Another way to look at cost of US military

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Oh. So, I guess that you want me jumping up and down saying "Fire those lazy Army grunts. I don't care about what they do in life. Just as long as they're not a burden to the American people."

I think the troops are the tops; you keep trying to infer I have an issue with the people when I was a GI. I get their strife, I just don't get the overblowing of the military and the subsequent misuse. Most of all, there is no need. I say let attrition bring teh numbers down, don't try yo boot people out.

Quote

Or maybe I should be saying "Fuck Boeing. Who needs airplanes anyway?"

Now you're talking my language on many levels with, "Fuck Boeing."

But yes, cut military projects.

Quote

"I read you as saying" means that I'm going to interpret what you so to fit what I want it to say.

Nope, you wrote:

Again... I'm NOT saying that it shouldn't be cut.

Just how and where. Those details are the the problems.

It's easy to say "let's save money" - but you have to realize that there are intended and unintended consequences to that decision.

I just see hesitancy here. As Billvon has said a few times, everyone wants cuts, not just in their favorite areas. If social spending were being proposed for a cut you would be an axe weilding maniac cutting everything. Now that it's teh military we need to take years and be very sparing with our cuts.

[nanook 1]

Quote

I think you think the US is teh world's savior. I think European countries are just fine and able by themselves.

Nope, more like the world's babysitter. I think they are fine and able by themselves. Most have excellent training programs and great technology. But they got to spend to be fine by themselves first.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I think you think the US is teh world's savior. I think European countries are just fine and able by themselves.

Nope, more like the world's babysitter. I think they are fine and able by themselves. Most have excellent training programs and great technology. But they got to spend to be fine by themselves first.

We spend, we were attacked. Sweeden doesn't spend much, they don't get attacked. It seems the common denominator for not getting attacked is to not start shit. You think spending a lot of money, then statrting shit is the best way to not get attacked.

[kbordson 8]

Quote

If social spending were being proposed for a cut you would be an axe weilding maniac cutting everything. Now that it's teh military we need to take years and be very sparing with our cuts.

Wow. You've got it so wrong.

So you know nothing about me. You have no idea about my family or upbringing. You have no clue as to my current patient population....

but yet you say that I would be an "ax wielding maniac"?!

Wow.

But, hey. It's your version of reality. Live it as it makes you happy.

[nanook 1]

Quote

It seems the common denominator for not getting attacked is to not start shit.

So you are saying that a country that never starts shit will not get attacked?

Quote

You think spending a lot of money, then statrting shit is the best way to not get attacked.

Wrong, I say you have to spend a lot to get a great level of defense.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

It seems the common denominator for not getting attacked is to not start shit.

Go ask the city fathers of Carthage how that worked out for them.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

So you know nothing about me. You have no idea about my family or upbringing. You have no clue as to my current patient population....

I didn't make a judgment on you, just assessed that you embrace social cuts and dread military cuts. I think that's fair.

Quote

but yet you say that I would be an "ax wielding maniac"?!

In the context that you would axe all of the social programs you could, but are reluctant to axe military programs.

Quote

But, hey. It's your version of reality. Live it as it makes you happy.

I don't care if you want to be theatric about this and take things out of context, it's kida moot that you would axe social programs and that you embrace military spending.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

So you are saying that a country that never starts shit will not get attacked?

I realize this is a set-up question, but I didn't say they never get attacked. I try not to use absolute languge as I'm not conservative. The best way to not get attacked is to not throw your hat in the ring.

Quote

Wrong, I say you have to spend a lot to get a great level of defense.

Or, don't give people a reason to attack you and spend less. Different approaches, I like mine best.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

It seems the common denominator for not getting attacked is to not start shit.

Go ask the city fathers of Carthage how that worked out for them.

Are you talking this? http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm

There's a good reference for all occassions, 1600 years old.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

It seems the common denominator for not getting attacked is to not start shit.

Go ask the city fathers of Carthage how that worked out for them.

Are you talking this? http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm

Nope, sure wasn't - nice assumption that because I don't agree with you that I'm some sort of bible thumper. Fits nicely with all the OTHER false assumptions you've made in this thread, though.

Quote

There's a good reference for all occassions, 1600 years old.

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it" - Santayana.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[bullin82 0]

Quote

But how and what do you cut?

Decrease the fighting force - unemployment.

Close bases? Then Rapid City will loose a lot as will many other small cities near military bases.

Decrease the production of the fighters/bombers - government bailout for Lockheed?

Decrease the production of small arms? what about Remington, Colt? And what about now not having supplies for the forces currently fighting?

I completely agree. The military is TOO BIG. But where and what?

i agree we are spending to much money on things here in Iraq but not from what you think. We spen millions a week on things like KBR, TCN's andshit we dont need. KBR does all our electrical work and we have had over 100 soldiers killed in showers due to faulty electrical.

Not to menetion paying some firefighter 90-150k per year to sit around and do practicly nothing. Oh im sorry they had 1 fire so far the rest of the time they tell us we cant have privacy curtains in our rooms.

We can save billions just by letting the military take care of ourselves, let our cooks cook, our firefighters fight fires, so on and so forth. We wast to much bringing contractors to do our work for us.

[nanook 1]

Quote

Or, don't give people a reason to attack you and spend less.

Deterrence gives people a reason not to attack. That costs money. Lots of countrys have been attacked without provoking anyone.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

It seems the common denominator for not getting attacked is to not start shit.

Go ask the city fathers of Carthage how that worked out for them.

Are you talking this? http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm

Nope, sure wasn't - nice assumption that because I don't agree with you that I'm some sort of bible thumper. Fits nicely with all the OTHER false assumptions you've made in this thread, though.

Quote

There's a good reference for all occassions, 1600 years old.

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it" - Santayana.

Did you miss the Romans? And how about the doom that lurks with the debt? Iraq / Afghanistan Wars = 1 trillion. Viet Nam costs, Korea, etc. Not to mention spending 8 times that of #2, what about the mess that that has created? Even at spending inordinate amounts of money, we still got attacked and no we've broke ourselves because of it. We've over-militarized and ruined our country because of it, so will other nations learn from that? I bet so.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Or, don't give people a reason to attack you and spend less.

Deterrence gives people a reason not to attack. That costs money. Lots of countrys have been attacked without provoking anyone.

Oh, deterrence theory. It doesn't work in the states in regard to murder and teh death penalty and it doesn't work with countries as in the ME. Deterrence is the RW baby, they can justify executing the occcassional innocent person in the justice system and they can justify spending the country's gold due to it. As we can see, deterrence has worked well: 911, 93 WTC bombing, Beirut barracks, USS Cole, etc, etc, etc... try again.

[Misternatural 0]

>Much of their prosperity is built on our markets; much of our prosperity is built on their banks and their industry. It would be foolish of either country to want to destroy the other.


This is where i was going also... commerce, the new diplomacy.
backed by a defense sized military.

The alternative is a giant sized invasion ready military, which has worked for many a nation state over the decades to gain access to resources.....but this has proven a lot more messy geopolitically as history has shown and were not sustainable.

Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires.
D S #3.1415

[nerdgirl 0]

Oh, I wish I had more time today, as deterrence is a favorite topic of mine. 4-wave pantheon of Robert Jervis>

Quote

Deterrence is the RW baby ....

What is RW? I don't know what that acronym means in context of deterrence theory ... do you mean relative work as an analogy? If so, I don't understand the analogy.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Oh, I wish I had more time today, as deterrence is a favorite topic of mine. 4-wave pantheon of Robert Jervis>

Quote

Deterrence is the RW baby ....

What is RW? I don't know what that acronym means in context of deterrence theory ... do you mean relative work as an analogy? If so, I don't understand the analogy.

/Marg

right wing. Right wingers live on this deterrence theory. It might seem logical that it works, but we're talking about maniacal people with issues when we look at DP deterrence. And we're talking about this deterrence theory working against rogue associations as in the in the ME, peopel who do not care about consequence. Youhave to be dealing with peopel that care about consequence before deterrence can even start to become a factor, yet RWers will swear by it.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Oh, I wish I had more time today, as deterrence is a favorite topic of mine. 4-wave pantheon of Robert Jervis>

Quote

Deterrence is the RW baby ....

What is RW? I don't know what that acronym means in context of deterrence theory ... do you mean relative work as an analogy? If so, I don't understand the analogy.

/Marg

right wing. Right wingers live on this deterrence theory. It might seem logical that it works, but we're talking about maniacal people with issues when we look at DP deterrence. And we're talking about this deterrence theory working against rogue associations as in the in the ME, peopel who do not care about consequence. Youhave to be dealing with peopel that care about consequence before deterrence can even start to become a factor, yet RWers will swear by it.

Thanks for the clarification ... altho' oh my ... as a proponent of deterrence theory, by that explanation I'm a right winger.

'Old-school' deterrence theory (DT) in international relations (IR) -- as opposed to criminal justice -- did work on the rational actor model, i.e., the aggressor state is expected to behave rationally and consider consequence. There are folks who still argue that, e.g., Martha Crenshaw/Stanford (& she's not affiliated with Hoover Inst either). Much of more recent DT recognizes strategic culture (e.g., the work of Jack Snyder/RAND & Jeannie Johnson/Utah), norms (Richard price/Univ British Columbia), and a whole lot of other stuff.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nanook 1]

Quote

As we can see, deterrence has worked well: 911, 93 WTC bombing, Beirut barracks, USS Cole, etc, etc, etc... try again.

I wouldn't classify Beriut barracks and USS Cole as deterrent failures. It's the Military. They are in a hostile area, and their missions weren't deterrence. As far as 9/11 and the 93' bombing, two incidences of attacks, no matter how impressive, does not conclude deterrence as useless. I'll make it simple. . .Would you rob a convenience store that always has a police car there? Would you attempt to break in John Rich's house with him there? Would someone rather rob your home instead of the first two? Who is the least likely to be robbed in these three scenerios? Who is the most likely?

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[kbordson 8]

Quote

Quote

But how and what do you cut?

Decrease the fighting force - unemployment.

Close bases? Then Rapid City will loose a lot as will many other small cities near military bases.

Decrease the production of the fighters/bombers - government bailout for Lockheed?

Decrease the production of small arms? what about Remington, Colt? And what about now not having supplies for the forces currently fighting?

I completely agree. The military is TOO BIG. But where and what?

i agree we are spending to much money on things here in Iraq but not from what you think. We spen millions a week on things like KBR, TCN's andshit we dont need. KBR does all our electrical work and we have had over 100 soldiers killed in showers due to faulty electrical.

Not to menetion paying some firefighter 90-150k per year to sit around and do practicly nothing. Oh im sorry they had 1 fire so far the rest of the time they tell us we cant have privacy curtains in our rooms.

We can save billions just by letting the military take care of ourselves, let our cooks cook, our firefighters fight fires, so on and so forth. We wast to much bringing contractors to do our work for us.

Now ideas like THAT is what we need to pass on to government cuts.

- not the drama cries from those that just want to yell "Fuck Boeing."

[shropshire 0]

I'd guess that they (Government peeps) know already ... seeing as how they write the contracts and get the kick backs set up fees.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[kbordson 8]

Quote

I'd guess that they (Government peeps) know already ... seeing as how they write the contracts and get the kick backs set up fees.

That one is true too.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Oh, I wish I had more time today, as deterrence is a favorite topic of mine. 4-wave pantheon of Robert Jervis>

Quote

Deterrence is the RW baby ....

What is RW? I don't know what that acronym means in context of deterrence theory ... do you mean relative work as an analogy? If so, I don't understand the analogy.

/Marg

right wing. Right wingers live on this deterrence theory. It might seem logical that it works, but we're talking about maniacal people with issues when we look at DP deterrence. And we're talking about this deterrence theory working against rogue associations as in the in the ME, peopel who do not care about consequence. Youhave to be dealing with peopel that care about consequence before deterrence can even start to become a factor, yet RWers will swear by it.

Thanks for the clarification ... altho' oh my ... as a proponent of deterrence theory, by that explanation I'm a right winger.

'Old-school' deterrence theory (DT) in international relations (IR) -- as opposed to criminal justice -- did work on the rational actor model, i.e., the aggressor state is expected to behave rationally and consider consequence. There are folks who still argue that, e.g., Martha Crenshaw/Stanford (& she's not affiliated with Hoover Inst either). Much of more recent DT recognizes strategic culture (e.g., the work of Jack Snyder/RAND & Jeannie Johnson/Utah), norms (Richard price/Univ British Columbia), and a whole lot of other stuff.

/Marg

Terrific, so you're saying the deterrence model is going to work on Al Qaeda? I wrote: And we're talking about this deterrence theory working against rogue associations as in the in the ME, peopel who do not care about consequence.

So again, you declare it does work? The results just don't pan out.

Let's examine the Rational Actor Model:


Rational actor model
The rational actor model is based on rational choice theory. The model adopts the state as the primary unit of analysis, and inter-state relations (or international relations) as the context for analysis. The state is seen as a monolithic unitary actor, capable of making rational decisions based on preference ranking and value maximisation. According to the rational actor model, a rational decision making process is used by a state. This process includes:

Goal setting and ranking.
Consideration of options.
Assessment of consequences.
Value-maximisation.

The rational actor model has been subject to criticism. The model tends to neglect a range of political variables, of which Michael Clarke includes: "political decisions, non-political decisions, bureaucratic procedures, continuations of previous policy, and sheer accident."


Yea, so Al Quadea falls into this how? We're all real impressed with your 'name dropping' and are completely impressed, but it just doesn't work in this case. Hell, many ME countries you cannot apply this to, rogue groups as I mentioned you definatelt cannot.

[nanook 1]

Quote

Terrific, so you're saying the deterrence model is going to work on Al Qaeda?

It has worked and still works. If you can change enemy behavior in warfare, you can guarantee deterrence measures. We have changed ways they have done business considerably. AQ has not had much sucess lately have they?

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[cliffwhite 0]

[replyAQ has not had much sucess lately have they?