America, and Wasteing Money.

[obdigore]

I would say that is a fantasy really with nothing not 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 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 to 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.

The problem is that it is Congress that sets the budget. Although I think the president should have input, it isn't nor should it be his job to do the budget every year. Honestly if we can get out the people from either side who wont budge, we have a chance at fixing our debt problem, especially if Obama is re-elected as he couldn't be elected again and might actually do what he feels needs to be done for the country instead of what is popular.

He needs to be more hardline with both spending cuts and tax increases.

[lanerios]

I must say I like how the people here think. "We bring stability to those countries, so that's why we spend money" To bad the US isn't about stability anymore. Last few years it went more of a "You have to accept OUR democracy or you're dead and a terrorist cell" kind of way. They completely overshot their goal and went into a power crazed army kind of way.
Not that I can talk much, I live in holland, and well the dutch army is next to useless. But alas, we still follow the US army like some blind dog begging for food.

[RealistKilla]

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.

They did not scrap NASA, they scrapped the space shuttle program, because NASA needed the money to spend on other things due to it being given such a low budget.

That program however has been replaced with something imo better, because those shuttles were 30-40 years old anyway. "Obama committed to increasing NASA funding by $6 billion over five years and completing the design of a new heavy-lift launch vehicle by 2015 and to begin construction thereafter. He also predicted a U.S. crewed orbital Mars mission by the 2030's, preceded by an asteroid mission by 2025"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_%28spacecraft%29

[Prototype306]

America needs to stop wasting their money of their military. You think they would smarten up since their economy is in the hole

[RealistKilla]

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

Australia is a bastard child and puppy dog follower of the US. Nothing needs to be said.

---------- Post added 2012-02-21 at 07:37 AM ----------

I live in holland, and well the dutch army is next to useless. But alas, we still follow the US army like some blind dog begging for food.

My sentiments exactly RE Australia.

<Infracted> Please don't nation-bash.

[obdigore]

Australia is a bastard child and puppy dog follower of the US. Nothing needs to be said.

Then why aren't you lamenting the fact that the country that you may come from, according to the person I quoted, does not have any kind of space program, besides a few education grants which nearly all first world countries have? Why do you feel the need to deride the US for spending money in a way you dislike when your country does the same thing?

2.7% of the Defense Spending is what NASA gets. Which is a lot better than 0%. Am I wrong there?

[Skroe]

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.

Stability means ensuring that over the very long term, as governments change hands over decades, the general foreign policy of countries in a region remains fixed and relatively benign towards its neighbors. I mean you realize the kind of disaster it would have been if Japan had its Economic Miracle in the 70s and 80s while South Korea stagnated under its military government without the US being the security and friendship guaranteer to both? It would have been a catastrophe. The South Korean military government, already paranoid like any military government, would have seen its self surrounded literally on all sides: North Korea to the north, China to the west, Japan to the South and East.

And yes backing dictators is part of how the process plays out, but even that doesn't last forever. We worked with Franco for 35 years, and today the US and Spain have enjoyed quite warm relations despite everything. Chile and Argentina - the juntas that are pictured in the dictionary when you look up junta. Despite our support for their dictators, they are starving for American investment. My uncle does business in South America and has since 1985. He's made so much money... millions... off just being an American middle man introducing an Argentinian firm to an American (or other South American) company that would like to do business.

Yeah we supported dictators. Lots of them. And you know what? Compared to how much we did it, how much blowback as there been? Let's see, there's Iran... and what else? A couple central American countries? That's really not to bad.

Stability isn't the price of oil. Stability... REAL stability, is making sure that ancient enemies in volatile regions that predate our country's founding, that by our being involved and friendly, compete economically, but are largely incapable of being military competitors to each other, even if they do have a military function that together, compliments the US military presence in the region and overall acts as a force multiplier to a common foe (China / North Korea in Asia, Russia in Europe, Iran in the Middle East).

When there is a major US visit to the region, even if the President or someone visits one country specifically, there is always a larger multilateral angle that gets a lot of countries in the region in the room so that all our regional allies and partners feel "equally loved" in a sense. And typically they are phrased as "cooperation" or "council". That's all done very, very consciously, to further build on this idea that if these countries partner and rely on us, they don't have to worry about each other. That is what world peace looks like.

And yes I meant billion. Thanks!

---------- Post added 2012-02-21 at 07:55 AM ----------

I must say I like how the people here think. "We bring stability to those countries, so that's why we spend money" To bad the US isn't about stability anymore. Last few years it went more of a "You have to accept OUR democracy or you're dead and a terrorist cell" kind of way. They completely overshot their goal and went into a power crazed army kind of way.
Not that I can talk much, I live in holland, and well the dutch army is next to useless. But alas, we still follow the US army like some blind dog begging for food.

Really? If that we true we'd have an enduring presence in Iraq and would have veto'd many of the bone headed brinksmanship decisions the Shiite Majority always does before pulling back at the last minute. We'd also demand that Afghanistan adopt a Bicameral Legislature and a Federal system, rather than a French Presidential / Parlimentary hybrid system with British Imperial style provinces. Or we'd, I don't know, tell Holland respect our copyright laws or we'll launch a couple of our six hundred nuclear cruise missiles and wipe you off the map. But we don't do that, because that's insane, its not what reasonable people do, and we're actually exceptionally reasonable.

You want to know why many Americans when they hear what foreigners have to say roll their eyes so hard it hurts? It's because of comments like yours. You can disagree with American foreign policy or whatever else. But make a point, be reasonable, and actually have an argument grounded in sensibility. What you're saying is like Decepticons do in cartoons... and they're fictional characters. How are we supposed to take that seriously? And what about when you DO want to be taken seriously... what do we do then? Just decide to listen to you.

Like feel free to call us out for not being what we say we are. But what you're saying defies reality. "You have to accept OUR democracy or you're dead and a terrorist cell". yes, because that is how the world's 3rd largest country by area with 310 million people about 10 million of which work for state, federal governments, the military and government-affiliated institutions, actually think.

[RealistKilla]

Then why aren't you lamenting the fact that the country that you may come from, according to the person I quoted, does not have any kind of space program, besides a few education grants which nearly all first world countries have? Why do you feel the need to deride the US for spending money in a way you dislike when your country does the same thing?

2.7% of the Defense Spending is what NASA gets. Which is a lot better than 0%. Am I wrong there?

As as resident of the US im sure you have no idea what its like to live in a country that is simply a lap-dog of the US. I have no faith at all in Australia's space program other then Deep Space radio tracking at Parkes Observatory. Nothing needs to be said as there is simply almost no emphasis on it in Australia, or most countries in the world for that matter. The US and Russia have always been the heads of such scientific research, and though i am also very interested and hopeful of Russia's plans to colonize other planets, it is not a western country and it is also not the 'parent' country of Australia - America is however. Thus, NASA is where i look to and where my hopes are.

Now rather then a personal attack on me, im surprised you are unable to agree that such a 'astronomical' amount of money being spent on defense, is not downright retarded. Especially when things that are of so much more importance to the future of humanity exist. IE Medical advancements, technological innovations and scientific discovery's of all kinds.

[obdigore]

As as resident of the US im sure you have no idea what its like to live in a country that is simply a lap-dog of the US. I have no faith at all in Australia's space program other then Deep Space radio tracking at Parkes Observatory. Nothing needs to be said as there is simply almost no emphasis on it in Australia, or most countries in the world for that matter. The US and Russia have always been the heads of such scientific research, and though i am also very interested and hopeful of Russia's plans to colonize other planets, it is not a western country and it is also not the 'parent' country of Australia - America is however. Thus, NASA is where i look to and where my hopes are.

Now rather then a personal attack on me, im surprised you are unable to agree that such a 'astronomical' amount of money being spent on defense, it not downright retarded. Especially when things that are of so much more importance to the future of humanity exist. IE Medical advancements, technological innovations and scientific discovery's of all kinds.

I'm not disagreeing that I wish more money was spent on NASA, as well as DARPA. What personal attacks have I put towards you? Isn't the International Community telling the US to 'put your house in order before you try to police the world'? Sucks when that sentiment is pointed at you when you are just trying to be helpful, isn't it?

Why don't you get involved in Aussie Politics and try to get something going regarding space? You have two well thought of organizations in Australia that deal with space, but nothing sponsored or funded, even partially, by the government. Why not?

[Kalyyn]

There was actually a PopSci article awhile back about the military researching better tent materials to cut down that $7b air-conditioning bill.

[Skroe]

As as resident of the US im sure you have no idea what its like to live in a country that is simply a lap-dog of the US. I have no faith at all in Australia's space program other then Deep Space radio tracking at Parkes Observatory. Nothing needs to be said as there is simply almost no emphasis on it in Australia, or most countries in the world for that matter. The US and Russia have always been the heads of such scientific research, and though i am also very interested and hopeful of Russia's plans to colonize other planets, it is not a western country and it is also not the 'parent' country of Australia - America is however. Thus, NASA is where i look to and where my hopes are.

Now rather then a personal attack on me, im surprised you are unable to agree that such a 'astronomical' amount of money being spent on defense, it not downright retarded. Especially when things that are of so much more importance to the future of humanity exist. IE Medical advancements, technological innovations and scientific discovery's of all kinds.

I wish NASA was worth your faith. Im a long time NASA observer and even wanted to work there once. The place is a mess. NASA exists in name only. What it actually is is a confederation of a bunch of Field Centers:

NASA Headquarters - Washington, D.C.
Ames Research Center - Moffett Field, California
Dryden Flight Research Center - Edwards, California
Glenn Research Center - Lewis Field, Ohio
Goddard Space Flight Center - Greenbelt, Maryland
Jet Propulsion Laboratory - Pasadena, California
Johnson Space Center - Houston, Texas
Kennedy Space Center - Cape Canaveral, Florida
Langley Research Center - Hampton, Virginia
Marshall Space Flight Center - Huntsville, Alabama
Stennis Space Center - Mississippi
Wallops Flight Facility - Wallops Island, Virginia


These are largely independently run and budgeted. What does that mean? In a word. Fiefdoms. And that's the problem. They all compete for the largest slice of the pie they can possibly get.

NASA's big problem right now is the James Web Space Telescope. Originally promised in 2001 for a cool $2 billion and launch in 2010, it will now launch, maybe in 2019 for the cost of $9.7 billion. This despite only 13% cumulative dollar inflation in the last 11 years. the JWST is killing so many other projects... the JPL's Mars Science Laboratory, on its way to Mars now, will be our only rover there for the 2010s because the JWST team could not control its costs, but was so politically protected (by billing itself as the successor to the Hubble Space Telescope) that it got more and more money. Not a single person has lost their job. Not one. Even just three years ago, the JWST was half the price. This is the project that magically doubles in price every few years. It's insane. But like every sunk cost fallacy gone terribly wrong, it will be launched. And the best part is unlike the 23 year old Hubble, which has been upgraded constantly, the JWST fuel will mean it will last exactly five years.

So $9.7 billion, 10 years behind schedule, active for only five years, and probably used by about 400 scientists world wide. That is what this feudal NASA that exists because every administrator since Challenger has been weaker than one before it, gets you.

I love NASA, and its truly a national treasure... but damn does it need reorganization and these failures need to be career ending for some very specific people.

How much is $9.7 billion? Two Nimitz Class Aircraft Carriers. Four Mars Science Laboratories. Eight Mars Exploration Rovers. Four Hubbles , fifteen Pluto/Kupier Express, and three Terrestrial Planet Finders.

And want to know what the best part is? Hubble is in many ways simply a KH-11 KENNAN spy satellite with a slightly different optical system, pointing in the other direction. The National Reconnisance office has launched 15 of them and they all look identical to Hubble. There are four of them up there right now! And they were all launched for less than a billion dollars.

[Kalyyn]

snip

Well damn. I feel like I need to congratulate you on the most informative posts I've real tonight.

Really sheds a different light on this topic.

[Nymrael]

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.

America World Police. America f**k yeah, comin' again to save the motherf**king day, YEAH! (great movie btw :P)
And who exactly decided that usa should be our world policeman? Well, none... and I am pretty sure all that usa wants is world peace! ofc ofc... it's just a coincidence that every country that usa invaded lately had oil. Just a coincidence.
Spare the total and uber crap about world peace and protecting your allies. usa doesn't give a god damn frak about south korea or europe or everyone despite what the media say. it's all about money / power.
The only truth behind your post is to maintain a world military balance. That's all. If the military balance between the so called *big powers* (aka USA / Russia / China etc) is ok, then we won't go to WWIII. If it fails, we are screwed.

[eriseis]

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).

The U.S. is not a democracy. The Founding Fathers were not too fond of democracies, that's why we have institutions like the Electoral College.

[zabimaru]

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 ----------



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.

fuck off. it wasnt your country, people and family that got slayen in cold blood by you american tools for no fucking reason at all.

<Infracted>

[obdigore]

fuck off. it wasnt your country, people and family that got slayen in cold blood by you american tools for no fucking reason at all.

Are you talking about Vietnam, and claiming that people were murdered in cold blood by the military? Or Iraq? Afghanistan?

[zabimaru]

Are you talking about Vietnam, and claiming that people were murdered in cold blood by the military? Or Iraq? Afghanistan?

Iraq .

[Mifuyne]

more war, more profit.
also having the biggest army will grant you the top spot on the bully list.

Thinking that America's (or any other country really) primary goal is peace - is just foolish.
They just happen to have the biggest stick right now and aren't afraid to swing it around.

In all fairness, any country would have done the same if they were there instead of America.
I doubt even 3/4th of America's population is positive about the governments spendings, the wars, etc.
Theres always a few pencil-pushing pricks that take the lead for money and power.

[obdigore]

Iraq .

Meh, I was/am not a supporter of that war so I'm not going to argue you with it. I think it was just Bush Jr fixing daddys little mistake under the pretense of 'TERRORISM' but that is just an opinion I have.

[Spectral]

While I'd surely advocate for a decrease in the military budget (spending as much as the next ~17 countries together seems excessive), the factors that have to be considered reach far beyond whether the budget is justified strictly for defense. First, and possibly most obviously, the spending is at least somewhat economically and technologically stimulatory. Particularly the research portion of the DoD budget, which is substantial, has significant direct and indirect stimulatory effects on the economy, while also producing many technologies that are eventually implemented in civilian settings. As others have mentioned, any Realpolitik sort of thinking makes it clear that it's in US interest (and OECD interest more generally) for the US to maintain massive power and mobility of response internationally.