America, and Wasteing Money.

[RealistKilla]

For those who didnt know

The US Military spends more every year providing just air conditioning for our solders in the Middle East than Congress gives to NASA.

NASA's budget is right around 7 billion dollars per year. WE"RE SPENDING MORE THAN 7 BILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR JUST TO KEEP OUR SOLDERS COOL WHILE LIVING IN TENTS! In 2007, the amount of money labeled 'wasted' or 'lost' in Iraq -- $11 billion -- could pay 220,000 teachers salaries. Remember that is just "lost, wasted" money that never saw a real purpose. In 2008, the Pentagon spent more money every five seconds in Iraq than the average American earned in a year.

NASA is planning missions to Mars and even an Asteroid. New commercial spacecraft are being developed and tested, and NASA is working on the Multi-Purpose Cew Vehicle (MPCV), the Ares, for operations beyond Low Earth Orbit. Until these new vehicles are deemed safe to carry humans, the United States will rely on Russia's Soyuz to send astronauts into space. The fact that NASA needs to borrow another country's vehicles because it receives such little funding that everything takes much longer then it should, is just ridiculous.

It boggles my mind that the US's defense budget is of World Conquest proportions, meanwhile the important things like medical research, space exploration and science, receive the bare minimum funding. The Pentagon spends more on war than all 50 states combined spend on health, education, welfare, and safety.

As the economy fell apart, the banks have been bailed out, and America lost its jobs, but the defense budget continues to grow, its defense spending doubled in the same period that its economy shrunk from 32 to 23 percent of global output. For the past 13 years U.S. military spending has increased 114 percent, making it a country with 5% of the world's population -- but 50% of the world's total military expenditure.

The defense budget just for 2010 was $663.84 billion. Compared to NASA's budget of 7 billion. I think advancements in technologies, learning about the universe, and colonizing other places, is much more important then occupying country's that are no longer a threat and harassing others. If NASA received even half of that $663.84, for only 1 year, the technology and advancements that would result would be unbelievable.

This is simply unacceptable.

[obdigore]

Sources and Links or everything you are saying can and will be construed as opinions.

[Landin55]

OMG the conspiracy guys are back /facepalm.

[obdigore]

OMG the conspiracy guys are back /facepalm.

I'm not sure it is a conspiracy theory, since he presents what he says as facts and there should be sources to back up his numbers, if they are correct.

I don't think that the US spends money of 'World Conquest Proportions', and the fact that the soldiers have to 'play nice' and are held back from doing their jobs by the politicians does not help, but that is another thread.

[yurano]

I thought the government scrapped NASA because it was an astronomical waste of money with no technological returns. All we got were space pens that worked in zero gravity.

[Senka]

USA is obsessed with defense spending because it makes them feel better and magically safer. It's likely abused. It's terrible, but it's not really news, sorry.

[obdigore]

I thought the government scrapped NASA because it was an astronomical waste of money with no technological returns. All we got were space pens that worked in zero gravity.

No. http://curiosity.discovery.com/topic...nventions1.htm

[herpecin]

what you call unacceptable others would call necessary.

i know its a hard concept to grasp, but we are a democracy(federal republic to be more precise), so we as a nation have chosen to spend the amount of money on our military that we do. and on the same token, while the current economic situation is easily the fault of the banking industry, it was still our responsibility to get regulation through and ultimately not take out loans that we couldn't repay.

thats one of the dualities of living in a democracy, we get to choose the things that help us and the things that hurt us. and while some would say that the governmental system right now prevents us from making informed decisions, it is still the system we choose(even if we didn't know we were choosing it at the time).

[Jerion]

astronomical waste

I see what you did there

[Collegeguy]

The fact that we have a runaway welfare army doesn't help much. One of the reason why I dislike some military people. The problem is already been solved since our military spending has been reduced to almost nothing from the super-committee cuts.

[Skroe]

NASA's budget is $17 million. Perhaps you mean human space flight?

Do you know why we spend so much on defense? It's quite simply really. We do it so far fewer people have to.

Or let me put it like this: what's more stable in East Asia:

Option A) The US spending immense amounts on defense to reassure allies in Japan, South Korea, Thailand and the Phillipeans, allies who spend far less and have far less developed defense generating infrastructure. All their modern ships can interoperate using Aegis. Also these "allies" are mostly Allied by being allied with us, typically not each other, and have very bloody histories together.

or

Option B) The US doesn't guarantee East Asian security, encouraging Soth Korea not only to keep an eye on North Korea/China, but also Japan. And Japan on South Korea and Taiwan easily gets taken by the Chinese. And none of their military systems interoperate if they needed to be used in unison.


This is the exact posture the US adopted in Europe through NATO, in the Middle East in 1979 through the Camp David Accords (and the subsequence Israeli/Egyptian alliance). By controlling especially the logistics of Warfare, we greatly reduce the liklihood of partner and allied countries with complicated histories from warring against each other. Case in point: the EU countries that bombed Libya burned through almost their entire stockpile of Tomahawk Cruise Missiles. Their entire continental stockpile was several hundred. The United States' numbers roughly 15,000 of all types. The US resorted to driving pre-positioned cruise missiles across shared military ports so that the Europeans literally did not run out of ammo mid fight.

So the question should be: why would you want it any other way? If the US spent nothing, under the basic principle of nature abhoring a vacuum, something would fill that void. If you think an air of good feelings would prevent the need entirely, all it it takes is one marginally bellicose and nationalistic Prime Minister to make every other country in the region start coming up with contingencies. Don't believe me? Witness how repulsed the South Koreans were when former Japanese Prime Minister Juricho Kozumi visited the Yasaka shrine in Kyoto which is home to the remains of World War II Class A War Criminals.


So you really have a choice. We spend a lot, and we bite the bullet on it. We accept that for the purposes of greater global stability we are garanteers of regional security in major hotspots. Or we don't do it, and take the risk that one day, 50 years from now a German Chancellor decides that their decades long friendship with Russia should become an outright military alliance, thus making France and Britain wake up at 3am in a cold sweat and flashbacks to the last time something like that happened.

[Grummgug]

Why are we talking about Iraq and 2008 again. That was 4 years ago and the US pulled out of Iraq.

[Skroe]

The fact that we have a runaway welfare army doesn't help much. One of the reason why I dislike some military people. The problem is already been solved since our military spending has been reduced to almost nothing from the super-committee cuts.

Runaway well fare army with soldiers who have done often between 2 and 4, even 5 tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Very nice comment.

And the Super Committee cuts are going to be ignored. Military will never let them happen and Obama will pass a waiver after the election. I could even write the speech for you now if you'd like. It'll begin with this:

"After consultation with our military leadership and combatant commanders about the resources they need to complete the mission in Afghanistan, ensure security in the Middle East, Europe and Asia, and invest in the future, I've decided to sign the Military Continuing Funding Act of 2012."

You can practically see it coming out of Obama's mouth already.

---------- Post added 2012-02-21 at 07:07 AM ----------

Why are we talking about Iraq and 2008 again. That was 4 years ago and the US pulled out of Iraq.

They're gonna talk about it for 40 more years. Go see the Noam Chomsky thread. That crazy old coot is still talking about Vietnam like it didn't happen 45 years ago.

[vizzle]

Realistkilla, I know for a fact that you're Australian, as I used to be your guildie. This really just feels like a low blow at the US.

There is absolutely no realistic goals that NASA can accomplish at this time, and no throwing more money at the scientists won't give us better technology.

*And, I don't want to be a grammar Nazi, but I'm of the belief that if you don't tell someone he's making a mistake, everyone who sees the mistake will think it's correct unless told otherwise, and that just spreads ignorance. So I just want to point out that it's wasting and not wasteing.

[obdigore]

I would like to see NASA rolled into DARPA, and have DARPA give NASA at least 1/8th of their yearly budget. Because when the aliens come, our militarized Main Asteroid Belt will help with detection and destruction.

[drogoganor]

We spend a lot, and we bite the bullet on it. We accept that for the purposes of greater global stability we are garanteers of regional security in major hotspots.

What does stability really mean? The stability of the price of oil?
Peace can come at the hands of a dictator as it has been in parts of the middle east for a long time. A lot of those guys were US backed until they became a liability.

North Korea could easily be contained by South Korea, and many people want the USA out of south korea. The south koreans love all those government dollars though.

NASA's budget is also something like 17 billion, not million.

[RealistKilla]

Why are we talking about Iraq and 2008 again. That was 4 years ago and the US pulled out of Iraq.

Err so you didn't read the thread properly?

[Keilith]

Err so you didn't read the thread properly?

We all read it perhaps you could provide some proof show us your sources because frankly I think you are pulling numbers out your ass.

[obdigore]

Realistkilla, I know for a fact that you're Australian, as I used to be your guildie. This really just feels like a low blow at the US.

There is absolutely no realistic goals that NASA can accomplish at this time, and no throwing more money at the scientists won't give us better technology.

Maybe you should point out that the Australian Government spends 20billion a year on its military, and precisely 0 on its space program? Perhaps Realistkilla should worry about his countries space program in relation to military spending instead of the US's?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_expenditures

[Collegeguy]

Runaway well fare army with soldiers who have done often between 2 and 4, even 5 tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Very nice comment.

And the Super Committee cuts are going to be ignored. Military will never let them happen and Obama will pass a waiver after the election. I could even write the speech for you now if you'd like. It'll begin with this:

"After consultation with our military leadership and combatant commanders about the resources they need to complete the mission in Afghanistan, ensure security in the Middle East, Europe and Asia, and invest in the future, I've decided to sign the Military Continuing Funding Act of 2012."

I would say that is a fantasy really with nothing much but conjecture. The United States doesn't have the funds to continue the national defense spending, and Obama has already announced multiple times that he will never go against the super-committee. Regarding politics, undermining the super-committee would not only denounce the whole point of a super-committee but it also be a major step backwards and suicide for any political party.

I would say it is a comment of logic. A police officer knows all too well the dangers and low pay of the job. When you ask a police officer why they chose their profession, it's common to receive something along the lines that it was their dream since childhood. Anyone that goes into the army for personal benefits alone and a college education has the intentions of a mercenary. They should want to defend their nation or receive a military career in protecting their country.