View Single Post
Old 12-12-2012, 03:14 PM   #29
Ring of Famer

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,828


Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
Fed also you need to realize that 10 yrs ago China didn't have their own advanced fighter being built or an aircraft carrier development program.
We were running more carriers (which were a lot more costly per unit to run) in the 90's than we are now with hundreds of billions less expenditures.

So, what is the extra $350bn/yr for?

They are spending by some accounts 10 times more on the military then they report. Don't think for a second they can't catch us in another 10 yrs.
You toss this claim around all the time and never provide even a single bit of support. Anyone can just make sh*t up.

China right now is dumping massive amounts of cash into infrastructure and manufacturing. That is what they are currently beating us in, badly.

You know tools what won WWII? It wasn't the tanks, ships and airplanes that we had when the war started. It was the industrial might needed to outbuild the other guys. Take a look at the pacific. We had 3 carriers in 1941, and over 100 by 1945.

It was the same story on the western front. The allies won in large part due to superior industrial capacity (in particular the U.S. and Russia which were each able to out produce The Axis powers).

And of course, the world changes. What currently dominates the battlefield won't be what dominates in the future. We seem to re-learn that painful lesson every time we go to war.

What does all that mean? If we want to safeguard ourselves, we need to be focusing on the industrial foundation that will be needed to build the tools we will need to fight in any major conflict.

The only thing you've said that is anywhere in the realm of smart is that we certainly can't stop building carriers and other things, lest we lose the knowledge and ability to do so. But again, we're back to the same question I've posed many times before: What has an extra $350bn/yr in military spending done for us?
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote