Of course our politicians will act "holier than thou" and demand additional 100's of billion to be spend on defense to prove their patriotism and macho. If history is any guide, the decline of US will be because of its uncontrolled defense spending. Future historians and generations will certainly question the wisdom of massive tax cuts, while waging 2 wars and enacting biggest increase in entitlements.It is doubtful that future threats will call for many of the expensive weapon systems advocated by parochial interests and some political leaders -- a system such as the F-35 joint strike fighter. Developing this plane has cost more than was spent on veterans in the last 20 years.The Pentagon is expected to spend more than $700 billion on nuclear weapons over the next 10 years, for little added security. The former U.S. Strategic Command Chief Gen. James Cartwright has called for a drastic cut in nuclear weapons, saying the U.S. has a stockpile "beyond our needs. What is it we're really trying to deter? http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/12/opinion/gard-johns-military-sp...
The Pentagon is expected to spend more than $700 billion on nuclear weapons over the next 10 years, for little added security.Little aded security? Try no added security.Complete waste of $700 billion. But rightwingnuts b*tch about subsidizing PBS.
For that matter, does anyone really think that the U.S. is better off, in any way, for having fought two decade-long wars in iraq and Afghanistan?Talk about a waste of money and lives.
http://www.ploughshares.org/what-nuclear-weapons-cost-usLet's see.....100 billion of that is for reducing the amount of nuclear material OVERSEAS in foreign countries. Securing the old warheads from the Soviet Union and republics and dismantling them.SUre...we can chop that program. Let the nukes deterioate and maybe blow up in some Russian city, so they think they have been attacked and launch a counter attack. or worse, have so many lying about that arab terrorists manage to steal one, bribe some soviet official ...and get one to use in NYC.Sure, let's save 100 billion there...------then we can give up missile defense. North Korea now has a missile, just demonstrated, that can drop a nuke anywhere in the USA. Let's not have any protection against the N Korean nutcases....who won't stop bomb development, already have at least 4 and maybe a dozen......Another 100 billion. Sure, let them drop a nuke on CA...will serve those peacenik libs right...--------And our own nukes. LEt's not refurbish them. Let's see when they get to be 50 years old whether they explode by themselves or not. Let's keep a lot of them in CA near population centers, too!......We can save another couple tens of billions of dollars. Who cares if they will really work if ever needed? -----------I'd rather see the entitlement programs brought under control first......Obama has failed, failed , failed to even propose how to reform them. No leadership. No proposals. t
OP: Of course our politicians will act "holier than thou" and demand additional 100's of billion to be spend on defense to prove their patriotism and macho. If history is any guide, the decline of US will be because of its uncontrolled defense spending. response: This message was written by telegraph, an author you chose to ignore.Click here to unignore this author.sano: Nah. I'm good.
Let's face it, both Dems and R's have their reasons for not materially impacting the humongous defense budget. Great story BTW.Most of the reasons are called Lobbyists. The military industrial complex is so consolidated now, and so powerful, the excesses are now seen by fiscally responsible people as Job Creation devices. Where infrastructure, spending on the poor, and treating our veterans is seen as inflated pork, the defense budget itself is seen as a model for re-election. There are really only three areas to cut expenses. Two of those three, neither party wants to go first.
What is it we're really trying to deter?The altruistic, unwavering commitment to global peace, freedom and democracy? Priceless. But when the warfare state needs to stimulate the export market to ensure increasing demand for more product? There's Mastercard. Or something. Overseas weapons sales by the United States totaled $66.3 billion last year, or more than three-quarters of the global arms market, valued at $85.3 billion in 2011. Russia was a distant second, with $4.8 billion in deals. The American weapons sales total was an “extraordinary increase” over the $21.4 billion in deals for 2010, the study found, and was the largest single-year sales total in the history of United States arms exports.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |