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.

 

The 300 billion war against who???

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 03:50 PM
link   
beta.news.yahoo.com...&printer=1




The Senate moved toward approving $81 billion for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on Thursday in a measure that would push the total cost of combat and reconstruction past $300 billion.


Since 9/11 and the war on terror began, more than 300 billion dollars has been earmarked for getting rid of the Axis of evil in the world. Is this spending justified? I have participated in threads here about wheter we should spend more, and some that say spend less. Are we spending it effectively?




The Senate also added a provision that would require the Pentagon to keep the Navy's fleet of 12 aircraft carriers intact. The Pentagon had proposed scrapping one carrier to save money.


Do we need 12 aircraft carriers???




posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Well beside funding for our troops around the world as a necessity, the rest seems like a waste taking in consideration our own domestic problems that we are facing in our own country.

Education and health are only two of the casualties of war on terror.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 07:03 PM
link   
I don't think 12 carriers are enough.

I think if we had some more carriers we could close down some air bases in other countries and save money.

12 carriers seems like a lot, but it's not. You can take that number and divide it by three to get a rough idea of how many carriers are actually deployed during normal times. At any given time, 1/3 of the carriers will be deployed. 1/3 will be preparing for deployment to relieve the ones currently deployed, and 1/3 will be in training and extended maintenance periods following a deployment.

During times of war the preparing and maintenance cycles are greatly reduced to allow the maximum number of carriers to be available to fight the war. It's not uncommon for a 'crisis' to emerge as a carrier is ready to finish its deployment and head home. In those cases the carriers are on station for a year or more.

Imagine having to leave your family for six months. Now imagine it's two weeks before you get to sail home and suddenly something happens in some part of the world that the carrier is needed for. You have to stay there for an unknown amount of time, not knowing when you will see your family again. The days pass to weeks, weeks to months, and still you have know idea when you will go home again, but you know you were supposed to be home months ago. And to top it off, imagine being in that situation and working 18-20 hour days for below minimum wage. What effect do you think that has on morale?

You can look at it from another perspective too. Imagine you were away from your family for six months then finally return home. You actaully have to re-introduce yourself to your children because they have grown used to you being away. You're counting on a six month period of being in port most of the time, training and doing maintenance, then you have a six month period of deployment preps where you will be away most of the week, but still get to see your kids on weekends. Now, two weeks after getting home you have to leave again because of some trouble in some country you've never heard of.

Being on a carrier (or any Navy ship) is very, very stressful. You become a stranger to your family. You learn to appreciate things most of us take for granted, like walking on carpet, sitting on a couch, or seeing grass. Whenever any event occurs anywhere in the world that threatens the US or it's allies, the carriers are the first to be there and the last to leave. More carriers would help to allieviate this stress and improve the quality of life of the sailors who have sworn to give their lives so you can live yours.

I'm a Navy vet and a defense contractor. I'd agree there are definitely areas where defense spending can be cut. But not the carriers.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 07:58 PM
link   
I agree with the above post.

Of all the military hardware the US has, the carriers are the most valuable. They are the most important aspect of force projection, and in war, that is the name of the game.

Honestly, when looking to cut funds, I don't know where to begin. What I do know Navy is not the place to do it. The Navy is the most important aspect of the US military. It provides the majority of our force projection, and also has our most survivable and valuable nuclear aspects.

IMHO, the US military is stretched thin as it is. Now, some may argue that this means we should close oversea bases. I do not agree with this, as that is what allows us to react quickly to conflict.

Personally, I would like to see a few things happen. My vision is long term, and would likely take 20+ years to implement, but would have HUGE long term benefits.

The least cost effective pieces of hardware in the US military is our aircraft. Unfortunately they also represent the most important aspect of our basic strategy; We take the sky and deny it to the enemy. We then pound the, into submission, making for short low casualty ground wars.

So, the best thing we could do is invest in Unmanned aircraft technology and long range hypersonic platforms. The UAVs are MUCH less costly both to purchase and keep running. Hypersonic technology would allow strike aircraft to be based in the US rather then other countries, and yet at the same time IMPROVE reactionary time.

I would like in the future to see a MUCH larger ground force, an equally sized airforce (with the technology mentioned which would cut cost), and an equally sized Navy. Do this, and I believe the US will be in very good shape in the future.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 07:59 PM
link   
I am encouraged by the Senate’s plan to make the pentagon keep 12 carries like the member before me I too think we should increase the number of carriers, and I hope the senate makes a similar bill about the Raptor situation.
War is an expensive business but you cant put a price tag on keeping our troops safe.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 08:04 PM
link   
I'd LOVE to hear how we are going to pay the bill for this.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
I'd LOVE to hear how we are going to pay the bill for this.


The same way we have been doing it since WWII


Here is a hint: This is the fewest amount of carriers the US has had since 1942



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 11:31 PM
link   
With 10% of that money, the US could have jump-started the economies of 3 Southeast Asian countries. You want to prevent terrorism? Put the money where it matters.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Education and health are only two of the casualties of war on terror.


So true. In war, everything's a casualty:

Education
Ecology/Environment
Family
Friendship
Happiness
Health
Industry
Infrastructure
Innocence
Security
Youth

And the list goes on...

I didn't forget Life either.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 07:15 PM
link   
So true. Without a strong defense to deter war, everything's a casualty:

US Constitution
Bill of Rights
Democracy
Freedom
Education
Religion

And the list goes on...

I didn't forget Life either.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by PeanutButterJellyTime
So true. Without a strong defense to deter war, everything's a casualty:

US Constitution
Bill of Rights
Democracy
Freedom
Education
Religion


The difference here is that this IS war, nothing to do with having a strong defense. As well, these are but words unless we keep the values associated with each intact. But I agree, a good DEFENSE is necessary, and a good OFFENSE isn't, though the two concepts obviously intertwine.




top topics



 
0

log in

join