So we are building new stealth bombers

[ponderingturtle]

We no longer have to carpet bomb cities because the military had the foresight to spend billions and billions and billions of dollars on "new toys" like laser guidance systems, GPS satellite guidance systems and stealthy weapons platforms.

So what does this do that our other weapons systems does not? That was the big thing that the B52 had that nothing else does is large lift capacity for thing like carpet bombing. So what is the role that this has?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Does it? The 787 cost Boeing $32 billion to develop, that's 11 billion more than this new Stealth bomber, and that was just to build a better flying spam can.

Well much much less once cost overruns get factored in.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yeah how about taking the 4 country which would have the most probability to clash with the US, say china, north korea, russia, iran, sum their military budget and take that as a ceiling ?

I would come to maybe 250 billion at most, being generous (210 billion is about china and russia military budget together).

Funny how the US military is always pretending to be out of date, and yet has always the most recent toys, with no indication that rivals which have at most less than a quarter of the same budget have greater capabilities. That probably comes down to the same type of intelligence lies than 3 post above "but they will shoot down a few of our plane" yeah how many country do not accept anything but 100% survival of their bomber or fighter in a mission ? The US is probably the only one pretending at this point by your own word that mybe some of their bomber might come not come back unscathed. BOOOHOOO.


Just admit you have a military erection for new toys and complete military domination even while you already have it.

It is to reenforce the different value of the personel in different service branches. No one thinks that providing grunts with body armor is needed for a little war, but the thought of losing a single pilot will cause billions to be spent.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't disagree with any of this. My point is that I wish there were more people chanting "infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure"

But it isn't fun to know you have the worlds best infrastructure and education. The worlds best military able to fight any 3 other militaries is so much more fun that that.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think the Iran talk is being a bit overplayed, true. Yes, we wouldn't send B-52s into Iran. We can't, they'd be shot down and we place a very high value on American pilots. That's kinda the point. We aren't replacing the B-52 with something that's exactly like the B-52 because that wouldn't be replacing the B-52. We need something that can do more, not just do better. Well, 'need' is probably too strong. It's time for a craft that can do more. The new craft should be something between the B-52 and the B-2 in terms of role. If successful, the use of the B-2 can be rolled back and if very successful also phased out.

So what is the proposed bomb load?

 

[ponderingturtle]

How does a bomber stop terrorists?

The war in Iraq is the clear answer to this. You need to give them US military personnel who are much more reachable and easier to target. I call it the wall of meat strategy.

 

[McHrozni]

Surprised? Apparently everyone is. The entire program was black and is only now coming to light. Also coming to light is the question: do we really need $80 billion worth of snazzy new stealth bombers?

You need such weapons so you don't need them. Ironic, isn't it?

If the enemy knows you can strike at them at will, in ways they cannot respond to, they'll be much more inclined to back down well before you actually need your capacity. It's the most cost-efficient way to defend yourself and your interests. It's still costly, but it's pennies to the dollar compared to actually facing the adversary in war is.

McHrozni

 

[tyr_13]

So what is the proposed bomb load?

I don't know, what is it?

 

[Ziggurat]

One does not need to be a strict constructionist to think the Constitution sets limits on the powers of the government.

And where in the constitution does it prohibit us from protecting our allies? If you're going to try to make a constitutional argument, you should at least have a constitutional argument.

 

[Tony Stark]

Lots of them. Just not conventional wars. Plus, we're also concerned about countries that could wage war on our allies. For example, what happens if Russia invades Georgia? We're probably not willing to launch a nuclear strike in response, so what would we do?

If we are sane, we would not intervene militarily in such a conflict, period. Georgia is certainly not worth getting in a war with Russia nor are we required by treaty to protect it.

 

[The Norseman]

And where in the constitution does it prohibit us from protecting our allies? If you're going to try to make a constitutional argument, you should at least have a constitutional argument.

Well... best I can do is

Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;​

This, arguably, limits the spending to the common defense of the United States. Our allies are not the United States, strangely enough.

I know the justifications used in gaming the system so the US is now paying for the privilege of being the World Police, so there's no need to address it here.

 

[Ziggurat]

If we are sane, we would not intervene militarily in such a conflict, period. Georgia is certainly not worth getting in a war with Russia nor are we required by treaty to protect it.

But we are required by treaty to protect Estonia.

 

[theprestige]

Well... best I can do is

Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;​

This, arguably, limits the spending to the common defense of the United States. Our allies are not the United States, strangely enough.

I know the justifications used in gaming the system so the US is now paying for the privilege of being the World Police, so there's no need to address it here.

Don't alliances contribute to the general welfare of a nation?

 

[Tony Stark]

But we are required by treaty to protect Estonia.

Yeah, somehow I doubt that Russia is going to declare war on NATO.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yeah, somehow I doubt that Russia is going to declare war on NATO.

Russia didn't declare war in the Ukraine or Georgia either.

 

[Tony Stark]

Russia didn't declare war in the Ukraine or Georgia either.

Your semantic nitpicks don't impress me.

 

[ponderingturtle]

So should we have a betting pool about how many aircraft this will be pared down to by the end? I find it remarkably unlikely if the ever build half of the aircraft because of the cost overruns. So are the expects factoring that into their calculations?

 

[TragicMonkey]

If we are sane, we would not intervene militarily in such a conflict, period. Georgia is certainly not worth getting in a war with Russia nor are we required by treaty to protect it.

We'd do something far, far worse if Russia invaded Georgia:









We'd give them our Georgia.

 

[The Norseman]

Don't alliances contribute to the general welfare of a nation?

Not necessarily, no.

 

[Ziggurat]

Your semantic nitpicks don't impress me.

That's funny, considering that you yourself are nitpicking to avoid the real point: even countries that would not attack the US directly might still attack other countries, and we want to be able to do something about that short of launching a nuclear barrage.