[citation][nom]nottheking[/nom]However, one must recognize that of the vast array of tools at the military's disposal, hardly all of them are suitable for a given task; in fact, no tool is really suitable for all tasks, and there is no task where all tools are suitable for it.
Hence, it's logical to find which tools are not needed for any of the tasks that the military will be facing now or in the future. The vast majority of the current arsenal was designed for the task of deterring and/or halting a massive army and air force that would sweep into Europe from the East. Since the USSR collapsed in 1991, this is a task that the military won't have to face. Hence, the tools designed to fight the USSR lack a purpose; it is best to re-direct resources (including funds) from there to other tools best suited for the current and future tasks on hand; the USSR is by no means remotely similar an adversary to terrorist organizations.
Likewise, cutting of overall military spending could hence be done without impairing America's ability to fight terrorism whatsoever, provided all the cuts were done to programs that had no role in the War on Terrorism, like, say, the MKV or the F-22. It's like overall welfare; if social welfare payment programs are cut, that doesn't pose a threat to Social Security.[/citation]
I don't totally disagree with you. But in knowing what I know, the MKV was a project with defense in mind. It was designed to counter multiple ballistic missile threats..which is always a good thing.
[citation][nom]nottheking[/nom]From my guess, he's trying to make a half-hearted stab toward balancing the budget in the future, or at least, to attempt to curb these massive budget deficits. Whether Mr. President follows through with them in the future remains to be seen; I must say I wasn't pleased with his proposed budget projecting that deficits would stop shrinking after a few years, rather than keep on shrinking until vanishing and becoming budget surpluses like we had happen in the late 90s
As for nuclear weapons, there's a huge difference between making a nuclear bomb, and making a nuclear missile. A government's initial nuclear weapons will be massive; "Little Boy" weighed almost 4.5 tons, and "Fat Man" weighed 5.1. These masses are simply too high to place on a missile, and too weak the be sure that, once the high error level of crude ballistic missiles is taken into account, that their blast radius will even graze the intended target, making such ideas highly useless.
Hence, for now, by and far the best way of preventing nuclear threats to America is to make sure no threatening entities get the technology to threaten American in the first place. While a suicide bomber safely some distance from you with you shooting at them isn't a huge threat, a suicide bomber without any bombs is no threat at all.[/citation]
Yes, it is difficult to create a nuclear missile. The biggest hurtle in doing so lays with creating the nuclear device itself. Once you have that, the rest isn't to far behind. So yes, the key is prevention. But you cant prevent without some sort of action, be it diplomatic or military.
Lets not count out the use of dirty bombs.
[citation][nom]nottheking[/nom]Actually, you contradict yourself there. As you are a self-admitted military person, that would indicate that to you, protecting America is a very big priority, if not #1. Hence, if you truly believed in Bush, then yes, you were a fan of him. [/citation]
Actually no, I don't. I'm having a big issue with trusting President Obama. I see many socialist tendencies in him. Many of those have failed in other countries.
Lets not confuse duty over personal beliefs. My duty is to protect the United States of America and its citizens. My duty is to follow the Presidents orders. But that doesn't mean I have to believe the President will always do the right thing. And no, I wasn't a fan of Bush, just like today I'm not a fan of Obama. But I still have my duties.
[citation][nom]nottheking[/nom] Those two don't exactly go together too well. Americans (of which I'm one of the few who, through years of study, understands what it means, AND is actually proud of it, rather than a pseudo-American illusion like most are) are supposed to be very open to other people. One of the core principles is the idea that, in time, liberty can be brought to all people. It's a true aspect of American pride to see millions of people from all walks of life look at America, and wish to be Americans themselves, from the countless refugees of the world's conflicts, to those of Latin America, to even our more prominent immigrants; (like Arnold Schwartzenegger) they all have a desire to be Americans, too. And it is selfish, un-patriotic, and un-American to think anything other than that it is possible for everyone in the world to gain the same liberty, to think that there's not enough to share.[/citation]
Anyone can cut/paste words you have said and make them look like they contradict. I could have done that with you on many occasions here. But since you put my comment out of context, I have to put it back into context. Simply put "If you are an American (and I hope you are not)..." was in response to someone who would put American lives at risk to prove a point that they would, as he said "take one for the team". My hope was that he wasn't an American. To think you would put your countryman at risk by lowering your defenses is un-American.
The United States of America is the most diverse country I know.. And I'm very proud to be a part of that. My family moved here from African and became citizens over 70 years ago. My grandfather spent his whole life trying to get his family out of Africa. He spent his remaining years teaching us the differences. Needless to say, the United States of America isn't perfect, but its the best country on this planet.
Welcome to the USA. The USA isn't pefect and it WAS the best country on the planet. I don't know what is, but theres a lot of problems here. And to be an "American" is to admit problems. Not blindly waving the flag like a moron.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram