Spreading your resources awfully thin...
- Thread starter Concordia
- Start date
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
This money comes from individual people - how should I look at it, if not from their perspective? And again, just because they're already spending insane amounts, doesn't mean that the "slight" difference of a few billion is irrelevant, especially in a country that has dangerously high debt levels and (with the brief exception of a year or two during the Clinton era) a constant budget deficit.
Also, last I heard, American soldiers are quite underpaid. If they have a family, their partner also needs to work in order to have enough to make a living. If you so desperately want to spend money on the army, spend it on them.
I'm afraid I cannot. The gift of clairvoyance carries with it very specific responsibilities
.I also explained why that argument is wrong. Doesn't matter, I suppose, you're free to ignore that. But I'm curious - if the US government decided to set up multi-trillion defences against extra-terrestrials, would you support that? After all, to ignore the potential extra-terrestrial threat, that is surely dangerously complacent...
Indeed. One $50 million fighter plane costs more than ONE THOUSAND college educations. Would you rather have the one plane, or the thousand college-educated people?
Indeed. The USA has the world's biggest military budget, yet it pays its enlisted ranks less compared to its per-capita GDP than nearly any other developed nation. I am inclined to believe that a large amount of the military budget--maybe as much as a third of it--is going to line some contractor's pockets. You don't REALLY think they spend eighty bucks for a hammer or a toilet seat, do you?
Yes. The cost of any program must be weighed against the possibility that it will ever be needed. The USA has NEVER needed to use even eighty percent of its full strength since World War Two. It is quite unlikely that the USA would ever need to use all of the strength that it has unless it were to find itself in a WWII scale war with no major allies.
*sighs* ...why do I feel as if i'm trying to explain quantum physics to a goat...
(see - http://bbspot.com/News/2000/8/hour_lost.html - to get the reference)
I am in NO way supportive of wastefull spending, if it were my desicion we wouldnt have bought the F-22 OR the F-23... they're both ludicrously over-priced, without a simlarly ludicrous increase in performance over current generation fighters. My one and only single point, is that BETWEEN the F-22 & the F-23 ONLY, in my opinion , we would have been better off with the F-23, and I have explained why more then once so I wont do it again. I have listened to your arguemnts against my opinion and most of your points I had already privately considered, so I simply havent found your arguements persuasive, neither appearently have you found mine, but thats no reason to get rude about it, as so many people on the board tend to do.
I will respond to 2 other points tho:
Orig by Quarto:
"I also explained why that argument is wrong. Doesn't matter, I suppose, you're free to ignore that. But I'm curious - if the US government decided to set up multi-trillion defences against extra-terrestrials, would you support that? After all, to ignore the potential extra-terrestrial threat, that is surely dangerously complacent..."
Incorrect, you have only explained why YOU BELIEVE my arguement is wrong. Perhaps im just strange this way, but when people state their opinions as facts, I find it insulting.
Orig by Ijuin:
"Yes. The cost of any program must be weighed against the possibility that it will ever be needed. The USA has NEVER needed to use even eighty percent of its full strength since World War Two. It is quite unlikely that the USA would ever need to use all of the strength that it has unless it were to find itself in a WWII scale war with no major allies."
Or in a number of small wars simultainoulsy... such as say in Afghanistan, and Iraq, and North Korea, and Iran, to just pull a few names out of a hat...
(see - http://bbspot.com/News/2000/8/hour_lost.html - to get the reference)
I am in NO way supportive of wastefull spending, if it were my desicion we wouldnt have bought the F-22 OR the F-23... they're both ludicrously over-priced, without a simlarly ludicrous increase in performance over current generation fighters. My one and only single point, is that BETWEEN the F-22 & the F-23 ONLY, in my opinion , we would have been better off with the F-23, and I have explained why more then once so I wont do it again. I have listened to your arguemnts against my opinion and most of your points I had already privately considered, so I simply havent found your arguements persuasive, neither appearently have you found mine, but thats no reason to get rude about it, as so many people on the board tend to do.
I will respond to 2 other points tho:
Orig by Quarto:
"I also explained why that argument is wrong. Doesn't matter, I suppose, you're free to ignore that. But I'm curious - if the US government decided to set up multi-trillion defences against extra-terrestrials, would you support that? After all, to ignore the potential extra-terrestrial threat, that is surely dangerously complacent..."
Incorrect, you have only explained why YOU BELIEVE my arguement is wrong. Perhaps im just strange this way, but when people state their opinions as facts, I find it insulting.
Orig by Ijuin:
"Yes. The cost of any program must be weighed against the possibility that it will ever be needed. The USA has NEVER needed to use even eighty percent of its full strength since World War Two. It is quite unlikely that the USA would ever need to use all of the strength that it has unless it were to find itself in a WWII scale war with no major allies."
Or in a number of small wars simultainoulsy... such as say in Afghanistan, and Iraq, and North Korea, and Iran, to just pull a few names out of a hat...
i'd take the plane, and yes, i am in college....
being that according to ur math, it'd cost $50,000 per education, and u go on to complain about greedy contractors...
i say, stupid greedy socialist college proffessors
can u really blaim the military for having to use unionized contractors? the money isn't going to the contractors, it's going to over paid union lackies.
short list of possibly future US opponents;
North Korea(million man army, strong airforce)
China(bigger airforce than US)
*caugh*france(pure joke)
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
Funny, that's how I feel, too
.Well, then you know how I feel. I'm sorry if I made it look like I was stating facts rather than an opinion (even though it is an accurate opinion
), but look at your response - basically, all you've said is "no, you're wrong". I explained my reasoning and why I think you're wrong. You didn't bother to return the favour.Congratulations, you've just proven my point. This idea of four wars simultaneously, it's not serious. It's a scary phantom that Pentagon budget planners trot out every year when the time comes to request more money. Look at what's actually happening in the world. Afghanistan and Iraq were handled sequentially, with a small force, virtually no casualties, and no jetfighter losses whatsoever.Or in a number of small wars simultainoulsy... such as say in Afghanistan, and Iraq, and North Korea, and Iran, to just pull a few names out of a hat...
Ah, and North Korea and Iran. The good old phantoms of evil that have been apparently scaring the Pentagon for decades. I've seen videos dating back to 1994 of the RAND Corporation think-tank claiming that a simultaneous attack from both countries will happen sooner or later. But this is pure bullshit. It's like a really, really, really bad action movie plot. It is missing the most important element, an element without which any movie falls flat. What is this element, you ask? Motive. If the bad guys don't have a motive, the story won't work. And that's the way it is here.
Please, prove me wrong. Tell me why and how the US could find itself in a situation where they'll regret choosing the F-22 over the F-23.
Orig by Quarto:
"Well, then you know how I feel. I'm sorry if I made it look like I was stating facts rather than an opinion (even though it is an accurate opinion ), but look at your response - basically, all you've said is "no, you're wrong". I explained my reasoning and why I think you're wrong. You didn't bother to return the favour."
It's only accurate in your own mind my friend... in any case I have indeed explained my opinions and objections to your arguements, perhaps you simply havent read them clearly... now perhaps I didnt go into as much detail with my arguements as you have, but thats simply because im too lazy and dont care enough about this debate to bother with extensive detailed research, however I am fairly knowladgeable about aircraft and the military in general so I contend that my basic arguements still stand, weither or not you choose to agree with them.
Orig by Quarto:
"Congratulations, you've just proven my point. This idea of four wars simultaneously, it's not serious. It's a scary phantom that Pentagon budget planners trot out every year when the time comes to request more money. Look at what's actually happening in the world. Afghanistan and Iraq were handled sequentially, with a small force, virtually no casualties, and no jetfighter losses whatsoever."
Perhaps its not likely... but it is feasible, especally to us non-clairvoiant types... After all, on Sept 10th 2001, would anyone have considered the idea that terrorists might hijack MULTIPLE airliners simultaneously and fly them into skyscrapers and government buildings, as being a serious threat?
"Well, then you know how I feel. I'm sorry if I made it look like I was stating facts rather than an opinion (even though it is an accurate opinion ), but look at your response - basically, all you've said is "no, you're wrong". I explained my reasoning and why I think you're wrong. You didn't bother to return the favour."
It's only accurate in your own mind my friend... in any case I have indeed explained my opinions and objections to your arguements, perhaps you simply havent read them clearly... now perhaps I didnt go into as much detail with my arguements as you have, but thats simply because im too lazy and dont care enough about this debate to bother with extensive detailed research, however I am fairly knowladgeable about aircraft and the military in general so I contend that my basic arguements still stand, weither or not you choose to agree with them.
Orig by Quarto:
"Congratulations, you've just proven my point. This idea of four wars simultaneously, it's not serious. It's a scary phantom that Pentagon budget planners trot out every year when the time comes to request more money. Look at what's actually happening in the world. Afghanistan and Iraq were handled sequentially, with a small force, virtually no casualties, and no jetfighter losses whatsoever."
Perhaps its not likely... but it is feasible, especally to us non-clairvoiant types...
After all, on Sept 10th 2001, would anyone have considered the idea that terrorists might hijack MULTIPLE airliners simultaneously and fly them into skyscrapers and government buildings, as being a serious threat?
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
Yeah, I guess we're probably both tired of discussing this. What can I say? I could explain to you yet again why a major war will not happen in the F-23s service lifetime, but all I'd get would be another "it could happen, you never know" story. And sure, it could. But aliens could invade tomorrow too. We're not worried. Why? Because it's not likely to happen. Neither is this major war of yours.
Besides, for me to claim that the F-23 will never be needed, that might seem like phony clairvoyance. For the Air Force to claim it, however, which they did by choosing the F-22 instead - that's a different story. They know what they're doing. You, whatever else you may be good at, are not qualified to do their job. You are the one who's pretending to be clairvoyant here by second-guessing a decision made by people who - unlike you - are actually qualified to judge. If you don't agree with my opinions, then at least believe theirs.
Besides, for me to claim that the F-23 will never be needed, that might seem like phony clairvoyance. For the Air Force to claim it, however, which they did by choosing the F-22 instead - that's a different story. They know what they're doing. You, whatever else you may be good at, are not qualified to do their job. You are the one who's pretending to be clairvoyant here by second-guessing a decision made by people who - unlike you - are actually qualified to judge. If you don't agree with my opinions, then at least believe theirs.
Haesslich
Spaceman
Originally posted by twiligh81
Orig by Quarto:
"Congratulations, you've just proven my point. This idea of four wars simultaneously, it's not serious. It's a scary phantom that Pentagon budget planners trot out every year when the time comes to request more money. Look at what's actually happening in the world. Afghanistan and Iraq were handled sequentially, with a small force, virtually no casualties, and no jetfighter losses whatsoever."
Perhaps its not likely... but it is feasible, especally to us non-clairvoiant types...
On that part, a report once issued in 1999 stated that there was a possibility terrorists might well do that...
http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Sociology-Psychology of Terrorism.htm
And back in the early 1970s, there was a similar plan to crash airliners, conceived by the Palestinians... though it didn't go off, due to some screwups on their side.
It's not a horribly new idea.
Orig by Quarto:
"Besides, for me to claim that the F-23 will never be needed, that might seem like phony clairvoyance. For the Air Force to claim it, however, which they did by choosing the F-22 instead - that's a different story. They know what they're doing. You, whatever else you may be good at, are not qualified to do their job. You are the one who's pretending to be clairvoyant here by second-guessing a decision made by people who - unlike you - are actually qualified to judge. If you don't agree with my opinions, then at least believe theirs."
Sence when has the government and millitary ever proven they actually know what they're doing?
And in any case, as an american citizen it is my right and my duty to always question the governments decicions.
Orig by Haesslich:
"On that part, a report once issued in 1999 stated that there was a possibility terrorists might well do that...
http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Sociology...20Terrorism.htm
And back in the early 1970s, there was a similar plan to crash airliners, conceived by the Palestinians... though it didn't go off, due to some screwups on their side.
It's not a horribly new idea."
And such concerns were ignored by most people because they werent considered likely . Quarto would have us make the same mistake and ignore pontentaly serious concerns, simply because they arent likely. 'Burn me once shame on you, burn me twice shame on me.'
"Besides, for me to claim that the F-23 will never be needed, that might seem like phony clairvoyance. For the Air Force to claim it, however, which they did by choosing the F-22 instead - that's a different story. They know what they're doing. You, whatever else you may be good at, are not qualified to do their job. You are the one who's pretending to be clairvoyant here by second-guessing a decision made by people who - unlike you - are actually qualified to judge. If you don't agree with my opinions, then at least believe theirs."
Sence when has the government and millitary ever proven they actually know what they're doing?
And in any case, as an american citizen it is my right and my duty to always question the governments decicions.
Orig by Haesslich:
"On that part, a report once issued in 1999 stated that there was a possibility terrorists might well do that...
http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Sociology...20Terrorism.htm
And back in the early 1970s, there was a similar plan to crash airliners, conceived by the Palestinians... though it didn't go off, due to some screwups on their side.
It's not a horribly new idea."
And such concerns were ignored by most people because they werent considered likely . Quarto would have us make the same mistake and ignore pontentaly serious concerns, simply because they arent likely. 'Burn me once shame on you, burn me twice shame on me.'
Haesslich
Spaceman
Originally posted by twiligh81
Orig by Quarto:
"Besides, for me to claim that the F-23 will never be needed, that might seem like phony clairvoyance. For the Air Force to claim it, however, which they did by choosing the F-22 instead - that's a different story. They know what they're doing. You, whatever else you may be good at, are not qualified to do their job. You are the one who's pretending to be clairvoyant here by second-guessing a decision made by people who - unlike you - are actually qualified to judge. If you don't agree with my opinions, then at least believe theirs."
Sence when has the government and millitary ever proven they actually know what they're doing?
And in any case, as an american citizen it is my right and my duty to always question the governments decicions.
Orig by Haesslich:
"On that part, a report once issued in 1999 stated that there was a possibility terrorists might well do that...
http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Sociology...20Terrorism.htm
And back in the early 1970s, there was a similar plan to crash airliners, conceived by the Palestinians... though it didn't go off, due to some screwups on their side.
It's not a horribly new idea."
And such concerns were ignored by most people because they werent considered likely . Quarto would have us make the same mistake and ignore pontentaly serious concerns, simply because they arent likely. 'Burn me once shame on you, burn me twice shame on me.'
Re: #1: It's your right to question. Just don't assume you necessarily know more than they do - even if it seems that, half the time, they are boneheaded morons who only got their jobs because they married or slept with the right people on the way up.
re: #2: You can blame your own government for that... they're the ones who left those reports alone. But it isn't a new idea - one reason why El Al, the Israeli airline, always kept armed guards on board their planes... so they wouldn't have THEIR jets hijacked (again) to crash into the Knesset or the reactor at Dimona.
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
Sure, but the F-22 is more fun to play
.Absolutely. Doesn't make you right, though
.Eh, you're completely wrong. The thing about the Sept. 11th attack is that it wasn't likely... it was completely certain. I wouldn't have you ignore something like that, because the likelihood that it would happen was 100%. Nobody knew how or when, but all the experts knew it was coming. Even an ordinary person could figure that out. There was a steady escalation of attacks against American targets abroad - and where could such an escalation possibly lead? For the government, it was even more obvious - they had thousands of leads in the FBI and the CIA, numerous warnings from intelligence agencies of allied countries, and, best of all, they had a warning from a Taliban government member, who (worried about American retaliation if such an attack succeded) tried to warn them through the American embassy in Pakistan.
Nothing comes out of nowhere in international politics. If something is unlikely to happen, it really is unlikely to happen.
