Forums → WEPR → The continuing budget-cutting of...

I believe the correct term is Pyogenesis.

I believe the correct term is Pyogenesis.

I think the comments are what make that article.

But..after wading my way through the infestation of smut, I found this person who seems to actually know his stuff
"You are wrong. Not only is there a series of missile systems that are just as capable as the Tomahawk (ie: SLAM-ER, HARPOON), even the Hellfire has a direct replacement. The Dept. of Defense has recognized the Griffin missile system as the replacement for the Hellfire. The Dept. of Defense also recognizes the LRASM as the next generation replacement to the Tomahawk system. As for the SLAM-ER; like the Tomahawk, it's an all-weather, sub sonic, over the horizon cruise missile whith Land attack and anti-ship capabilities."

Face it he is out to completely destroy this country one way or another.

Why does the US need so much weaponry anyway?

We already have a bigger military budget than the next top 5 countries combined. I think we can cope with 125 million dollars of military cutting out of the 683.7 billion dollars we had in 2010.

we should have a huge standing army in place in preparation for the massive conventional war that we will not have to fight anytime in the near future no matter how much of an idiotic waste of money it is.

So, to summarize this entire thread, after more than a week of desperate searching, Fiends manages to locate an article which, to his distorted mind, looks as though it could make a case against the man he blames for his own insecurities. Siezing the opportunity, he forgoes the tedious process of actually looking into the matter in order to get right into making a ridiculous thread on AG. It is met with raucous laughter from all sides, prompting FishPreferred to declare it a success.

You are not a judge of WEPR success. Please stop assigning yourself as the decider of when an argument is over.

Because, we should have a huge standing army in place in preparation for the massive conventional war that we will not have to fight anytime in the near future no matter how much of an idiotic waste of money it is. After all, the only reason we won WWII is because we had a massive bloated military on standby before we even knew the war was going to take place.

As I said before, I think it would be a mistake to stop replenishing the Tomahawk missile supply. But, I don't know if it is going to stop, making this entire argument moot.

I understand the concept of halting production to create new ones, but then you still have a ton of the old ones on carriers and attached to jets, and an aircraft carrier isn't about to dump a load of missiles overboard, put them in the garage or transport them back to shore. I'm just curious. It's a billion dollars of high-explosive long-range weaponry, and you can't just make it "go away."

As of now I'm just curious. What do you do with all those missiles?

Most ammo does not become obsolete easily, many kinds of weapons are created, but they often center upon the same kind of cartridges.

What happens to old equipment?

1. Lethal weaponry is sold to allies or friendly governments.

2. Non-lethal/non-sensitive items can be sold as surplus.

3. It is transferred to law enforcement or other federal/state agencies. (1033 Program). The National Guard and Coast Guard in particular get alot of the old equipment.

4. It is destroyed and sold as scrap. The Americans left a fair bit of their equipment in Afghanistan, around 20%~. Nuclear submarines have their radioactive cores removed and sent for processing at a plant whilst the rest of it gets turned to scrap. I would expect that the same goes for missiles.

5. It is put into reserve/storage. The US has quite a few M60s left around.

6. It is recycled. Often, missiles and equipment can be stripped of parts and some of them will be reused. The MX missile for example.

Of course, all of it happens in phases and gradually, so you won't see Tomahawks just being removed immediately at the same time.

Why does the US need all of this this heavy weaponry anyway? Does it really make sense for a country to destroy others before fixing their problems first? Does the US really need to intervene elsewhere? Does this specific cut even matter?

The majority of the budget goes to 3 areas: Social Security (24%), Medicare/Medicaid (22%), and Defense (19%). SS and M/M are both automatic and cannot be altered by Congress because they're protected by the uncontrollable spending concept. Defense, however, can be altered by Congress. And that's not even the worst part. Congress, mainly Republicans, are letting this continue. If that isn't complete and utter crap, I don't know what is.

1. Because other countries also have heavy weaponry and the U.S. is determined to always one-up them. We're not about to toss our guns down in the interest of peace when Iran is working on splitting the atom and NK is testing missiles and both of them hate America.