Absurdly Expensive Weapons of dubious use in war

The Man

Former Staff
Jul 2011
42,203
28,384
Toronto
#62
We are the hegemonic guarantor. Yes, we are embroiled in Afghanistan still and have issues in Middle East, but most of defense budget is still about South Korea, Japan, NATO....
Is it all really that necessary though?

I mean, I am reasonably sure Europe, for example, can defend itself by itself. For God's sake, the British and the French have own aircraft carriers and nukes (I think even Italy has a carrier too, actually).

They are far from weak.

So, why should the US keep using its resources so much there???
 
Sep 2014
4,401
1,267
South FL
#63
Is it all really that necessary though?

I mean, I am reasonably sure Europe, for example, can defend itself by itself. For God's sake, the British and the French have own aircraft carriers and nukes (I think even Italy has a carrier too, actually).

They are far from weak.

So, why should the US keep using its resources so much there???
Its not just the direct deployment, the 'trip wire' forces we maintain do cost money but the thing of it is the guarantee, trip the wire and we are treaty bound to come with 'everything we have'

I agree, Europe can defend itself. #outofnato
 
Likes: The Man
Jul 2015
31,267
22,565
Florida
#65
Is it all really that necessary though?

I mean, I am reasonably sure Europe, for example, can defend itself by itself. For God's sake, the British and the French have own aircraft carriers and nukes (I think even Italy has a carrier too, actually).

They are far from weak.

So, why should the US keep using its resources so much there???
Pull up all the Eisenhower papers. He put it together, under Turman, chose the players, signed the treaties and 5 REP presidents after him stayed the course. Not just the Democrats.
 
Jul 2015
31,267
22,565
Florida
#66
Think of all the junked and decommissioned ships of the USA and Russia, that's a lot of resources being wasted with nothing of value to come from it. During WW2 there were obscene numbers sent to the bottom of the ocean. So much waste. War is a massive waste.
"Boys" love their toys. No matter where they are on the planet.
 
Oct 2018
858
663
WonderfulOregon
#68
How about Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative ...AKA the Star War project.

In order for Reagan's missile defense system to work, it would have to destroy Soviet missiles as they orbited the Earth -- an incredibly difficult task that would require putting weapons in space -- earning Reagan's initiative the name "Star Wars." (fantasy not realestic)

The ambitious and costly program is now (2013 dated article ) is in its fourth decade, having consumed $209 billion while never being tested, even on a limited scale .

How the Star Wars Program Didn't Work

"Required putting weapons in space"...

They can't just hang them up there...Thrust vs balanced thrust to keep them in one place? Build a great big satalite and I mean great big to hold as many missels as we would expect we had to shoot down. Use the moon...Logistic. in outerspace - i.e ...How would we stock it with missels??