IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 2020 elections , joe biden , Kamala Harris

Reply
Old Today, 11:28 AM   #3161
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 50,527
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
I'd more than that, that someone somewhere already has.

I think is was Wilson that started that tradition. Presidents are required to report on the state of the Union, it started as mostly a written report.

And we are obligated by treaty to defend all but about four of those 13, mostly from two of those 13.

Personally, I don't disagree, we spend too much on the military, but what happens if we stop? I think the results of that will be terrible unless some other at least equally responsible actors step up. Europe or the Asian democracies need to before we can realistically pull back with out some fairly dire consequences.

What i want to know is where exactly do we make the cuts?
Sorry, but I still feel a lot of this is driven by a dislike of the military based on ideological grounds.
I also think a lot of htem know nothing about modern military and defense strategy.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 11:32 AM   #3162
Paul2
Philosopher
 
Paul2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,667
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
What i want to know is where exactly do we make the cuts?
Sorry, but I still feel a lot of this is driven by a dislike of the military based on ideological grounds.
I also think a lot of htem know nothing about modern military and defense strategy.
Here's one proposal. It's not huge cuts.
__________________
It's nice to be nice to the nice.

Aristotle, so far as I know, was the first man to proclaim explicitly that man is a rational animal. His reason for this view was one which does not now seem very impressive: it was, that some people can do sums. - Bertrand Russell
Paul2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 11:51 AM   #3163
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 50,527
Originally Posted by Paul2 View Post
Here's one proposal. It's not huge cuts.
Excellent article.
I am very skeptical about the need to upgrade our Nuclear Arsenal. It.s not like you need a nuke to be superaccurate......
The F 35 i have not made up my mind on. It has had a lot of problems, but our current strike fighter fleet is simply wearing out and is going to have to be replaced. Don't know if back to square one is the most economical move.
And some troubled programs do have good endings. The Osprey had more of it's share of problems, but they seemed to have been finally fixed, and it's working like it was supposed to..and the services all love it. And, once again it was a case that the heavy helicopter fleet was simply wearing out and needed to be replaced.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 11:55 AM   #3164
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 92,046
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Sorry, but I still feel a lot of this is driven by a dislike of the military based on ideological grounds.
Your feelings on the matter are irrelevant, as you well know.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:59 PM   #3165
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 32,680
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
If you want to argue the military is overfunded, OK, but question is how strong a Military sould the US have? IMHO, given the state of the world, we need a pretty damn strong one. if we can have that for less money, I am all for that.
Does it have to be one strong enough to take on all the rest of the worlds armies at once?
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:56 PM   #3166
dirtywick
Illuminator
 
dirtywick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,315
I guess, but with the way wars are actually being fought, when's the last time the US got into an air battle, or a naval battle, or a tank battle? There's an awful lot of equipment that doesn't really do anything, and if that stuff exists solely as a deterrent, they already have better ones. I think it could be stronger, cheaper, and more practical.
dirtywick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 08:49 PM   #3167
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 7,574
Originally Posted by dirtywick View Post
I guess, but with the way wars are actually being fought, when's the last time the US got into an air battle, or a naval battle, or a tank battle? There's an awful lot of equipment that doesn't really do anything, and if that stuff exists solely as a deterrent, they already have better ones. I think it could be stronger, cheaper, and more practical.
The cyber defense front, in particular, is much more urgent to focus on than building more tanks, at last check. Ships and Air have at least some notable general value. Tanks... if Russia invades Ukraine and we actually provide some direct help, then maybe there would be some use for them in modern times?
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; Today at 08:55 PM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:38 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.