Bush Signs $400 Bn Defence Bill

[Barbarossa]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3234960.stm

Here are some quotes that disturb me:-



funds to develop so-called "bunker-busting" nuclear weapons which would be used against underground bunkers or weapons of mass destruction


So, they are prepared to use weapons of mass destruction to totally obliterate sites that may possibly contain other weapons of mass destruction, so that no-one will be able to prove or disprove whether they actually were there or not.

This stinks!



FIVE BIGGEST DEFENCE BUDGETS
USA: $401bn
Russia: $65bn (2001 figures)
China: $47bn (2001 figures)
Japan: $42.6bn
UK: $38.4bn
Source: US Centre for Defense Information


More than twice the money of everyone else put together eh, just how dominant do they need to be?

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely; the sheer scale of the mismatch of resources seriously concerns me for the future.

[MagicNakor]

I just don't see how bombing a nuclear bomb can result in any good.

:ninja:

[clocker]

You guys have nothing to worry about.

Based on historical precedent this is nothing but a little pre-election payoff to the Republican's cronies in the defence industry.
No one really expects them to actually develope any viable weapons with this cash.
Nooo.
This is just to make sure that Bush gets re-elected.
We'll see "feasability studies" of all sorts of bluesky horseshit, but fear not, nothing will ever make it to production.
Our defense budget is a giant bluff, designed to preemptively scare off attackers.
Much of it ends up in the purses of hookers and the coffers of Las Vegas casinos.

Hell, if we actually used that kind of money on real weapons we'd just wipe your asses off the face off the Earth like Randy Newman suggested in Political Science.

[Rat Faced]

Much of it ends up in the purses of hookers and the coffers of Las Vegas casinos.



Wonder if i can get a Job with these people? :rolleyes:

[Alex H]

Originally posted by clocker@26 November 2003 - 02:56
Our defense budget is a giant bluff, designed to preemptively scare off attackers.
Much of it ends up in the purses of hookers and the coffers of Las Vegas casinos.

Well at least it's getting pumped back into the national economy. But you'd think there would be a few other worthwhile things they could spend the money on.

If it's all a waste of time, why don't they just make a law that says they can tell everyone whatever they like about how much gets spent on defence? Then they could inflate the figure, everyone would be scared of the US and they could spend the money on hospitals, schools, infasturucture, etc.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Alex H+26 November 2003 - 00:55--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Alex H @ 26 November 2003 - 00:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-clocker@26 November 2003 - 02:56
Our defense budget is a giant bluff, designed to preemptively scare off attackers.
Much of it ends up in the purses of hookers and the coffers of Las Vegas casinos.

Well at least it&#39;s getting pumped back into the national economy. But you&#39;d think there would be a few other worthwhile things they could spend the money on.

If it&#39;s all a waste of time, why don&#39;t they just make a law that says they can tell everyone whatever they like about how much gets spent on defence? Then they could inflate the figure, everyone would be scared of the US and they could spend the money on hospitals, schools, infasturucture, etc. [/b][/quote]
That&#39;s not a bad idea, but Mr. Gates doesn&#39;t give money to other rich people, so they have to get it from the government.

It&#39;s always been that way, ever since Lucky and the mob built Vegas.

Why do you think all those arms industries are out in the desert?

&#39;Cuz Vegas is just down the road.

We&#39;ve got some serious cash to throw around, don&#39;t we?

It&#39;s all that unbridled capitalism, don&#39;t you know.

[MagicNakor]

I still want to know what genius thought that hitting a nuclear bomb with a nuclear bomb would be good. ;)

Maybe it&#39;s the same guy who thought nuking hurricanes was a good idea.

:ninja:

[clocker]

Just another good example of why you really have nothing to fear, Magic.

Most of these "strategic thinkers" are, in fact, just guys who couldn&#39;t make a go of it as Wal-Mart greeters or Burger King managers.
So they drifted into the defense industry where their ineptitude and lack of practicality make for amusing morning paper reading, but primarily keeps them out of the way of people with real jobs.
For this luxury, we shower them with billions of dollars.

Seems a fair bargain.

[MagicNakor]

I can come up with ideas like that too.

How do I get a job like that? I want to be showered with billions of dollars.

:ninja:

[Illuminati]

Originally posted by MagicNakor@27 November 2003 - 03:10
I can come up with ideas like that too.

How do I get a job like that? I want to be showered with billions of dollars.

:ninja:
"Fellatio" is one of the first words that seems to spring to mind... ;)

[ilw]

Defence spending is an interesting topic, a lot of factors contribute, the wealth of the country, its overseas commitments, its neighbours, its foreign policy etc

Richer countries usually spend more, and more as a percentage of the money they have (i suppose thats the equivalent of disposable income), also larger countries tend to spend more.
America&#39;s spending is excessive, but to an extent it reflects its economy, geography and political situation. I&#39;m not saying its right to be spending hundreds of billions on defence and i&#39;m strongly against the production or design of small and usable nuclear weapons or the star wars project. But the sums aren&#39;t as ludicrous as they first seem.


Defence spending / GDP % :source Greek ministry of defence (they&#39;re very proud of spending lots of their money on defence :blink: )

France 2,6%
Greece 4,9%
Italy 1,9%
Luxemburg 0,8%
Holland 1,9%
Portugal 2,2%
Spain 1,3%
Sweden 2,2%
United Kingdom 2,4%
EU Average 1,83%
US 3.3%


Figures above and below don&#39;t match because they&#39;re figures for different years (only a couple of years apart)
http://www.steve.burrow.name/article/image/weapons1.gif
Top 5 countries by dollars spent on defence for each citizen.
Source: CDI and CIA World Factbook (CIA).
http://www.steve.burrow.name/article/image/weapons2.gif
Top 5 countries by percentage of GDP spent on defence.
Source: CDI and CIA.
http://www.steve.burrow.name/article/image/weapons3.gif
Top 5 countries by million dollars spent defending each km of border.
Source: CDI and CIA.
http://www.steve.burrow.name/article/image/weapons4.gif
Top 5 countries by thousands of dollars spent defending each km of territory.
http://www.steve.burrow.name/article/weapons.shtml

Edit:

My conclusion having looked at all these figures is that some countries are spending a bit more on defence than they can justify for border and internal security. I guess they are taking their wider role as global policemen very seriously - like it or not. But as a final test I went back over the various Top 5 polls to see which country figures most frequently in each one. The answer was not, surprisingly, the USA or Israel (which featured in 4 out of the 5 poles shown here) - but rather the UK.

(from same site as pics)



I just don&#39;t see how bombing a nuclear bomb can result in any good.

Seems a bit of a dodgy gamble, but I thought nukes aren&#39;t supposed to go off even if they&#39;re blown up?

[FatBastard]

Makes you wonder where the money goes, or into whose pockets. I found this article about US health care spending ..


In 2000, U.S. per capita health spending was &#036;4,631, an increase of 6.3 percent over 1999. In addition to being 44 percent higher than Switzerland&#39;s per capita spending, the U.S. level was 83 percent higher than neighboring Canada and 134 percent higher than the median of &#036;1,983 for the 30 industrialized countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

... and yet ....
... yet Americans are not necessarily receiving more care.

...and ...
Supported by the Commonwealth Fund, the study suggests that the difference in spending is caused mostly by higher prices for health care goods and services in the United States - not increased use in those services.

The capitalist system in full swing? :)

Source. (http://www.healthaffairs.org/press/mayjune0301.htm)