That's the brilliance of the scheme. They already have a first customer to get them thru the first couple of launches.. Ladies and Gentlement, I give you dadadum.......
The United States Navy (who, if I am not mistaken is already funding this program).
USN is used to makign really risky (as in, people die if they don't get it right) investments in Technology. Compared with the decision to buy F-35's or F/A-18s, this is a simple matter. Cheap, check. Will it fly without blowing up? We will find out soon.
I had a chance to spend some time on a navy cruiser a bit ago. I asked the XO (commander, 2nd in command) what the fastest ship in the fleet was. He didn't even bat a eye, and said that if a carrier left her support fleet behind she could out race anything else out there because of the amount of power the ships have.
Actually, the nuclear cruser class and the frigates, as well as the supply ships are no longer nuclear, and I believe that all of them have been retired.
The supper-carriers are still nuclear (I was told by a commander in the navy that the carriers would be the fastest ships in the surface navy if they left their support groups behind) because they have a) a lot more mass and b) tend to be on station a lot more then usual ships.
Subs stay nuclear because it extends their duration dramatically. In fact, most subs have two seperate staffs, "blue and gold" typically that rotate onto the same ship to keep them at sea more often. Last I heard they were thinking of doing the same thing with the carrier fleet.
The smaller ships now use gas turbine engines (think jet engine).
it brought a smile to my face to imagine the old protocol from my BBS days (which was scorned in favor of Zmodem) being used on the greatest technological achievement of humankind."
You have got to be kidding me. Maybe maybe the moon race qualifies as the "greatest technological achievement of humankind" I have yet to hear of a single usefull discover onboard that (expensive) piece of low flying equipment.
Which I completly disagree with. The CIA knew something was up. They suspected that it had to do with a fairly large cell. Yet, because of the FISA wall between the FBI and the CIA, the FBI failed to clue the CIA in on the fact that there were Islamists taking plane lessons. The CIA had already started thinking about those ideas and might have put 1+1 together where the CIA didn't. Of course, there is still the issue of tracking the money to figure out who else was being sponsered, but that could have been covered by wiretaps.
BTW, before any mock outraged idiot posts, the FBI routinly checks library records for RICO and murder trials (I was on the jury of a murder trial that included just such evidence). The idea that they can't check it if the person is foreign national is insane.
but unfortunately I don't find it hard to believe.
Which reveals your biases. Almost all high schools and jr. highs in America require 3-5 years of F.L study. I myself am fairly fluent in spanish (which is by far the largest second language in America).
But this is also a cultural difference between America and Europe. Simply put, we have far far too many ethnic minorities here to use anything other then one or two languages in general use, and 10-12 in court use (a friend of mine is a translator at district federal court, and they have to cover over 100 different languages with over 300 translators).
Simply put, we can't afford not to be standardized on multiple languages because there are too many American's of former : indians, russians, Irish (kidding, ouch), english, french, spanish, portugese, chinese, japanese, korean, vientamese, bengladeshi and qatari descent. Think I am exaggerating? That's a list of my friend's ethnic makeup.
you thesis was: [American's] think that most technological innovation during the last century has been American, whereas in actual fact much of it was just "absorbed" by America.
My point is that each of the five big technological advances of the last century started here. Mass produced Cars (and the combustion engine), Planes (lightweight engines as well), Atomic Energy (both bombs and other wise), the Internet, and Rockets all were created here. If you want to go even further back, Take a look at Thomas Edison (Electricity for Lights), Alexander Graham Bell's Telephone, Even the telegraph (Samuel F. B. Morse).
Even the heart of the industrial age has roots in America when Eli Whitney implemented standardized, interchangeable parts for use in muskets in 1798. (Which is ironic given that he also created the cotton gin). The north would industrialize and the south became more agrarian due to those technologies.
Which is the reason why America does have a lot of the innovation that is missing in Europe. We do not define citizinship ethnically. We do not make any sort of insane restrictions of political asylum, and we do better then 3 millions in immegration a year.
We do have a different (and IMHO better) attitude about immegration.
It's great that the EU is working on a new Grid program. Sun has been trying for years, and never got it to work well. I think it's mostly hype, but we will see.
I think it's more that we like to take technology out to it's conclusion. For example you state:
I was once knew a marketing person at CERN who said that as they had invented the web, they were thinking of putting up some good web pages about it to let the world know what they had achieved. Later I found out that she had been told that it had been decided that it wasn't a priority and so no budget was allocated to it. So outside of techy fields most people in the world don't know that the web was invented in Europe. (Yes, I know the Internet network was an American invention).
Which a) Ignores all of the other search systems, and the original concept of hyperlinking which came from America and b) Fails to note the huge performance and capabilities difference between prototype and developed. You also state:
This is true of many other achievements in Europe. For instance, everyone in the world knows lots about NASA and yet very little about the achievements of the European Space Agency, which has also done some really impressive things.
Which is true, but has also been because NASA helps prop up every other space program in the world (including ESA, which would not have a single person in space save the US (and maybe the USSR).
It's one thing to go to the moon in the 1960's and 1970's. It's another to do it 2003. Which is a bigger acomplishment?
The USA also has a good way of claiming innovations as its own, by "Americanising" everything. So, for instance, most people - Americans and non-Americans - think that most technological innovation during the last century has been American, whereas in actual fact much of it was just "absorbed" by America. Example - landing on the moon is seen as a purely American achievement but was actually significantly based on German work. Another example - Einstein was of course European but many people believe he was American.
Which ignores the five largest technical innovations of the last centurt, the mass produced car and engine (Ford), Rockets (Goddard), Flight (Wrights), Internet (DARPA), Atomic Energy (Oppenheimer). Everyone one of thoose gentleman would have taken it as a insult to be called European rather then American.
They were American. Just like I am American. This is a fact that "American's get" and European's tend not to. We don't care where you were born, or what your past life was. If you agree with the constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address, you are American. Period.
The advantage of America is we have no problem allowing Immigration into our nation vs. the stagnant European attitude about such. We do 1+ million a year in legal immigration (with unfortunitly countless millions more in illegal... my point of view, if someone is willing to risk death to get into America, teach em english, and give them citizinship).
Einstein was American, because Europe would not take him.
Finally to compare landing on the moon with the V-2 rockets (while ignoring the fact that every german stated that their work was reallly Godddard's work) is a bit akin to comparing your CISCO 678 DSL router with a CISCO BFR. Same idea maybe, but the scale is completly different. Something that Bohr said stuck with me here. America, because of it's industrial base and technological experience was "the only nation" that could build the atomic bomb.
Today there is a large class of people who are litterally willing to risk their life to try to come to America to work. Sadly, under the immegration policies forced by both parties these people. When those people do make it here, they end up getting "pseudo-citizinship" in the form of Green Cards which prevents their influnce on America and threatens to make us as cultuarlly stagnant as the Europeans:
Are you in favor of making borders more accessable?
Are you in favor of eliminating Green Cards in favor of blanket Citizinship?
It is not Davis's fault per se, he is running into the same problem that the Federal Government is running into. The insane 5% year after year growth in tax revenues and the sudden contraction of a 15 trillian $ economy into a 12. While Republicans try to blame Davis and Democrats try to blame Bush, neither of them have the kind of control that would actually cause this in the short term. (I do think that you can argue that policies such as the lack of intervention on the bubble by Greenspan and Clinton had a effect, but this crash started in 99, before either Bush or Davis was making waves).
The enron stuff was a fiasco, but it was not a 30 billion a year fiasco. Davis's mis-management of it (including signing energy deals after the crisis was over) and his attempt to bully the federal government into bailing out his state is really what is in the limelight here.
During the last election cycle, Davis basically used Democratic Machine votes to go in and "spike" the results to favor the more conservitive (and out of touch) canidate Simon instead of the moderate Riordan. This was because Riordan would have beat him like a drum. If Riordan had passed the primary Davis would not have made it this far. The only reason that he did make it this far is not because people like him, but because a monkey could have run a better campeign then Simon did.
Your point (which is strait out of Democratic play books) ignores the first part of the vote which is basically "should Davis stay in office?"
Davis badly mismanaged the power crisis (and tried to make the federal government make it worse) and badly mismanaged his own budget proccess, that is what is being voted on here.
To the Mozilla Developers. Take this opportunity to be radical. Let's go back and view what the browser is and what it could be. I suggest that they take a look at things like: DashBoard. Haystack and Echo. Information begs to be consolidated and made useful. We can do more with the browser then just view static stateless pages.
This is a fundamental problem with the way that the Democrats have their primaries and Cacuses rigged. Because the elites and super delegates can get involved earlier on in the process, it means that the most liberal canidate will be significantly over sampled early on.
Dean's moderate behaviour in the past impresses me. His current stances and blind attack mode does not.
Two things here. Both canidates have realized the Bush Principle from 2000. Being annointed by the media as the "contender" is almost as important as locking down the (liberal/conservitive) wing of your party. Therefore Kerry and Dean are both running full out to win that bid. Dean got handed a major set back when he failed to win MoveOn's Endorsement. (He carried a plurality, not a mjaority). Kerry's inability to capatilize on Foreign policy screw ups in the Bush administration is hitting him hard. Dean has never done foreign policy before, so he can't capitilize on Iraq either.
Anyways, I see the primary season coming down as follows. Pick one survivor from Dean and Kerry. Pick one survivor from Gephardt and Liberman (this is assuming that neither Wesley Clark or Joe Biden throw their hat into the race). Sorry Kunnich, Braun, Sharpton, Grahm, etc, you have no shots right now. The two survivors will go into Super Tuesday, and probably one will be crippled there.
Frankly, I think Dean has no chance.
Dean is dragging not only his group, but the entire Democratic wing to the left. Hint from American history "Centrists Win."
He is way out of step with where America is. There has been a severe step right in America the last couple of years as Jacksonians took the reigns of power after 9/11. Even among women, Anti-Abortionists are now in the majorty. Insert one extremly liberal pro-choice, pro-gay marriage democrat? Insert McGovern like defeat here.
Gebhardt has been locking down the super delegates and unions very very quickly. This will give him some staying power. Observe what happened to McCain in 2000 when you just run on media PR.
Bush is running uncontested. Not only that, he is arguably the first republican to run in a long long time with both wings of the party firmly in support of him. (Moderates and Conservitives). Top this off with the fact that Karl Rove is a political genus, and that Bush in a single week outraised the entire democratic fund raising in the last six months means bad times for Democrats.
Karl Rove has already rigged the timing of the election in Bush's favour. Where the National Convention for each party reveals a lot about what the party thinks it must and can win. The Democrats are holding there in a traditional liberal bastion, Boston. Bush is holding his in New York, which is also traditionally a liberal bastion, and he is holding it fairly close to 9/11. On top of that, Bush is fairly sure that he is going to be uncontested, which allows him a much longer period of raising money, and a much shorter and intensive race. In addition, because the convention is soo late, Bush may still be on his Convention Bounce by the time election day rolls around.
Dean has already started a undeclared war with the DNC when he attacked Terry McAuliffe (Current head of the DNC and Clinton Stooge). Any attempt by Dean to outshine the Clintonistas could start a civil war inside the DNC/DLC.
Usual carrier group has two subs, 3 CG, and 4 FGs. If anything gets close enough to actually meet said task force, chances are it's either flying a friendly flag, or at the bottom of the ocean.
And Gates, like almost all of the richest men in America is a Democrat. Doesn't make a lot of sense from the "republicans are all evil" point of view.
As for Rumsfeld, while they really screwed up in a couple of different areas in Iraq (logistics) the transformation that he has been arguing for (faster, more percise) makes it possible for us to just target commanders and command systems and minimize civilians and drafted soilders.
As well as the Clinton Administration. In fact, this got started when a group of partisans tried to get at Clinton files, not Reagan files, but it would have not being such a troll if you mentioend that.
I'd fully expect there to be a significant ship named after Clinton some time in the future.
Not bloody likely given that a) Democrats have traditionally been rabidly anti millitary. b) The millitary was in unbelivably bad shape when Clinton left office. only 2 of the 12 army divisions were judged "fit for combat" and only half of the carrier groups were ready. c) The millitary lothes clinton. Not the least of why is because they kick out officers who a) have nuclear authority and b) are having affairs all the time for security reasons. These guys are as jacksonian as they come, and they believe that you take responsiblity for your actions (depends on what the definition of "is" is?) and b) you don't lie to the people ever. Vietnam happened that way.
The Millitary is in the middle of beggining to deploy new weapon systems. Some of the ones that have been proposed: 1) Disposable lasers. Turns out that the most complexity and cost of big lasers occur when you want to use them more then once. The millitary doesn't flinch with $50,000 (or like the tomohawk, even $500,000) throwaway weapons, so they are talking about using banks of one time how power lasers for cutting thru armour. Problem, still need to be line of site for that to work.
2) Magnetic accelerators. I assume that this is part of the DD(X) program where they are talking about the new range of the guns being in the hundreds of mile range.
Not even close to true. Russia is the next biggest currently with around 65 billion, followed closely (and perhaps exceeded by) China at anywhere between 50 billion and 60 billion (remember that both Russia and China only have to cover one sea, not five)Japan spends around 45 billion (but that does not cover additional us invenstems in Japan) UK, France and Germany spend about 30 apiece. Never mind Saudi Arabia, Taiwain, India, Pakistan all of whom are building up and the exact numbers are unknown.
And remember, the UN expects us to go into any nation with a supior force for peacekeeping.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the brilliance of the scheme. They already have a first customer to get them thru the first couple of launches.. Ladies and Gentlement, I give you dadadum.......
The United States Navy (who, if I am not mistaken is already funding this program).
USN is used to makign really risky (as in, people die if they don't get it right) investments in Technology. Compared with the decision to buy F-35's or F/A-18s, this is a simple matter. Cheap, check. Will it fly without blowing up? We will find out soon.
I had a chance to spend some time on a navy cruiser a bit ago. I asked the XO (commander, 2nd in command) what the fastest ship in the fleet was. He didn't even bat a eye, and said that if a carrier left her support fleet behind she could out race anything else out there because of the amount of power the ships have.
Actually, the nuclear cruser class and the frigates, as well as the supply ships are no longer nuclear, and I believe that all of them have been retired.
The supper-carriers are still nuclear (I was told by a commander in the navy that the carriers would be the fastest ships in the surface navy if they left their support groups behind) because they have a) a lot more mass and b) tend to be on station a lot more then usual ships.
Subs stay nuclear because it extends their duration dramatically. In fact, most subs have two seperate staffs, "blue and gold" typically that rotate onto the same ship to keep them at sea more often. Last I heard they were thinking of doing the same thing with the carrier fleet.
The smaller ships now use gas turbine engines (think jet engine).
You have got to be kidding me. Maybe maybe the moon race qualifies as the "greatest technological achievement of humankind" I have yet to hear of a single usefull discover onboard that (expensive) piece of low flying equipment.
Local Police, not FBI. It was a book on navigating the death of a loved one w.r.t life insurance.
Which I completly disagree with. The CIA knew something was up. They suspected that it had to do with a fairly large cell. Yet, because of the FISA wall between the FBI and the CIA, the FBI failed to clue the CIA in on the fact that there were Islamists taking plane lessons. The CIA had already started thinking about those ideas and might have put 1+1 together where the CIA didn't. Of course, there is still the issue of tracking the money to figure out who else was being sponsered, but that could have been covered by wiretaps.
BTW, before any mock outraged idiot posts, the FBI routinly checks library records for RICO and murder trials (I was on the jury of a murder trial that included just such evidence). The idea that they can't check it if the person is foreign national is insane.
but unfortunately I don't find it hard to believe.
Which reveals your biases. Almost all high schools and jr. highs in America require 3-5 years of F.L study. I myself am fairly fluent in spanish (which is by far the largest second language in America).
But this is also a cultural difference between America and Europe. Simply put, we have far far too many ethnic minorities here to use anything other then one or two languages in general use, and 10-12 in court use (a friend of mine is a translator at district federal court, and they have to cover over 100 different languages with over 300 translators).
Simply put, we can't afford not to be standardized on multiple languages because there are too many American's of former : indians, russians, Irish (kidding, ouch), english, french, spanish, portugese, chinese, japanese, korean, vientamese, bengladeshi and qatari descent. Think I am exaggerating? That's a list of my friend's ethnic makeup.
you thesis was:
[American's] think that most technological innovation during the last century has been American, whereas in actual fact much of it was just "absorbed" by America.
My point is that each of the five big technological advances of the last century started here. Mass produced Cars (and the combustion engine), Planes (lightweight engines as well), Atomic Energy (both bombs and other wise), the Internet, and Rockets all were created here. If you want to go even further back, Take a look at Thomas Edison (Electricity for Lights), Alexander Graham Bell's Telephone, Even the telegraph (Samuel F. B. Morse).
Even the heart of the industrial age has roots in America when Eli Whitney implemented standardized, interchangeable parts for use in muskets in 1798. (Which is ironic given that he also created the cotton gin). The north would industrialize and the south became more agrarian due to those technologies.
Your point is simply not valid.
Which is the reason why America does have a lot of the innovation that is missing in Europe. We do not define citizinship ethnically. We do not make any sort of insane restrictions of political asylum, and we do better then 3 millions in immegration a year.
We do have a different (and IMHO better) attitude about immegration.
It's great that the EU is working on a new Grid program. Sun has been trying for years, and never got it to work well. I think it's mostly hype, but we will see.
I think it's more that we like to take technology out to it's conclusion. For example you state:
I was once knew a marketing person at CERN who said that as they had invented the web, they were thinking of putting up some good web pages about it to let the world know what they had achieved. Later I found out that she had been told that it had been decided that it wasn't a priority and so no budget was allocated to it. So outside of techy fields most people in the world don't know that the web was invented in Europe. (Yes, I know the Internet network was an American invention).
Which a) Ignores all of the other search systems, and the original concept of hyperlinking which came from America and b) Fails to note the huge performance and capabilities difference between prototype and developed. You also state:
This is true of many other achievements in Europe. For instance, everyone in the world knows lots about NASA and yet very little about the achievements of the European Space Agency, which has also done some really impressive things.
Which is true, but has also been because NASA helps prop up every other space program in the world (including ESA, which would not have a single person in space save the US (and maybe the USSR).
It's one thing to go to the moon in the 1960's and 1970's. It's another to do it 2003. Which is a bigger acomplishment?
The USA also has a good way of claiming innovations as its own, by "Americanising" everything. So, for instance, most people - Americans and non-Americans - think that most technological innovation during the last century has been American, whereas in actual fact much of it was just "absorbed" by America. Example - landing on the moon is seen as a purely American achievement but was actually significantly based on German work. Another example - Einstein was of course European but many people believe he was American.
Which ignores the five largest technical innovations of the last centurt, the mass produced car and engine (Ford), Rockets (Goddard), Flight (Wrights), Internet (DARPA), Atomic Energy (Oppenheimer). Everyone one of thoose gentleman would have taken it as a insult to be called European rather then American.
They were American. Just like I am American. This is a fact that "American's get" and European's tend not to. We don't care where you were born, or what your past life was. If you agree with the constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address, you are American. Period.
The advantage of America is we have no problem allowing Immigration into our nation vs. the stagnant European attitude about such. We do 1+ million a year in legal immigration (with unfortunitly countless millions more in illegal... my point of view, if someone is willing to risk death to get into America, teach em english, and give them citizinship).
Einstein was American, because Europe would not take him.
Finally to compare landing on the moon with the V-2 rockets (while ignoring the fact that every german stated that their work was reallly Godddard's work) is a bit akin to comparing your CISCO 678 DSL router with a CISCO BFR. Same idea maybe, but the scale is completly different. Something that Bohr said stuck with me here. America, because of it's industrial base and technological experience was "the only nation" that could build the atomic bomb.
Are you in favor of making borders more accessable?
Are you in favor of eliminating Green Cards in favor of blanket Citizinship?
It is not Davis's fault per se, he is running into the same problem that the Federal Government is running into. The insane 5% year after year growth in tax revenues and the sudden contraction of a 15 trillian $ economy into a 12. While Republicans try to blame Davis and Democrats try to blame Bush, neither of them have the kind of control that would actually cause this in the short term. (I do think that you can argue that policies such as the lack of intervention on the bubble by Greenspan and Clinton had a effect, but this crash started in 99, before either Bush or Davis was making waves).
The enron stuff was a fiasco, but it was not a 30 billion a year fiasco. Davis's mis-management of it (including signing energy deals after the crisis was over) and his attempt to bully the federal government into bailing out his state is really what is in the limelight here.
During the last election cycle, Davis basically used Democratic Machine votes to go in and "spike" the results to favor the more conservitive (and out of touch) canidate Simon instead of the moderate Riordan. This was because Riordan would have beat him like a drum. If Riordan had passed the primary Davis would not have made it this far. The only reason that he did make it this far is not because people like him, but because a monkey could have run a better campeign then Simon did.
Your point (which is strait out of Democratic play books) ignores the first part of the vote which is basically "should Davis stay in office?"
Davis badly mismanaged the power crisis (and tried to make the federal government make it worse) and badly mismanaged his own budget proccess, that is what is being voted on here.
Exactly.
To the Mozilla Developers. Take this opportunity to be radical. Let's go back and view what the browser is and what it could be. I suggest that they take a look at things like:
DashBoard.
Haystack
and Echo.
Information begs to be consolidated and made useful. We can do more with the browser then just view static stateless pages.
Dean's moderate behaviour in the past impresses me. His current stances and blind attack mode does not.
Two things here. Both canidates have realized the Bush Principle from 2000. Being annointed by the media as the "contender" is almost as important as locking down the (liberal/conservitive) wing of your party. Therefore Kerry and Dean are both running full out to win that bid. Dean got handed a major set back when he failed to win MoveOn's Endorsement. (He carried a plurality, not a mjaority). Kerry's inability to capatilize on Foreign policy screw ups in the Bush administration is hitting him hard. Dean has never done foreign policy before, so he can't capitilize on Iraq either.
Anyways, I see the primary season coming down as follows. Pick one survivor from Dean and Kerry. Pick one survivor from Gephardt and Liberman (this is assuming that neither Wesley Clark or Joe Biden throw their hat into the race). Sorry Kunnich, Braun, Sharpton, Grahm, etc, you have no shots right now. The two survivors will go into Super Tuesday, and probably one will be crippled there.
Frankly, I think Dean has no chance.
Dean is dragging not only his group, but the entire Democratic wing to the left. Hint from American history "Centrists Win."
He is way out of step with where America is. There has been a severe step right in America the last couple of years as Jacksonians took the reigns of power after 9/11. Even among women, Anti-Abortionists are now in the majorty. Insert one extremly liberal pro-choice, pro-gay marriage democrat? Insert McGovern like defeat here.
Gebhardt has been locking down the super delegates and unions very very quickly. This will give him some staying power. Observe what happened to McCain in 2000 when you just run on media PR.
Bush is running uncontested. Not only that, he is arguably the first republican to run in a long long time with both wings of the party firmly in support of him. (Moderates and Conservitives). Top this off with the fact that Karl Rove is a political genus, and that Bush in a single week outraised the entire democratic fund raising in the last six months means bad times for Democrats.
Karl Rove has already rigged the timing of the election in Bush's favour. Where the National Convention for each party reveals a lot about what the party thinks it must and can win. The Democrats are holding there in a traditional liberal bastion, Boston. Bush is holding his in New York, which is also traditionally a liberal bastion, and he is holding it fairly close to 9/11. On top of that, Bush is fairly sure that he is going to be uncontested, which allows him a much longer period of raising money, and a much shorter and intensive race. In addition, because the convention is soo late, Bush may still be on his Convention Bounce by the time election day rolls around.
Dean has already started a undeclared war with the DNC when he attacked Terry McAuliffe (Current head of the DNC and Clinton Stooge). Any attempt by Dean to outshine the Clintonistas could start a civil war inside the DNC/DLC.
No, we have failed when another Genocide, Holocaust, or Stalin's purge occurs.
Usual carrier group has two subs, 3 CG, and 4 FGs. If anything gets close enough to actually meet said task force, chances are it's either flying a friendly flag, or at the bottom of the ocean.
And Gates, like almost all of the richest men in America is a Democrat. Doesn't make a lot of sense from the "republicans are all evil" point of view.
As for Rumsfeld, while they really screwed up in a couple of different areas in Iraq (logistics) the transformation that he has been arguing for (faster, more percise) makes it possible for us to just target commanders and command systems and minimize civilians and drafted soilders.
Target practice ships. Most people I know in the military lothe those two gentlemen in particular.
As well as the Clinton Administration. In fact, this got started when a group of partisans tried to get at Clinton files, not Reagan files, but it would have not being such a troll if you mentioend that.
Actually, English/American ships are she. Russian and German ships traditionally have been he.
Any wonder why the English and American's together have ruled the waves for the last 300 years?
I'd fully expect there to be a significant ship named after Clinton some time in the future.
Not bloody likely given that
a) Democrats have traditionally been rabidly anti millitary.
b) The millitary was in unbelivably bad shape when Clinton left office. only 2 of the 12 army divisions were judged "fit for combat" and only half of the carrier groups were ready.
c) The millitary lothes clinton. Not the least of why is because they kick out officers who a) have nuclear authority and b) are having affairs all the time for security reasons. These guys are as jacksonian as they come, and they believe that you take responsiblity for your actions (depends on what the definition of "is" is?) and b) you don't lie to the people ever. Vietnam happened that way.
Clinton was a far better president than GWB
Let me guess, you're a religious fruitcake.
Therefore anyone who disagrees with you is a fruitcake? Get a life troll.
The Millitary is in the middle of beggining to deploy new weapon systems. Some of the ones that have been proposed:
1) Disposable lasers. Turns out that the most complexity and cost of big lasers occur when you want to use them more then once. The millitary doesn't flinch with $50,000 (or like the tomohawk, even $500,000) throwaway weapons, so they are talking about using banks of one time how power lasers for cutting thru armour. Problem, still need to be line of site for that to work.
2) Magnetic accelerators. I assume that this is part of the DD(X) program where they are talking about the new range of the guns being in the hundreds of mile range.
3) Good old fashioned laser guns.
Not even close to true. Russia is the next biggest currently with around 65 billion, followed closely (and perhaps exceeded by) China at anywhere between 50 billion and 60 billion (remember that both Russia and China only have to cover one sea, not five)Japan spends around 45 billion (but that does not cover additional us invenstems in Japan) UK, France and Germany spend about 30 apiece. Never mind Saudi Arabia, Taiwain, India, Pakistan all of whom are building up and the exact numbers are unknown.
And remember, the UN expects us to go into any nation with a supior force for peacekeeping.