(03-16-2017 09:15 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  We spend more on defense than the next 7 countries combined.
Make do.

We need a complete rethink on defense. The reason we spend more than the next ten or whatever countries in the world on defense is that we made a deal with the rest of the West after WWII. We would take on the job of defending their trade routes with their colonies and former colonies, in exchange for their agreeing to follow our lead in fighting the Cold War. In accordance with that agreement, we're still providing troops and equipment to defend western Europe from a Russian invasion, when the greater threats to us are probably cyber warfare, terrorism, and rogue nations. We are over defended against historic threats and under defended against likely future threats. We can't keep the historic role and deal with likely future threats without spending more. The question is whether we 1) continue to lead the way with our allies, or 2) ask those allies to pick up more of the load of defending themselves so we can focus on the threats to us, or 3) ignore the threats and leave ourselves unprepared and vulnerable. I choose 2, but when Trump proposes that, he gets accused of being a puppet of Putin. What do you see as the answer?

I would be more inclined to # 2 if the sanctions on Putin stayed in effect. I also feel a need to punish Putin for his role in tampering with our elections. I know you guys easily dismiss it but they were real. They were substantial. It's like he is being rewarded for his transgressions.

(03-17-2017 06:55 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I would be more inclined to # 2 if the sanctions on Putin stayed in effect. I also feel a need to punish Putin for his role in tampering with our elections. I know you guys easily dismiss it but they were real. They were substantial. It's like he is being rewarded for his transgressions.

You probably can't do #2 and leave the sanctions in place.

(03-17-2017 06:55 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I would be more inclined to # 2 if the sanctions on Putin stayed in effect. I also feel a need to punish Putin for his role in tampering with our elections. I know you guys easily dismiss it but they were real. They were substantial. It's like he is being rewarded for his transgressions.

So what proof of any of that is there? Maybe "they", whoever they are, DID phish the idiots at #DNC, what evidence is there that it influenced the election? It's easily dismissed cause it's nonsense.

The defense contractors are price gauging the tax payers so that the CEOs and the board of those companies line their pockets. We also give weapons to other countries that wound up that country turned around and used it on us. (cough, Iraq and Saddam Hussein, cough)

We gave Saddam the weapons to face Iran, and it was a big mistake. We also have Afghanistan rebels weapons to fight the Soviet Union, and some of those rebels became Osama bin Laden and his men which was another mistake.

(03-18-2017 04:15 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  The defense contractors are price gauging the tax payers so that the CEOs and the board of those companies line their pockets. We also give weapons to other countries that wound up that country turned around and used it on us. (cough, Iraq and Saddam Hussein, cough)
We gave Saddam the weapons to face Iran, and it was a big mistake. We also have Afghanistan rebels weapons to fight the Soviet Union, and some of those rebels became Osama bin Laden and his men which was another mistake.

The bonuses and other compensation paid to defense contractor CEOs are but a tiny drop in a very large bucket, compared to the total cost of procurement. Corporate profits of defense contractors are a slightly larger drop, but still on the order of a drop in a bucket. The real culprit is the way the military buys things. That $100 hammer or toilet seat actually costs the manufacturer about $95 to make, because of the costs imposed by the military pricurenent system. You build something for the military and you're probably going to have to redesign it about 400 times as each layer of the Pentagon bureaucracy chimes in with its ideas about what needs to be changed.

The old saw that an elephant is a mouse designed by a committee applies absolutely to military procurement. We need more of a design to cost mentality.