Cancel F-22 Raptor Production For World Peace, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times

reply posted on 15-4-2009 @ 02:52 PM by kilcoo316

Originally posted by C0bzz
That's all fine and dandy but none of which were the reasons for canceling the F-22.

Limited money to spend is the reason why the F-22 is canceled. Too many things competing for the same tax dollars.

President Obama does not particularly want to have to spend the money he does. The recession has forced his hand in that regard.

So investments need to be made, costing massive amounts of taxpayers money, but that money is sure as hell better spent rebuilding US infrastructure, they will provide a net gain to the economy in the future. The F-22 certainly will not*, infact, the ongoing maintenance costs would mean it would continue to be a net drain on the economy.

*the F-22 is designed for a large scale conventional war against an advanced enemy (which right now could be India, Pakistan, Russia or China). If that ever kicked off, the lack of another 200 F-22s would be the least of the US's problems. The drive to keep the war conventional would be absolute top of the list.

reply posted on 16-4-2009 @ 10:25 AM by C0bzz

Limited money to spend is the reason why the F-22 is canceled. Too many things competing for the same tax dollars.

The "tax dollars" DoD receives is practically unlimited however the actual funding of this appears to be limited to Robert M. Gates's pet programmes as he struggles to come up with excuses to cancel others - ABMS / DPRK is a classic example.

[edit on 16/4/2009 by C0bzz]

reply posted on 16-4-2009 @ 11:58 AM by kilcoo316

Originally posted by C0bzz
The "tax dollars" DoD receives is practically unlimited

You may get ready for that to change. The US can no longer afford to burn money on unnecessary weapons.

Originally posted by C0bzz
however the actual funding of this appears to be limited to Robert M. Gates's pet programmes as he struggles to come up with excuses to cancel others - ABMS / DPRK is a classic example.

Yeah. The pet programs that are needed.

The ABM numbers are frozen. No more for Alaska, and concentration will be on R&D to improve performance (which may be utlised later in a ABM II program).

I have severe doubts over the technical viability of the ABM shield, and to be honest, I seen it as a total waste of money.

Has the US learned nothing from the current asymmetric warfare your in?

Why on earth would anyone be stupid enough to assume a nuke will be delivered by an ICBM or IRBM when one costs significant amounts of money to develop, is by no means accurate, is easy to spot the development program years in advance and most of all is an easy target that can be killed by technologically superior forces?

Extreme idiocy. One that is being rectified by the freezing of the progam.

A better solution long term will be the ABL program, which has become an R&D effort as well.

reply posted on 26-5-2009 @ 01:05 AM by Dark Jester

gee wiz lets just stop making weapons to help defend america and while we're at it everyone needs to throw away there weapons. That way we can live like hippies and live happly ever after.

If America were to disarm what do you think would happen? We would be invaded and when that was to happen how would we defend ourselves? With sticks and stones?

reply posted on 26-5-2009 @ 05:10 AM by waynos

And who is it that is currently waiting for the opportunity to invade America? This is the problem with the paranoia that goes with national identity. For decades we thought it was the Russians, but they weren't, and they were just as scared that NATO wanted to invade them. It is the product of paranoid fear mongering by the Govt (all govts). Nothing keeps a population in line like being scared of someone else. Clearly lessons were learned from the British experience of the Blitz and the 'Dunkirk Spirit'. Once the Soviet regime collapsed China suddenly became the the 'big bad' and now its the 'Muslims'. Funny how neither of these were a major concern, if at all, before 1990 isn't it.

I'm not saying we don't need a military, that would be far too simplistic. But have you really examined the eternal military standoff there has always been against 'somebody' since 1945?

reply posted on 26-5-2009 @ 11:42 PM by Aim64C

reply to post by waynos

Humans need a rival. We like to compete - we're predators.

Of all of the countries likely to invade another - it is China. They are on their own industrial and social highway to hell. Their population is in a bind and will be struggling to support itself before much longer, the portion of their industry that is very labor-intensive will collapse, and their more technical industry cannot compete with the expertise and experience of the western industrial corporations.

Their oil and coal consumption is increasing beyond what they can supply, and other countries are willing/capable of supplying.

While I doubt they would invade the U.S. (big ocean to cross - huge logistical liability; armed and very sparse population - every one of us is a potential combatant.... there are a variety of complications with a direct invasion..... though there are more subtle methods....).

However, I'm sure Russia is keeping a close eye on its resource-starving neighbor that has become increasingly aggressive as of late.

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^