A poster said, "We have far more to worry about than terrorists."Presumably threats that are not coming from terrorists are coming from countries. So which countries are threatening the US? How?(Please don't say Iran.)Peter
Actively or potentially threatening?Personally, I would think that the only true real dangers would be China and Russia. In a way, the US is already at 'war' with China (cyber - at the very least) if not an economic one; and Russia - you just never know with them. (Oh, and maybe Granada - unless they have already been taken care of.; ) )All the others are slightly irritating at times at best and partially annoying at times at worst. Icemann
Oh yeah - and France. We should all of us just be at war with France on principle. : )Icemann
<<<<All the others are slightly irritating at times at best and partially annoying at times at worst.>>>>I would think the families and friends of those who perished on 9/11 would dissagree with you.
Cmon Peter. Admiral Mike Mullen, former Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, has already identified the numero uno threat. He reckons it's the burgeoning debt:And the reason I talk about the debt as the single biggest threat to our national security is – it’s basically not very complex math.... I’ve been in the Pentagon most of the last decade – with the increasing defense budget, which is almost double, it hasn’t forced us to make the hard trades. It hasn’t forced us to prioritize. It hasn’t forced us to do the analysis. And it hasn’t forced us to limit ourselves and get to a point in a very turbulent world of what we’re going to do and what we’re not going to do. Admiral Mike Mullen Meanwhile, one politician was very explicit about the failure of govt to limit itself He repeatedly stated that the limits of govt were explicitly designated by the constitution. Curiously enough, he was repeatedly savagely attacked by the warfare statists. This crew, who spent the last decade yapping in favor of the invasion of Iraq, waterboarding, detention without trial, blah, blah, blah, are now crying into their cheerios because despite the current expansion of war under the Peace President, there isn't enough war to satisfy their insatiable appetite. They want more war. And they want it now. During the last decade, hundreds of thousands of civilians have been killed. And curiously enough, despite the BS narrative that terrorists were like flies and all you had to do was spread enough fly paper, the number of terrorists continues to proliferate. These clowns are apparently in favor of small govt. That's admirable. But when are they going to comprehend that defense is a govt department and those working for this sector are working for the state?..History shows that all empires end because they expand too far and they bankrupt the country... he also said that the dollars spent will bankrupt this country. And we are bankrupt. And yet there is no hesitation to quit spending one cent overseas... Ron Paul http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=422uTaGxY8o
A poster said, "We have far more to worry about than terrorists."Did the poster say this in context to "the military" or just things in general?Try to pigeonhole any threats as military and answers would be very limited.Take out the specific, "military" and it is like opening a flood gate to everything from social to economic concerns and worries.BearsWho believes "We have far more to worry about than the foolishness of Global Warming."
Ice In a way, the US is already at 'war' with China (cyber - at the very least) if not an economic one; and Russia - you just never know with them. (Oh, and maybe Granada - unless they have already been taken care of.; ) )MILITARY THREAT.Not talking about cyber, not talking about economic.Peter
MILITARY THREAT.Not talking about cyber, not talking about economic.Peter
bears Did the poster say this in context to "the military" or just things in general?The context of the quoted remark was "military threat". More specifically the need for the F-35 fighter.http://boards.fool.com/if-the-f-35-cost-us-nothing-one-could...Peter
I agree that drones are a great leap forward in a safer ability to attack or watch our enemies, but vs the value if a fighter jet ..... Drones have no defensive capabilities, and against most military forces would be blown out of the sky in seconds.Guess the math would be1 F35 @ $90 million = 22 Preditor drones @ $4. MillionCan 22 non defensive Predator drones be blown out of the sky faster than 1 F35? (If we ever see a production version of an F35 fly)I would say yes, but would also agree that something cheaper than an F35 would have the same result.Bears
How about China and their cyber spionage of hacking into US computers at many different companies, including defense contractor Lockheed Martin?
bears against most military forces would be blown out of the sky in seconds.Blown out of the sky by whom?Peter
MC How about China and their cyber espionage of hacking into US computers at many different companies, including defense contractor Lockheed Martin?My question is about military threats. Things that go "boom".It doesn't make sense to spend a trillion dollars defending against a nonexistent military threat while under funding defense against cyber threats.Peter
I would think the families and friends of those who perished on 9/11 would dissagree with you.Why don't you tell that to this poster:http://boards.fool.com/al-qaeda-didnt-do-nearly-this-much-da...
Texasworld capital of dumb f#@&istan, many of whom think they'd be just peachy as a separate country. ChinaCyberwar and long range anti-ship missiles, in that orderPakistanLike Texas, only with nuclear missiles and almost as many radical clerics
Well, given that there is a drive in Congress to buy 300 more battle tanks, I would have to assume it is either Canada or Mexico.See, we already have 3000 tanks on active service.And there are another 2400 perfectly good tanks in mothballs somewhere in Nevada.So the idea that we need another 300 can only be justified by two reasons:First, there is an imminent threat of invasion cross one of our land borders, which would result in massive loss of our current inventory, which is 180% of what we currently need, while still fighting a ground war. Second, hmmm -- stimulus of the economy through enriching defense companies with needless spending? Something like that.
Look back to Loral Spance in the 90's.Lots of fun stuff will stem from that.JediG
I guess it depends on how you define threat. If your defination is that it wouldn't be a surprise if they attacked us tomorrow, then terrorists are the only threat. But I think that definition is too narrow. We could define a threat to mean that it is anyone that may potentially feel that we are doing something which hurts them in some way. But that definition is so broad that every nation on earth would be a threat to us. We could define it as all nations that don't like us very much, but I really do have a hard time seeing Fiji as a threat.But there are a number of nations with whom we have a strained history and they have a lot of military capability. Russia, for example.That we are not currently on the brink of war, does not mean they are not a threat.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |