4 ms·

Hmm, I feel like the trillion or so spent on this expensive military flex would be better used to solve homelessness. The whole thing doesn't make much sense,

Hmm, I feel like the trillion or so spent on this expensive military flex would be better used to solve homelessness. The whole thing doesn't make much sense, what is this for ? Why are we still acting like we might need to fight Russia or something. Even if you are imagining WW3 I reckon human pilots will be obsolete by then. A drone would be able to fly faster and react quicker

stuff4ben 5y ago
you haven't been keeping up then. Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, are all state actors with significant interests in knocking the United States off its pedestal. Specifically China and its recent posturing in the South China Sea. While I agree in principle that the F35 has largely been a waste of taxpayer money, to be ignorant of military threats to our nation is not the wisest strategy.
- the-dude 5y ago
  > threats to our nation Is the South China Sea already part of the US? You meant to say : our nations economic interests.
  - gherkinnn 5y ago
    Of course. Has it ever been any different?
- syops 5y ago
  None of those nations are military threats to the United States in the sense that they can realistically threaten an invasion or takeover of the United States. Those nations are threats to various interests of ours and some pose economic threats to our position and interests. As the world enters into a new multi-polar reality we need to reassess our views of what a ‘threat’ is. The Pax Americana is coming to an end. Soon we as a nation will recognize that we longer have the resources to impose our will wherever we desire.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
    It's not only about US soil, it's also about allies like Japan, SK, Taiwan, Thailand, Philippines, Singapore. They'd all be threatened. And why is it always described as US imposing it's will? Every Democratic govt on the planet shares mostly overlapping interests with every other Democracy. Most work together most of the time.
    - the-dude 5y ago
      The Hague invasion act [0] [0] https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-becomes-law https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-be...
      - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
        Pointing to one thing is lazy and does nothing to refute my claim.
        the-dude 5y ago
        Operation Gladio [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio
        2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
        That sort of proves my point in that it was a plan backed by numerous friends. US goals align with most of the free world most of the time. You seem to have it out for the US.
    - syops 5y ago
      Perhaps you missed this sentence: Those nations are threats to various interests of ours and some pose economic threats to our position and interests. It’s not always described as the U.S. imposing it’s will. The U.S. seeks to impose it’s will often enough and has been successful enough that that using the hyperbole the U.S. imposing it’s will can be forgiven.
- offtop5 5y ago
  Tell me, which one of those countries realistically has the capacity to invade the United States ? Which one is parking aircraft carriers off the coast of Florida ? And it's vastly cheaper for these countries to impose their will via soft power. If anything making sure Americans have places to sleep will do more to ensure stability then posturing with overpriced jets.
  - viklove 5y ago
    They're not parking aircraft carriers off of Florida because we outnumber them 11 to 2. It would be pretty funny to see a single Chinese carrier parked in the Gulf, surrounded by 5 of our own though... Military superiority is a bit like air. When you have plenty of it, it seems trivial, but without it, you're left gasping for a breath.
    - offtop5 5y ago
      You know we got rid of a few of those aircraft carriers we could probably eliminate childhood poverty within 5 years or so. If you really think about it it's far easier to sow seeds of discontent in a population with so many poor. The sheer numbers of American poor, and those who feel abandoned is a security risk. They can be easily manipulated to destabilize the country. And when I think about it I don't think America has an obligation to take care of every other country on Earth.
      - viklove 5y ago
        > You know we got rid of a few of those aircraft carriers we could probably eliminate childhood poverty within 5 years or so Care to share your detailed plan?
gherkinnn 5y ago
I would prefer the 1 trillion being spent on more capable platforms. Make that .75 trillion for all I care. If that's a new drone programme, jetpacks, Nanosuits, F32s, a BRRRT with lasers, I don't know. That's for others to decide. But I strongly reject the idea that the US should be content with a few dozen F22, and scores of F15s. This is not a game you want to stagnate in. I believe it's precisely because of these advances, that there's nothing to be afraid of.
- offtop5 5y ago
  Your far more likely to end up homeless or unfed then to see the Russians invade. I'm from LA, have you seen skid row ? We don't need to live in a society like this.

stuff4ben 5y ago

you haven't been keeping up then. Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, are all state actors with significant interests in knocking the United States off its pedestal. Specifically China and its recent posturing in the South China Sea. While I agree in principle that the F35 has largely been a waste of taxpayer money, to be ignorant of military threats to our nation is not the wisest strategy.

the-dude 5y ago
> threats to our nation Is the South China Sea already part of the US? You meant to say : our nations economic interests.
- gherkinnn 5y ago
  Of course. Has it ever been any different?
syops 5y ago
None of those nations are military threats to the United States in the sense that they can realistically threaten an invasion or takeover of the United States. Those nations are threats to various interests of ours and some pose economic threats to our position and interests. As the world enters into a new multi-polar reality we need to reassess our views of what a ‘threat’ is. The Pax Americana is coming to an end. Soon we as a nation will recognize that we longer have the resources to impose our will wherever we desire.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
  It's not only about US soil, it's also about allies like Japan, SK, Taiwan, Thailand, Philippines, Singapore. They'd all be threatened. And why is it always described as US imposing it's will? Every Democratic govt on the planet shares mostly overlapping interests with every other Democracy. Most work together most of the time.
  - the-dude 5y ago
    The Hague invasion act [0] [0] https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-becomes-law https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-be...
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
      Pointing to one thing is lazy and does nothing to refute my claim.
      - the-dude 5y ago
        Operation Gladio [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio
        2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
        That sort of proves my point in that it was a plan backed by numerous friends. US goals align with most of the free world most of the time. You seem to have it out for the US.
  - syops 5y ago
    Perhaps you missed this sentence: Those nations are threats to various interests of ours and some pose economic threats to our position and interests. It’s not always described as the U.S. imposing it’s will. The U.S. seeks to impose it’s will often enough and has been successful enough that that using the hyperbole the U.S. imposing it’s will can be forgiven.
offtop5 5y ago
Tell me, which one of those countries realistically has the capacity to invade the United States ? Which one is parking aircraft carriers off the coast of Florida ? And it's vastly cheaper for these countries to impose their will via soft power. If anything making sure Americans have places to sleep will do more to ensure stability then posturing with overpriced jets.
- viklove 5y ago
  They're not parking aircraft carriers off of Florida because we outnumber them 11 to 2. It would be pretty funny to see a single Chinese carrier parked in the Gulf, surrounded by 5 of our own though... Military superiority is a bit like air. When you have plenty of it, it seems trivial, but without it, you're left gasping for a breath.
  - offtop5 5y ago
    You know we got rid of a few of those aircraft carriers we could probably eliminate childhood poverty within 5 years or so. If you really think about it it's far easier to sow seeds of discontent in a population with so many poor. The sheer numbers of American poor, and those who feel abandoned is a security risk. They can be easily manipulated to destabilize the country. And when I think about it I don't think America has an obligation to take care of every other country on Earth.
    - viklove 5y ago
      > You know we got rid of a few of those aircraft carriers we could probably eliminate childhood poverty within 5 years or so Care to share your detailed plan?

gherkinnn 5y ago

I would prefer the 1 trillion being spent on more capable platforms. Make that .75 trillion for all I care. If that's a new drone programme, jetpacks, Nanosuits, F32s, a BRRRT with lasers, I don't know. That's for others to decide. But I strongly reject the idea that the US should be content with a few dozen F22, and scores of F15s. This is not a game you want to stagnate in. I believe it's precisely because of these advances, that there's nothing to be afraid of.

offtop5 5y ago
Your far more likely to end up homeless or unfed then to see the Russians invade. I'm from LA, have you seen skid row ? We don't need to live in a society like this.