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."
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
Here's a news report from a local TV station.
>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.
Oh, so you manage to spend more than everybody else even _without_ fancy new bombers.
See how that doesnt help your argument one bit.
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
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?
HIS argument that this whole thing is completely off-topic, and HIS argument still stands. I see very little connection between the current US military budget and an aircraft originally rolled out (in public) in 1988.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
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
The summary states that "The crash [...] was the most expensive single aircraft accident in history. (The planes cost $1.2B each.)".
Of course it's going to spawn discussions about military spending.
Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
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...
But it's military spending from the cold war. That 1.2 billion was spent in the late 80s/early 90s. We've moved on from that particular discussion - unless we're talking history. The US does not currently buy billion-dollar planes.
But the (great-great? grand) parent was not interested in that - he just using the story as an excuse to post the same crap that gets posted to EVERY SINGLE STORY on the US military.
At the very least, it's "redundant".
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
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
exactly. it costs money to BUY stuff.
All those missiles, planes, and bombs just sit there in inventory as money already spent. It is replace those missiles, planes and bombs that gets expensive.
I look at it like this. The US military has just been clearing out old ordnance for the past few years. This will make more room for the fancy expensive missiles that are in this years budget.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
...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.
Not totally, but all of Europe and North Africa would have ended up under German rule had the US not supplied millions of men and women along with billions of dollars in equipment and supplies to the effort. The post-war decades would most likely have ended up quite differently as well, had it not been for the concentration of US forces (and the assurance of US large scale support) in Europe. I don't know who *you* think was primarily responsible for the Allied victories during WWII, but I'm quite sure it would be entertaining to hear. The French, perhaps? Maybe the mighty Canadian forces?
Did it run Linux?
The USSR was a big part of it.
You're blowing a lot of liberal fuses here. Massive violence, unleashed on largely civilians, by the US, for a prolonged period of time, with massive casualties on the US side (not nearly as massive as on the enemy's side, but massive nonetheless).
...)
And this was a good thing. In fact it wasn't just good, in fact 64 years later people (those civilians that were targeted) are still holding relatively massive ceremonies for thanking the US of unleashing said violence on, again, largely on them.
Because, as bad as the US was in WWII, it was a lot better than the other guys.
Just like every other war. The US soldiers were no angels. Nobody's really claiming that. But every conflict they were a hell of a lot better than the guys they killed, and every retreat by the US military was immediately followed by genocide (e.g. Vietnam, Korea, Gulf War I,
Today, liberals claim the opposite. They're "postmodern". Every ideology is equally good. Islamic ideology is equally good as american. In practice, that means blowing up your neighbour by kidnapping a mentally ill girl and strapping a remotely-controlled bomb to her, because you disagree with him not stoning his daughter to death for looking at a boy, is equally good as bringing down saddam.
Constant genocides was how Saddam came to power, and how he stayed in power. Of course fighting against an army that commits genocide as a matter of policy is morally reprehensible, right ? Well that's how democrats view things.
That's liberal (liberal as in the democrats ideology) ideology for you. Obviously it's wrong. That's why their "every ideology is equally true" mantra has to be defended by constant violence obviously.
You are dating your understanding of history - calling into question your credibility. As a matter of fact, Canada's navy at the time boasted one of the largest fleets in the world, behind only America and the UK. By the end of WWII the RCN had exercised dominance over the northwest Atlantic.
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.
Are you being funny or serious ? Because those embedded systems sure as heck don't run on Windows...
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
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.
I wonder about this common knowledge, since it seems to me that the Nazis were getting seriously routed by the Soviets by the time the US got involved in Europe. If the US hadn't gotten involved in Europe during WWII, they wouldn't be speaking German in France, they'd be speaking Russian*.
At the end, it was a foot-race to get our own little piece of Germany from the Soviets, and our own sphere of influence in that part of the world.
* Personally, I think our supply lines to "free Europe" were more pivotal in the conflict than our personal involvement in the fighting.
PS
The bulk of the Allied forces in the African campaigns were British, with as many French troops as American. They were all under the command of the British Eighth Army.
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.
The Democratic party wants to get out of Iraq because, well, we WON. Saddam is out of power. His constant genocides stopped. He is no longer training terrorists -- in fact, the only terrorists in Iraq are a hell of a lot closer to the patriots of the American Revolution than the dimwitted asshats who attacked in 2001.
Those who say we never should have gotten into Iraq don't say it because they feel that somehow it was a morally bad thing. It was a tactically bad thing -- with Iraq neutralized, Iran is now unchecked in the region. We should have stayed in Afghanistan, maybe Pakistan, and finished what we started. And if we HAD to invade Iraq, we should have gone in and handled it a hell of a lot better than we did. (Did you know that there were still Nazis running Germany immediately after WWII?)
The only thing morally reprehensible here is the lies that the right-wing neo-facists constantly spread about what Democrats believe. It's as if they can't come up with a simple argument about why they're right and the other guy is wrong, without misrepresenting what the other guy is saying. No, wait... that's exactly it.
In parting:
1: Democrats began nearly every just war we've ever fought. And more than a few of the unjust ones. If you wanted to split the political parties to simple terms, the Democrats think the military is a tool to be used. The Republicans feel that the military is a good end unto itself. (Both are oversimplifcations.)
2: Interesting how you're ignoring things like WWI, or the Indian Wars, or the Civil War, or the War of 1812, or the American Revolution. Sometimes we fight an army with no moral compass. Other times we do. It happens. (And the only post-American withdrawl "genocide" I recall was in Iraq, when we didn't follow through like we said we would. Korea and Vietnam were, well, war, followed by run of the mill starvation.)
I don't know who *you* think was primarily responsible for the Allied victories during WWII, but I'm quite sure it would be entertaining to hear. The French, perhaps? Maybe the mighty Canadian forces?
That would be the USSR.
The US played a secondary role in WWII.
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)
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.
And who gave the Soviets a free run to Berlin? Bradley put pressure onto a rather weak Eisenhower to concenrtate in clearing up the Ruhr pocket, and in turn getting nice headlines about 300k+ prisoners. By that stage of the war Eisenhower was clearly sitting with an eye on a future White House campaign, the US military in Europe was pretty much running itself, Marshall was willing to give them a free hand and Roosevelt was not long for this world. Even the generals under Eisenhower, Ridgeway and Patton for example, wanted to push to Berlin, but were not told until the last minute that they would have to halt at the Elbe.
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.
Let's be fair here: it's not exactly fair to compare the US military budget with the needs of defending the US alone, since we have many obligations to other countries. Japan, for instance, only has a small "Self-Defense Force", and depends on the U.S. to defend it from attack. A lot of the peace and prosperity of east Asia stems from our obligation to protect Japan--if Japan were to re-arm, it would endanger their relations with South Korea and China, severely hurting trade. Likewise, our presence in South Korea saves them from having to get into an arms race with the North.
Then there's Europe. Europe isn't in such a precarious position anymore, and we could probably withdraw our troops, but in order to get the same level of protection the European countries would have to spend more on their militaries. There's also the fact that, even if we did withdraw, NATO still obligates us to intervene should any of those countries be attacked. Iceland is a special case--they don't even have a military, just a permanently stationed detachment of the American military to protect them. Part of this is due to the strategic importance of securing the G-I-UK (Greenland-Iceland-UK) gap in the north Atlantic.
As for the Americas, Canada is part of NATO, and anyone who wanted to invade or attack the Western Hemisphere would be a threat to us, although there's the occasional allowance for very close allies like the UK. This is the original intent of the Monroe Doctrine--Monroe intended it as a mandate to protect the Americas from foreign intervention, although it was later abused by Roosevelt to justify US intervention.
By treaty or by necessity, we are obligated to protect not only ourselves, but also most of Europe, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the entire Americas. I would certainly expect that defending that much territory would require more money than the rest of the world's military budget put together.
The sad part is, most of that budget is pork. When the chips were down, defeating and pacifying Iraq took most of what we could deploy. Now, defeating and pacifying Iraq in the first place was a horribly bad idea to begin with, but the point remains--despite the spending, US military effectiveness is a lot less than we bargained for, and a lot less than anyone would expect looking at the numbers.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
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?
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
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!
Wow... where to begin? First, the most ridiculous point. The US didn't even come close to genocide during WWII. Wiping out a couple of cities != a campaign to kill every living person of Japanese ancestry. The Nazis were indeed trying to wipe out every living Jew, Gypsy and what have you. It's not the same thing. The whole point to dropping nukes on Japan was to shorten that war and avoid an invasion of the Japanese mainland - which would probably have cost more American lives than the bombs dropped at Hiroshima and Nagasaki cost in Japanese lives. It worked, and worked well. As for the "secret economic imperialism" bit, yeah, we've meddled in the affairs of other countries, ever since we got big enough and economically powerful enough to do so. It's what big, economically powerful countries do. Take a look at history... Britain, Spain, Portugal, Russia, France, Germany, Rome, Egypt, name a major world power throughout history and you'll be naming a country that has exerted influence, economic and otherwise, to its own benefit. You seem to think that this is a bad thing in every case, and that those poor little downtrodden folk in such would-be Utopian places like Vietnam, Nicaragua and Venezuela would be just fine if left to their own devices. OK, yeah, right. Left to their own devices, most of those places would (and many have) descended into hellish shitholes that the rest of the world would then be pissing and moaning that the US won't help to clean up.
I am sure there is the OS in the smart bombs and missiles. The TV picture is broadcasted from those missiles.
Would you write drivers, invent new USB connections, just to have it different from the civilians' computers?
On the contrary, the inventions come from military to civilians. JPG type images were in 80s the top secret. Now they are ubiquitous.
Given that the smart bombs and missiles run OS, say, Windows OS (why not?), one connects a smart bomb for an patrol or drill. Worm jumps. I could not believe it when I saw as a worm jumps.
For all I saw, the whole 100 000 of the smart guided missiles could be infected. So "good" are those worms. All B2 fleet, not just one aircraft.
"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
The USA did not give any aid to the other allies, they mostly made loans to to them so the could buy stuff from American companies. After Japan attacked perl harbour then they sent the army.
Without the USA the allies would probably have lost, that is obvious. England would not have turned back the German attack without all the food, supplies and money the USA sold and loaned. Loan with interest from private banks, who also financed the nazi before , and some even after, the USA entered the war. I think the last payment from England has been made just a few years ago. But the USA surely did not win the war by itself.
Yeah, damn the Americans and Brits for coming up with the concept of bombing cities. I mean it's not as though the Germans ever bombed civilians or anything like that. And we know that the Japanese would never have done it either.
After WWII the military industrial complex came into being, and has been used primarily to support corporations turn larger and larger profits at the expense of poor countries everywhere.You do realize that we were in the process of dismantling the "military-industrial complex" until the Korean War started, right? The United States was discharging hundreds of thousands of men from it's armed forces at the same time as mutations plants were being converted back to the civilian economy. Korea (and the subsequent beginning of the Cold War) changed all of that.
We can argue about whether or not it was really necessary to build this war machine -- but don't pretend that it was just because the United States wanted to remain the global hegemony. Go read a history book and put yourself in the shoes of Truman or Eisenhower. Consider the actions of Stalin/the USSR at the time and tell me that you wouldn't have been legitimately worried about the Soviet Union. Keep in mind that just ten years prior the most bloody conflict in the history of the human race (with 72 million deaths on all sides) had been fought. Keep in mind that the Soviet Union had hundreds of divisions posed to march to the Bay of Biscay and a leader who took it upon himself to annex neighboring countries in violation of his wartime agreements with FDR and Churchill.
Fucking Christ! I don't agree with everything that my country does either but people like you make it next to impossible for Progressives/Liberals to have a meaningful debate about foreign policy/national security because your inclination is to automatically blame the United States first and to hell with history or a meaningful look at both sides of an issue. Newsflash: It's all the fault of the United States!
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
It's not all the fault of....
Hmm, I bet some people are going to have fun with that typo at my expense :P Oh well!
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
American ejection seats work just as well as Russian ones. The reason you don't see footage in those sensationalist TV shows is a testament to American aricraft being fairly reliable.
Martin Baker
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!
Look, I never said or even implied that the US has a monopoly on this kind of shit. I'm just sick of Americans acting like our government has the right to do whatever the fuck they want when they want regardless of the consequences. Just because I'm criticizing the US government's policies doesn't mean I'm holding them solely responsible for everything that's wrong with the world. I really don't understand how that kind of assumption is justified.
Smart missiles and stealth bombers do NOT run windows... nobody is stupid enough put something like that in. The manufacturer of the weapon system (or of the avionics in the case of stealth bombers and other aircraft) write their own proprietary software which is also classified.
I'll try anything once. Twice if it's DRM free.
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.
Buddy, if you think Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the only Japanese cities we decimated during World War II, you really need to pick up a history book. We firebombed ever major city in Japan - and they still wouldn't give up. We killed a lot of civilians in the push to soften up the home islands before any nuclear bombs were used.
Many of those cost areas are a self-imposed burden. WRT South Korea, Japan and Europe, there are two sides to that coin:
1. They might have to increase military $ to compensate for US departure
2. It is in the US's interests to ensure that it is *their* troops there rather than someone else's. It is a means of projecting power.
meh
Again, if Japan re-arms and spends its money on its military, the entire region is destabilized. And South Korea can't afford the burden of keeping up with the North in the arms race. Europe remains an exception, but if they have to increase their military spending, it'll be more difficult for them to keep up their social welfare programs.
South Korea, Japan, and the nations of Europe are all free countries. They have the ability and the responsibility to decide whether or not to host American troops on their soil. They choose to continue accepting American military assistance, and as long as they do that, American military responsibility remains as extensive as it is. This may be in the national interest of the United States, but it's ultimately in the interests of our allies as well.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
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.
One big problem is that once two or more groups of people start hating and attacking each other it is very very difficult to break the cycle. They hate and/or feel threatened by each other so they attack each other. This makes them hate each other and feel threatened by each other even more.
in general stability and prosperity breeds more stability and prosperity while instability and poverty breeds more instability and poverty. Unfortunately it is very hard to make a country stable and prosperous against their will, not to mention not nessacerally in our (as westerners) best interests.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
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.
The Democratic party wants to get out of Iraq because, well, we WON. Saddam is out of power. His constant genocides stopped. He is no longer training terrorists -- in fact, the only terrorists in Iraq are a hell of a lot closer to the patriots of the American Revolution than the dimwitted asshats who attacked in 2001.
Are you trying to be humorous ? This is completely laughable. Everybody know just how much democrats consider the Iraq war won.
Besides, if the US gets out now, the genocides will immediately restart. The US must maintain a significant presence there for at least some 10 years or so.
However, the problem in the military sphere could be much worse. The worm-bots network of millions computers are the grim reality of today. Imagine if the whole fleet of the US guided missiles (100 000) is taken over by the worm-hackers. Or the B2 fleet. Or both.
Give me a good reason why it cannot happen. It happens in the computing world every day. I was nearly put on my knees by the Amvo worm. Each time I insert a flash memory or back up hard drive I feel uneasy being through the running battle with this worm. I am still not sure if I won. Because sometimes this thing appear from nowhere, and it hides itself. the AI - Artificial Intelligence was archived in these worms. They are intelligent living creatures. Why a military guy should be in a better position than me?
You justified that assumption with this line:
First off, many instances of "massive violence" during WWII by the US was the testing of experimental weapons on populations. There was no need to fire bomb German (and Japanese) cities and nuke Japan except to try out some fancy new weaponsHad you chosen to point out some of our actions during the Cold War (like overthrowing the elected Government of Iran or our numerous interventions in Latin America) you might have had the beginnings of a meaningful discussion about US foreign policy. Instead you decided to attack the actions of the United States during WW2 using flamebait'ish statements like "we only nuked them to test our fancy new weapons". As if strategic bombing was unique to the United States during WW2. You realize that all of our enemies and one of our major allies (the UK) did it as well, right?
And WTF is "testing of experimental weapons on populations"? Are you referring to the nuclear bombings? Or were there other "experimental" weapons that we "tested on populations"? You realize that if we hadn't bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki that Japan probably would have wound up divided between the United States and the Soviet Union like Germany did, right? Do you really think that a divided Japan would have worked out better for World history? Try to imagine a Japanese "Checkpoint Charlie". Try to imagine a Tokyo airlift after the Soviets cut off road access for the allies and food supplies for the population. Imagine hundreds of thousands of Japanese women brutally raped by Red Army troops. Picture a militarized Japan complete with Iron Curtain and hundreds of thousands of Red Army soldiers staring across it at hundreds of thousands of American and Japanese ones.
All of that is what would have happened if we had to invade Japan. The Soviets would have invaded from the North and conquered at least half the country. All of Korea would have wound up communist, as opposed to only half of it. Millions of civilians would have died alongside of hundreds of thousands of troops on both sides. The war would have dragged on for at least another year.
I'm sorry, the United States has done some really hypocritical stuff throughout it's history but you lose all creditably by making blanket statements like you did earlier. Go read a history book and learn what was at stake during WW2 and then tell me that in FDR or Churchill's shoes you would have done it differently.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
The RAF sometimes makes its planes last even longer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet
Eric Baird
>>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.
The RFP for the program resulting in the F-22 didn't get released until 1986. The maiden flight was in 1990. In terms of designing a new airframe from scratch out of exotic materials, and exceeding stealthiness and maneuverability requirements, in addition to an advanced avionics package, yes, the F-22 was developed quickly. And it is new, by all means, as a fighter. I challenge you to find a 5th-generation fighter that was developed in the same period, in the same time frame, that comes even close to the capabilities of the F-22. Not that I think you'll respond.
I think you're missing the point about new aircraft; I guess I assumed I wouldn't have to say it. Half of an airplane is killing bad guys/gathering recon/etc., and the other half is keeping the pilot alive. If we flew P-51's, we'd lose pilots all the time. And many other countries have fighters that could handily take down an entire wing of P-51's with one wing tied behind their back.
And you're forgetting that our offensive capabilities haven't always been, nor will they always be, solely about bombing guys in caves. There is much more at stake here.
-b
No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
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.
You justified that assumption with this line:
First off, many instances of "massive violence" during WWII by the US was the testing of experimental weapons on populations. There was no need to fire bomb German (and Japanese) cities and nuke Japan except to try out some fancy new weaponsHad you chosen to point out some of our actions during the Cold War (like overthrowing the elected Government of Iran or our numerous interventions in Latin America) you might have had the beginnings of a meaningful discussion about US foreign policy. Instead you decided to attack the actions of the United States during WW2 using flamebait'ish statements like "we only nuked them to test our fancy new weapons". As if strategic bombing was unique to the United States during WW2. You realize that all of our enemies and one of our major allies (the UK) did it as well, right?
I'm sorry, but your argument just isn't logical. There's nothing in what I said that indicates I think the US is responsible for all the ills of the world. You're fishing for excuses because you don't like what I said. Sure I could have been less sarcastic (apparently sarcasm is called flame bait now), but the fact remains that weapons of mass destruction are not strategic weapons. They are weapons of terror. That shouldn't be excused for any military, even the "benevolent" US military.You realize that if we hadn't bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki that Japan probably would have wound up divided between the United States and the Soviet Union like Germany did, right?
Yes, and in fact that was in my "redundant" post. I think we're both guilty of idealizing our points of view here. There's no telling how the invasion of Japan would have gone without the nuclear weapons. My position is that nukes are horrible creations that have no morally justifiable use, even as a means to an end. Others, including yourself, apparently feel that they're use *is* justified under certain circumstances.I'm sorry, the United States has done some really hypocritical stuff throughout it's history but you lose all creditably by making blanket statements like you did earlier. Go read a history book and learn what was at stake during WW2 and then tell me that in FDR or Churchill's shoes you would have done it differently.
This is such a silly statement (aside from insisting once again that I've not read any US history) because a) none of us were there, b) history texts are always biased, and c) I'm not FDR or Churchill. That said, yes, I honestly believe that if I were President I would not have used weapons of mass destruction. To me it's akin to the torture debate. The cost of using them doesn't justify the possible benefits. Anyway, if I keep arguing here I'm just going to get more "redundent" mods. Note to self: Don't ever use sarcasm on Slashdot."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.
No, but implying that the United States nuked Japan just to "test out some fancy new weapons" hardly indicates an open mind with regards to the United States. Anybody who bothered to open a history book and learn about the debate in the Truman Administration regarding those weapons would know that wasn't the case. We can debate the wisdom of using them until the Sun goes dark but they weren't dropped for the reason that you stated.
but the fact remains that weapons of mass destruction are not strategic weapons. They are weapons of terrorHow is a single nuclear weapon dropped on a city anymore of a "weapon of terror" then the firebombing raids conducted by both sides during WW2? Both actions were considered to have legitimate military value at the time. Hell, the firebombing of Tokyo killed more people then either nuclear blast did. And the concept of "total war" is not a new invention of WW2 either -- go read about Sherman's March to the Sea or the concept of scorched Earth defense.
My position is that nukes are horrible creations that have no morally justifiable useThat's a very admirable position that I can respect. But I question trying to apply your modern day morality (backed with full historical hindsight) to the impossible situation that Truman was in. Every single indication that he had suggested the Japanese were ready to fight to the death. Would you really have sent hundreds of thousands of Allied troops and millions of Japanese civilians to their deaths? Go look at how fiercely the Japanese contested Okinawa. Look at the Japanese civilians on Okinawa and the Marianas who chose to commit suicide rather then fall under the control of the United States. Tell me you'd really want to see that played out in the Home Islands.
In retrospect the nuclear attacks probably weren't required -- the second one definitely wasn't. Many historians place as much credit on the Soviet Union for the decision of the Japanese to surrender as they do the atomic bombings. Before the war even started, the Soviet Union was feared in Japan (read about the Battle of Khalkhin Gol). Once they got involved, the Soviet Union crushed the Japanese armies in Manchuria (Operation August Storm) in less then a week and stood poised to invade/occupy Hokkaido and probably a good chunk of Honshu by the time it was over.
The Japanese leadership likely decided that being occupied by the United States was infinitely better than being occupied by the Soviet Union and thus ended the war. In any case though, Truman didn't know any of this, the first bomb was dropped before the launch of August Storm and the rest is all hindsight. I do find it interesting though that you make the assumption that he only dropped the bomb to "test some fancy new weapons". Do you really believe that?
Anyway, if I keep arguing here I'm just going to get more "redundent" mods. Note to self: Don't ever use sarcasm on Slashdot.*shrug*, I'd keep discussing it until the cows come home. Let 'em mod you down. I suspect that you have karma to burn, as do I. I'm never afraid to express an unpopular viewpoint just because of the mods. And I browse at -1.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
There's nothing in what I said that indicates I think the US is responsible for all the ills of the world
No, but implying that the United States nuked Japan just to "test out some fancy new weapons" hardly indicates an open mind with regards to the United States. Anybody who bothered to open a history book and learn about the debate in the Truman Administration regarding those weapons would know that wasn't the case. We can debate the wisdom of using them until the Sun goes dark but they weren't dropped for the reason that you stated.
The funny thing is that buying into the official reasons for doing things in government without question leads me to believe you don't have a very open mind. I know the official story, but I don't buy it. The original impetus for building nukes was as a deterrent against Germany. I believe the "shorten the war" line, and "all Japanese are combatants" justification were excuses so they could see what the bomb would do in a real scenario. Why not drop one and say there's more where that came from? The first bomb, "Little Boy", was a uranium-based bomb, and that type had never been tested before. Why not drop "Fat Man" first, since the trinity test had already confirmed that plutonium-based bombs worked?
Beyond that, there are economic reasons for keeping Russia out of Japan. If we really cared about the welfare of people in other lands (i.e. your prediction that Russia would have brutalized more civilians than the bombs) we would have entered the war when Hitler was gassing the Jews. But we didn't. We were more concerned about catching up to the other imperial powers, and getting a piece of China and S.E. Asia. We started restricting Japan's access to iron and oil, and you can easily argue that Japan attacked us because of that, not because they were teamed up with Hitler. What if we had simply said "Lets call a truce. We'll get out of your way in China and call it even?" No, we had to blow the shit out of them so we could keep our plans of exploitation.
but the fact remains that weapons of mass destruction are not strategic weapons. They are weapons of terror
How is a single nuclear weapon dropped on a city anymore of a "weapon of terror" then the firebombing raids conducted by both sides during WW2? Both actions were considered to have legitimate military value at the time. Hell, the firebombing of Tokyo killed more people then either nuclear blast did. And the concept of "total war" is not a new invention of WW2 either -- go read about Sherman's March to the Sea or the concept of scorched Earth defense.
I'm not trying to compare the death toles of different bombings. My original response was to a post where the author seemed to be saying that our military was some how more righteous than others. My motivation for saying what I did was primarily to show that we committed plenty of atrocities that have very questionable justification as well. The German military in general wasn't any more or less evil than our military. Both sides were fighting for what they thought were just causes. It's generally the leaders at the top that decide to commit genocide or target civilians. The soldiers, for the most part, just do what they're told. If they didn't, their consciences wouldn't allow them to keep fighting. And of course the government is going to say a bombing had strategic value. If they didn't they couldn't justify doing it! Yes you're perfectly valid in bringing up hindsight again to show how easy it is for me to criticize what was done, but I could just as easily argue once again that the fact that we won the war doesn't justify everything we did. That last clause in the previous sentence is the other main point I was trying to make in contrast to the post I responded to originally.
My position is that nukes are horrible creations that have no morally justifi
I'll give you a reason why a military guy should be in a better position than you. Because his and other's lives depend on these these systems. I'm a "military guy" and I definitely think I should be in a better position than someone whose life does not depend on an F-15 dropping a 1000 pound bomb on the right position at the right time. I'm not saying these systems are totally, completely invulnerable either by virtue of programming or being classified. They're just better off than a Windows PC connected to the internet 24/7. US planes are generally not connected to the internet. An intranet, perhaps. But its not like Capt. Smith in his B-2 carrying 32,000 pounds of bombs has a DSL connection in the cockpit.
I'll try anything once. Twice if it's DRM free.
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
I believe the "shorten the war" line, and "all Japanese are combatants" justification were excuses so they could see what the bomb would do in a real scenario
If that is your belief then it's not likely that we will find any common ground. Nothing I have ever seen or read would lead me to think that Truman made to call to drop the bomb just to "see what it would do". Can you produce any evidence that he did or is it all just a guessing game with the benefit of full historical hindsight?
The first bomb, "Little Boy", was a uranium-based bomb, and that type had never been tested before. Why not drop "Fat Man" first, since the trinity test had already confirmed that plutonium-based bombs worked?
Everything that I've read about the Manhattan Project says the Uranium bomb was a pretty sure bet -- they were confident that it would work without testing it. The implosion design of the plutonium bomb was the much harder design and nobody was quite sure it would work until after Trinity. Do you honestly believe that Little Boy was dropped on a live target just as a test? That the American leadership would decide to kill tens of thousands for no purpose other than a "test"?
We started restricting Japan's access to iron and oil, and you can easily argue that Japan attacked us because of that, not because they were teamed up with Hitler. What if we had simply said "Lets call a truce. We'll get out of your way in China and call it even?" No, we had to blow the shit out of them so we could keep our plans of exploitation.
Wow! You almost make it sound as though it was the United States that forced Japan to invade China in the first place. For the historical record, we stopped selling Japan oil and iron because of their despicable actions in China. They responded to that by attacking us without a declaration of war while simultaneously engaging in peace talks. How you can blame the United States for any of that is beyond me. Japan had her own imperialistic designs. We didn't invade China and brutalize millions of people.
The German military in general wasn't any more or less evil than our military
Really? Forget the Jewish Holocaust (that recent documentation has said the Wermarcht was complacent in) -- I can think of a few Russian POWs and civilians on the Eastern Front that would take issue with your claim that the German military wasn't "any more or less evil" then our own.
Both sides were fighting for what they thought were just causes
Yes, indeed. Our just cause was liberating a conquered continent and defeating fascism. Their "just cause" was brutalizing entire cultures (the Jews and Slavs) to obtain "living space" for the Reich's Master Race. Those are real relative causes. Do you even realize the nonsense that you are spouting?
t's generally the leaders at the top that decide to commit genocide or target civilians. The soldiers, for the most part, just do what they're told
Sorry, "I was only following orders" ceased to be a valid excuse after Nuremberg.
but I could just as easily argue once again that the fact that we won the war doesn't justify everything we did
Yeah, and you won't get any argument out of me on that. Off the top of my head of things that weren't justified: Japanese internment. We did a lot of things during the War that weren't justifiable with hindsight. But I just don't agree that the bomber offensives against Germany and Japan fall into that category.
We broke the Japanese secret code. We knew they were attempting to negotiate with the Russians. It's actually quite likely we did know, but didn't care.
Yes, we did. And around this same time they rejected the Potsdam declaration and gave every indication that they intended to fight it on to the bitter end. Go rent th
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I would dismiss this issue myself if I did not look into this issue closely recently. These worms are the creatures from H*ll. The best of the best thinkers in the computer industry cannot solve the problem. Millions of computers are infected.
I am not talking of the regular update or having an anti virus soft. These things do not always help. I am still unconvinced that somewhere there are people who did solve the problem and have their networks clean.
It is and it always be a running battle. The only difference is that in the case of military - taking over the computer systems may mean - getting the fleet worth of billions under unauthorized operational command.
If that is your belief then it's not likely that we will find any common ground. Nothing I have ever seen or read would lead me to think that Truman made to call to drop the bomb just to "see what it would do". Can you produce any evidence that he did or is it all just a guessing game with the benefit of full historical hindsight?
I've already explained why a scenario like this makes sense to me. It's not based on evidence for the scenario, but evidence against the opposite. That's a perfectly valid form of deduction.
Do you honestly believe that Little Boy was dropped on a live target just as a test? That the American leadership would decide to kill tens of thousands for no purpose other than a "test"?
I find your shock at thinking someone could believe the US government could do something like this a bit amusing. Do you honestly still think we're in Iraq because of WMD? How many have died there for what is just a natural resource grab? Abso-fucking-lutely the government is capable of something like this! This is a facet of something I've been trying to argue. The military can claim justification for a great deal under the auspices of war.
Wow! You almost make it sound as though it was the United States that forced Japan to invade China in the first place. For the historical record, we stopped selling Japan oil and iron because of their despicable actions in China. They responded to that by attacking us without a declaration of war while simultaneously engaging in peace talks. How you can blame the United States for any of that is beyond me. Japan had her own imperialistic designs. We didn't invade China and brutalize millions of people.
WTF? There you go with these leaps into insane conclusions! Why the fuck would I think the US forced Japan to invade China? How does that come from anything I said? Seriously, you need to read what I'm saying more carefully instead of injecting your preconceived notions of what you think I am.
That said, you again assume that the US government gives a shit about the welfare of people in other countries. Again I bring up our government's disinterest in helping the Jews when they were being slaughtered. Why would we care about the Chinese, especially considering our bigoted culture and history? We wanted to keep Japan in check because we wanted a piece of the pie. And as for us not invading China and brutalizing the population, perhaps you forgot about our brief and brutal occupation of the Philippines? Or maybe about our extermination of the indigenous people of this land?
Really? Forget the Jewish Holocaust (that recent documentation has said the Wermarcht was complacent in) -- I can think of a few Russian POWs and civilians on the Eastern Front that would take issue with your claim that the German military wasn't "any more or less evil" then our own.
Yes, indeed. Our just cause was liberating a conquered continent and defeating fascism. Their "just cause" was brutalizing entire cultures (the Jews and Slavs) to obtain "living space" for the Reich's Master Race. Those are real relative causes. Do you even realize the nonsense that you are spouting?
Sorry, "I was only following orders" ceased to be a valid excuse after Nuremberg.
You're completely missing my point once again. I'm not comparing the causes. There's a reason Germans today reject nationalism. It's because they're frightened of what it can make people believe and do. I'd be the last person to say that the Nazi cause was just. I'm saying the humans that made up the military were convinced that what they were doing was just, or at least was not morally reprehensible. And just because "I was only following orders" isn't a valid legal defense, that certainly doesn't mean it isn't valid for individuals. Ever hear of the obedience to authority experiments in the '70s? Many participants were traumatized because it was demons
And I find your attempt to link the modern day policies of GWB to a discussion about WW2 to be pretty amusing.
WTF? There you go with these leaps into insane conclusions! Why the fuck would I think the US forced Japan to invade China? How does that come from anything I said? Seriously, you need to read what I'm saying more carefully instead of injecting your preconceived notions of what you think I am.What the hell else am I supposed to think when you dismiss every single positive thing about our history with canned lines like "We were more concerned about catching up to the other imperial powers, and getting a piece of China and S.E. Asia" that have no basis in historical fact?
If you bothered to open a history book you might learn that FDR was primarily interested in the War in Europe and did everything that he could to avoid war with Japan while still trying to constrain their actions in China. If you bothered to do any study of the man you might learn that FDR was fundamentally opposed to imperialism/colonialism and did everything in his power to see that it would end after the war -- even when those goals conflicted with the interests of our Allies (France and the UK).
Dude, you just admitted in your last post that in retrospect the nukes probably didn't change the outcome. Now you seem to be implying that they did by referencing a movie.I referenced that movie to try and give you some perspective on just how hard it actually was to get the Japanese to surrender. It's a really interesting look into the mentality of the Japanese leadership during the War. It's also a Japanese movie -- not an American one -- so I tend to give it more weight than I would an equivalent American production. If you take one single thing away from this discussion I hope it's a desire to see that film and do some meaningful research into that period of history.
Don't make up some bullshit excuse like "come back when your not an idiot".That's about what it boils down to with you. Half of your arguments have no basis in historical fact. I haven't seen a shred of evidence that exists to support the theory that we nuked Japan just to test out our new weapons. Even the people in the Truman Administration/military leadership who opposed the bombings have never suggested that. There's nothing in the historical record to suggest that FDR had imperialistic designs/ambitions on anyone, yet you claim we only got involved to secure our "slice of the pie". What is your historical basis for that assumption?
The other half of your arguments boil down to ridiculous statements like "Why would we care about the Chinese, especially considering our bigoted culture and history" that are just downright insulting and offensive. You ignore or are unaware of the fact that it was the actions/atrocities of the Axis powers that started to erode Isolationist sentiment in the United States and turn public opinion towards the Allies. The evidence in the historical record disputes every single theory that you've put forth.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
And I find your attempt to link the modern day policies of GWB to a discussion about WW2 to be pretty amusing.
Because we all know that history has no bearing on the present (that's sarcasm in case you missed it). My point, since it is once again been missed, is that our government is capable of such things. This was by no means a cheap attack on Bush. I just figured a modern day example might ring more true with you.
If you bothered to do any study of the man you might learn that FDR was fundamentally opposed to imperialism/colonialism and did everything in his power to see that it would end after the war -- even when those goals conflicted with the interests of our Allies (France and the UK).
You mean when Truman's administration assured France they did not question it's sovereignty in Indochina (http://tinyurl.com/36p2el)? That anti-imperialist/colonialist Truman?
There's nothing in the historical record to suggest that FDR had imperialistic designs/ambitions on anyone, yet you claim we only got involved to secure our "slice of the pie". What is your historical basis for that assumption?
Try reading about the Open Door Policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Door_Policy)?
The other half of your arguments boil down to ridiculous statements like "Why would we care about the Chinese, especially considering our bigoted culture and history" that are just downright insulting and offensive.
Insulting and offensive because, what, you support slavery and thought the massacre of the American Indians was justified? Or maybe you just thought unofficial discrimination around the time of the war was a good idea? What exactly is insulting and offensive about calling bigotry what it is? Perhaps it's just unpatriotic and should be ignored in support of the nations "good name"?
You ignore or are unaware of the fact that it was the actions/atrocities of the Axis powers that started to erode Isolationist sentiment in the United States and turn public opinion towards the Allies.I'd use another example from current events to illustrate the disparity between public opinion and national policy, but I fear you'd once again interpret it as Bush bashing. Aside from that, it's not uncommon for the government to spin policy so that it seemingly jives with the popular sentiment.
***STILL*** not genocide. Sorry, but thanks for playing. I'm in no way claiming that the bombing of civilian populations is a good idea, though it seems to have been pretty much the norm at that time. But it's not genocide. The intent was not to wipe out the entire ethnic Japanese population, but to cripple the industries supporting their war effort.