Reply With Quote
can't kill it, corporate welfare and creates jobs. but it's not SOCIALISM!
can't kill it, corporate welfare and creates jobs. but it's not SOCIALISM!
Yet we ended the F-22
The latest up is that if the fuel is too warm it won't fly. They are painting fuel trucks white (nice targets) and building shade awnings to park them under.
Yet another reason the biggest threat to our country is going bankrupt and not Russia's overrated airforce.
Those 5 prototype PAK-FAs really scare the US and their almost 200 F-22s
the reason Congress refuses to kill MIC boondoggles that even DoD doesn't want is that killing a boondoggle could kill jobs in a Congessman's district or state.
Their planes were frying like eggs in the desert sun in Syria. Even got shot down by a Turkey fighter.Those 5 prototype PAK-FAs really scare the US and their almost 200 F-22s
Oh, and EVERYTHING scares us.Those 5 prototype PAK-FAs really scare the US and their almost 200 F-22s
Ah, that was against our F-15s. Those fighters were lightyears ahead of their times, can't blame Russians for taking this long to catch up.
Now the USSR is gone, USA shouldn't worry - it would take Russia at least 10 years to make 100 PAK-FAs
ridiculous wasteful spending
no one cares about like this then when we ins ute social reform that's half the cost everyone loses their minds
We are decades ahead of other countries.......so tell me again....who are we building these planes to fight against?
This will probably be an unpopular opinion here, but I'm very much for this kind of government spending. These kind of expensive military projects in the past have done great things for us. The computer as we know it came from military spending in codebreaking and in solving differential equations for artillery trajectories. The interstate highway system was built for transporting weapons and military vehicles across the country in anticipation of war with the USSR, but it has benefited us greatly. The space program cost gave us satellite television, GPS, and has taught us enormous amounts about our universe's origin. Now we can put telescopes in orbit outside our atmosphere, the atmosphere that filters out almost all light except in the visible, radio, and part of the ultraviolet spectrum, and thus heavily constrains our ability to look into many interesting things, such as star formation (only IR radiation can pass through the dust clouds). DARPA has given us the internet.
This is not the kind of spending I'm against. Much like putting money into science, putting money into developing cutting edge military projects often brings us huge benefits in ways that were never considered initially. The military spending I hate is having us occupying countries all over the world, it's expensive as and encourages our allies to not give a about their own defense. I hate the constant wars that cost a load of money and a lot of lives and give us no positive return. The only war that has ever been good for this country is WWII, which pulled us out of the depression and destroyed the rest of the first world. Everything else has been a disaster for us.
And I think it's critical for us to always stay ahead of the rest of the world when it comes to our military tech. We have an enormous advantage over the rest of the world in that we have two oceans blocking invasion, but I still want every advantage we can get.
It's so we can spread freedom - stfu and pay your taxes.
WW2 made us the greatest country in the history of the planet, tbh. Great post.
Can't we use the money, and aka technological advances....by investing in stuff like alternative energy or fuel cells instead of investing in useless military junk that will get obsolete before it is used?
Think where we would be if we spent that $$$$$ on harvesting the energy of the sun using satellites
deficit-driven (US) government spending is wonderful.
Since 911 the Pentagon has had an open checkbook....
How the Pentagon spent $43 million on a single gas station
More: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...e-gas-station/John Sopko’s team of investigators has uncovered all kinds of wasteful spending in Afghanistan through its work as a U.S. government watchdog. Now the group has uncovered a $43 million gas station, which Sopko calls “gratuitous and extreme”—and possibly criminal.
In a scathing report, Sopko, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, wrote that a similar compressed natural gas station in Pakistan cost $500,000, or about $306,000 at current exchange rates, meaning the Afghanistan station cost 140 times as much.
He wrote that the Pentagon’s program had “several troubling aspects,” including $30 million in overhead costs, and the lack of a feasibility study before the project began...
For the price of zero in service F-35 stealth fighters ($1.72T) you could...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
