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.

 

How much does the U.S spend on military

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:
E_T

posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
In fact, thats why the US developed the Nuetron bomb - to take out large tank formations from Russia invading Europe without destroying infrastructure and leaving large amounts of radiation.

Wrong, neutron bomb is nothing more than enhanced radiation nuke which just releases bigger part of its energy in ionozing radiation than normal nukes and destroys buildings same way like normal nukes.
And actually neutron bomb can even cause "induced" secondary radioactivity in exposed materials because of high neutron flux.


The design objective of the tactical neutron bombs developed in the 1960s and 70s was to create a low-yield, compact weapon that produced a lethal burst of neutrons. These neutrons can penetrate steel armor with relative ease, enabling the weapons to be effective against tanks and other armored vehicles which are otherwise highly resistant to the effects of nuclear weapons. A flux of several thousand rems were desired so that incapacitation of armored crews would be relatively rapid, with in several hours to a couple of days at most. In this exposure range death is inevitable. To minimize the effects of collateral damage, the effect of thermal radiation and blast outside the neutron kill radius, it was also very desirable to minimize the energy released in forms other than the neutron flux.
nuclearweaponarchive.org...


The neutron flux can induce significant amounts of short-lived secondary radioactivity in the environment in the high flux region near the burst point. The alloy steels used in armor can develop radioactivity that is dangerous for 24-48 hours. If a tank exposed to a 1 kt neutron bomb at 690 m (the effective range for immediate crew incapacitation) is immediately occupied by a new crew, they will receive a lethal dose of radiation within 24 hours.

At the conventional effective combat range (690 m), the blast from a 1 kt neutron bomb will destroy or damage to the point of inutility almost any civilian building. Thus the use of neutron bombs to stop an enemy attack, which requires exploding large numbers of them to blanket the enemy forces, would also destroy all buildings in the area.
en.wikipedia.org...




posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 05:47 PM
link   
E_T

Your links say exctly what I said.


EDIT:

BTW - I never said that NBs did not destroy anything or have any long term radiation - just that what they were designed to do.

[edit on 12-2-2005 by American Mad Man]



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 12:58 AM
link   
The U.S. has a GDP of almost 11 trillion dollars, about 30% of which the gov't takes as taxes. If I could personally control how the taxes were spend, I would take that 3.3 trillian and spend 75% on the people and 25% on military, which is about 825 billion dollers. So by my standards the U.S. is spending only half of what I would.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 12:05 PM
link   
MWM, chill; you're wasting your time. You're arguing life experiences with a seventeen-year-old kid, for crying out loud!



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by beyondSciFi
The U.S. has a GDP of almost 11 trillion dollars, about 30% of which the gov't takes as taxes. If I could personally control how the taxes were spend, I would take that 3.3 trillian and spend 75% on the people and 25% on military, which is about 825 billion dollers. So by my standards the U.S. is spending only half of what I would.


What do we do with the other 70% of the GDP? 825 billion on defense? Thats crazy but hey i'll vote for u for president... lol Care to run? I'm joining the Marines at the end of 2006 and that 825 bil would be nice. lol So how bout it? Election 08' Beyondscifi for President!!



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by metalfan87
What do we do with the other 70% of the GDP? 825 billion on defense? Thats crazy but hey i'll vote for u for president... lol Care to run? I'm joining the Marines at the end of 2006 and that 825 bil would be nice. lol So how bout it? Election 08' Beyondscifi for President!!


Lol wow, even if I could run for president (I wasn't born in the U.S. so I cant run) I probably wouldn't. There is too much lying and pressure to lie on any politician (among other things). All and all I rather not have a public life because we all have thing we want kept private. Hehe thanks for the vote though, I hope being in the Marines goes well for you. Good luck


Besides my job saving people all over the world keeps me buzy enough.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 06:23 PM
link   
France is among the most powerful military powers in the world.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by beyondSciFi

Lol wow, even if I could run for president (I wasn't born in the U.S. so I cant run) I probably wouldn't. There is too much lying and pressure to lie on any politician (among other things). All and all I rather not have a public life because we all have thing we want kept private. Hehe thanks for the vote though, I hope being in the Marines goes well for you. Good luck


Besides my job saving people all over the world keeps me buzy enough.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ILnofsot
France is among the most powerful military powers in the world.


Hey ATS! Looks like we got a comedian sweet!!!


J/k.. Don't be to offended...

I wouldn't say they're a great fighting force because I don't think they've proved themselves to be a strong military except maybe during the French revolution which i think was a war against themselves sooo how can they not win that war???



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by beyondSciFi
The U.S. has a GDP of almost 11 trillion dollars, about 30% of which the gov't takes as taxes. If I could personally control how the taxes were spend, I would take that 3.3 trillian and spend 75% on the people and 25% on military, which is about 825 billion dollers. So by my standards the U.S. is spending only half of what I would.


Actually, the US takes in quite a bit less than 3.3 trillion in taxes every year. For 2005, the government anticipates about 2.053 Trillion in tax reciepts.

Here's a summary of the US budget:

www.whitehouse.gov...



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Maybe but those bums still tax me like 35%



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 10:45 AM
link   
This is true, but GDP doesn't directly measure the income of a country's citizens. The most common definition of GDP is:

Consumer Spending + Investment + Net Exports + Government Spending



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 10:44 PM
link   
Stop talking aobut national debt, it doesnt matter when the usa has the worlds largest gold reserves and holds a lot of only countries gold.Its not like we dont have the money, its stupid to pay cash when you can take out a loan.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
But congress relizes that its to high and is going to cut the budget, I garantee next year (FY06) that it will be under 420 billion, probably around 3 to 6 billion less.


I wouldn't count on it; they always say they are going to cut back and spend less, but considering that they are preparing the raise the 9.344 trillion dollar government debt limit because they are nearing it, I wouldn't count on any cuts on military expenses; especially in the heat of this huge 'war'.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join