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

Dook · 2004-06-10 00:51:45

Economic growth causes inflation. Inflation is not a bad thing unless it gets too be too much, then it hurts the poor. The term "devaluation" is normally applied to the worth of the dollar compared to foreign currency in which case it is actually better for the U.S. economy to have a dollar that is worth less because it makes U.S. goods cheaper for foreigners to buy.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c … ...usiness

In 1991 a coalition of 660,000 troops defeated the entire Iraqi army. Kuwait had a population of 1.3 million in 1991. Kuwait could have put up a serious fight and repelled the Iraqi invaders if they had been prepared. While much of Iraq's army was disposed of by air power a few divisions of M1 tanks finished them off with no losses to enemy fire. Not surprisingly Kuwait has approximately 255 M1 tanks now and has purchased some apache helicopters as well.

Sure there is a double standard. What country in the history of the world has had the military power that the U.S. has and not used it to expand it's borders? What do you think the world would be like now if Libya had been the first country to get nuclear weapons? There are only a few countries in the world who really need a strong military: Taiwan, South Korea, Pakistan and India, Israel and maybe a few African countries. That's pretty much it. Even so only Israel, Pakistan, and India need nuclear weapons as a deterent. Why does Libya need nuclear weapons? Why Iran? To keep us from invading? What are they going to do, blow up their own cities as we are landing paratroops in them? If they ever get a continental launch system the world will become a much more dangerous place. It's their choice though. If they do its a very dangerous an unnecessary step.

The UN has no guts. They argue and consistantly refuse to commit capable troops to help people who need it around the world. The UN made no effort to stop the Somali warlords from stealing UN grain shipments and killing innocent and starving people. The UN would not use force against Milosevic when he sent Arkan and his Tigers out to commit genocide. African countries have been plagued with genocide, starvation, war, yet the UN does not send troops there. No UN troops went to Haiti either. What a great police force, you call them and they don't show up or they show up and do nothing.

Euler · 2004-06-10 01:43:52

Economic growth causes inflation. Inflation is not a bad thing unless it gets too be too much, then it hurts the poor. The term "devaluation" is normally applied to the worth of the dollar compared to foreign currency in which case it is actually better for the U.S. economy to have a dollar that is worth less because it makes U.S. goods cheaper for foreigners to buy.

Sometimes economic growth causes inflation. However, they are not equivalent. Just because the ecconomy is growing does not mean that there is high inflation. Just because there is high inflation does not mean that the ecconomy is growing. I might have used "devaluation" wrong, I meant loss of value compared with the consumer price index.

In 1991 a coalition of 660,000 troops defeated the entire Iraqi army. Kuwait had a population of 1.3 million in 1991. Kuwait could have put up a serious fight and repelled the Iraqi invaders if they had been prepared. While much of Iraq's army was disposed of by air power a few divisions of M1 tanks finished them off with no losses to enemy fire. Not surprisingly Kuwait has approximately 255 M1 tanks now and has purchased some apache helicopters as well.

It takes at least 15 civillians to support 1 soldier in a modern army(probably more). If Kuwiat had been the most militant country in the world, devoted entirely to war, it would have still had less than 100,000 troops. And they would not have been armed with the latest US weapons. Kuwait had no chance of defeating Iraq without outside assistance.

Dook · 2004-06-10 02:37:02

Israel's military manpower-1.5 million

http://www.exxun.com/Israel/h_ml.html]h … /h_ml.html

Israel's jewish population-3.6 million
(Israeli arabs will not participate in the Israeli army and thus are not given rights equal to other citizens).

http://countrystudies.us/israel/38.htm] … ael/38.htm

I guess it's too much to ask that Kuwait be more like Isreal. Some people are willing to die to defend their way of life while others simply get the U.S. to do it for them.

Euler · 2004-06-10 12:33:25

Israel's military manpower-1.5 million

No, that means that there are 1.5 million people who are eligible for military service, not that there are 1.5 million serving in the military.

DanielCook · 2004-06-10 13:47:27

Inflation is a measure of the growth of the money supply versus production capacity of a country. (That's why inflation is controlled using interest rates, as that controls the relative supply or demand for money). Deflation is also possible, but is generally even more disliked as it results in price uncertainty, and lower corporate profits (lower prices, and consumers wait for prices to fall even futher before buying).

Inflation will cause deflation of a country's currency relative to another country's currency, if inflation in that country is higher than in the other country, if no other influences (politics, speculative cash flows, etc.) are considered.

As for the topic: in the end it doesn't matter if the fuding goes to NASA or USAF - if they cooperate better.

Ian Flint · 2004-06-10 14:06:24

OK, I'm willing to compromise here. Putting economic theory to work, it seems America has a competitive advantage supplying military force. Therefore, countries like Kuwait should not simply be asking for help, they should be buying our military services. Just like taxes help pay for police, countries should be taxed if they choose to depend on our military. If they don't want to pay the tax we won't defend them. And it should be cash, not just treaties and stuff.

Sounds very mercenary to me, though. Better if they just get their own military.

I believe Mexican's should ask for help from MEXICO! And rich MEXICANS!

Exactly, but what do we do if Mexico won't help them? Leave them there to live out their lives in misery. People still live in huts next to garbage heaps for heavens sake.

Yes Americans are so selfish that they give more foreign aid than any other country.

Actually, Luxembourg gives more per capita -- 352.30 per person. America comes in twentieth at 23.76 per person. I'd say it's per capita that matters most, wouldn't you? Here's a nice statistics website:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco … id_don_cap

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-10 14:14:01

Quote
I believe Mexican's should ask for help from MEXICO! And rich MEXICANS!

Exactly, but what do we do if Mexico won't help them? Leave them there to live out their lives in misery. People still live in huts next to garbage heaps for heavens sake.

Well, if it's so bad, and they'd fare so much better in America, I've got a proposition.

Annex Mexico. Bring the prosperity and opportunity to them.

DonPanic · 2004-06-11 03:03:55

LO

Israel's military manpower-1.5 million
http://www.exxun.com/Israel/h_ml.html]h … /h_ml.html
Israel's jewish population-3.6 million
.......I guess it's too much to ask that Kuwait be more like Isreal.

That means almost every 18/45 women and men of the country
That cannot make a 1.5 million army, unless all industrial, agriculture and service jobs should be replaced by foreigners.
and because of military effort and funding settlements in Cisjordania, Israel standarts of living has decreased, and shortens wellfare such as help to growing kids isolated mothers.
Even Israelis are not happy to pay so much for defense.

Annex Mexico. Bring the prosperity and opportunity to them.

Why only Mexico ? CC, you're weakening, annex the whole planet

As for the topic: in the end it doesn't matter if the fuding goes to NASA or USAF - if they cooperate better.

Something does matter : USAF will aim at military space.
I'm more interested in Science than in military technology, even if I 'm interested in technologies
(Here, we say : why clothing imbeciles with uniforms ?
- to see them better)

DanielCook · 2004-06-11 07:21:25

Something does matter : USAF will aim at military space.
I'm more interested in Science than in military technology, even if I 'm interested in technologies

Until we find a cheap / easy way to get of this rock, military space technology and space science technology will to a large extend be similiar (that was my point)... do I need to point out who launched Clementine ... it wasn't NASA.

DonPanic · 2004-06-11 07:50:59

LO

Until we find a cheap / easy way to get of this rock, military space technology and space science technology will to a large extend be similiar (that was my point)... do I need to point out who launched Clementine ... it wasn't NASA.

Hydrogen propelled rockets are not good at military use.
Important is payload.
Wasn't the Army that sent a man to the Moon, nor would have wasted money on Voyagers or HST
or wonders the age of the Universe, the amount, the nature of black energy and so unstrategic tasks.
The Army would have focused on extremely expensive programs as an antinuke shield. Ok, you would have some kind of antinuke shield and some more technological jewels in the sky,
what for, when terrorists would have use civilian transport jets to accomplish their deadful goals ?

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-11 08:40:41

Quote (Cobra Commander @ June 10 2004, 16:14)
Annex Mexico. Bring the prosperity and opportunity to them.
Why only Mexico ? CC, you're weakening, annex the whole planet

Funny you should say that. If we're going to bitch and moan about how many poor countries there are in the world and how miserable conditions are, and then on the other hand complain that America is too rich and greedy, and therefore we should do something... We can't let everyone into the United States, so logic would dictate that given the major complaints the solution is to annex all the nations in question that the US might cast an umbrella of benevelont protection and provide for all the poor downtrodden people of the Earth.

Do nothing and we're greedy, really try to help and we're imperialist swine. Just can't win. Some people just like to complain, I guess.

Quote
Something does matter : USAF will aim at military space.
I'm more interested in Science than in military technology, even if I 'm interested in technologies

Until we find a cheap / easy way to get of this rock, military space technology and space science technology will to a large extend be similiar (that was my point)... do I need to point out who launched Clementine ... it wasn't NASA.

And even more to the point, all space technologies began as military technologies. The military drives technological advancement. To try and grow NASA at the expense of the military would be shooting yourself in the foot over the long term.

Give the military a reason to traverse interplanetary space quickly, then you'll have advancements beyond belief.

Josh Cryer · 2004-06-11 09:14:44

Technological advancements? I'd argue that, nah, consumerism/capitalism were a lot better at advancing current technologies than the military. Many technologies related to wartime aren't necessarily things consumers care about. This is why computers are cheap as heck but night goggles are still somewhat pricey (they've come down in recent years, but still). Night goggles are a very important military technology, but to consumers night goggles aren't very important at all.

Military doesn't bring that much to the table, imho.

Dook · 2004-06-11 09:14:50

I believe Mexican's should ask for help from MEXICO! And rich MEXICANS!
Exactly, but what do we do if Mexico won't help them? Leave them there to live out their lives in misery. People still live in huts next to garbage heaps for heavens sake.
Actually, Luxembourg gives more per capita -- 352.30 per person. America comes in twentieth at 23.76 per person. I'd say it's per capita that matters most, wouldn't you?

Unfortunately there are millions of people around the world that need more assistance. Maybe we don't do enough for them but they need to take some responsibility for themselves. Why do people have children that they cannot afford to raise? Why is AIDS spreading uncontrollably in Africa? Why can't they control themselves?

I would say the $15.7 billion in aid from the U.S. matters more than the $4 billion from Luxembourg. Also those figures are for government aid to foreign countries and do not include aid from U.S. organizations: Red Cross, Red Crescent, United Way, Doctors Without Borders... U.S. corporations, U.S. citizens, church's... I could go on and on.

About Israel: The 1.5 million strong Israeli army actually includes every person aged 15-49. These are mobilization numbers not actual day to day military numbers. Israel can mobilize and not worry too much about their economy as long as they keep their wars short.

DonPanic · 2004-06-11 11:56:26

LO

Annex Mexico. Bring the prosperity and opportunity to them.
Why only Mexico ? CC, you're weakening, annex the whole planet
Funny you should say that.

That was some kind of humour :;):

Give the military a reason to traverse interplanetary space quickly, then you'll have advancements beyond belief.

Protecting the planet against huge meteorite strike is less important to the stategists than the ability to destroy the planet by themselves, as I can see.
Whatever the military skill is, it doesn't transcend economical and physical laws.
When large investments flow, army subcontractors know very well how to make big profits out of citizen taxes.
And with big profits, they're such an influent lobby that their fundings are almost vital to White House candidates.

Gennaro · 2004-06-14 06:42:17

Why do Iran and Libya need long range missiles and nuclear weapons? What threat are they under to need these weapons? NONE!

Maybe they feel they need to counteract the threat of Israel? Just a thought.

SpaceNut · 2004-12-20 12:38:53

Well it is either this thread or the other or maybe both in fact I will post in both on how can russia turn its military missile into space ready vehicles. I know they feel safe, that they are no longer being threaten by the US or any of its allies.

To easy Nasa's budget maybe the military should do like kind as the russians have done. Changing weapons into something that can do good instead of destruction.

Russians harness Cold War demons for space

Military plans test launch of ICBM from Russian missile silo,
as part of peaceful space strategy.

Just maybe it is time to convert some of them also. :;):

Cobra Commander · 2004-12-20 12:43:32

To easy Nasa's budget maybe the military should do like kind as the russians have done. Changing weapons into something that can do good instead of distruction.

Like using some of those old A-bombs for an Orion.

John Creighton · 2004-12-20 13:55:35

Like using some of those old A-bombs for an Orion.

Sounds like fun
Where to launch, where to lauch,..... ???

SpaceNut · 2004-12-20 14:20:08

Then you get the flip side of the coin where the pentagon is trying to develop a missile shield.

Pentagon misses missile shield deadline Limited shield won't be ready by year’s end as hoped

'Unknown anomaly'
In the failed test, an “unknown anomaly” led to an automatic shutdown of an experimental interceptor missile early Wednesday before it was to launch from the Ronald Reagan Test Site at Kwajalein Atoll in the central Pacific Ocean. A target missile fired from Alaska’s Kodiak Island 16 minutes earlier crashed into the ocean.

SpaceNut · 2005-03-29 10:56:39

The race for the high ground:
Plans by U.S. to Dominate Space Raising Concerns; Arms Experts Worried at Pentagon Push for Superiority

Arms control advocates in the United States and abroad are expressing concern with the Bush administration's push for military superiority in space.
A series of Pentagon doctrinal papers, released over the past year, have emphasized that the U.S. military is increasingly dependent on space satellites for offensive and defensive operations, and must be able to protect them in times of war.
On March 1, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld signed a new National Defense Strategy paper that said the use of space "enables us to project power anywhere in the world from secure bases of operation." A key goal of Rumsfeld's new strategy is "to ensure our access to and use of space and to deny hostile exploitation of space to adversaries."

Grypd · 2005-03-29 16:50:06

It is not surprising that this has come about. The usage of space is important to all countries and many rely exclusively on satelites for telecomunications and for ground observation. The power to stop a country using satelites is one of the most important powers a military can do.

But the ability to fight wars in space will only increase as the years go on and the USA simply wants to be ahead of the game when it becomes critical to do so. But there is a downside is that it could prompt what is an arms race for space and this has problems with it. It was the tensions between Britain and Germany that lead to the dreadnought building race that eventually helped lead to the first world war.

And if a country has less conventional space weapons that kill satelites and is loosing any war to destroy each others eyes and ears then the temptation will be to use Nuclear weapons to do large area kills by EMP. And this could trigger a nuclear exchange.

SpaceNut · 2005-04-12 11:02:03

Well with the use of space we now have the chances that it is a grave yard of objects just waiting to be come the next sky is falling for chicken little.

As part of the Dart project or is it the other way around the Autonomous military satellite to inspect others in orbit in either case it could lead to an autonomous robotic mechanic that fixes satellites in orbit.

Gee sort of sound like a Hubble rescue? ???

The US Air Force has launched a micro-satellite XSS-11 - which stands for Experimental Spacecraft Systems 11 - did blasted off this morning from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, US, aboard a Minotaur rocket.

During its mission, the XSS-11 craft will approach dead or unused US satellites or old rocket parts. At each rendezvous, the Air Force satellite will burn its engines to move around the object while taking a range of pictures.
Normally, ground controllers instruct a satellite when to fire its engines. But, after a commissioning and testing phase, XSS-11 will only take instruction on where to find a dead satellite. Then, with its on-board planner, it will calculate when to burn its engines.

Yes it may have other uses as well as you read on..

NASA’s Demonstration of Autonomous Rendezvous Technology (DART) satellite, is scheduled for take-off on a Pegasus rocket on 15 April. It too will make its own approach to a satellite, testing techniques required to dock on auto-pilot.
After some costly delays, DART ended up costing $110 million. “It’s a much simpler mission,” Baker told New Scientist. It is expected to operate for about 24 hours. The Air Force expects the XSS-11 to operate for between 12 and 18 months and its final cost is $80 million. It weighs about half as much as the DART satellite.

SpaceNut · 2005-05-18 08:39:05

It would seem that ownership of the high ground for the air force is still being pushed.
Air Force Seeks Bush's Approval for Space Weapons Programs(free registration required)

The Air Force, saying it must secure space to protect the nation from attack, is seeking President Bush's approval of a national-security directive that could move the United States closer to fielding offensive and defensive space weapons, according to White House and Air Force officials.

I just wish this thinking would end.

clark · 2005-05-18 11:32:55

This has been going on for years...

Dosen't take a one-eyed hobo if you read what Rummy said during his stint on the Commission.

American Moon Base? clark is crazy! :laugh:

Grypd · 2005-05-18 13:06:03

To be the dominant military power means they must be able to dominate everywhere. And have you noticed how many countries have launch capability now or will have soon. It would be stupid for the USA to leave the designing of defensive and offensive space weapons until the last minute.

and on another point

Yes clark, you are crazy

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-06-10 00:51:45

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

#27 2004-06-10 01:43:52

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

#28 2004-06-10 02:37:02

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

#29 2004-06-10 12:33:25

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

#30 2004-06-10 13:47:27

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

#31 2004-06-10 14:06:24

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

#32 2004-06-10 14:14:01

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

#33 2004-06-11 03:03:55

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

#34 2004-06-11 07:21:25

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

#35 2004-06-11 07:50:59

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

#36 2004-06-11 08:40:41

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

#37 2004-06-11 09:14:44

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

#38 2004-06-11 09:14:50

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

#39 2004-06-11 11:56:26

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

#40 2004-06-14 06:42:17

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

#41 2004-12-20 12:38:53

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

#42 2004-12-20 12:43:32

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

#43 2004-12-20 13:55:35

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

#44 2004-12-20 14:20:08

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

#45 2005-03-29 10:56:39

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

#46 2005-03-29 16:50:06

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

#47 2005-04-12 11:02:03

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

#48 2005-05-18 08:39:05

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

#49 2005-05-18 11:32:55

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

#50 2005-05-18 13:06:03

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

Board footer