Are we spending too much money on the military?
Posted 39 weeks 4 days ago byIt appears that some generals want to keep buying big, expensive equipment that might have little use in the wars we actually fight:
On Feb. 13, according to today's issue of Aerospace Daily & Defense Report, Gen. Bruce Carlson, chief of the Air Force's materiel command, told a group of reporters, "We think that [187 planes] is the wrong number" and that the Air Force would find some way to build 380 before the program's done. He joked that 380 is a "compromise," since the original plan calls for 381.
Two things should be noted about this claim. First, by the Pentagon's own measure, the Chinese military has a long way to go before it constitutes a threat to U.S. forces. Second, even if it does become a threat, it's not at all clear that the F-22 would be the best weapon to deal with it.
It's fair to say this kind of stuff really pisses off the guys who do counterinsurgency, which relies less on multimillion dollar combat systems and more on good, smart, well-trained people.
You could argue that maybe we're spending too much on our defense. Or you could argue that the military, in time of war, is worth every penny. But if that's really, really true, wouldn't we be paying for it instead of running gargantuan deficits? We can't avoid making choices forever.














Thoughts
If You Build It, It Must Be Used
Submitted on February 15th, 2008 by Chuck_JohnsonThat's my position on military expenditures.
Of course the reason the military wants to build more airplanes is the coming war with China.
Let's examine why that war might come about.
Maybe it has to do with us pouring millions into defending Taiwan, which uses increasingly bellicose language to antagonize China, without beefing up its own security.
Maybe it's time we stopped being the world's policeman.
F-22: The easy one
Submitted on February 15th, 2008 by BenI'd rather see the Pentagon rebuild the Navy than dump billions more into a plane of dubious necessity. Still, I'm not sure that just because the plane has never been used means it's useless.
As for expense: "380 planes x 300 million = 114,000,000,000 (that's 114 billion or TWICE the annual budget for the department of education)"
Well, that's an easy fix: Just eliminate the Education Department. At least the Constitution enumerates providing for the common defense. The Education Department just gets in the way.
Heard a story the other day
Submitted on February 15th, 2008 by AdamHeard a story the other day about the F-22 fighter jet -- the most expensive in history at $300 MILLION per.
It has been in development for 25 years and has never flown a single sortie. And Lockheed Martin is still making them for the U.S. despite their lack of use.
We just signed a deal for 380 more of these planes... despite them never having been used.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarn...
www.f22fighter.com/
380 planes x 300 million = 114,000,000,000 (that's 114 billion or TWICE the annual budget for the department of education)