Election 2010 Ballot Measures

[Ray]

I don't advocate war as a means to solving economic problems, however it was WWII that finally got us out of the depression.

And yes, it was the arms race that finally brought the Soviet Union down.

Ray

[robert angel]

Don't read me wrong. War is terrible in the most important way. I'm not some war version of Gordon Gecko--I'm not proclaiming 'War is good!"

That said, a sound standing military is still necessary. I know we're going to more technical methods and I support those--such as further developing drones, satellite surveillance systems, etc.  Although drones can do things  piloted jets can do, including running offensive missions (sorties) --things that piloted jets have previously done, but at greater human loss and financial expense--they still need a human team running them.

We still need real pilots, as well men and women to guide the drones and troops on the ground, in training and ready to go.

I wish all that, never mind war, wasn't necessary, but often the best defense is the other side knowing you have an effective offense ready if they step out of line.

It'd be great if in the place of those working to kep the military going, we could have a couple more million people here working on sustainable (able to withstand adverse environmental disaster conditions) energy solutions, such as solar, wind, hydrothermal, etc.

That said, I don't think if China was dumb enough to try and do a quick seizure of Taiwan by force that we'd send the 7th Fleet over--I don't think we'd really do much at all really, except have press conferences, posturing as we shout about it and threaten with hollow trade sanction talk. And they know it all too well.

I don't think the Chinese really need Taiwan or Hong Kong for that matter--I think it's more a case of national pride--that they feel that those two places 'belong' in China's fold.

[Ray]

Well, a trashed economy and overbearing debt from WWI was certainly part of hitler's rise to power, and us refusing to trade with Japan was ultimately what sparked our war with them.

Our overseas bases cost a fortune and are less and less necessary in an age of ICBMs and B-2 bombers. The USSR is gone and we have strong relations with all the biggest economies in the world. I don't really see the need for power projection any more. Maybe some troops to keep North Korea under pressure but that's about all that is necessary.

jm,

Japan started the war with us because they wanted us out of the way so they could conquer their part of the world. They didn’t need our trade because they wanted to loot the resources of their neighbors in the Far East. Thank God we had a strong enough military to fight back instead of surrendering to a superior power!

…and you don't see nearly as many crazy despots coming from prosperous countries.

How about Sadam, the Mullahs, and Chavez in Iraq, Iran, and Venezuela, with all of their oil trade and huge revenues?? About as crazy as they come, don’t you think?

Who knows what would have happened if we had stayed out of the middle east, not meddled in their affairs, and just be content to buy their oil and sell them products they needed?

Perhaps Sadam would have invaded Iran and Kuwait as part of a plan to take over all of the Gulf oil fields and control the energy resources for the West?    Thank God we had the balls and the resources to stop him. Who else in the world had the will and the means to do it if not us?

Your idea to gut the military and give up on conventional power projection is nuts. When your only viable option left is ICBM’s and B-2 bombers with nukes, then we could either surrender to a foreign power or nuke them out of existence. What a great pair of options that is!

Without our superior conventional US military power, The USSR would have overrun Europe and without our superior navy to check them, would have controlled the world's shipping lanes. Then who would you trade with and how?? Canada and Mexico would be about it I guess, IF they didn’t join the Soviets.

Ray

[robert angel]

Ray,

Didn't we cramp Japan's style pretty hard by cutting off most of their oil supply? I know they had pretty high nationalistic fervor and their trigger finger was itchy, but as  I recall, they were getting compromised growth wise with oil issues and held us as being the main culprits.

Of course nationalistic zeal, a popular charismatic (to them anyway)  leader and feeling being treated with a raw deal from WW I's sanctions, certainly contributed to Germany beginning WW II.

'If you seek revenge--dig two graves'

[jm21-2]

jm,

Japan started the war with us because they wanted us out of the way so they could conquer their part of the world. They didn’t need our trade because they wanted to loot the resources of their neighbors in the Far East. Thank God we had a strong enough military to fight back instead of surrendering to a superior power!

They did need our trade. They were resource hungry and we refused them resources. You can argue whether that decision was right or wrong, but a very large part of why they invaded the US was because they needed more resources and we cut off trade relations.

American leaders have a long history of encouraging attack on us in order to rally public support for wars.

How about Sadam, the Mullahs, and Chavez in Iraq, Iran, and Venezuela, with all of their oil trade and huge revenues?? About as crazy as they come, don’t you think?

Perhaps Sadam would have invaded Iran and Kuwait as part of a plan to take over all of the Gulf oil fields and control the energy resources for the West?    Thank God we had the balls and the resources to stop him. Who else in the world had the will and the means to do it if not us?

Those are not prosperous countries. You see the same thing in every poor area that has a valuable natural resources, whether it be oil wells or diamond mines. Warlords take control and first world countries turn a blind eye because they're greedy for resources. They're still poor countries with little trade, often little infrastructure, and economies dependent on resource exports. Typically very little of the money from selling resources goes back into the economy, it goes to the military. That allows them to take out or threaten other poor countries that don't have those wonderful resources, but it certainly doesn't allow them to threaten countries with real modern economies.

Our overseas bases did not do anything to help topple Saddam. Neither did some of the military's bogus research projects or weapons buildup help. Even if we spent half the money we do now on the military it would still be just as effective at taking out future Husseins. Furthermore, we have a huge amount of resources going to nation-building which we just plain shouldn't be doing. If Saddam became a real threat we should have taken him out and got out. It took us what, 2 days to topple his government?

Your idea to gut the military and give up on conventional power projection is nuts. When your only viable option left is ICBM’s and B-2 bombers with nukes, then we could either surrender to a foreign power or nuke them out of existence. What a great pair of options that is!

You can give up power projection and still have a strong military. Power projection is mostly for show.

Without our superior conventional US military power, The USSR would have overrun Europe and without our superior navy to check them, would have controlled the world's shipping lanes. Then who would you trade with and how?? Canada and Mexico would be about it I guess, IF they didn’t join the Soviets.

Would they have, really? And I am not entirely convinced our navy was superior to theirs.

[Bob_S]

China has a history of being content within its own borders.

Tell it to Tibet.
The problem with that is, they regard their historic borders as anywhere between the Pacific Ocean (Okinawa) and Poland.  If they discover (or forge) a historic document that showed some now independent country as once within the sphere of influence of some ancient Chinese potentate, it's fair game for conquest.  If the actions of mainland China don't make you at least a little nervous, you're not paying attention.

[jm21-2]

I don't advocate war as a means to solving economic problems, however it was WWII that finally got us out of the depression.

And yes, it was the arms race that finally brought the Soviet Union down.

Ray

There is some pretty serious debate about what ended the great depression. I think that is far from settled.

So, the USSR drove its economy into the ground by spending too much on the military, and that caused their government to fail, and that's an argument that we should have an extremely large military budget?

Didn't the USSR produce more nukes than the US and have better deliverability? So they won at the arms race and lost on the whole?

[Researcher]

There is some pretty serious debate about what ended the great depression. I think that is far from settled.

So, the USSR drove its economy into the ground by spending too much on the military, and that caused their government to fail, and that's an argument that we should have an extremely large military budget?

Didn't the USSR produce more nukes than the US and have better deliverability? So they won at the arms race and lost on the whole?

    That really isn't an argument for anything it is just what happened.Russia didn't fall because everyone wanted to be able to openly buy blue jeans.They got wrapped up in the arms race and over extended themselves.


    Researcher

[Woody]

Didn't the USSR produce more nukes than the US and have better deliverability? So they won at the arms race and lost on the whole?

Once you can nuke the entire planet once, who can do it more times doesn't matter. They produced more nukes, we produced less, with more reliable delivery systems. Both sides had enough nukes to cause planetary nuclear winter a hundred times over.

[robert angel]

Good to see you back and posting Woody!

Yea--it's been decades since the world's powers long ago established what we taught in college is a stage of nuclear capability we call 'MAD" or 'Mutually Assured Destruction" meaning that in the advent that any two super powers engaged in large scale nuclear war--we'd all be annihilated, along with pretty much the whole planet.

I have the dubious distinction of being not too distant from Kings Bay Naval Base, a major US Army Rangers (first strike force) nerve center, infantry equipment and combat aircraft deployment center,  Paris Island Marine Base and the Savannah River Nuclear Facility, which supplies a lot of weapons grade plutonium--enriched uranium and warheads. I guess if there was a place the 'bad guys' wanted to get rid of first, my area would be high on the list.

But let's just look at Kings Bay Naval Base, close to Jacksonville, Florida (pop., one million) along the FL-GA border, which has six 560 foot long Ohio Class subs that each have, among other weapons, 24 Trident II missiles that each can hold up to 12 MIRV nuclear warheads  (288 max. total per. sub) and send each warhead to a different city/area up to 7000 miles away, flying at over 13,000 miles an hour, with each war heads destination changeable even after launch.

The US Navy has at least 14 of these nifty subs and at Kings bay, we also have two more Ohio Class subs that each carry 154 nuclear arm capable Tomahawk missiles, each with 1500 mile ranges.

Just the six Trident II's --when fully armed, equate to 1728 very powerful nuclear warheads--I'd say just one sub with 288 of them, could incapacitate most continents.

Various treaties (SALT, START II) are said to have limited the 'payload' each of these subs is supposed to legally carry (international law--ha ha), but we could fully arm them to the teeth rather quickly, or just send a few subs within 7000 miles of a target and let loose with whatever's on board.

It's total overkill, to put it mildly... and I know exactly where the "weapons of mass destruction" they searched for all over those friggin deserts really are--in my backyard, down the coast a stitch and up the river a bit!!

>>A multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) warhead is a collection of nuclear weapons carried on a single intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) or a submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM). Using a MIRV warhead, a single launched missile can strike several targets, or fewer targets redundantly. By contrast a unitary warhead is a single warhead on a single missile.<<

>>The Russian Federation claims to have developed the most advanced MIRV system as of 2006 for use in the RSM-56 Bulava.<<

[Ray]

They did need our trade. They were resource hungry and we refused them resources. You can argue whether that decision was right or wrong, but a very large part of why they invaded the US was because they needed more resources and we cut off trade relations.

Japan did not invade the US. The sneaky little bastards bombed Pearl Harbor by surprise attack. They did occupy part of the Aleutians for a short time but cut and ran when we came after them. They had all the resources they needed right in their own backyard.

American leaders have a long history of encouraging attack on us in order to rally public support for wars.

HUH? That’s baloney!

Those are not prosperous countries.

Yes they were prosperous.

Our overseas bases did not do anything to help topple Saddam.

They most certainly did! Our air bases in Saudi Arabia played a key role in kicking him out of Kuwait in the first gulf war. Our bases in Germany for example provided troops for the invasion of Iraq and our prepositioned supplies at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean were crucial to the invasion. Without our aircraft carriers, the military campaign against both Iraq and Afghanistan would have been extremely difficult if not nearly impossible.

You can give up power projection and still have a strong military. Power projection is mostly for show.
 
And I am not entirely convinced our navy was superior to theirs.

Baloney! Without our naval power projection, we could never protect the world’s sea lanes.

It doesn’t really matter if you are convinced that our navy was more powerful than the Soviet Union’s because it is a fact. I was there. We knew it, the USSR knew it, and the world knew it, so you don’t really count.   

Furthermore, we have a huge amount of resources going to nation-building which we just plain shouldn't be doing. If Saddam became a real threat we should have taken him out and got out. It took us what, 2 days to topple his government?

No, it took us a few months to capture or kill Sadam and the key players of his government, including his stinking little A-hole sons.

If we had gotten out after a few days, Sadam would have come back into power and/or Iran would have taken over the country.

Granted that whether or not we should be “nation building” is a valid subject for another discussion

Ray

[jm21-2]

Ray,

Obviously we are not going to agree on this. I think we can protect our interests just as well with half of what we are spending. I don't think the world will go to chaos if we have a smaller or even no presence overseas. But making cuts to medicare is probably a better idea anyways.

[piglett]

But let's just look at Kings Bay Naval Base, close to Jacksonville, Florida (pop., one million) along the FL-GA border, which has six 560 foot long Ohio Class subs that each have, among other weapons, 24 Trident II missiles that each can hold up to 12 MIRV nuclear warheads  (288 max. total per. sub) and send each warhead to a different city/area up to 7000 miles away, flying at over 13,000 miles an hour, with each war heads destination changeable even after launch.

The US Navy has at least 14 of these nifty subs and at Kings bay, we also have two more Ohio Class subs that each carry 154 nuclear arm capable Tomahawk missiles, each with 1500 mile ranges.

Just the six Trident II's --when fully armed, equate to 1728 very powerful nuclear warheads--I'd say just one sub with 288 of them, could incapacitate most continents.

my understanding is that the Trident subs don't normally carry 24 missiles.
how did i learn this fact?
i hauled a large tube for the military from CA. up to the sub base in WA. state.
when i asked what this strange looking tube was with 6 big holes inside of it i was told by the guys that make them that they go in the trident subs in place of some of the ICBMs. they hold extra cruise missiles which makes the sub more flexable in the roll that it can play.


pig

[Jeff S]

So, the USSR drove its economy into the ground by spending too much on the military, and that caused their government to fail, and that's an argument that we should have an extremely large military budget?

Yes - In the cold war they spend close to 15% of their GNP while Reagan drove their economy under spending less than 8% of ours. There are some advantages to the richest kid on the block over being the biggest bully.

Didn't the USSR produce more nukes than the US and have better deliverability? So they won at the arms race and lost on the whole?

Yes a few more in terms of quantity, but I don't understand what you mean by better deliverbility. Take it from someone heavily involved in much of that technology, being able to hit a 100 foot circle on the other side of the globe with a single small warhead was vastly more effective than putting multiple huge warheads somewhere close on this side. It doesn't matter if you can vaporize all the people in Chicago or Kiev 15 times over, can you take out the other guy's weapons, is the question. Exploding three 20 megaton warheads 5 miles away from a bunker buried 100 feet underground is about as effective as a 4th of July fireworks display in terms of taking out the target. Putting a single 30 kiloton warhead on the concrete roof of the silo is far more decisive. As Ray said - they knew it, we knew it and all of the documents released after the cold war verified that they knew all along.

The same followed suit for Navies and Air Forces. Remember the Gulf War of '91. Iraq had the latest in Russian fighters, air defense systems and C3. How long did it last? a hour or two? and the rest of the 30 days the country was laid bare to a pummeling never before imagined.

Maybe it's costly keeping the decisive edge in military weaponry, knowhow and preparedness, but it's one area I don't mind my tax dollars going into instead bridges to nowhere, private jets flying Nancy Pelosi from DC to SF every weekend, and into the pockets of foreign despots who assure us they'll buy aids medication for all their children with it as they're wiring it to their private Swiss accounts. 

[Ray]

Ray,

Obviously we are not going to agree on this. I think we can protect our interests just as well with half of what we are spending. I don't think the world will go to chaos if we have a smaller or even no presence overseas. But making cuts to medicare is probably a better idea anyways.

No, I won’t agree that we don’t need a military presence overseas. If we aren’t there then someone else will be and I’ll guarantee you that it won’t be our friend. And I’ll never agree that the Soviet navy was as powerful as ours. They had a large navy that demanded some respect, but in just about every tactical and technical area, they were definitely inferior to us.

I will agree that our military expenditures could probably be cut significantly, but what would Obama do with the savings? He would not pay down the deficit but would only throw it away on more worthless social welfare programs for illegal aliens Undocumented Democrats, and other self-entitled non-producers, while we become weaker militarily.

Same deal with Medicare cuts. Obama and the Democrats did make significant cuts in Medicare under Obamacare, but only took the “savings” and flushed it down a different socialist toilet bowl. Do you support slashing Medicare cuts so illegal aliens Undocumented Democrats can have free health care? Well, that’s where much of those “savings” are going to go if Obama has his way.

If the government wanted to save significant money on Medicare, Social Security, and other entitlement costs, they could start by cutting off all of the illegal cheats from their monthly checks. A good place to start would be making every SSI recipient prove that they are living in the US and not overseas. Perhaps offer a reward for reporting welfare, SSI, Medicare, unemployment, and Medicaid cheats.

Next, lay off or cut government worker’s pay by a percentage equal to the REAL unemployment/underemployment rate. Let them suffer along with the rest of us…

Ray

[jm21-2]

Jeff S,

The problem is that pork barrel legislation is just a very small part of government spending. Politicians campaign on eliminating that "fat" but all it tends to do is relieve them from addressing the real problem areas of the budget.


Ray,

I agree with basically everything you posted about budget cuts. I'm not sure how mcuh of the funds go to illegal aliens, but certainly a lot go to people who don't deserve it. Stricter guidelines for awarding SSI and SSD would also be a major concern of mine. I have had too many clients on SSD or SSI (yes, they could afford an attorney) who seem perfectly capable of working. Once they pop out a kid or two and have food stamps, subsidized housing, and SS payments, there's not a lot of motivation to work.