The Grand New Party

[CRedskinsRule]

Any reduction in govt is good, but the military, by far could use a huge slash in funding - IF (and here I go back into lala land) we would move to a Defense first posture. Granted, our troops are in these places overseas and you can't/shouldn't just pull the rug.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Any reduction in govt is good, but the military, by far could use a huge slash in funding - IF (and here I go back into lala land) we would move to a Defense first posture. Granted, our troops are in these places overseas and you can't/shouldn't just pull the rug.

I think we could cut all goverment programs by 15 to 25% and still get the same thing from each program. It would take cutting alot of waist and also getting rid of alot of goverment and private employees but I think it could be done. The problem is that no one has the balls to suggest anything like this.

[Trample the Elderly]

How about we take all of the troops out of Korea, Japan, Bosnia, Thailand, Australia, England, Germany, Italy, Iraq, Africa, and Kuwait? How much money would we save then? We should be protecting our own borders, not someone else's.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

How about we take all of the troops out of Korea, Japan, Bosnia, Thailand, Australia, England, Germany, Italy, Iraq, Africa, and Kuwait? How much money would we save then? We should be protecting our own borders, not someone else's.

None, if we don't draw down at the same time. BUT if we drew down, actually reduced the forces. We could save a bunch. BUT what would really save, would be putting new Hi Tech purchases on a 4 year hiatus. you could maintain force levels, and locations, but limit research/development, new spending and save a ton. Reducing force commitments outside the US would be the next step, and also save a ton. But the politicians must have their toys.

I will say, I fully disagree though with the one statement that was made by someone about SDI. We should be able to protect our country from any reasonably conceivable threat, and missiles are a real threat, which needs a real defense.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

None, if we don't draw down at the same time. BUT if we drew down, actually reduced the forces. We could save a bunch. BUT what would really save, would be putting new Hi Tech purchases on a 4 year hiatus. you could maintain force levels, and locations, but limit research/development, new spending and save a ton. Reducing force commitments outside the US would be the next step, and also save a ton. But the politicians must have their toys.

I will say, I fully disagree though with the one statement that was made by someone about SDI. We should be able to protect our country from any reasonably conceivable threat, and missiles are a real threat, which needs a real defense.

Do a little research on SDI...we've been at it nearly 3 decades and conservative estimates have the cost around $1 trillion, though the real expenditure is said to be much higher. What do we have to show for it today? Almost nothing. It doesn't work. I've heard top military brass on documentaries say it's no more realistic today than it was 20 years ago. Basically, if you had to pinpoint the single most wasteful program of all time nothing, absolutely nothing, can hold a candle to SDI. Again we can bitch and moan and wring our hands over SS, which has on overhead of a few tenths of a percent, or even medicare. But in both cases we're at least getting something from the program. There is total consensus that SDI is non-operational and nobody has been able to say "this is what we need to make it work" or something to that effect. Hell just a few years ago, before the economic indicators fell through the floor, i remember reading an article where Bush discussed outlays of another trillion to finally make the damn thing work (to be fair i believe his proposal included another system in Europe as well) but that doesn't take away from the reality...we've likely spent trillions on something that is no more cogent than a 9mm.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by The Goat

Do a little research on SDI...we've been at it nearly 3 decades and conservative estimates have the cost around $1 trillion, though the real expenditure is said to be much higher. What do we have to show for it today? Almost nothing. It doesn't work. I've heard top military brass on documentaries say it's no more realistic today than it was 20 years ago. Basically, if you had to pinpoint the single most wasteful program of all time nothing, absolutely nothing, can hold a candle to SDI. Again we can *** and moan and wring our hands over SS, which has on overhead of a few tenths of a percent, or even medicare. But in both cases we're at least getting something from the program. There is total consensus that SDI is non-operational and nobody has been able to say "this is what we need to make it work" or something to that effect. Hell just a few years ago, before the economic indicators fell through the floor, i remember reading an article where Bush discussed outlays of another trillion to finally make the *** thing work (to be fair i believe his proposal included another system in Europe as well) but that doesn't take away from the reality...we've likely spent trillions on something that is no more cogent than a 9mm.

I think your facts are coming from a biased slant, but truthfully, I don't have any better facts. However, the governments primary military job is our defense, and I know they have had successful tests of the system. My other argument goes more to a logical assertion.
If missile defense did not work, then Russia would not have had conniptions when putting the system in eastern europe. Instead, the threat alone nearly killed Russian American relations. To me, that says that the research has produced some benefits.

Our government should attempt to protect us from the threat of incoming missiles. That is a far more real threat than a land invasion ever has been. And yet we maintain a huge Army that can do very little for our self-defense. We should invest what it takes to protect us from real threats.

Having said that, if it is the black hole effect that bothers you, I certainly understand that, and SDI ought to be open to scrutiny and proof that they are progressing.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by The Goat

Do a little research on SDI...we've been at it nearly 3 decades and conservative estimates have the cost around $1 trillion, though the real expenditure is said to be much higher. What do we have to show for it today? Almost nothing. It doesn't work. I've heard top military brass on documentaries say it's no more realistic today than it was 20 years ago. Basically, if you had to pinpoint the single most wasteful program of all time nothing, absolutely nothing, can hold a candle to SDI. Again we can *** and moan and wring our hands over SS, which has on overhead of a few tenths of a percent, or even medicare. But in both cases we're at least getting something from the program. There is total consensus that SDI is non-operational and nobody has been able to say "this is what we need to make it work" or something to that effect. Hell just a few years ago, before the economic indicators fell through the floor, i remember reading an article where Bush discussed outlays of another trillion to finally make the *** thing work (to be fair i believe his proposal included another system in Europe as well) but that doesn't take away from the reality...we've likely spent trillions on something that is no more cogent than a 9mm.

Also, while 1TRILLION dollars, or 3 TRILLION if we go high is ungodly amount of money, if you put it in context of nearly 30 years, and then consider what our government has spent over that same 30 years, I would still maintain, that this project is actually what we should spend money on. My whole argument rests in my belief that the military should first and foremost defend our country from the most realistic threats. What are those?
1) has to be a terrorist attack - this requires intelligence work to protect us

2) sub launched or air attacks - Naval and Air Force are required for this

3) attacks against our satellites - SDI and its off chutes are required to protect these

4) a missile attack, most likely one or two fired, not likely that any country would have the capacity to flood our airspace with missiles. - SDI again is the only reasonable defense, along with retaliatory capabilities

5) I honestly can't envision a scenario where a ground attack against US soil could occur without 1-4 having occurred and been successful. That means we have little need for a STANDING army. We do need equipment properly maintained, and an officer corps, but the soldiers should come from some sort of 2 year mandatory service, or something.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

5) I honestly can't envision a scenario where a ground attack against US soil could occur without 1-4 having occurred and been successful. That means we have little need for a STANDING army. We do need equipment properly maintained, and an officer corps, but the soldiers should come from some sort of 2 year mandatory service, or something.

You never saw Red Dawn?

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by The Goat

Do a little research on SDI...we've been at it nearly 3 decades and conservative estimates have the cost around $1 trillion, though the real expenditure is said to be much higher. What do we have to show for it today? Almost nothing. It doesn't work. I've heard top military brass on documentaries say it's no more realistic today than it was 20 years ago. Basically, if you had to pinpoint the single most wasteful program of all time nothing, absolutely nothing, can hold a candle to SDI. Again we can bitch and moan and wring our hands over SS, which has on overhead of a few tenths of a percent, or even medicare. But in both cases we're at least getting something from the program. There is total consensus that SDI is non-operational and nobody has been able to say "this is what we need to make it work" or something to that effect. Hell just a few years ago, before the economic indicators fell through the floor, i remember reading an article where Bush discussed outlays of another trillion to finally make the damn thing work (to be fair i believe his proposal included another system in Europe as well) but that doesn't take away from the reality...we've likely spent trillions on something that is no more cogent than a 9mm.

I would suggest actually doing some very basic research on the program. Your numbers are grossly overexaggerated and the $$$ from this program has funded much research and development. In addition to the technology advances, the SDI initiative was key into bringing down the Berlin wall.

Strategic Defense Initiative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Social Security and Medicare are vastly more costly entitlement programs, not research and development programs. What tangible items do we have from Social Security and Medicare?

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

I would suggest actually doing some very basic research on the program. Your numbers are grossly overexaggerated and the $$$ from this program has funded much research and development. In addition to the technology advances, the SDI initiative was key into bringing down the Berlin wall.

Strategic Defense Initiative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Social Security and Medicare are vastly more costly entitlement programs, not research and development programs. What tangible items do we have from Social Security and Medicare?

Whooops somebody caught me!!! Seriously the published numbers on SDI are no more reliable than those we get from Halliburton. Look at total DOD outlays since the '80s and we're talking tens of trillions of dollars. The vast majority of that sum is unaccounted for, meaning because it's classified we don't know where it goes, unless chance happens to uncover it. Do u guys remember when those research students uncovered the billions we gave to Pol Pot, supposedly to fight Vietnam? I mean nobody would have thought it possible. There's room for argument where DOD money goes, whether into various SDI related programs or $1000 toilet seats or whatever. My intuition is look for the most complicated, futuristic weapons system and that's where you'll find the black hole. Personally I think that's why Gates has initiated a shift away from that game.

I don't know if your comments on SS and Medicare are serious? I mean what we get is an older population, my very old grandparents included, who can eat and keep a roof over their head. If to you that is worth nothing there's not a lot of room for conversation here...we're coming from vastly different value systems.

...btw I agree w/ CRedskinsRule take on the legitimacy of threats we face. SDI is a wonderful idea...i guess the bottom line is after all this time there's little to show for the investment.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

None, if we don't draw down at the same time. BUT if we drew down, actually reduced the forces. We could save a bunch. BUT what would really save, would be putting new Hi Tech purchases on a 4 year hiatus. you could maintain force levels, and locations, but limit research/development, new spending and save a ton. Reducing force commitments outside the US would be the next step, and also save a ton. But the politicians must have their toys.

I will say, I fully disagree though with the one statement that was made by someone about SDI. We should be able to protect our country from any reasonably conceivable threat, and missiles are a real threat, which needs a real defense.

So if your serving in the millitary do you want your goverment to stop spending on HI Tech equipment. I'd say that the high tec equipment saves lives and is a good investment.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by firstdown

So if your serving in the millitary do you want your goverment to stop spending on HI Tech equipment. I'd say that the high tec equipment saves lives and is a good investment.

Only in an offensive posture. If we are in a defensive posture, then our troops are not exposed, and they are less open to IED's or other cheap tactics. By your logic, we should be spending far more on Police then we are, for the same reason. but we don't.
I understand you can't just go cold turkey, but you can spend rationally, and not by Ferraris when the next closest competitor has an Acura.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Only in an offensive posture. If we are in a defensive posture, then our troops are not exposed, and they are less open to IED's or other cheap tactics. By your logic, we should be spending far more on Police then we are, for the same reason. but we don't.
I understand you can't just go cold turkey, but you can spend rationally, and not by Ferraris when the next closest competitor has an Acura.

If I'm putting my life on the line I want the Ferraris and hope the guy I'm fighting has the Acura.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

How about we take all of the troops out of Korea, Japan, Bosnia, Thailand, Australia, England, Germany, Italy, Iraq, Africa, and Kuwait? How much money would we save then? We should be protecting our own borders, not someone else's.

I think this is a good idea too -- one of the chief reasons Republicans got their asses kicked out last year was because the voters saw the GOP as the party that saw no end in sight in Iraq. McCain postulating that we could be there for another "hundred" years didn't help matters.

You can still be strong on national defense without acting like police chief of the planet Earth. Dropping the "tough foreign policy" act would send another signal to the voters that the truly conservative thing to do would be to withdraw the hundreds of thousands of troops stationed all over the world -- especially when everyone knows we can't afford it anyway.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

I think this is a good idea too -- one of the chief reasons Republicans got their asses kicked out last year was because the voters saw the GOP as the party that saw no end in sight in Iraq. McCain postulating that we could be there for another "hundred" years didn't help matters.

You can still be strong on national defense without acting like police chief of the planet Earth. Dropping the "tough foreign policy" act would send another signal to the voters that the truly conservative thing to do would be to withdraw the hundreds of thousands of troops stationed all over the world -- especially when everyone knows we can't afford it anyway.

The problem with leaving Iraq in the way you state is this. WE NEED OIL. It's the only reason we've evr concerned ourselves with the Middle East. The same stuff goes on in Africa and we barely care but in the ME we are Johnny on the Spot. We can't just leave because we have an actual national interest there.