The US to spend 400 billion $ to buy planes

[Theinquisition]

You talking out of your ass, it's not even funny anymore....
Go and inform yourself first, before you make up conclusions that are tainted by brainwashed ideologies..
Go, and research the topics about Nukes on German soil...
I tell you what you find... The German government demanding the complete removal of all nuclear warheads from German soil, and the closing of the corresponding Air Base.... Your Government, or to be precise, your Head command in Europe basically ignores it. The latest development was now to modernize the Airbase, and share it with Germany's Military.
Germany also demanded many other things, which have been outright ignored by the USA Military. Like tanking fighter planes in the sky above city centers with hundreds of thousands of people below.. Ignored.. It doesn't even matter what governments the people vote into office. It is YOU, not our governments.
We vote other governments, then you ignore them. What does it matter? The removal of all troops was an agreement made after the Wall fell and the German reunion. So far there are still 74.000 US troops in Germany...
Go, and talk to Germans on German streets about it. Make sure you don't talk to the wrong people... The variety goes from disgusted to outright pissed.
I give you facts.. And a situation report.
it is to the point that NONE of my friends in Germany even talks to me anymore, as long as I live in the USA. They are pissed at me, for defending the American people... The civilians. Guess what, they say the same you said.... if they don't want it, then they need another government and stop that warmongering.
People are people. Everywhere. And no one is happy with foreign military presence and aggression all over the place.

CAre to provide some sources to back up your arguments?

Seems like the joint service base is a good idea for both our nations.

Anyway like i said before, if the germans hate us so much, why have they protested the closure of several american bases because of the effect it would have on the local economies?

If germans hate us so much, why is it that over half my friends that return from a tour in Germany come back with beautiful german wives?

[Wildtree]

CAre to provide some sources to back up your arguments?

Seems like the joint service base is a good idea for both our nations.

Anyway like i said before, if the germans hate us so much, why have they protested the closure of several american bases because of the effect it would have on the local economies?

If germans hate us so much, why is it that over half my friends that return from a tour in Germany come back with beautiful german wives?

Let me start in the back.. I said people are people. And inside the uniform is a person.... Remember I said American civilians are most welcome?
So on an individual basis people can still make friends.. Otherwise they are ignorant. The opposing is about the whole picture, not the individual.
Why would I hate you because you are a soldier? Makes no sense to me.
As for the bases.. It's not the people that protest, it's the government. And in the government itself are different opinions too. More even than in the USA, we have like 5 parties in our "congress"..
The sources about the nukes.. I can provide them from German news sources. Can you read those? It's a long ongoing topic.
To give you a little background.. Germany closed it's Nuclear Power plants too... Germany is supposed to be a nuke free zone. Vast majority of the people voted for that.
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutsc...-a-618398.html
http://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschla...fen-abruestung
http://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschla...to-westerwelle
http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/vorab/a-820535.html
http://www.fr-online.de/politik/nato...,17174620.html

By the will of the people, those have to go... But somehow the US Military weaseled it's way out of it once again, for now.

[Theinquisition]

Let me start in the back.. I said people are people. And inside the uniform is a person.... Remember I said American civilians are most welcome?
So on an individual basis people can still make friends.. Otherwise they are ignorant. The opposing is about the whole picture, not the individual.
Why would I hate you because you are a soldier? Makes no sense to me.
As for the bases.. It's not the people that protest, it's the government. And in the government itself are different opinions too. More even than in the USA, we have like 5 parties in our "congress"..
The sources about the nukes.. I can provide them from German news sources. Can you read those? It's a long ongoing topic.
To give you a little background.. Germany closed it's Nuclear Power plants too... Germany is supposed to be a nuke free zone. Vast majority of the people voted for that.
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutsc...-a-618398.html
http://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschla...fen-abruestung
http://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschla...to-westerwelle
http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/vorab/a-820535.html
http://www.fr-online.de/politik/nato...,17174620.html

By the will of the people, those have to go... But somehow the US Military weaseled it's way out of it once again, for now.

Weasealed huh....considering that we have halfed our troop presence in germany over the last 10 years id say thats a win for you guys if that what you really want.

[Laize]

No.

A country that, after 12 years and several trillion dollars, loses to 50,000 or so tribesmen with sub-par equipment does not have "the best armed forces in the world", no matter how much they spend on planes. If all you want is bragging rights, spend a billion on fancy hats and have done with it.

It wasn't quite that simple and you know it.

Rules of Engagement are that civilians are off-limits. Period.

But how do you know which 50,000 of the 650,000 people in Afghanistan are the enemy combatants? Such a force can live as a civilian among your soldiers until the bulk of the soldiers leave... then pow... ambush.

It may be that we lost to a few psychotic militants... but any armed force that exercises restraint will lose to them as well... because they don't operate by the rules of engagement or even what decent human beings would do if they were at war with another group. Even the MAFIA won't involve civilians in their brand of violence if it can be at all helped... and al Qaeda would use civvies as human shields. How do you expect to win when you must exercise restraint but your opponent refuses to?

And that's not even what I'm talking about. It's the US that keeps the peace in the world. Do you think North Korea or China haven't made overt land-grabs for South Korea or Japan because of fear of UN resolutions? Please. The UN is completely impotent. The US is not. What the UN does (or doesn't do) is completely irrelevant unless the US backs the effort up, and you know this.

[Wildtree]

Weasealed huh....considering that we have halfed our troop presence in germany over the last 10 years id say thats a win for you guys if that what you really want.

In regards of the nukes, there's no other word really.
As it looks the nukes will be gone by no later than 2024.. That's for how long the German govt. approved to maintain the fighter planes needed to use the warheads.

I mean, I'm not stupid either... 74.000 troops is a lot of people, and even though for a large part, the US armed forces are generally in a rather enclosed community for themselves in Germany, there's still local business going on. Economic influence exists in that matter. Removal of US troops will have an impact on local economies in Germany, particularly smaller towns would get hit, maybe even hard. That's not to deny, that's a fact.
And of course, because of that, there will be, and there are political statements complaining about the removal. Simple reason.. Votes..
Those effected will logically see it as a good thing to complain and ask to have the troops remain. Doesn't change the big picture though. Generally, economic burden isn't something Germans aren't familiar with. We had to deal with worst. Often even. Most recently with the German Reunion. East Germany was basically to shits. No infrastructure, nothing. We are still rebuilding that part. 28 mio people in the east living close to stone age, while 60 mio people in the west progressed into a high tech nation. That part of the country put a huge strain on the German economy. And yet, it's still Europe's #1 Economy long term.
Hence why the population doesn't see economy as the main reason to keep US Troops around at such large numbers. Some 5000 Nato troops would do just fine.
That's rationally explainable. You also need to understand that we are fed up with anything military. We've had our share in the last 100 years. We've developed and evolved into a nation of people who opposes military activity. We want to be left alone.. We believe if we leave everyone alone, and show the World that we are a peaceful, the World will leave us alone as well. We have no immediate threats against us. We deal with terrorism. And the recent events in that regard have been related to Germany's role as supporter of the USA's military actions. But we deal with that differently, after all, the USA is our ally and friend.
But in a way.... It behaves like a friend that visits you, and just can't grasp the idea that they also have to go again.. No one really wants a visiting friend sitting around in their living room forever.. lol

One more thing I like to add.... About the people and their power to change....
The German Secretary of Defense is held responsible for the outcome and the non-removal now. All indications show, that his party will not make the jump into the congress this year. Germany has prime elections, and his party is nowhere near the 5% hurdle. The people seem to punish it amongst other reasons why they may fail. Flip Flop Party...

[Xarkan]

Weasealed huh....considering that we have halfed our troop presence in germany over the last 10 years id say thats a win for you guys if that what you really want.

Do allies not have the right to opt out of the presence of nuclear weapons in their territories though? Or for that matter would it not be reasonable to expect that the US, if asked, told if it respected such nuke free zones or not?

[Elegiac]

Calling bullshit on something you don't fully understand is sorta cute. Those of us that keep up with international affairs know that China is entering the 21st century insofar as military technology is concerned, and we need to keep our edge. Their current stable of Mig-29s and -31s are more than a match to our F-16s, -15s, -18s and the A-10 (which is not a fighter plane, but in fact a ground attack all weather fighter).

Pot, meet kettle? China is not a threat because it and the United States are economically intertwined, vastly reducing the likeliness of conflict. Even that aside, China's fleet of Soviet aircraft is in fact garbage compared to the US' present air fleet.

The major problem with the F-35 is that rather than developing specialized replacements for existing aircraft, they are attempting to load too many capability demands onto a single craft. Which, as we have learned from pre-Cold War French aircraft, results in planes that do nothing especially well.

Right, so the U.S. ordered 400+ of them to get better STOVL? Lol.

Implying the US has never made stupid purchasing decisions.

---------- Post added 2013-02-21 at 06:47 PM ----------

Do allies not have the right to opt out of the presence of nuclear weapons in their territories though? Or for that matter would it not be reasonable to expect that the US, if asked, told if it respected such nuke free zones or not?

If they do, they lose significant support from the US military given how many warships and aircraft are capable of carrying nuclear weapons - and for tactical reasons, the US doesn't let anyone know when one of them might be carrying such devices.

Why Germany would complain about the US when their next door neighbour has the third-largest nuclear stockpile in the world is beyond me.

[Mnevis]

Got to love out of control spending during one of the worst financial catastrophes we've ever seen.

Well, the inception of this project was like twenty years ago. They didn't exactly know what the economy would be doing in 2008 back around the turn of the millennium when X-35s were first getting off the ground, and it's hard to stop spending money on something you've already spent billions and billions and billions on.

F-35 is a pretty egregious example of cost overruns and military spending and technological advance for its own sake, that's for sure. It's a shame that's what's apparently most important to us humans.

That's not to say that I don't see the other side, civilian advantages that eventually come from military research, the point of the military industrial complex, the reality of Pax Americana. We might have to sell our homes if we get sick, but we haven't had a world war in a while.

[Skroe]

Do allies not have the right to opt out of the presence of nuclear weapons in their territories though? Or for that matter would it not be reasonable to expect that the US, if asked, told if it respected such nuke free zones or not?

Allies have the right, but it is extremely rare they invoke it. The most notable example is New Zealand. Nominally the US, Australia and New Zealand are bound by the ANZUS mutual defense treaty signed in 1951. The military alliance is by structure, as tight as NATO. But in 1985 New Zealand banned ships carrying Nuclear Material from coming to port in their territory. This was problematic because during the Cold War (and still today in certain regions), US Aircraft Carriers carry Nuclear Weapons (mostly Cruise Missile Warheads and B-61 nuclear bombs, but in the past also depth charges). They ban was a protest against Reagan taking a more confrontational stance with the USSR. The New Zealand government wanted the US to certify any ships coming to port had no nuclear weapons onboard.

Of course, the US has no interest in doing that. The strategic ambiguity of "where the nukes were" was a powerful tool that kept the peace. So the result was for 25 years, US warships did not visit New Zealand and that while Australia and New Zealand were bound to each other bay ANZUS, and so was the US/Australia to each other, the US refused to defend New Zealand.

In 2007-2010 this finally changed though. US Warships only occasionally carry nuclear weapons anymore, and New Zealand realized that it needed a strategic partner due to China. So ANZUS was repaired and military cooperation resumed. Presently US Marines are based in New Zealand.

In summary countries CAN invoke the right - another case was how the Phillipeans asked us to leave the absolutely massive Clark Airforce Base right after the Cold War ended, the rationale being, the job is done, and the need for the base was gone. But it's exceedingly rare because a large US military presence = investment, strategic security, and potential for ever deeper ties with the world's most powerful nation.

In the end, as New Zealand figured out, playing ball with us is far more upside than downside.

[Anakso]

I'm guessing the F-35 is a good plane, and by good I mean amazing and leaps and bounds ahead of any other plane, otherwise it'd be kind of pointless.

But I mean, assuming this money is coming out of the military budget and isn't making the military budget go up, I don't really see anything wrong with it. They're going to be spending the money on military efforts anyway. And this kind of project is good for fueling the economy.

[tombstoner139]

I'm guessing the F-35 is a good plane, and by good I mean amazing and leaps and bounds ahead of any other plane, otherwise it'd be kind of pointless.

But I mean, assuming this money is coming out of the military budget and isn't making the military budget go up, I don't really see anything wrong with it. They're going to be spending the money on military efforts anyway. And this kind of project is good for fueling the economy.

The f-35 is basically all about reducing operational costs and still maintaining the utility of existing aircraft. No way the f-35 is comparable to the A-10.
its like comparing a swiss army knife multi tool to a full tool box. yea it can do most functions well enough for a substantial weight savings, but i would expect it to be too big or week for all jobs. The A-10 is a dedicated tank killer and designed for it. It was slated to be fazed out just before the first gulf war. Then people realized we still needed a dedicated MBT tank killer and its life span was extended. you cant design a multi use item that's going to ae better than something dedicated to a specific task. this is why i think the move to the f-35 is a mistake. especially in the wake of the f-22 fleet reduction.

As for military spending. i think its out of control but that's congress fault not the DOD. lots of people have made some good points in prior posts regarding US military over seas. i think placement of troops is no longer needed due to the massive amount in economic integration that has basically unified the worlds economy.
when its goes down we all go down. We cant afford large scale WWII conflicts anymore. not saying it cant happen. When the US gives cash to countries those countries can become dependent on the money. basically do what we want or your cash goes away. This is how i see the world being run in the future. this sets up a situation where the US can remove the vast majority of its over seas military and still maintain influence with cash transfers and carrier groups.

In regard to Nukes. the US should voluntary lead the way and reduce the number to less than 100. then down to 25. The US should just be willing to accept nucular Armageddon as the first step in improving our over seas relations. because lets face it we have given people a good reason to want there own nuke programs ( NK and Iran) a reason to pick up arms and attack us. The US is kinda belligerent and a bit self rightist lately. we shouldn't be meddling in the affairs of countries that have different sets of ideologies. I am referring to western sentiments on shahera law. It non of our business. So yea i can understand why Iran needs to puff itself up.
The US is antagonizing other countries just by being in the area. Small furry dog's would naturally freak out if a 2000 lb bear was in the back yard. how would you .feel if your in the ocean scuba diving and saw a great white shark... This is how many countries in the world view the US: IMO.

Basically we need to improve our domestic security with a more isolationist approach, reducing spending along the way. pay off our debt completely and expand the use for foreign cash grants. Other wise we are doomed to get sucked into the next super expensive replacement aircraft for the f-35.

[Jackmoves]

I'm guessing the F-35 is a good plane, and by good I mean amazing and leaps and bounds ahead of any other plane, otherwise it'd be kind of pointless.

But I mean, assuming this money is coming out of the military budget and isn't making the military budget go up, I don't really see anything wrong with it. They're going to be spending the money on military efforts anyway. And this kind of project is good for fueling the economy.

Whats wrong is government waste and that should be a concern for any tax payer. I'm not against military procurement or R&D, but if you can/could build and develop the same aircraft for less then I'd certainly think it was a fuck up by officials responsible for the acquisition of that piece of equipment. It's their responsibility to not only provide the country with a functioning military(and good equipment and terms and conditions for service members) but to also make sure tax payers money is used efficiently.

The wasted money could have gone to fill other "holes" that need filling(or other things the US military think they need) rather then going into the pockets of a private enterprise, and that goes for anything the government does, not just the military.

[krunksmash]

The problem is congress makes half a mill to sit on there arse and they allow money to be blown on other countries. we need to stop supporting the world and only support us. the only money that should leave our territory is money going to our foreign bases and deployed troops we cut the BS givving away of money and we will cut the spending problem well that and doc all congress to 75K a year and only 50% for 4 year after they retire.

[Paranoid Android]

Sounds great, does it? Welfare spending is up, Military spending is down. That pleases the mob. Of course... The uninformed uneducated mob though....
Because when the Defense Budget goes down from 1.1 trillion to 990 billion, it sure goes down. Let's ignore that it's still as much as the next 17 countries combined, of which most of them are even allies... And also let's ignore that most of that reduction is caused by troops that have been called back home, and the essential spending didn't get down but a dime..
I love people too, that don't know what they are talking about

Excellent points in regards to the Poster who replied to my post. First the Deatheternal thinks social security, medicare and medicaid is welfare because I agree welfare spending has gone up, the defense budget is nearly twice as much as we spend on welfare. Also I guess he does not realize that the Iraq and Afghan war are actually off the books when it comes to alot of their spending.

While I'm not advocating we should spend as much on government entitlement programs, I am again stating that our military spending is out of control and that the hypocricy of politicians who rant agains the poor or people who may need these programs they pass bills to build more military equipment because it creates jobs in their district or state. Let's face it, its government welfare, just with a different name.

[Theinquisition]

Excellent points in regards to the Poster who replied to my post. First the Deatheternal thinks social security, medicare and medicaid is welfare because I agree welfare spending has gone up, the defense budget is nearly twice as much as we spend on welfare. Also I guess he does not realize that the Iraq and Afghan war are actually off the books when it comes to alot of their spending.

While I'm not advocating we should spend as much on government entitlement programs, I am again stating that our military spending is out of control and that the hypocricy of politicians who rant agains the poor or people who may need these programs they pass bills to build more military equipment because it creates jobs in their district or state. Let's face it, its government welfare, just with a different name.

Doesn't military spending create jobs? I mean it seems like you like the idea of gov't spending to provide oppertunites for people, why not give them a job assembling planes,tanks, and missles?

You do realize that military spending creates millions of jobs right?

[tombstoner139]

Doesn't military spending create jobs? I mean it seems like you like the idea of gov't spending to provide oppertunites for people, why not give them a job assembling planes,tanks, and missles?

You do realize that military spending creates millions of jobs right?

I think he/se does. the question is are theses the kind of jobs we need.

[Paranoid Android]

Doesn't military spending create jobs? I mean it seems like you like the idea of gov't spending to provide oppertunites for people, why not give them a job assembling planes,tanks, and missles?

You do realize that military spending creates millions of jobs right?

Yes they create jobs but its a form of government welfare and spending. Again the hypocrisy, mainly coming from Republicans who don't want a spending bill saying on government infrastructure projects because it BIG GOVERNMENT. Now pickin on the Dems also they are just as selfish in wanting to keep military spending up, especially if there happens to be a business in their district/state that creates jobs. I hope you do see the hypocrisy in this.