4 ms·

It is totally inhuman and not acceptable to spend such an enormous amount of money for these primitive war technologies. We have many people on this planet sti

It is totally inhuman and not acceptable to spend such an enormous amount of money for these primitive war technologies. We have many people on this planet still suffering from problems that could be solved with a fraction of that money. Please do not support these destructive projects with your work. You can make a change! From my own experience I can tell you that you will have a much better life avoiding to work for these neanderthal-minded war prophets. Many people working in war industries are getting very, very ill, physically and psychically, because it is against your human desire for harmony to make yourself part of a giant killing machine. Love and Peace!

BJBBB 10y ago
Suppose we stop throwing trillions at war machinery. Am not certain that any particular technology, or even social expenditures, would ever enable "love and peace". Probably just 10% of the annual DoD budget bent towards education of girls and women and for free global birth control would stop our insane population growth. Slow growth is the only hope for the planet. Do not see how not funding weapons without the global education of females will fix anything. The root cause is not too many weapons systems, it is too many people.
- LinuxFreedom 10y ago
  You seem to be very confused and your cynical words offer an insight into a state of mind I would call 'disturbed' at least. It might be interesting for you to learn that the biggest problems we have today on this planet are produced by countries that are not "over-populated". Also it seems logical that people believing in that "too-many-people"-ideology (that is actively spread by many military neanderthalers btw) should use their freedom to give a good example of how to solve that problem by killing themselves, not others.
crypto5 10y ago
It is 1.5 trillions over 80 years of lifetime of F-35, including research, production and maintenance of around 3k jets. 18 billions per year is not big price for backbone of national security.
- lostlogin 10y ago
  If one of the first outing (disputed according to the article) is bombing in the Middle East, is this really giving security. Seems more like continuing a failed strategy that ensures a significant population wishes harm on the US and its allies.
  - crypto5 10y ago
    Middle East is messy, and I am not going to judge this.. I am just saying that 1.5 trillions over 80 years is not large amount of money and would not solve any of global problems.
- valuearb 10y ago
  The problem is it's closer to $100B a year the first decade, acquisition costs are are going to be the big part of it and hey are frontloaded. $800-$900 Billion over a decade is a stupendous amount of money. Secondly, how can an un-necessary plane be a "backbone"? The nuclear triad is our backbone. The F-22 is more capable than the F-35 in most measures. The F-35 can't dogfight, can't ground support, and is too expensive to be a good fighter bomber. The reality is it's going to cost less than $1.5T, because it's going to get canceled after three or four hundred planes, and our cost per unit is going to be extraordinary.
  - crypto5 10y ago
    > The nuclear triad is our backbone. Nuclear triad is defense against 3 countries in the world who can realistically hit USA (Russia, China, somebody else). F-35 will project power to the rest 193 countries and hostile organizations. There is a little way nuclear weapon could help USA to fight ISIS or Al Kaida. F-22 is very niche product. Less than 200 jets is too little to support USA's global ambitions, and they can't be air-carrier stationed, and project power across the globe. It is not clear if dogfight is the thing in the modern world. Also F-35 may be good for ground support, future will show.
    - valuearb 10y ago

BJBBB 10y ago

Suppose we stop throwing trillions at war machinery. Am not certain that any particular technology, or even social expenditures, would ever enable "love and peace". Probably just 10% of the annual DoD budget bent towards education of girls and women and for free global birth control would stop our insane population growth. Slow growth is the only hope for the planet. Do not see how not funding weapons without the global education of females will fix anything. The root cause is not too many weapons systems, it is too many people.

LinuxFreedom 10y ago
You seem to be very confused and your cynical words offer an insight into a state of mind I would call 'disturbed' at least. It might be interesting for you to learn that the biggest problems we have today on this planet are produced by countries that are not "over-populated". Also it seems logical that people believing in that "too-many-people"-ideology (that is actively spread by many military neanderthalers btw) should use their freedom to give a good example of how to solve that problem by killing themselves, not others.

crypto5 10y ago

It is 1.5 trillions over 80 years of lifetime of F-35, including research, production and maintenance of around 3k jets. 18 billions per year is not big price for backbone of national security.

lostlogin 10y ago
If one of the first outing (disputed according to the article) is bombing in the Middle East, is this really giving security. Seems more like continuing a failed strategy that ensures a significant population wishes harm on the US and its allies.
- crypto5 10y ago
  Middle East is messy, and I am not going to judge this.. I am just saying that 1.5 trillions over 80 years is not large amount of money and would not solve any of global problems.
valuearb 10y ago
The problem is it's closer to $100B a year the first decade, acquisition costs are are going to be the big part of it and hey are frontloaded. $800-$900 Billion over a decade is a stupendous amount of money. Secondly, how can an un-necessary plane be a "backbone"? The nuclear triad is our backbone. The F-22 is more capable than the F-35 in most measures. The F-35 can't dogfight, can't ground support, and is too expensive to be a good fighter bomber. The reality is it's going to cost less than $1.5T, because it's going to get canceled after three or four hundred planes, and our cost per unit is going to be extraordinary.
- crypto5 10y ago
  > The nuclear triad is our backbone. Nuclear triad is defense against 3 countries in the world who can realistically hit USA (Russia, China, somebody else). F-35 will project power to the rest 193 countries and hostile organizations. There is a little way nuclear weapon could help USA to fight ISIS or Al Kaida. F-22 is very niche product. Less than 200 jets is too little to support USA's global ambitions, and they can't be air-carrier stationed, and project power across the globe. It is not clear if dogfight is the thing in the modern world. Also F-35 may be good for ground support, future will show.
  - valuearb 10y ago