yeah, the government doesn't need a few million dollar plane fleet every year this I cannot argue with, but they will hopefully not cut the pay to the soldiers. they don't make enough as it is and when they get wounded that's cut in half to none at all. a few million for a bomb or two isn't really needed, at least not in this term since there really isn't much being done, except flying around unarmed drones to spy and take live feeds which shows the truth of the matter.
Not to mention that economically speaking, the amount of tax money placed into the military is the highest percentage of the government's spending of tax dollars in the United States. Directly following that is welfare, but that's not the point.
We are faced with a tremendous threat in the Muslim hordes. To cut military spending now would have dire consequences. I did the math, once, and found that about 4,000 U.S. soldiers have died in our ongoing conflict in Afghanistan, approximately 1/14th the death toll of the Vietnam War. We spend so much on the military so we can have nice things like armored humvees, stealth planes, and bomb-diffusing robots, that help bring our troops back home alive. If we cut too many corners on our military spending, our wars will become much more dangerous for our soldiers, which is not a decision to make lightly.
Actually scientists and engineers invented those things. The military just backed them. We can cut out the middleman and fund R & D directly rather then waste money on more supercruising stealth air-to-air supermaneuverable jet fighters.
I pointed this out further down in the discussion I was having, but I'll restate it here...
You can fund the scientists directly, but without the mass production needs coming from the military, most new technologies are too expensive for the civilian population to buy at first. The military demand creates a large market that allows the manufacturers to gain the profits needed to work out bugs and scale down the products into something the general populace can then afford.
Yeah, we already have those. That is where they are developing those things that the military has a need for that no pure civilian would think of. Given that it is professors at universities doing most of the other research, and that each university tends to have an area of expertise, then how do you go about centralizing and consolidating those programs?
Yes but HOW? Right now, without any type of centralization, the system allows for great flexibility. All the professors have to worry about is funding. That means that if they can get funding to study how to make fruit flies more resilient to disease, then they can carry out the research. Under you idea, they would have to report what they wanted to study to an agency that more than likely would be run by politicians and bureaucrats that fellow scientists. I say let the R&D system alone.
The real key is finding was to remove the waste from the military. Not try to change the way the research is done or funded. Yes there is waste there, but research is expensive even without waste. No, I'm talking about letting the military end the programs it no longer even needs. We have thousands of tanks sitting in a desert that have never been used. The DoD wants to stop buying new ones, stop refitting the old ones, and figure out how to make them more survivable from IEDs. Yet, every time the DoD tries to do this, the company that makes the tanks greases some politician's hand with some money and it gets buried, dismissed, or voted down. Should the experts have the right and ability to say, "We don't need to spend the twenty billion dollars on tanks we aren't using. So we are going to stop buying them and then figure out if we will even need any more of them until we get a completely new designed tank."
Well, I'd leave it to a council of experts rather than leaving it to a council of easily greased materialistic, fat, old, gobbling, congressmen. I'd also abolish the idea of defense contractors being the major provision and leave it to actual companies instead of letting a contractor get fat on money while he sits on his ass for a year.
How about medical technologies? Emergency triage procedures? Vaccines? Treatments for head trauma, broken bones, reconstructive surgeries for burns, lost limbs/muscle tissue, etc...?
Vaccines date back to the 18th century, earlier if you count the work of African and Indain physicians. Most other medical techniques are just as old as well. As for modern medical technologies, NASA worked on those too.
Buildings that can withstand earthquakes, storms, fires? Better water filtration systems?
Earthquake-resistance was being researched by university civil engineering departments long before the military took interest. As for water filtration, again, NASA did that.
NASA may have launched the satellites, but they were for military use. Civilians never would have gotten the technology if the military hadn't found a need for individual soldiers to carry GPS and Communications devices... it would have all stayed mounted in the vehicles. After all, astronauts aren't going scouting across the moon with nothing but a gun, a knife, and some body armour.
When it comes to medical treatments, I was refering to advances, not origins. The ancient Egyptians actually had many different treatments that became lost during the middle ages due to over-zealous Christian and Muslim wars. But if it weren't for field hospitals and the need to protect soldiers going into places with diseases such as malaria, we wouldn't have made nearly as many advances in specific time frames.
And when it comes to construction, consider bomb-proofing buildings or how about all of the work our military does in disaster relief. They brought back data that helped improve designs and engineering. Without the military, NASA would have had nothing to work with. NASA also doesn't have a need to do water filtration on a massive scale as would be needed to support a military base for an indeterminate amount of time.
And gear for firefighters... NASA has no use to create better axes for breaking into burning buildings nor do they have any use to create modfied rock-climbing equipment for rescue operations. NASA also didn't create breathing masks... that was a result of WWI and soldiers being attacked with nerve gas. The whole concept of having portable, personal air supplies comes out of not only chemical warfare, but also sabotaging warships. The first American submarine was designed in 1775 and used in the Revolutionary War (unsuccessfully)... it was only big enough to hold one person. NASA certainly didn't exist to create that!
NASA may have launched the satellites, but they were for military use.
DoD may have created the GPS system, but not the fundementals.
When it comes to medical treatments, I was refering to advances, not origins.
So was I. Ever wondered where the technology to develop the MRI machine and the artifical heart came from?
But if it weren't for field hospitals and the need to protect soldiers going into places with diseases such as malaria, we wouldn't have made nearly as many advances in specific time frames.
The history of preventative medicine says otherwise. The Smallpox vaccine wasn't developed for military reasons, and neither was Salk's Polio vaccine nor the Malaria vaccine. All of them would have been developed without the need to administer them to soldiers.
Without the military, NASA would have had nothing to work with.
NASA doesn't need bomb-proof buildings, so don't know how this applies. It did, however, develop a fireproof coating that is applied to all buildings today, though.
NASA also doesn't have a need to do water filtration on a massive scale as would be needed to support a military base for an indeterminate amount of time.
What NASA does need is a filtration system to provide water for astronauts who are going to be in an area where there are no pumping stations. Providing water for a military base in a desert is a lot simpler than providing it for a trip to the ISS or the moon.
By the way, the filtration system used in the Gemini program got turned into the modern kidney dialysis machine.
NASA has no use to create better axes for breaking into burning buildings nor do they have any use to create modfied rock-climbing equipment for rescue operations. NASA also didn't create breathing masks
No, but NASA did create the modern thermal protection system used by firefighters.
- What would NASA need with a GPS system? Just because it was requested that they build the fundamentals of it doesn't mean they would have developed it on their own. NASA and its Soviet counterpart were shooting things into space and recovering returning craft without it after all.
- Do you have no understanding of the relationship between cost and distribution? When it comes to medical technologies, the greater the need for specific developments, the lower the costs become. Without the need for distribution to soldiers, many vaccines, treatments, procedures, etc, would have become a luxury. But now, we can provide malaria vaccines to impoverished nations in Africa, because the military needed cost-effective vaccines for soldiers fighting in the Pacific during WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. Children affected by civil wars and terrorism have a chance to get reconstructive surgeries and prostetics, because VA insurance demands that such things be cost-effective. The military, despite the wasteful spending in many areas, is one of the most efficient gov't entities in existence when it comes to anything widely issued to its troops and staff.
- Of course NASA doesn't need bomb-proof buildings... therefore engineering meant to withstand IEDs or any type of home-made bomb would never have been developed by them. Not all 'bombs' destroy through fire. In fact, most of them don't. That's Hollywood myth. Bombs destroy primarily through the percussive blast they create. It's the same principle that launches projectiles, from bullets to bottle rocks - it's all about the pressure/force. Fireproofing does little good against a bomb.
- NASA sends already clean water into space with its astronauts. There are no bacteria or other micro-organisms to be removed from it. If the astronauts are perfectly healthy, there should also be minimal toxins to remove from it after use in order for it to be re-used. (In case you didn't know, urine is actually sterile unless the person/animal has an infection, and it was often boiled down to create an amonia-based sterilant in ancient times.) The military, however, has need for massive filteration systems that turn out thousands of gallons of water. In warm locations, that means filtering out numerous micro-organisms that most standard systems for cities & towns in the US couldn't get rid of.
Kidney dialysis only has to handle 10 to 12 liters of blood over a four-hour period per treatment - no where near the same volume.
- Thermal protection for the firefighters doesn't help them get to the people they're trying to rescue any faster. Better equipment for getting through physical & location barriers does. Better equipment for getting oxygen to their lungs does. Thermal protection may allow them to withstand higher temperatures around their bodies for longer, but just standing there in front of the 'giant bonfire' doesn't get anything accomplished.
Quite a bit. GPS makes ground operations on other worlds a lot easier, not to mention systems like are good for tracking launches.
Without the need for distribution to soldiers, many vaccines, treatments, procedures, etc, would have become a luxury.
That's not how the Salk Vaccine became available. Same thing with the anti-malaria vaccine.
The military, despite the wasteful spending in many areas, is one of the most efficient gov't entities in existence when it comes to anything widely issued to its troops and staff.
Not buying it. The military eats hundreds of billions of dollars every year, and that's during peacetime. NASA, on the other hand, returns money the government.
Not all 'bombs' destroy through fire. In fact, most of them don't.
I know how bombs work, and I wasn't talking about them.
The military, however, has need for massive filteration systems that turn out thousands of gallons of water. In warm locations, that means filtering out numerous micro-organisms that most standard systems for cities & towns in the US couldn't get rid of.
And that filtering technology was pioneered by people other than the military.
Kidney dialysis only has to handle 10 to 12 liters of blood over a four-hour period per treatment - no where near the same volume.
And yet it is far more complex to do so without killing the patient. Scaling up is a lot easier than developing the technology to do the filtering in the first place.
Thermal protection for the firefighters doesn't help them get to the people they're trying to rescue any faster.
Oh, of course, not getting burned because your equipment blocks the heat totally doesn't help firefighters at all .
Better equipment for getting through physical & location barriers does.
Something which the military didn't develop.
Better equipment for getting oxygen to their lungs does.
Ignoring the rest of your idiocy because I'm sick of dealing with your ignorance... (seriously, do you even talk to any service veterans at all?)
GPS does not work on other worlds. It can only work on Earth. GPS units work by triangulation. They receive signals from satellites orbitting the earth, and they need to be within range of at least two of those satellites. They are much more accurate when they can receive signals from three or more satellites, but regardless of that, the ability of GPS to calculate altitude accurately is still pretty hit-and-miss. Therefore, NASA has no actual use for GPS except for recovery purposes of things already on the ground. However, the military, NOAA, the EPA, the US Fish & Wildlife Service, and the USGS all use GPS regularly among other gov't science entities.
Don't think attack so much as defense, intelligence, and logistics. GPS and FLIR cameras were developed specifically for the purpose of locating targets with better precision. Both are easily and widely available to the public now, although the military still has better versions than what we have.
You're right... although that raises the question, does war actually help our technology? In a state where new technology would give us an advantage, would it not be created more rapidly? Meaning, is the money and life lost in war worth the technology gained?
The military constantly needs to be kept to a high enough standard, It has to aim to threaten. Sadly it's no longer really a chioce, but a nessecity. If it could work, then I would say to just cut out the army, but if a country (Especially somewhere like the US) does anything that would suggest/cause their military to weaken, they'll instantly become target. Also alike, If tomorrow the UK and US decided, this war is silly, we'll pull out as a sign of peace, even with good intentions, it would massivly weaken both countries as powers, which would reflect onto the public. There would be higher chance of a country attempting to take over, or take something important from one of the countries. So, as aweful as it is, the whole idea of the military all together is basically a vicious circle that trapped everyone once countries began to unite, it's almost like an evil that has come from good. But, in a perfect world, I would definatly get rid of war.
That's absurd though, the US military far outspends any other country in the world. If we couldn't cut our military budget to a third of its value and still come out the dominant power in the world, then we have a much bigger problem than external threats.
I know It's horrible But I just reckon that the military wants to be more then safe. I ddo still disagree however, with the amount spent, especially on pointless wars, but losing world power also seems a lot easier then I'd reckon =/ Theres also probably a lot of conspiracy theories to do with the government tbh. But it's like recruitment really, a lot of people go into the army not expecting to ever actually have to go to war, and the only reason for keeping the amount of people who are classified as part of the army is being able to say you have so many people in your military. But of course with recruitment comes a wage, which is probably a huge part of the budget >.<
All the manufacturers, who generally have congressmen invested in them. So if those companies have a parasitic relationship with the military, and the Representatives and Senators have a parasitic relationship with the companies, do you really think they Congress is going to reduce the amount of money they can make?
After all, have they every voted to reduce their pay, even when the rest of the nation is making less?
Actually, defense spending is being reduced to 2009 levels for FY13 and will continue to shrink over the next few years. We are looking at about $110B reduction form FY12 to FY13, which is more than the extra revenues that will be generated by eliminating tax cuts for the top 2% of earners.
Not necessarily. Combat operations in Southwest Asia (Afghanistan) take up the brunt of actual spending on "wars" and is less than domestic spending on earned income credit payments to lo income households.
Ceasing all operations in other countries is not in the US' best interests because our own economy is so interwoven into the global economy. We must protect our economic interests, foreign and domestic.