Slashdot Mirror
Military Grounds Stealth Bomber Fleet
Ponca City, We Love You writes "America's entire B-2 stealth bomber fleet, which has played a crucial part in all major US conflicts since 1989, has been grounded after one of the jets crashed near a military base in Guam. The crash — the first involving the B-2 — was the most expensive single aircraft accident in history. (The planes cost $1.2B each.) Officials assume the crash was caused by either mechanical failure or human error, but have grounded all B-2s to ensure there is not some fundamental fault developing in the 21-strong fleet. The crash occurred Saturday morning local time as the B-2 was taking off from Andersen Air Force base on Guam, a US territory south of Japan. An Air Force spokesman said, 'The cause of crash is unknown, pending an investigation. The pilots had ejected safely — no serious injuries. One is mobile, one is still in the hospital under observation.'"
It has been my lifes ambition to be modded down on slashdot. Please mod this post to -1. Thankyou.
A stealth bomber crashes? Nobody saw that coming.
Maybe I'm being naive again, but what is the point of designing an untrackable aircraft and then telling the whole world its fleet status? Why is the B2 in the news at all? Or should I be reaching for a tinfoil hat?
"I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
Yes the things people do for a one dollar bet!
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
A reasonable write up over at http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/b-2-crashes-on.html
Good to know the ejection seats work, usually you have to be in a russian jet to find out if those work in real life. If it's one thing the russians can do well, it's make ejection seats that work great !! Damn! if those daredevils don't need them a LOT !!
Here's a news report from a local TV station.
The B-2 is not in production anymore. The total B-2 fleet is 20 aircraft now, where the fuck do you think "a few hundred" would come from?
I love how every military article on slashdot whines about how much the US spends on defense. It's plainly offtopic, and its just a troll.
>Not just overclocking, the latest drivers support SLI too.
Man, that hood ornament must really fuck up the radar cross section.
How else is the US goverment going to convince it's citizens it's time to pony up the cash to produce the B3 ;) ? B2s are so last century after all!
Besides, on a more serious note, I don't think the status of the fleet matters too much, it's a bomber at the end of the day and as far as I'm aware, the US doesn't need to do any bombing that requires a stealth approach at the moment. Any regime counting on doing something nasty that would require such a stealth bombing response by the US might just find itself in for a suprise in that the investigation is suddenly complete and the fleet is back in service without the same prior warning that it was grounded that they got here.
Any minor air to ground attacks where stealth would help, i.e. vs. Taleban strongholds in Afghanistan can probably be handled quite comfortably by the F117 fleet for the time being but again even then I'm not sure the Taleban really has anything much to threaten conventional jets regardless.
The B-2 Bomber fleet is over twenty years old. Not the technology, but the entire fleet. We (congress) authorized the purchase and maintenance of these vehicles, but at some point they will need to be replaced. Now, not only that, but these planes fly 44 hour missions, the longest on record. There are only, now, 21 of these planes left. Just under 5% of the fleet was lost in this one crash. At some point they will either need to retire the existing fleet and put in a new order, or expect the fleet to fall off one by one just like this. Still, we don't know if this was pilot failure or structural, but when you loose that much capability in one crash...it makes you think.
Victory is gained, not in knowing your opponents next move, but in preempting them.
It wasn't hit by falling bits off a classied satellite, was it?
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
So who are these guys?
Sometimes I wonder how much it would cost to build some more B52s. It's an ancient aircraft, but it does the job.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
"which has played a crucial part in all major US conflicts since 1989"
This statement is incorrect by about ten years. The B-2 didn't make it's combat debut until 1999 during the Kosovo war.
I guess the Iranians are pretty happy right now.
It isn't as though this really changes anything. There aren't any nations that will go "Oh well with those aircraft gone we can certainly take the US! Their 12 carriers, hundreds of ICBMs and such aren't any worry at all!"
You also have to remember that the planes aren't being destroyed or anything, just taken out of operation until they do a review. In the event of an emergency, they could be put right back in service. Also, the B2 isn't untrackable, it is just very hard to see on radar. It isn't invisible or anything. Any nation with reasonable satellite intelligence can easily keep watch on the bases (or maybe just base, they used to only fly out of Whiteman, not sure if that's still true) where they fly from and tell when they leave.
The B2 is a stealth jet, and there certainly are some things about it that are classified, but it isn't as though it is some big secret anymore. You can go and see them at air shows and such. It generally isn't even secret what they are being used for. They are just high altitude bombers for whatever conflict the US happens to be in. They are only special in that they are extremely difficult to track on radar (and thus to get a missile to lock on) and that they have a truly world-wide range with refueling (and like a 6000 knot range even without).
In this case no one died, and the situation doesn't call for any immediate use of that plane so it's no big issue that the fleet is grounded.
It's also important to consider that much of the technology that is developed for military aircraft will find its way into civilian aircraft in one way or another. Fly-by-wire, composite materials, titanium details etc. are all a result from the military development. And if the accidents happens with military aircraft where there usually is an ejection seat available it also means that the risk of killing a lot of people is decreased. OK, the ejection seat can fail, it can eject at the wrong moment or the plane can crash into a bad position and kill people. But if a flaw with a design feature can be found on such an aircraft and not be put into the next generation of passenger super-aircraft it can mean a lot.
Of course it's bad that an expensive aircraft crashes, but it's still just money - and essentially the money is already paid and has already looped through the system a few times since. Leading edge tech is always expensive, but usually there are a lot of spinoffs coming through. Otherwise we would still be using artificial limbs using wood and hooks instead of carbon fiber structures, servo motors and computers for our handicapped. (OK, not everyone gets it but its coming through)
Then you may ask what the use there is for a B2 bomber in the end. It is useful in some cases, but the original intent spurned from the cold war is actually no longer there. It sure is a long way better at what it is designed for than the B52, but the B2 is a highly specialized craft while the B52 actually has found some other secondary uses too, which I suspect that the B2 will never achieve. And don't forget that the stealth aircraft business is always a developing part - which means that as soon as someone is able to spot the B2 as easy as a B52 then it will effectively be as obsolete as the B52 - or actually even worse. So in that case the B2 has to be replaced with something new. And I suspect that such work is already in progress regardless of what is said.
As for future military aircraft there is a high probability that they will be unmanned weapons carriers that gets updates from remote systems while still being able to function mostly autonomous. Such solutions will be cheaper per unit and still being able to pack a considerable punch. The disadvantage with such systems is that the picture sometimes changes by the minute in a battle and that means that they can end up doing the completely wrong thing. "Friendly fire - isn't". Of course - humans can also do that mistake so it's no real safeguard to have manned aircraft.
But in all - in today's world the use for heavy weapons is very limited since most conflicts of today are no longer on the scale of nations but reduced to conflicts within nations or even small groups as terrorists and using a bomber in such situations is like using a sledge to eradicate cockroaches in a kitchen. The collateral damage will be too great. And it doesn't matter how great an army you have if you don't have the information to use that army. Failure to get the correct intelligence about your enemy is just leading to overall failure.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
It cost $1.7bn to replace the space shuttle Challenger. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html#1
"Officials assume the crash was caused by either mechanical failure or human error" Is there any other way for a plane to crash?
First, this is really not a big deal as aircraft are usually grounded after an unexplained crash. Second, the B-2 didn't exist in 1989. That F-117A which is being retired was our only stealth aircraft then. Two vastly different aircraft
Derek Greene
... if a stealth bomber crashes and nobody sees it does it make a sound?
Gallons, litres. They're pretty much the same, aren't they?
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Yes, several... structural failure (aircraft breaks, rather than engine dies); wind shear or other weather related issue; unfortunate bird strike; I'm sure there are others I'm not thinking of on my first cup of coffee.
It is 2.1 billion, not 1.2 billion according to what I read http://www.fas.org/man/gao/nsiad97181.htm/
Someone else pointed out that the marginal cost is lower, but the cost of starting up the production line again might even make it higher.
But if they only crash one ever 10 years, then we can probably hold out until the fully robitized versions designed and built in Bangladesh (or somewhere) get cheap...
hostile military action, although you could argue that was back to number #1, the assumption was "accidental" failure as opposed to deliberate.
google gimli glider....
I love it when people complain how expensive something is. When you ONLY make 22 of something, factor in the R&D, and that is why the per copy version is so expensive. You think McDonald's double cheese burgers would be only $1 dollar if they sold only 20 per day? They sell thousands per day, bringing the per cost copy down. If they would TEACH economics properly in the United States, maybe asshats wouldn't comment on things they know nothing about. As once said by a GREAT statesman.... "It's not that liberals are wrong, it's that they know so much that isn't true"
Which is pretty comparable to commercial 4 engine passenger and cargo jets.
Oh -- that means it carries 20 tons at less than 5 gallons per ton-mile.
A 22 mpg pickup with 3/4 ton load is 29 gal/ton-mile.
A Prius at 45 mpg and an 500 lb load (4 pax) is 11 gal/ton-mile.
I don't think they make a Stealth Prius yet.
Pacifist paratroopers yell, "Ghandi!" when they jump.
Dear insane military-industrial complex,
We lost one of your ultra-secret, 1.2 billion dollar stealth planes on a routine mission in the Pacific. The nation was wondering if you would consider replacing this one for free. We've given you just about all the extra money we had saved up for years and years, and we've taken out serious loans to be able to pay for increasingly flamboyant and unnecessary toys. I'm only asking for this freebie because it is getting more and more difficult to convince people that we really need to be spending money on weapons like this when an insurgent army can bring us to our knees in the middle of Iraq. Plus, people are starting to wonder if 1.2 billion dollars would be better spent teaching more intelligence analysts how to speak Arabic, Urdu, and Pashto, and I really think that 1.2 billion would go a long way toward helping us really fight terrorism.
------ Tim O'Brien
Is not that they would no longer be stealthy, it's because they cannot.
...does the government dock your paycheck?
A Pedant writes: Challenger was a *space*craft - it didn't need air :)
One of the significant aspects of the stealth is trying to keep the exhaust temperature somewhat down. It loses a lot of power trying to keep a low infrared profile. Similar problems on intake, direct wide open intakes would also run counter to the stealthiness.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
And if he came from the United States, they would be whining a bit more...
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Did it run Linux?
This worm jumps from flash memory on the hard disk, from hard disk to a back up disk. Back and forth.
If they use smart bombs and smart rockets, they should be connecting these weapons via USB. Or aircraft to some base station.
A worm could just jump to the aircraft computer system. Antivirus software does not detect it. And it is never destroyed completely even if it does. It just writes itself into DLLs.
If it was a worm, it could mean the beginning of the end of the smart bombs and guided missiles.
A classic sign of a declining empire is a massive surge in military spending. During the rise of an empire, many countries will voluntarily join the empire because it is in their own economic interest to do so. As the empire ages, satisfaction with the empire in outlying states begins to decline. The dominant power makes increasing economic demands on these outlying states, while providing decreasing benefits to them. In order to quell the dissatisfaction, the dominant power needs to use increasing amounts of force to preserve imperial power. The increased military spending becomes a huge economic burden for the dominant power, which in turn further increases the economic demands on the outlying states. This becomes a vicious circle of surging dissatisfaction in the empire, and surging military spending. It ends when the economy of the dominant power can no longer sustain the large military. The outlying states fall away to form other alliances, and the former imperial power becomes "just another country".
History has shown this to be true. The Roman Empire collapsed partly because its outlying states rebelled against a huge economic burden. The Spanish Empire collapsed after building a huge armada of ships, only to see the fleet destroyed by an upstart Britain. The British Empire collapsed, as outlying states fell away, despite its huge military power. The Soviet Empire collapsed under the burden of massive military spending. I believe that something similar is happening to America.
Many of America's client states are rebelling against the economic burdens placed upon them. A clear example of this is seen in South America, where several countries (Venezuela included) are acting in contravention to America's economic wishes. One can arguably say that the Islamic insurgency in the Middle East is also a symptom of dissatisfaction by outlying states in the Empire. As the American dollar has declined recently, other currencies, such as the Euro are displacing the US dollar is the currency of choice for international trade. Furthermore, the American economy is in deep trouble, largely because it has borrowed hundreds of billions of dollars to build expensive weapon systems (and also to build too many unproductive but expensive toys such as big screen TV's).
I don't want this decline to happen because I am a part of this empire, but make no mistake: it is happening. Our only hope in this is that America will fade peacefully, like Britain, to become "just another country".
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
(Score:0, Troll)
Nicely done. An informative post on how to get modded down......
"I planned within my means and got a fixed rate mortgage, so where's MY bailout?" -cafepress
Perhaps a technicality - aircraft vs spacecraft?
Nick Waterman, Sr Tech Director, #include <stddisclaimer>
The B-2 has an internal crew of 2. That's ignoring all of the ground crew, like Air Traffic Control and mechanics. The real size of the B-2 crew is considerably greater than 2.
Is it $1.2 billion to manufacture one plane, or is that the total cost of R&D and manufacturing divided by the number of planes sold? How much would it have cost to buy 40 instead of 20?
Visit the
Bzzzzt. Wrong. Thank you for playing.
F-18 (fighter)
EA-6 (Electronic warfare)
AV-8 (Attack/Fighter)
S-3 Viking (ASW)
Now, before you go all "the Harrier is a Marine Corps aircraft" on me, the Harrier is deployed on U.S. Navy commanded assets like the Bonney Dick, and the Corps is part of the DON.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
The B-3 program will be canceled by a sweater wearing President Obama in 2011 after 15 are delivered.
The B-4 will be purchased for the Star Wars II initiative (Reagan shoots first) by President Jeb Bush in 2013.
The replacement for the B-52, the B-6 Stratoshield will be brought into service in 2017, during President Jeb's second term.
The B-2 will retire in 2010.
The B-3 will retire in 2018.
The B-4 will retire in 2020.
The B-6 will retire in 2021.
The B-52 will retire in 2048.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
Ah, that would explain the wings, then.
Maybe it didn't need air, but it didn't 'need' space, either.
-b
No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
"some duct Tape, couple of magnets, some fresh paint it will be fine"
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
I'll get modded down for this one, as it is Slashdot, but here goes:
Many of America's client states are rebelling against the economic burdens placed upon them. A clear example of this is seen in South America, where several countries (Venezuela included) are acting in contravention to America's economic wishes.
Which explains why the U.S. and Peru just struck a free trade agreement and why the U.S. already has a free trade agreement with, pound for pound, what is arguably the most powerful and stable economy in South America - Chile.
Oh, but Chavez. He makes a lot of angry speeches against the U.S.! He MUST hate us! He must just be screwing us and cutting us out!
Try again. Venezuela's main export partner - still by massive, massive margins (46% in 2006, according to the CIA world factbook) is the U.S. He still sends vast majorities of his oil to the U.S. Economically speaking, he's lining up just fine. Security wise, he's causing a few issues with neighboring countries that we would like him to stop, but as far as his massive oil industry - which is the only real engine his economy has - massive amounts of it are coming here, and there's little reason for him to change that.
Also of note, according to CIA World Factbook figures from 2006: Brazil imports almost twice as much from the U.S. as it does Argentina and exports twice as much to the U.S. as well.
Furthermore, the American economy is in deep trouble, largely because it has borrowed hundreds of billions of dollars to build expensive weapon systems (and also to build too many unproductive but expensive toys such as big screen TV's).
Oh please. The American economy has stalled a bit, but we're not even at the point of a classic recession (failure to increase GDP).
The economic system you are discussing is referred to generally as "neo-Marxism", with its focus on large states ruining the outlying countries for their wealth in an evil capitalistic world. What neo-Marxists never came to realize is that the world is not a zero sum game - and that rhetoric rarely translates into cold hard cash.
Now, what the U.S. likely is experiencing is more akin to hegemonic diffusion. The U.S. is, pretty much, an undisputed world Hegemon at this time. However, to maintain this hegemony, it must maintain trade (using its own resources) and trade a great deal with other countries, slowly diffusing its wealth to others. The great examples of this at the moment would be China and perhaps India. China is building a massive military based on income largely from U.S. trade, for example. China improves quickly, and the U.S. finds it increasingly difficult to maintain its relative position. The big question is whether this will switch to a bi-polar world (U.S./China), remain a uni-polar world (U.S., possibly China) or become multi-polar in the end.
Those types of comparisons are kind of silly. Consider that a lot of countries don't even pay their soldiers other than room and board. Ah, your link provides some info about that: the US military budget includes $110.8 billion to pay salaries (and college tuitions I would guess). Your selective quote also conveniently neglected to paste the line before your quote which says that comparison, "... is not adjusted for purchasing power parity." In other words, the same item both militaries have to buy might actually cost 8 times more in the USA vs China.
I don't dispute that america spends a lot on military, but the way people like to exaggerate and bias to make it seem more than it really is is annoying. My ex-gf used to ignorantly claim the *majority* of US government spending is military thanks to her believing disingenuous people misleading folks with selective stats and the like.
Couldn't agree with you more, but as [parent]Brian Gordon quoted, Veterans Affairs are exempt from that statistic, so the college tuition is not included. Though maybe the Tuition Assistance program is, can't remember who pays for that, though it probably is the VA again
I'm fighting The War on Drugs!
okay, they're not for show - but they aren't exactly for -flying- either. At best you could say that the space shuttle is a 'glider' when it's not being the nose end of a rocket or drifting about in space. And it's not even a particularly -good- glider.
It was an old documentary but they were already talking about some techniques to detect stealth airplanes in France. One of them required an array of atennas much like cell phone towers. Granted, that's not as easy as detecting a B-52 where you only need one antenna, but that TV program was aired more than 10 years ago. I'm sure things have progressed since then.
You make some good points, but I don't entirely agree with you.
I disagree. I am not discussing a "neo-Marxist" system. The simple fact is that American client states send America resources, and America sends them back other resources in trade. If the client state is sending America goods in return for a pittance, then this situation is in America's favor. This imbalance in the trade of goods is highly comparable to the situations in previous empires. It doesn't matter whether the trade takes place in the context of a free market system between private corporations, or within the confines of a neo-Marxist empire. You still have a dominant power receiving a huge amount of goods without having to give much back in return. That for me is at the heart of what it means to be an empire.
I didn't say that Venezuela had stopped trading with America. What I said was that Venezuela was not acting according to the economic wishes of America. They have expropriated oil producing properties from American oil companies, including Exxon Mobile. They are keeping a larger amount of the proceeds of selling oil in the country, and they are redistributing those resources. They are also selling oil in currencies other than the US dollar, which is a huge blow to America's economic power. The moves in South America against the US are largely moves to demand more from America in compensation for the goods they ship to the US. And although there are still some US friendly governments in South America, opposition is growing.
We'll see. However, let's look at some of the facts. Firstly, if America is such an economic juggernaut, then why is it such a huge net borrower? One would think that such an economic superpower would be a net lender. And it might not be such a problem if that money was loaned out to finance increased production, to finance the building of factories and infrastructure. But instead, much of that money has been spent on unproductive consumption of disposable consumer goods, or indirectly on outrageously expensive weapons systems. The only redeeming factor of the American debt is that it is in American dollars, and will thus shrink as the dollar loses value. The simple fact is that the American manufacturing sector has been hollowed out, as evidenced by their shockingly large trade deficits. Close to 70% of the American economy is based on consumer spending.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
It has to be bi-polar (U.S./China). Josh Whedon predicted it!
I would mod you down, because your comment doesn't have any logic or basis, but unfortunately I'm out of mod points.
Take for instance your comment on Chile (Most powerful nation in South America? Is this a joke?). You gotta be kidding. You are just taking facts out of your ass and making a pretty weak hypothesis on how US is becoming a Mercantilism hegemony. If you had some understanding on how economics work you would know that US of Amrica doesn't need to strike ridiculous commercial agreements to survive such as it is today. What is needs is a reform from the inside, and from there everything will just fall into place.
All stealth bombers are upgraded with Cyberdyne computers becoming fully un-manned. Afterwards they fly with a perfect operational record. The SkyNet Funding Bill is passed.
At 1.2 billion dollars, is this the best allocation of our defense dollars? This brings to mind an adage. "Never put all of your eggs in one basket." We are in an era of asymmetric warfare, if an enemy can spend 1.2 billion for 100 12 million dollar fighters and deploy them for every B2 bomber, what is the chance that they will get through? Maybe it is time to rethink the cost vs. benefit equation.
While having previously engaged in the Hundred Years War with France, Britain was still a very minor power in Europe during the late 1500s. The major forces were aligned with the Mediterranean. Spain in particular was the dominant power in Europe, and would be for many many years to come, even after the Armada was defeated. To be honest, the British didn't defeat the Armada, it was "defeated" by a nickel-and-dime accumulation of circumstance. Anyway, the British Empire is still ~200 years (take or leave a few decades) away. Spain didn't collapse because of the expense of the Armada - it was funded in great part by the Papal States. However, there is a shift of CULTURAL focus during this period; England perceives herself as ascendant and looks at Spain as a decadent power waiting to fall. King Philip had vaunted his claims; He had sworn for a year he would sack us, With an army of heathenish names He was coming to fagot and stack us; Like the thieves of the sea he would track us, And scatter our ships on the main; But we had bold Neptune to back us and where are the galleons of Spain?
To be fair, Arleigh Burke destroyers and Virgina (or Los Angeles) subs also have support crews much larger than their actual onboard crews.
Chile "arguably" the most powerful economy in South America? That's definitely arguable, and Brazil would very likely win that argument any time...
The 1.2B figure includes the whole logistical tail of the aircraft for its 40 year expected life time. One would assume that all of that remains intact, unless it exploded inside its own hangar and took everything with it. Therefore I don't expect the replacement aircraft to cost more than about 50 million dollars.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
"Military industrial complex"? Please... Approximately 20% of the United States federal budget goes toward military spending. Providing for America's defense is mandated in our constitution. According to the same link, approximately 54% of the United States federal budget goes toward social security, medicare, unemployment, and welfare. Providing entitlements for Americans is not mandated in our constitution. As a percentage of gross domestic product, United States military spending was at 4% in 2005, making it 28th in the world behind countries like Greece, China, Singapore, and Turkey. In the 1950s, US military spending was closer to 15% of GDP. In the Second World War, it was close to 40%. If you're going to compare the amount of US military spending to the rest of the world, at least be honest enough to compare the sizes of the rest of the world's economies. US military spending has not fared well versus entitlement spending over the last several decades in the United States. If you want to see an American "military industrial complex," you're going to have to go back to the Eisenhower administration, ironically enough.
Okay. Let's look at the pertinent details which you are meant to have soaked up but not think about consciously until it becomes useful later.
"1989" "Crashed" "Grounded" "Crucial part in all major US conflicts". --The impression you are to have is of a once proud and distinguished, but now old and unreliable fleet.
"21-strong fleet." --Really? Only 21? I didn't realize. . . (But now you do. Why?)
Having known several journalists, both old guard and new, it is a curious reality that often the people publishing these stories do not know the reasons they are instructed to word things just so, knowing only that deviation is not permitted.
-FL
GDP is measured in dollars and there's inflation, and people immigrate into the united states increasing GDP.
Zero sum game is the new trickle down.
Well, you talk about non-zero sum games and then you talk about diffusion. Then, you talk about polarity from diffusion.
If the Bush administration could tap everyone's phone without a warrant, maybe they would be able to get information from some random guy as to the real root of this crash. Therefore the crash is clearly the fault of the Democrats who let this bill expire.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
The F-4 Phantom went into production in 1960, ended in 1981, but the "Wild Weasel" variant was used even in the Gulf War. That's over 35 years, the longest of US jet aircraft.
The B-52 will reach 53 years of operational service this June. This type has flown since the avionics used vacuum tubes. It is expected to remain in service until 2040!
But simply look at the per-capita GDP numbers - Chile is the highest among those countries generally considered the powerhouses of the region (according to CIA World Factbook, $14,400 - 50% higher than Brazil, a few thousand higher than much, much more stable than Argentina). Growth of the Chilean economy, additionally, has consistently been quite stable, and Chile routinely ranks among the best countries in South America to invest in, often due to low levels of corruption.
You'll note that I included the qualifier "pound for pound". You conveniently exclude this and create a straw man. Cute, but dumb. You're either shadow boxing, or you lack a basic understanding of the English language. The latter seems most likely - especially as mercantilism generally seeks protectionist policies, but you refer to the U.S. seeking free trade agreements as an attempt to create a "mercantilism hegemony".
Now, you were attacking my understanding of economics?
Pound for pound
Look it up. Then try commenting on what I actually wrote.
Well, you talk about non-zero sum games and then you talk about diffusion. Then, you talk about polarity from diffusion.
I also speak of relative position.
Neither the U.S. nor China will (likely) see an absolute loss from trade. The U.S., however, has seen a relative loss as China grows stronger. Both are, however, growing stronger.
Neo-Marxist ideas, such as those in the GP, argue that one grows weaker as the other grows stronger. This is the difference.
The summary says "America's entire B-2 stealth bomber fleet, which has played a crucial part in all major US conflicts since 1989 ..." Which conflict did the B-2 play a crucial role in? It has dropped a few bombs a few times, and those attacks could have been carried out by other means at lower cost. The B-2 has not been "crucial" in any war ever. It has not even been "important".
The plane is a fine technology demonstrator, but not an important weapon system.
I disagree. I think you are discussing a fantasy here. The problem as I see it, is that there's no country that is forced to sell cheap to the US. That includes Iraq and Afghanistan.
I didn't say that Venezuela had stopped trading with America. What I said was that Venezuela was not acting according to the economic wishes of America. They have expropriated oil producing properties from American oil companies, including Exxon Mobile. They are keeping a larger amount of the proceeds of selling oil in the country, and they are redistributing those resources. They are also selling oil in currencies other than the US dollar, which is a huge blow to America's economic power. The moves in South America against the US are largely moves to demand more from America in compensation for the goods they ship to the US. And although there are still some US friendly governments in South America, opposition is growing.Venezuela isn't acting according to the economic wishes of a lot of countries. But that's a common outcome of theft. Further, one can "demand more" from "America", but when you start stealing, then you are demanding more than you should be given. It'll be interesting to see what happens with the Exxon/Venezuela lawsuits. Personally, I favor Exxon because I think this was a blatantly criminal and corrupt act on the part of the Venezuela government. I think it will damage severely economic progress in Venezuela too, but I gather you think differently for some reason.
We'll see. However, let's look at some of the facts. Firstly, if America is such an economic juggernaut, then why is it such a huge net borrower? One would think that such an economic superpower would be a net lender. And it might not be such a problem if that money was loaned out to finance increased production, to finance the building of factories and infrastructure. But instead, much of that money has been spent on unproductive consumption of disposable consumer goods, or indirectly on outrageously expensive weapons systems. The only redeeming factor of the American debt is that it is in American dollars, and will thus shrink as the dollar loses value. The simple fact is that the American manufacturing sector has been hollowed out, as evidenced by their shockingly large trade deficits. Close to 70% of the American economy is based on consumer spending.I'm continually surprised by how well the US economy is doing. Maybe at some point in the not so distant future, the house of cards will fall. But the fact that it hasn't yet indicates to me that there's still a lot of good things going on. For example, US manufacturing is to my understanding, still at the same percentage of GDP that it was in the 80's. US debt still isn't that impressive compared to debt in other developed world countries. Shocking trade deficits indicate BTW that you're incorrect about US client states.
Finally, to answer the question early on in that paragraph. As I see it, the US can borrow a lot of money for several reasons. First, it has the infrastructure in place for secure, reliable loans. Second, it remains one of the best places to lend money.
If the world's biggest military spender only occasionally invades small troublesome third-world nations, and usually only long enough to set up another government, why should the other major nations who can spend proportionally as much of their GDP on defense do so?
And after those two wars, the attitude was condemned as isolationist... The first post-WW2 president — Truman (a Democrat) — said the following:
Very respectable words, justifying and explaining our post-WW2 engagements in Europe, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan (both times), Kuwait and Iraq, as well as more mundane help to Taiwan, Israel, etc.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Sorry to be pedantic, but as a sailor and friend of pilots, it bugs me when people get this wrong (and I see it a lot). Knots are a unit of speed. They were originally determined by dropping a heavy piece of wood in the water, attached to a rope with regularly spaced knots. Speed was measured by seeing how many of the knots were pulled off the vessel in a specific period of time.
In modern usage, it means 1 nautical mile per hour. A nautical mile is just over 6000 feet (1892m, by definition), or about 15% more than a statute (normal) mile, and is based on 1 minute of arc (1/60 of a degree) around the Earth.
Talking about range in knots makes as much sense as discussing top speed in miles. Cheers!
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
There's a distinction here between people and nations that often goes unnoticed by those who make this argument.
If you stop paying your mortgage, the bank comes and kicks you out of your house and then sells it to recover its losses. You're screwed, and the bank can generally recover most of its losses.
If the U.S. suddenly decides to not pay back its loans, China can't kick the U.S. out of house and home. Sure, it would hurt the U.S. to default on loans - it would make getting future loans much harder - but many foreign economies are built in part on loaning money to the U.S. so they can see the return on the interest. Should the U.S. take away that interest, it will hurt itself in the long run but also cause severe damage to foreign economies. Borrowing money from foreign economies makes them all the more dependent on us, and helps ensure that they keep us afloat.
So, who holds the power? The debtor or the holder of the debt? Answer that question completely, and you'll be lauded as a hero among political economists.
Does anybody else wonder why this HW is so expensive? This is paid for through the taxes, so it would be interesting to see if what we are paying for is actual value and not just pumped up salaries and patent fees.
"We could just as easily complete these missions with P-51's with updated avionics. Why not?
No shit, why not?
A screaming P-51 coming down on you would scare the crap out of any insurgents.
And they would be much cheaper to build and maintain, than "modern" aircraft.
By the way...
The F-22 isn't "new", it was designed way back in the 80's, perhaps the late 70's, thats hardly "new" by any means.
Don't look now...
You're the Joke.
He was funny as hell.
You sir, must have quite an "interesting" sense of humor.
The RAF sometimes makes its planes last even longer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet
Eric Baird
Not to underplay the severity of the loss, strategically and financially, we should understand the accounting properly.
With perhaps $20 billion R&D, the B-2 may have an average cost of $1.2 b. spread over 21 built. But the MARGINAL cost to replace is more like $200 m.
"The F22 can take over many of the original roles of the B-2"
What? The F22 and B2 are ridiculously different aircraft with hugely different roles. The F22 is a short range air superiority fighter. The B2 is a long-range penetration/strategic bomber. They are about as diametricly different as two military jets can be. Even the proposed fb-22 bomber variant of the raptor has radiacally different capabilities compared to the B2. (half the range, 1/10th of the bombload)
"congress is only funding a handful of new aircraft"
Congress has only funded a handful (21) or the B2s. It has funded 130 of the F22s. The reason for the low funding of each is the same. It's not clear of how much use either are. Both planes were designed to wage war (either open, or proxy) with the soviet union. IF you look at the most useful planes in the Iraq and afgan wars, they are the B52, F16, and (are you ready for this one) the predator drone. We don't need more sophisticated air superiority jets, because we established air superiority in the first 10 hours of the conflict. We don't need new stealth penetration bombers because the bombers from the 50's are just as good, and can be based from simpler airfield, closer to the action. The air force brass seems to have gadget-lust that doesn't seem at all realated to the real threats and mission requirements. If you want to give the air force new planes, give them lower maintence F16s and B52s.
Furthermore, do you really think that the F22s and F35s will be cheaper to maintain than the existing planes? You're gonna pay those costs either way.
Lastly, the air force budget is higher now, as a share of GDP, than any time since the second world war. If they can't buy planes with they money they are already getting, they are seriously mismanaging their money.
You're forgetting the Battle of The Atlantic - the sub blockade had Britain within inches of starvation, even with US help - without it... my mother was English, and told me about those times... grim doesn't even begin to describe it.
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
Ripley: "They can bill me.
(Aliens )
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Someone is missing some facts in the article, so I'll fill them in.
Guam has been a bomber base since after the US liberated the island territory from the Japanese during World War II. It may have become beefed up again in 2004, but it has always been a bomber base for the Pacific Theater. When the bases in the Philipines closed, they moved and consolidated personnel to Guam. I still have family there and I keep in touch.
I remember civilians being allowed on Anderson Air Force Base to see miles of B-52 bombers, as well as a decommissioned B-52 that kids were allowed to climb into. Those things were cramped, but I mostly remember their prominant large tails and the minutes of driving before we saw the end of them. The base may have stopped being heavily used for a little while after the fall of the Berlin wall and during Clinton's latter years, but the base has stayed on the Northern tip of the island. The airfield is also the emergency landing strip for 747's and other large aircraft.
The U.S. Navy did move off of the Central Island facilities, but they maintain their nuclear submarine base towards the south end of the island. I really miss the days when all citizens were allowed on U.S. bases. There's a lot of history behind them. Since the 80's, the public is forbidden to enter the bases on Guam. There's a few Chamorros (native Guamanians) that are allowed through the base to access their land that the US blocked off. Our neighbors got their families together and we would get invited to go with them through the base. Their family owns the only remaining unspoilt beaches on the island. Contractors that work for the Air Force or Navy are still allowed to enter the base, so sometimes, I get in when my relatives have business there.
The best beach on the island was once accessible to the public, but the dozen plus hotels that have built up around it and the numerous Japanese Tourists make it unpleasant to visit. They hotels didn't like all the seaweed washing on shore so they dredged the bay because because they wanted unsullied white sand. Much of the reef was killed off. I miss all the colorful little tropical fish that was once abundant. After the dredging, of course, they started to adopt Federal EPA regulations, so now it's a protected area with not much to protect.
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com