wage. The companies actually have to send it their employees' pay stubs to collect from the gov't. Just an example.

The demands and hoops that have to jumped through by the corporations are also mind-boggling.

Yes, this all needs fixing but just look at the billions lost by MacDonald Douglas
when the YF-23 lost out to L&M and the YF-22. The whole thing is a mess and primary responsibility is on gov'ts shoulders.

Sure, clean it up, no arguments from me on that score.



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3


Hey, your right. It is unsustainable. Where to draw the line, is the question and reason for the thread.

I'd be the first one to forgo airshows if it meant world peace. I just don't see any chance that happens any time soon based on history and the lack of any real progress in human responses. Therefore a military is needed. How big, what priorities, etc.

I completely agree with Trump and Sanders that we need to leave NATO-with perhaps a renewed defense agreement with the U. K.. All other European nations, sorry we can't afford it. Take care of your own turf....



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   
The better cuts would be to close bases where host nations aren't paying for it.
Places like Germany and Japan, fine...they support them. But many don't, and just drain us.

We've already poured too much money (and foreign contracts) into the JSF program. That said though, using some retro-fitted F-22s to fill the gap isn't a bad idea.

Increasing the use of unmanned solutions is another way to cut spending. Personnel are the big expense.

As for prices of materials, most of that is bogus, as a means of funding black projects. Of course, being a little more practical with overstating prices would be more helpful.


Again, MAD no one wins.


Which is why missile defense spending is still important. However, you still need conventional forces for "police actions" to protect our interests around the globe. At least one candidate states we should be PAID when we use such resources.



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Gazrok


My understanding is that the smallest fraction of NATO's expenses are covered outside the U.S., itself.

This isn't "post-WWII" Europe. They have their own MIC with superb fighters, tanks, surface and submarine capability. Far superior to Russia's. A bigger population and virtually as big an economy. Outside of the U.K.-and that's based more on tradition than anything else- there is absolutely no reason to maintain that relationship. Add in, for example, the "surge" which required NATO assistance as our military was no longer capable of fulfilling it's role, only two nations met their commitment, the U.K. and Canada. Most refused to assist.

NATO first and foremost should be cashiered. (Not to mention, it removes Putin's biggest excuse to continue re-establishing the Soviet-style land grab!)

I would cut the Marine and AF commitment of F-35s in half and run an F-22B upgraded variant of at least 200 units.


After that, I get a wee bit foggy.....


edit on 18-5-2016 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

The military builds virtually nothing off its own back. DARPA tend to just grab up any technological doodad that interests them, and figure out how to make it nasty for someone, or prevent nastiness by someone else. They may do these things in partnership with arms manufacturers, aviation companies, vehicle manufacturers and the like, but they do not design and build ideas from scratch, on their own, without industry support.

What I am saying is that all the things that are used by military personnel in the course of their duties, should be designed, built, and manufactured by military resources both human and financial, and should never be put in corporate hands for any reason. The guns that the military use should not be built or designed by private firms, or with the assistance of private industry, but by the military exclusively.

That is not to say that there should not be firearms manufacturing in private, corporate control. There should. But the military should be designing and building all the tech it uses, and the private industry should be limited to selling their products to private citizens.



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Aazadan

The military builds virtually nothing off its own back. DARPA tend to just grab up any technological doodad that interests them, and figure out how to make it nasty for someone, or prevent nastiness by someone else. They may do these things in partnership with arms manufacturers, aviation companies, vehicle manufacturers and the like, but they do not design and build ideas from scratch, on their own, without industry support.

What I am saying is that all the things that are used by military personnel in the course of their duties, should be designed, built, and manufactured by military resources both human and financial, and should never be put in corporate hands for any reason. The guns that the military use should not be built or designed by private firms, or with the assistance of private industry, but by the military exclusively.

That is not to say that there should not be firearms manufacturing in private, corporate control. There should. But the military should be designing and building all the tech it uses, and the private industry should be limited to selling their products to private citizens.


Is there any modern precedent for this concept? The only project that I've ever heard of achieving anything like you describe is the Manhattan Project. Other than that, nothing.

I'd say perhaps a 'pilot' project and see how it turns out? I, for one, wouldn't be willing to just dump the best weapons development system-generally- in the world....



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Possibly, but having the technology enter the commercial sector sooner is always a benefit as well.

I think what I would like to see from our military is to see it borrow an idea from China. In China when the military isn't actively being used, they put them to work doing various civil labor like building infrastructure. Since the states have proven to be untrustworthy with the funds to do so, and the military is already collecting a paycheck perhaps we could do something similar with the members of our military who aren't being actively deployed.
edit on 18-5-2016 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join