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.

 

Russia to increase defence budget by 22%

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Of course it’s appropriate, and as we are engaged in ongoing conflicts and other countries such as China are on a military build up the US DOD budget should be higher.


- How?

The current 'fight' the US is engaged in is with a bunch of low-tech irregulars popping up a couple of times a day in Iraq or Afghanistan - and once in a long while elsewhere.

China (like every other country on this earth) spends a small fraction of what the US spends.......and has done so for the last century.
Trying to pretend China is any kind of credible threat is IMO utterly laughable and indicative of the blatent con-job currently going on.


Now sminkey you cannot possibly say that the UK’s military needs are the same as that of the US, hence our bigger budget.


- I am not trying to say the US 'need' is the same as the UK's.

I am saying this has far more to do with desire and ulterior motive than any actual 'need'.

[edit on 3-9-2005 by sminkeypinkey]




posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
The current 'fight' the US is engaged in is with a bunch of low-tech irregulars popping up a couple of times a day in Iraq or Afghanistan - and once in a long while elsewhere.


This "fight" as you call it, is costing America more than vietnam did.


Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
China (like every other country on this earth) spends a small fraction of what the US spends.......and has done so for the last century.
Trying to pretend China is any kind of credible threat is IMO utterly laughable and indiocative of the blatent con-job currently going on.


The only thing thats "laughable" is how much money USA wastes on absolute rubbish.

It would be good for USA to have a $600BN is most of it didn't quite literally go down the drain.

Don't know about Chinese, but at least the Russians know how to allocate resources properly, and this is a major tactical advantage.

In times of war, resources will be short, America won't be able to buy all the oil and other things it needs, and they won't know what to do.

[edit on 3-9-2005 by Manincloak]

[edit on 3-9-2005 by Manincloak]



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Manincloak
This "fight" as you call it, is costing America more than vietnam did.


- Yeah I've seen that claim made too.

Amazing if true.

I know there have been a few larger scale 'battles' in the course of this 'war' but nevertheless it is mainly a large scale occupation with a small scale ground war against a low-tech small irregular enemy.

Hardly, IMO, the sort of thing to justify 'cold war' levels of spending (and more!).

The fact that I can find so little internal debate about the grotesque and bloated level of 'defence' spending in the US amazes me....

....although I suspect the recent tragic gulf coast disaster is set to focus more and more American minds on what has been going on.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Sminkey, you know that the money spent in Iraq is going toward fighting the insurgents and toward rebuilding the country.

Also Sminkey, what would in your view, justify a cold war era budget?


[edit on 3-9-2005 by WestPoint23]



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Sminkey, you know that the money spent in Iraq is going toward fighting the insurgents and toward rebuilding the country.


- Surely the military spending and the rebuilding of Iraq can't possibly be coming from the same 'defence' budget?

That can't possibly be a reasonable 'justification', surely?


Also Sminkey, what would in your view, justify a cold war era budget?


- That one is easy, a 'cold war era' level of 'threat'.

You know, a serious collective of many 'first and second world' developed countries with an advanced and huge global capability on land, sea and air, both conventional and full NBC.

In other words a totally different magnitude of threat to the, IMO, ridiculous claims regarding 'terrorism' or China (or equally absurd - and evidence free - day-dreaming of a coming alliance between India, China and Russia etc etc some time in the undefined future) being made now.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Well sminkey, the DOD money goes toward paying for the 130K+ troops in Iraq and all their gear and systems, plus all of their needs. That's a lot of money, more so than if all those troops were back at their bases doing nothing.

Also, sminkey, its and inherent consequence that if you want to stay ahead of everyone, you have to spend more than everyone.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- Surely the military spending and the rebuilding of Iraq can't possibly be coming from the same 'defence' budget?



You better believe it.....
That's why the Pentagon wants more money now.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
the DOD money goes toward paying for the 130K+ troops in Iraq and all their gear and systems, plus all of their needs. That's a lot of money, more so than if all those troops were back at their bases doing nothing.


- But compare this to the numbers of US personnel stationed abroad during the cold war - a number which has declined markedly over the last 2 decades - and the comparitive costs cannot possibly be so different?

Particulaly when one takes account of the enormous numbers (across much of the globe) then 'on alert' and training/rehersing their mission(s) as well as the larger number of bases and units themselves (ie the number of things like the B52 bomber aircraft is much less, nuclear subs is less, the numbers of ICBM missiles is less etc etc).

Sorry Westy but I just don't buy it.

I think you guys are being had, mightily.


its and inherent consequence that if you want to stay ahead of everyone, you have to spend more than everyone.


- Well that covers a multitude of sins, huh?

It's also an inherent consequence of being gouged senseless that to get the people to put up with it (or better not even have the idea enter their heads at all) you get them to accept such unquestioning slogans of acceptance.

The point surely is that US spending has been so ahead of everybody else (combined!) for several decades.
Even if the others were to ramp up spending over a few years - or, now, even a decade or two - they simply do not have anything remotely like a comparable R&D infrastructure or sheer knowledge 'base' and the disparity between the US and any credible 'opponent' is so vast as to make claims of a genuine 'need' justifying this or to continually increase it further, IMO, risible.

In some respects it reminds me of a runaway train.
I'm not even sure you guys could put the brakes on this now even if you wanted to.
Any rational assessment that suggested an easing up would be met with howls of nonsense about 'being weak' or rubbish about 'leaving America undefended'.

The really tragic thing is that this is all going on in the face of domestic need which is going unmet; both in terms of the US national financial position and the US national domestic infrastructure need - as the gulf tragedy has just illustrated.

Whilst on the one hand this is a domestic US matter the fact remains that on the other this has global consequences that will affect the rest of us.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Sminkey, if we lowered our DoD budget then it would just give other questionable countries a chance to catch up. You disagree with this because you claim were so far ahead of everyone else it wouldn't make a difference. However Sminkey, its too great a risk to take that chance IMO.

If I may say so, it’s apparent to me the we’re not going to agree on this, so can we agree to disagree?



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 12:31 PM
link   
You need to divert that DoD budget to Katrina affected areas..
BBC is having a field day with pointing out that the only superpower on the planet is unable to cater to the needs of its own people while its trying to "build"
countries in the middle-east..

One thing is for sure.. Any bush Iran adventurism is off post katrina..



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Sminkey, if we lowered our DoD budget then it would just give other questionable countries a chance to catch up.


- For this "catching up" to be even remotely possible the level of spending would have to be so amazingly vast - and sustained for a long period - as to be utterly conspicuous to all.
IMO it is simply not a realistic possibility at all (not now the world's intellectual, financial and commodity markets are so interlinked).


If I may say so, it’s apparent to me the we’re not going to agree on this, so can we agree to disagree?


- Fair enough.......but surely a little debate is what this place is all about?


[edit on 4-9-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 10:12 PM
link   

You need to divert that DoD budget to Katrina affected areas..


Money is not the problem with the Katrina aftermath, its not like we don't have money to pay for it so I don't know where this is coming form.


Fair enough.......but surely a little debate is what this place is all about?


Sure is, after all, ATS would be a dull place if everyone agreed with each other.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Well, its not like you've got enough to go around for both katrian and Iraq. Thats bravado.
Also I talking about the govts "fixation' and obsessionwith Iraq. Actually if there was no iraq campaign, I have a feeling that the katrina problem would ahve been addressed much faster and with much more "involvement"..
I hate to think that the only reason for the lack of response here could be racial bias etc. etc.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 01:42 PM
link   
D3 Iraq had nothing to do with the Katrina response, not in any significant way anyway.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 10:57 AM
link   
So from now on everything everywhere other than the US is just as expensive as in the US. In other countries you can do more with the same ammount of money than the US. Altrough that is not the case in most of europe. I think with the same ammount of money that you need to spend in the US for a assault rifle you can get 3 or so in Russia. Doesnt that allow the millitairy budget to be lower?



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 11:03 AM
link   
should know that even terrorists have money problems as well. 500,000 or a million bucks may not seem alot to America but to the terrorists thats a lot of dough to buy fake passports. airplane tickets. bribes to get through border, buying weapons, etc. terrorists is spending more money than they were expecting to, but at this time events have speed things up where they need to spend more to make themselves seen by the public just to maintain that they are dangerous. if there is no terrorist attack next month or somthing like that people would wonder and terrorists dont like people wondering.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 05:00 PM
link   

I think with the same ammount of money that you need to spend in the US for a assault rifle you can get 3 or so in Russia.


The old argument between quantity and quality comes to mind when something is significantly cheaper.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by tomcat ha
So from now on everything everywhere other than the US is just as expensive as in the US. In other countries you can do more with the same ammount of money than the US. Altrough that is not the case in most of europe. I think with the same ammount of money that you need to spend in the US for a assault rifle you can get 3 or so in Russia. Doesnt that allow the millitairy budget to be lower?


No, it's more that US built things are very expansive, and are not usually better.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by cyberdude78
Hooray, it'll be nice to see a competitor with a decent budget. If the US gets lucky Congress might raise our budget to keep up.


Huh?
The 2005 defence budget for the US is requested at $401.7 billion, cyberdude.
Fiscal 2005 Department of Defense Budget Release
US defence budget will equal ROW combined "within 12 months"

The proposed Russian defence increase amounts to only $24 billion.


A draft 2006 budget allocates 668.3 billion rubles (24 billion dollars, 19.5 billion euros) for spending on national defense, an increase of nearly 22 percent on this year's defense budget and a figure equivalent to about 2.75 percent of Russia's projected gross national product.

You were saying?




seekerof

[edit on 23-8-2005 by Seekerof]


Seekerof, please before you compare money look my into it. Look what Russia pays to its troops, what there war costs, saftey, college, etc.

Out,
Russian

[edit on 12-9-2005 by Russian]



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

I think with the same ammount of money that you need to spend in the US for a assault rifle you can get 3 or so in Russia.


The old argument between quantity and quality comes to mind when something is significantly cheaper.


No its not that way. Or do you want to say Japan has weapons that are 7 times better then American weapons? Or didnt you know that Japanese weapons are 7 time more expansive then USA weapons?

Out,
Russian

[edit on 12-9-2005 by Russian]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join