Wow. Washington has done it again! The Obama Posse is really startin' to tick me off. They have cut spending towards the f-22 raptor, the most advanced jetfighter so far, that we own. There reason is that they want to buy things for stuff the troops can actually see. Can they see multiple mountains and underground bases? No. Can the travel to about Mach 2? no.
first it's a few, then a wee bit more, then a kinda ok, then almost all, then all
We could cut military production entirely and still be better equipped than those two countries combined twenty years from now.
think about it this way, would you rather be way more technological advanced than your enemies, or be equal?
also look how much military knowledge was learned from 1800-1900 and 1900-2000; if we take away 1/5 of that growth at this escalating rate we'd be set back
Tibet was a peace-loving nation that didn't see the need for military advances and look how it turned out for them
first it's a few, then a wee bit more, then a kinda ok, then almost all, then all
The fact of the matter is that F-22s are just far too expensive. In addition to this, I would argue that the F-35 more than makes up for their loss, and is possibly a superior aircraft.
Tibet was a peace-loving nation that didn't see the need for military advances and look how it turned out for them
Drawing parallels between the US and Tibet is pointless, as the circumstances of the invasion of Tibet were so different. The US is not at risk of a land invasion. Nukes aside, the only way the US would be in danger would be if another nation had bigger and better equipped carrier groups at their disposal, which simply is not going to happen in the near future.
The fact of the matter is that F-22s are just far too expensive. In addition to this, I would argue that the F-35 more than makes up for their loss, and is possibly a superior aircraft.
true the lightening and raptor do each others' jobs pretty well but the raptor looks more badass
Drawing parallels between the US and Tibet is pointless, as the circumstances of the invasion of Tibet were so different. The US is not at risk of a land invasion
1st of all nothing is parallel, there is always a difference
i'm meaning the same principles, i watched a video "7 years in tibet" past 3 days in school...the only way you can say that it was different was the dhali lhama was exiled in 1959
the reason is because it hasn't happened yet
it can be a land invasion from hudson bay and from centeral america
there can be a traitor to the america amist in the government
following defense cuts for 20 years as you said would put us at the same technology as Tibet was against China
now there is a difference in numbers but you ever heard of alliances?
true the lightening and raptor do each others' jobs pretty well but the raptor looks more ******
Yea it definitely wins the 'most badass looking aircraft 09' award. Considering its performance in various training exercises, (241 kills without a single loss), and the stealth technology it incorporates, how many does the USAF really need for the US to be safe?
I would also like to add that the F-35, although not designed for air superiority, would be able to fulfill that role and many more. It is a much more economically viable aircraft not only because of its price but its versatility.
it can be a land invasion from hudson bay and from centeral america
To the North you have Canada, an ally of the US. To the South various states that do not have forces capable of being a serious threat to the military of the US. The only viable way the US would be invaded by land would be for troop ships and carriers to travel half way round the world and deploy. To do that they would have to, either do so undetected, which would be impossible with all the satellite data the US has access to, or to destroy these carrier groups, which would also be nigh on impossible.
Obama also has cut funding for nuculer weapons. What an idiot! If the U.S. is going to stay a world power, we need the most advanced military in the world and the most nukes!
Wow, I thought this group at AG was a bit less militaristic. I love how people preach peace, but then have no problem justifying huge military spending.
What an idiot! If the U.S. is going to stay a world power, we need the most advanced military in the world and the most nukes!
We have enough nukes to destroy mankind eight times. WHY in God's name do we need more nukes?
To the North you have Canada, an ally of the US. To the South various states that do not have forces capable of being a serious threat to the military of the US. The only viable way the US would be invaded by land would be for troop ships and carriers to travel half way round the world and deploy. To do that they would have to, either do so undetected, which would be impossible with all the satellite data the US has access to, or to destroy these carrier groups, which would also be nigh on impossible.
I know "The Guy" i suppose you'd call him that designs the aircraft carriers. It took about 11 yrs for him to design and build the USS George Bush. When i'd ask about the details he'd say "i'm not allowed to say much but there's nothing out there today that can take an aircraft carrier no one else has the technology we have" he said that a lot.
The raptor is a generation 5 plane, there's no other country with a gen 5 plane. Its the most advanced aircraft its made to be the baddest dogfighter out there. Obviously it costs a shit load. Spending cuts doesn't mean there's not gonna be any raptors it just means we're not getting as many. During some training exercise one f-22 took out 12 or 15 other aircraft without a scratch so even one is more than enough.
@cowdude: Doesn't matter. We still have a missile defense system that can take out any missile sent at us. Face it, Obama's cuts are not a bad thing. ------------ @27153: You must have no idea about the extent of the US military. We have many more and more advanced nukes than any other country. WE DON'T NEED ANY MOAR EFFING NUKES! That is, unless we use them all on the Middle East and Korea.
Doesn't matter. We still have a missile defense system that can take out any missile sent at us. Face it, Obama's cuts are not a bad thing.
Well, Obama is only cutting spending militarily, which is odd when we're still in a war. Advancing our strenghs militarily will ensure our protection. I find my life far more important than health care (not to be rude, though).
That is, unless we use them all on the Middle East and Korea.
Well, Obama is only cutting spending militarily, which is odd when we're still in a war. Advancing our strenghs militarily will ensure our protection.
Obama isn't actually cutting that much spending, just re-allocating which aspects of the military he spends the $ on. Th eemphasis is shifting away from high tech submarines and jets to ground troops and their equipment.
Obama isn't actually cutting that much spending, just re-allocating which aspects of the military he spends the $ on. Th eemphasis is shifting away from high tech submarines and jets to ground troops and their equipment.
Yeah, just I'm a little weary when people say "cut spending on military" when we're in a war. Might not have a negative effect since it's not actually infrantry, and if not, congratulations Obama, good call. If so... we'll see.
I think it's probably a good idea at the moment. The economy isn't doing well, and high tech aircraft aren't what they need more of at the moment. I don't disagree with a higher military spending budget - military science applied to everyday life can bring us some incredible innovations; case in point, the internet.
I generally tend to support high-tech research & science in all forms, but if you have to make cuts somewhere, I think Obama is making the right calls.
