Open Debate: Military Spending vs Space Exploratio - Is our military spending worth it?

deagleninja · 2004-06-06 15:53:16

A lot of arguing has been going on in other threads about how the US military budget limits what other national programs, like space exploration, can do. I want to hear justifications for spending as much as we do.

clark · 2004-06-06 15:57:53

Would you rather be the guy with the gun, or the guy that depends on him?

Mundaka · 2004-06-06 16:11:55

Gennaro · 2004-06-06 16:45:48

One example that comes to mind is that of Marine tank crews that used the Vietnam era M-60 tank. They went up against the vastly superior Soviet T-72s and slaughtered them.

I'm not sure I agree the T-72 in this case was a superior tank to the M-60. As far as I'm aware, both can knock out each other using the main armament, only the T-72's rate of fire is slower due to autoloaded 125mm. First shot kills in modern tank warfare, since accuracy is very high.
The Iraqi T-72's lacked antitank missiles, right? This I believe would otherwise have been its only advantage since it would then have been capable of knocking out the M-60 at 2,500 m (or more, don't remember the specific system used) with an 80% accuracy.
Lacking this however, it actually looks like the Marines possessed the better tanks.

What level was the US close airsupport at the time? Very crucial, especially in Iraqi terrain.

Would you rather be the guy with the gun, or the guy that depends on him?

I believe most criticism of US military spending relies on the assumption that even half the current budget would probably well suffice to safeguard national security. Training is simply a matter of priorities, isn't it, although I get what Mundaka means.
After all, there hasn't been any serious threat to the US since the cold war. The miltary industrial complex still remains, however.

DonPanic · 2004-06-06 17:53:10

lO

One example that comes to mind is that of Marine tank crews that used the Vietnam era M-60 tank. They went up against the vastly superior Soviet T-72s and slaughtered them.

You're kidding.
Can't compare weapon at weapon that way. I'm quite sure the Russians didn't sold to Iraqis the latest hitech equiped tanks, such as having laser drive guns with ability to fire shells when tanks are in fast motion, as the french light wheeled tanks had.
And under total Coalition air superiority, T-72 were at first targets for fighter-bombers, A10, assault helicopters, so that M-60 had more opportunities to bypass calcinated T-72 wrecks than to fight one.

Gennaro · 2004-06-06 19:05:23

DonPanic, there were a lot of T-72 tanks in Iraq during Gulf War I. Didn't you watch the news?

Tanks have been equipped with laser range finders since the 1960's and all T-64 and T-72 tank guns are fully stabilized and equally capable of firing on the move as western tanks.
(This was not the case on the T-55 and T-62 though, which to a notable extent accounted for the Arab defeats against Israel.)

Mundaka · 2004-06-06 20:03:24

I'm not sure I agree the T-72 in this case was a superior tank to the M-60

Well, the last military training I did was during the Reagon era, and back then it was assumed that the T-72 was a match for the M-1 (which has since been proven patently false.) For all all I know you could be spot on, I'll go do some research and find out.

There is another example of the US getting into artillery slug fests with the Iraqis, who were using Argentinian artillery -- which is far superior to the US's -- and techno quick fixes only made the situation worse. What saved the US artillery crews was training *and* experience, not technology (in fact they reverted to WWI techniques to win the day.) Air power did not play a role in this case.

You're kidding.
Can't compare weapon at weapon that way. I'm quite sure the Russians didn't sold to Iraqis the latest hitech equiped tanks, such as having laser drive guns with ability to fire shells when tanks are in fast motion, as the french light wheeled tanks had.

Don't know how to break this to you, but French tanks and equipment are damn good -- and your Marines are better. The tanks used by the French in Desert Storm, along with the British Churchill, are *roughly* in the same generation and class as the M-1 (I realize that class is very loosly defined, but we are talking about weapons systems designed two decades after the M-60 was designed, and by modern societies.) The M-60 had been upgraded time and time again, but it was not up to French standards -- even our National Guard no longer uses it.

What level was the US close airsupport at the time? Very crucial, especially in Iraqi terrain.

Both you and DonPanic made this point and I'm surprized I didn't take it into consideration -- I'll blame my girlfriend and her excellant backrubs for that one (hey, I can't be right all the time!)

Seriously, combined air and ground forces are a powerful combination -- but again, useless without coordination, and that means training: lots and lots and lots, and it won't be safe either. Good copy for congressmen with an axe to grind and military budgets to divert to their own pet projects.

EDIT: I think we might be diverting the thread here -- how can we apply all of this to the origional question?

Gennaro · 2004-06-07 03:28:10

Maybe by recognizing that US military technology and potential as it already stands is quite far above what the Russians either can or would like to achieve, or anyone else for that matter, considering the labour and costs it would require to bridge the gulf?

Oh yeah, do I remember the overestimations of Warsaw Pact capability in the darkest days of the later cold war, around 1984 and thereabouts! I was one of those people who suffered from the "Red Dawn" syndrome, constantly pointing out the profiency and supposed efficiency of the Communist system myself, so I should know. I too believed the third generation Soviet tanks were very good. That is until I got a closer view of the hard facts. They were sufficient for the role intended for them, that is basically advancing to the Biscay behind a creeping curtain of tactical nukes. A feature of Soviet doctrine not known at the time (god, are we lucky WWIII never happened!!!).

Tjernobyl got me thinking, remember those poor guys who had to go in cleaning the place up with nothing but clinical mouth protection? By 1989 I felt quite embarrased contemplating my prior assumptions.

I remember a television program from about that time, highlighting smart weaponry of the not so distant future where for example self guided air to ground HEAT charges were capable of knocking out entire tank companies on the march in one swift stroke. We saw something akin to this play out during Desert Storm. Knowing something about WP doctrine, the congestion of columns lingering in near frontline rear areas and the open nature of continental European battlefields in general, the following conclusions were impossible to shake:

1) Only the most technologically advanced and richest countries would be able to develop this weaponry. A Soviet Union in its death throes didn't stand a chance.

2) Somewhat successful countermeasures required at least on par airforces, though all pointed towards NATO achieving air superiority.

3) If possible to develop and achieving parity, such weapons would NOT turn to the benefit of offensive action. On the contrary, the offense would break down more throughly than ever during WWI, only at a much higher level. The USians were actually developing an essentially defensive posture than seemed impossible to mitigate without some very revolutionary (and unknown) changes to how war was conducted.

Personally, I have the impression the US is already largelly over-teched and over armed for the challenges currently meeting her. Technologically, large scale conventional warfare has at the same time achieved a horrendous level of destructive power and cost. My opinion is that we should simply not remain this pre-occupied with war, it's a dead end for humanity.

For a European, it actually feels mighty strange to read ordinary Americans get jumpy over North Korea, China or some similar 2nd or 3rd rate military power. It's like the US aren't able to get rid off a cold war mindset even at this late hour, so it desperately searches for new enemies.
This factor is possibly one overlooked when it comes to the world's difficulty to make sense of recent political developments. For most outside the US, 9/11 was essentially a criminal act, not warfare, which after two invasions and huge deployments of military might still awaits its proper investigation.

DonPanic · 2004-06-07 15:32:58

LO

DonPanic, there were a lot of T-72 tanks in Iraq during Gulf War I. Didn't you watch the news?

Yes, but there are angles a T-72, nor any tank can't reach to fire their guns when attacked by an A10, then the T-72 crew has to run fast away for its life

What level was the US close airsupport at the time? Very crucial, especially in Iraqi terrain.
Both you and DonPanic made this point and I'm surprized I didn't take it into consideration -- I'll blame my girlfriend and her excellant backrubs for that one (hey, I can't be right all the time!)
Seriously, combined air and ground forces are a powerful combination -- but again, useless without coordination, and that means training: lots and lots and lots, and it won't be safe either.

Don't know wether this was disinformation or not, but news here told the US command could track each of his tanks with yard precision when Iraqi command was totally blind, fooled whith E countermeasures

jadeheart · 2004-06-07 17:15:21

Don't see much discussion of overall spending comaprisons here...

I found some links that may be of interest:

I like http://www.federalbudget.com/]this one-- a nice illustration of comparitive budget sizes, AND it explicitly compares the money we spend on debt interest to the money NASA spends.

For a liberal slant, there's http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm]this.

And a http://mwhodges.home.att.net/fed_budget … nservative take on it (there's a pie chart 2/3 way down the page).

Finally, I found this http://www.sniggle.net/Experiment/index … commentary to be enlightening.

In keeping with the question implied in the thread title, my personal view is that the portion of defense money that is wasted (that is, the money that is basically pork and corporate subsidy, money lost due to 'cost-plus' contracts, no-bid contracts, etc., money that 'lubricates the process',) could have colonized Mars by now without compromising national security. I'd like to see some money taken from defense spending and given to NASA. It will give NASA a little breathing room and make the DoD more lean & efficient & less of the pig trough full of subsidies. Or at least encourage these big defense contractors to diversify a little more toward space exploration.

You'll recall that Zubrin points out in "Entering Space" that it was the pro-war contingent of the Nixon administration that intentionally killed the Apollo program and relegated NASA to a much smaller budgetary teat in order to free up money for more buildup in Vietnam. Worth it? In hindsight, I'd have to give a resounding "NO."

OK, deagleninja wanted justification, so I'll throw this out: The money we spent on our nuclear arsenal has prevented a major world war from happening for the past ~60 years. I tend to believe this, I just wonder if we really needed as big an arsenal as we bought.

Ian Flint · 2004-06-07 18:05:36

I just wonder if we really needed as big an arsenal as we bought.

Agreed. I think enough nukes to destroy the entire world once is plenty, but ten times over seems like...oh, whats the word...OVERKILL!!!

Here's a nice chart:

http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/database/nuk … estab.html

Euler · 2004-06-07 21:57:39

When deciding whether or not the military spending is necessary, you must first decide what you want the military to be able to do. I think that current US doctrine calls for the US military to be able to fight 2.5 major foreign wars simultaneously. The question is if that much capability is really necessary.

Dook · 2004-06-07 23:54:07

The U.S. military budget is too high but much of the spending, I believe, is worth the high price. Since World War Two the US has become the police force for the world. I don't want to go into the political reasons why that is so, maybe in another topic. Since our forces are being sent and will continue to be sent into harms way I personally do not want them to go with equipment that is just 'better'. I want them to have equipment that is incredibly superior so any enemy is eliminated with the least amount of injury to our personnel. I can accept the cost of the F-22 at $100 million each if it means nothing can touch it.

I also believe that we should spend a great deal to explore the universe, not only to explore but to research all areas of science. Whatever we learn is put to good use. It brings the future closer.

Certainly there needs to be a balance. I think the current NASA budget is sufficient however the military budget should be frozen and an efficiency program put in place. Currently units receive a certain amount of money for a fiscal year that they have to spend or they may not get the same amount the next year. This does not encourage efficiency, in fact some units purposely waste extra money at the end of the year. While this efficiency program may only return to $1 or $2 million to the general fund a year it would be a start in the right direction and really add up to more than that since the military budget could be frozen for a few years.

Gennaro points out that the US is not able to get rid of the cold war mindset and is desperately searches for new enemies. Maybe the US is not able to get rid of the cold war mindset, why should we? Does anyone really believe that we should reduce our capability while countries like Libya are trying to get nuclear weapons and Pakistani and North Korean scientists are sharing nuclear weapon and missile technology with Iran? Would you be more comfortable with any of those countries being a super power instead of us?

Euler · 2004-06-08 00:16:19

Does anyone really believe that we should reduce our capability while countries like Libya are trying to get nuclear weapons and Pakistani and North Korean scientists are sharing nuclear weapon and missile technology with Iran? Would you be more comfortable with any of those countries being a super power instead of us?

Libya, Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran are not even close to being superpowers. In a conventional war, we could easily win against the combined forces of all four countries. In a nuclear war they could destroy a few US cities (if they are lucky). The US retaliation would make their countries uninhabitable for many years. Russia and China are the only countries that would have any chance of withstanding a US invasion, and even they are many times to weak to contemplate offensive operations against the US. Increasing our margin of superiority is not really necessary to win wars, though it could make wars cheaper when they do occur.

Hazer · 2004-06-08 02:37:17

Euler, I think "Conventional War" has changed it's meaning these days.
Interesting point though about non-US types viewing 9/11 as a criminal action rather than an act of war.
Regarding what you said about those four countries, I don't think we'd ever need to worry about fighting them on US soil. What we would need the manpower and firepower for, if anything, is a conventional invasion post-nuclear attack. And fighting on your home soil is a MASSIVE advantage as the most recent Iraq conflict has shown.
Anyhow with the political factioning in the USA, do you think the public would ever condone a nuclear counterstrike against a smaller nation that has hit the US with a devestating nuclear attack?
I can imagine the following line being spoken a few months later after the button is pressed, "Well, we had a missile shield, but one missile got through. It's <the people in power's> fault that Los Angeles was destroyed and millions died."

"It was launched by rogue leaders, not by the people. We should take out the leaders and leave the people alone."

Furthermore, do you think that the community of countries with nuclear weapons would approve of us launching a nuclear counterstrike?
I mean, if for instance, some faction of an Islamic state launched a nuclear attack and we retaliated in kind--the other Islamic states might see it as an opportunity for them to launch nuclear attacks. After all, they cannot tolerate such an action as the attack was clearly criminal and not an act of war.
Oh and out of Libya, Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran, I really don't think any of them would be a pushover except for Libya.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-08 05:48:20

The question really breaks down to what sort of policy do we want in relation to the rest of the world? If we intend to police the world, project power and act pre-emptively against other nations we need a military force that remains orders of magnitude above all others. It's expensive.

If we choose a purely defensive posture we can reduce spending considerably, but we have to mean it. No peacekeeping, no nation building, no invading MidEast countries that look at us funny, no stopping ethnic cleansing on the other side of the world. Sitting amidst our bounty while the world burns.

That's the real debate, military spending will be determined by that decision.

DonPanic · 2004-06-08 06:37:53

LO

If we choose a purely defensive posture we can reduce spending considerably, but we have to mean it. No peacekeeping, no nation building, no invading MidEast countries that look at us funny, no stopping ethnic cleansing on the other side of the world. Sitting amidst our bounty while the world burns.

Strategic decisions stand on analysis of the threats, not on a posture, I think.
The posture can determine a foreign country opinion wether USA is an ally or an ennemy, best is supposed to be having as many friends as possible.
There would be some credibility in what you say about peacekeeping if Rwanda genocide had been stopped by a military intervention.
Opinion here is that there is no war against terrorism, but war at terrorist nebulae that can't be won only by secret services, and some commando actions against clandestine training camp and facilities wherever they are, therefore is a need of a task force action even against the will of the harbouring country.
For that, you have total French and German cooperation.

Infiltrating islamist terrorist networks can be managed only by moderate muslims, and they will not make a great job if Western is to be seen as ennemy of Islam by supporting Israeli Palestine colonisation, or president or administration former supremely stupid use of words such as "crusade",
as a crusader is a barbaric ennemy of Islam invader.

Bush was promising again "star wars nuke shield" when 9/11 changed the aim of defense, but nowadays, a fast off-shore or a tourist plane can be a mass lethal weapon transporter.

I guess Europe wouln't not have launch independant GMS system if Echelon informations had been shared out of the Wasp Alliance, (USA + white states of former british empire),
the feeling that these Big Brother's watching us feeds antiamericanism.
Wonder if any NASA Mars conquest program will not dry out further Big Science programs.

Dook · 2004-06-08 09:55:02

No, Libya, Pakistan, and Iran are not close to being superpowers but that does not reduce the threat they pose to the world. And that is the key that so many people and other countries do not realize. Being a threat in this world means you get the unwanted attention of the United States military. Why do Iran and Libya need long range missiles and nuclear weapons? What threat are they under to need these weapons? NONE! They might say they need them to prevent a US invasion but if we wanted to go in at any time in the last 100 years we could have.

Increasing our margin of superiority is not really necessary to win wars. Maybe not but it is if you want to bring everyone home alive rather than some in body bags. Maybe a couple hundred or so body bags is acceptable to you just so NASA can get an extra few billion dollars more to launch some probe that might just smash itself into the surface of mars. It is unacceptable to me. Next time you are visiting the coast of France or Arlington you will see why.

If a nation ever uses nuclear weapons against the United States we will immediately respond with nuclear weapons. I believe the response will be whatever is necessary to eliminate that countries nuclear arsenal and that country can then look forward to 100 years of occupation.

The world does not have to be such a dangerous place. Countries can choose to put their money into economic growth and aid to their people rather than weapons systems and let the United States be the world's police force. Instead their leaders want nuclear weapons so they can think of themselves as equal to the United States. Jealousy is a terrible thing.

Ian Flint · 2004-06-09 08:33:41

The world does not have to be such a dangerous place. Countries can choose to put their money into economic growth and aid to their people rather than weapons systems and let the United States be the world's police force. Instead their leaders want nuclear weapons so they can think of themselves as equal to the United States. Jealousy is a terrible thing.

That's funny. I thought hegemony was a terrible thing. How silly of me! Why doesn't the U.S. put its military budget into "economic growth and aid to their people"? Hmm...maybe because we don't trust other countries to police us. How would you feel if N. Korea had 10,000 nukes and we had none? Even scarier, how would you feel if this N. Korea kept invading weaker countries to "change evil capitalist regimes" into "good communist governments"?

Walk a mile in someone else's shoes every now and then. It is very enlightening.

Back to the topic -- I say we shift as much spending as possible from the military to NASA. Here are two options (assuming we can keep from starting stupid wars):

1. Cut the military's budget in half and give that portion to NASA. That would be $150 - 200 billion. Just to appease the liberals we could split it up evenly among many programs.

2. Here's a more conservative approach. Let's say I am elected president. I would assume that I have 8 years to work with since I'm such a likeable guy and all. I would freeze the military budget at its year 1 level. Inflation would do the rest. After 8 years of a frozen budget with inflation levels at about 3%, a rough estimate of the savings would be about $80-100 billion. Give it to NASA.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-09 08:53:17

Or you could just abolish "cost plus" contracting practices, thus saving hundreds of millions, which could then be used by NASA with no loss of military capability or the jobs which it generates, nor harm to the defense contractors on whom NASA depends for its hardware.

Dook · 2004-06-09 09:52:26

Reply to Ian's post:

Walk a mile in someone elses shoes? I've been to Mexico, Canada, Japan, Korea, Philipines, Italy, Portugal, France, Spain, Germany, Ireland, and Bahrain. Many of them I've visited more than once. I've been across the United States 3 times and visited 40 states. I doubt you've even been to half as many. How do your shoes feel now? Maybe you should try to get your enlightenment from a college education rather than watching the BBC.

Sounds like you have a fear of hegemony, rather than blame those who have worked hard to get to the top maybe you should blame instead those at the bottom who have had the same chance, maybe more of a chance, to make themselves better but decided they would instead take the easy road and simply spend the rest of their lives complaining about the rich and powerful.

You misunderstood my post. I did not say that the U.S. should put its military budget into economic growth and aid to their people, I said COUNTRIES, meaning countries other than the United States.

If you cut the military budget in half it would cease to operate. The services would not be able to train replacements, equipment could not be repaired or operated, all modernization and new programs would come to a screeching halt. You would turn the best trained and equipped military force the world has ever known into one like Russia has. Where soldiers routinely desert their units and walk the streets begging for handouts because they have not been paid in months. It's an all volunteer force so you would lose EVERYONE and have to reinstate the draft. Good going Mr. President.

Ian Flint · 2004-06-09 17:56:56

Can someone please explain to Dook what I'm saying. (We need a smiley pulling his hair out in frustration.)

Let me rephrase things using italics for clarity.

Why doesn't the U.S. put its military budget into "economic growth and aid to their people"?

I know that you were not asking the U.S. to do this. That's why I asked you. Why should we ask other countries to do something we are not willing to do. Why demand U.N. weapons inspectors in other countries and not allow them in our own, for example. Nobody likes a double standard.

This is what I'm trying to say: Nobody wants to be policed by an outsider. Muslim fundamentalists consider us infidels for heavens sake. Therefore, we are not a legitimate "police force" to them in the first place.

As for getting to the top, you have to step on a lot of people/countries to do that.

I see you are well travelled, but with all respect I don't think you have learned much. I lived in Mexico for about two years. I was 19, just forming my ideas about the World, so maybe it affected me more than you, who knows? Anyway, I lived and worked a lot with the poorer people there. I was asked many times why Norte Americanos wouldn't let Mexicans cross the border and live a better life. The only conclusion I can come to is because we are selfish.

"Come, come there is gold for all." -- Bilbo Baggins.
Let us not be the Dwarves.

Dook · 2004-06-09 18:56:59

The economy of the United States is immense and does not need any further aid. In fact Alan Greenspan is talking about raising interest rates in the near future to limit inflation (inflation=economic growth).

The Kuwaiti's sure thought of us as a police force. They had their people talking to congress trying to convince us to commit troops to save their butts just before the Persian Gulf War. Kuwait is a very rich country, they could easily afford a military able to defeat Saddam's army. The problem was that so many Kuwaiti's were rich that none of them wanted to be in the military and the ones that did join all wanted to be officers. See what happens when everyone is rich?

As far as letting Mexicans, or anyone else for that matter, come to the United States to work I have no problem with it if they are documented workers here legally. There is an immigration process that allows people from other countries to come here and become citizens but too many illegals come and fill our schools and hospitals and do not pay federal income taxes. I believe Mexican's should ask for help from MEXICO! And rich MEXICANS! Yes Americans are so selfish that they give more foreign aid than any other country. It would be nice if some of these countries would simply say "Thank You" once in a while. I really think it's time that some of these third world countries get their own act together and quit blaming and pointing fingers at the United States. You belittle our achievements and only point out our mistakes. The U.S. is a young country compared to the rest of the world and look what hard work has built for us and accomplished. Someday maybe they will do the same for their country and it will make them proud, as proud as I am to be an American.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-09 19:16:55

Here here, Dook. Well said.

Euler · 2004-06-09 23:36:24

(inflation=economic growth).

No, inflation= devaluation of currency. That is definitely not the same as economic growth.

The Kuwaiti's sure thought of us as a police force. They had their people talking to congress trying to convince us to commit troops to save their butts just before the Persian Gulf War. Kuwait is a very rich country, they could easily afford a military able to defeat Saddam's army. The problem was that so many Kuwaiti's were rich that none of them wanted to be in the military and the ones that did join all wanted to be officers. See what happens when everyone is rich?

Iraq has 12 times more people than Kuwait, and gulf war 1 happened right after Iraq's long war with Iran, when Iraq had one of the largest armies in the world. There is no way that Kuwait could have defeated Iraq on it's own.

I think that Ian has a good point about it being a double standard. Why should we expect other countries to not spend much on their militaries while we are spending over 4% of GDP on our military? If the world needs a police force, it should be the UN, not the US.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-06-06 15:53:16

Re: Open Debate: Military Spending vs Space Exploratio - Is our military spending worth it?

#2 2004-06-06 15:57:53

Re: Open Debate: Military Spending vs Space Exploratio - Is our military spending worth it?

#3 2004-06-06 16:11:55

Re: Open Debate: Military Spending vs Space Exploratio - Is our military spending worth it?

#4 2004-06-06 16:45:48

Re: Open Debate: Military Spending vs Space Exploratio - Is our military spending worth it?

#5 2004-06-06 17:53:10

Re: Open Debate: Military Spending vs Space Exploratio - Is our military spending worth it?

#6 2004-06-06 19:05:23

Re: Open Debate: Military Spending vs Space Exploratio - Is our military spending worth it?

#7 2004-06-06 20:03:24

Re: Open Debate: Military Spending vs Space Exploratio - Is our military spending worth it?

#8 2004-06-07 03:28:10

Re: Open Debate: Military Spending vs Space Exploratio - Is our military spending worth it?

#9 2004-06-07 15:32:58

Re: Open Debate: Military Spending vs Space Exploratio - Is our military spending worth it?

#10 2004-06-07 17:15:21

Re: Open Debate: Military Spending vs Space Exploratio - Is our military spending worth it?

#11 2004-06-07 18:05:36

Re: Open Debate: Military Spending vs Space Exploratio - Is our military spending worth it?

#12 2004-06-07 21:57:39

Re: Open Debate: Military Spending vs Space Exploratio - Is our military spending worth it?

#13 2004-06-07 23:54:07

Re: Open Debate: Military Spending vs Space Exploratio - Is our military spending worth it?

#14 2004-06-08 00:16:19

Re: Open Debate: Military Spending vs Space Exploratio - Is our military spending worth it?

#15 2004-06-08 02:37:17

Re: Open Debate: Military Spending vs Space Exploratio - Is our military spending worth it?

#16 2004-06-08 05:48:20

Re: Open Debate: Military Spending vs Space Exploratio - Is our military spending worth it?

#17 2004-06-08 06:37:53

Re: Open Debate: Military Spending vs Space Exploratio - Is our military spending worth it?

#18 2004-06-08 09:55:02

Re: Open Debate: Military Spending vs Space Exploratio - Is our military spending worth it?

#19 2004-06-09 08:33:41

Re: Open Debate: Military Spending vs Space Exploratio - Is our military spending worth it?

#20 2004-06-09 08:53:17

Re: Open Debate: Military Spending vs Space Exploratio - Is our military spending worth it?

#21 2004-06-09 09:52:26

Re: Open Debate: Military Spending vs Space Exploratio - Is our military spending worth it?

#22 2004-06-09 17:56:56

Re: Open Debate: Military Spending vs Space Exploratio - Is our military spending worth it?

#23 2004-06-09 18:56:59

Re: Open Debate: Military Spending vs Space Exploratio - Is our military spending worth it?

#24 2004-06-09 19:16:55

Re: Open Debate: Military Spending vs Space Exploratio - Is our military spending worth it?

#25 2004-06-09 23:36:24

Re: Open Debate: Military Spending vs Space Exploratio - Is our military spending worth it?

Board footer