That teat has run dry, so they can start doing for yourself or die, I don't care which.
Ahh yes privatized for profit healthcare works real great. Its like the rest of the industrialized world are lazy bums right?instead a providing healthcare programs and food programs to people who would have healthcare and food if the quit being lazy and actually worked to better themselves instead of just suckling at the government teat.
It has? Thats why we spend so much "teat" money on war and "national defense"....That teat has run dry, so they can start doing for yourself or die, I don't care which.
Makes the military industrial complex real happy i know...
Last edited by TheDemSocialist; 05-12-12 at 04:40 PM.
☮★★☮ Just a democratic-socialist in the heartland of America.CHECK OUT MY TUMBLR(BLOG)HERE "Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression, and violence, and enjoy it to the full."
US Aegis cruisers can defend our allies using the SM-3, although we might possibly supply Japan especially since they helped in development. These cruisers would be poised near Iran and North Korea (who incidentally shared ballistic missile technology). Both are still working on theirs, although Iran has medium range missiles ready to go now. Cleverly, we'll have the defense ready before they've fully completed their offense. Their missiles will be ineffective before they reach production, but only because the SM-3 is already in place. I imagine this may only require less than one hundred missiles. We don't need more because we are only concerned about the lunatics, not Russia's systems. Russia knows the game of MAD, so these SM-3s aren't intended for that role.
Foodstamp Baseline - CBO
70 billion dollars for food stamps in 2010. 5.83 billion a month. 191 million a day. So, without this program, each year we could ALMOST fund food stamps for a day. No, the spending on this program was not significant.
(I want to just note that I'm not making a direct claim about the high spending on foodstamps here. My feelings on that aren't relevant to the topic. All I'm hoping to do is demonstrate how little we spent on this relevant to common government expenditures.)
One who makes himself a worm cannot complain when tread upon.
iran has not initiated an attack on a sovereign nation in two centuries
which causes me to question why we would believe there is a legitimate basis to incur massive expenditures to develop anti-ICBM weaponry by a nation which is not inclined toward attacking others
i can only conclude that the government's propaganda media is doling out kool aid to whomever is thirsty enough to drink it, as a means to allocate a substantial portion of our nation's treasure toward military weaponry and away from the social safety net. in short, encouraging the public to not object to its decision to choose guns over butter
Of course, I'm pulling my figures out of my ass because I can't find 2 sources that agree with each other and my sense of it is that the United States can't even buy toilet seats for 2.5 billion. So, if we're really going to get the "star wars" defense system for a few billion, sure, WTH, I'm now a brad new enthusiast. But I really doubt that this is the case and by the time it was all operational, I'd be very surprised if it were so nominal a cost. I like the word trillion so I tend to think in those amounts :-). Also, I'm talking about the whole "srtar wars" project since Reagan and you're speaking about one specific project - the SM-3 - which begs the question of what the SM-1 and SM-2 cost us.
Ah, my vision of education. I would build magnificent schools, full of air, light, computers, labs and even residences for those children whose families are failures and don't mind letting them live in a positive environment. I would hold teachers to the highest standards and pay them at least as well as bureaucrats. I would take retired people whose arts are being lost, like machining, die making etc. and pay them to educate those with aptitude. That's the short form of my grandiose plans.
The only nation that can possibly pull that kind of attack on us won't attack us. And the alleged threat we're building this weapon against won't use a missile.
Hence why I call this corporate welfare. It's nothing but a handout to defense contractors.
Maybe at some point in time it will be able to stop a Russian attack. But that's a long time from now.
"If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu
Nothing short of turning our enemies to glass can eliminate all risk. But missile defense defends against a non-existent threat. Well, aside from losing votes in an election year. But that's another story.2. The system is aimed at reducing the risk of a small-scale attack, not eliminating all risk.
It doesn't matter if the system is effective or not when the type of attack it is designed to stop never comes. Terrorists and enemy states are confined by the same budgetary pressures we face. It makes no sense at all to spend huge sums of money on a unreliable delivery system to deliver one weapon that will be returned a thousand fold. It makes far more sense for our enemies who are confined by small budgets to build numerous weapons, smuggle them into the US and delivery them via suicide bombers driving panel vans and moving trucks. No amount of missile defense can stop that. Their goal is to maximize the number of Americans they can kill. A single miniaturized weapon on top a unreliable missile hitting one city hardly packs the punch of delivery six large weapons via truck.3. If the system is effective, it will be more difficult--not impossible--for a rogue state to attack the U.S. or U.S. allies. The U.S. has the geographic depth to absorb the kind of attacks you describe. Although areas hit by such attacks would suffer catastrophic damage/casualties, national survival would not be threatened.
This I have to disagree with. The necessary technical expertise, equipment and materials to build an ICBM that is reliable, stable and accurate is in the billions of dollars. The cost to miniaturize a nuclear device to actually fit on a crude reliable, stable and accurate ICBM is in the hundreds of millions. Furthermore, it is incredibly easy for the enemy to watch what you're doing and attack you before the launch happens simply by satellite surveillance. I'm not saying that panel van is easy. I'm just saying it's a hell of a lot easier than building a ICBM, shrinking your nuke down to size and actually pulling off a launch. On top of that, it is instantly traceable as to where the nuke came from. That goes contrary to everything our enemies leaderships have shown. Launching a traceable missile leads to their demise. Smuggling weapons in is far harder to track down and takes considerably more time and gives them denial capacity.4. The logistics involved with the kinds of attacks you describe are not seamless. Arguably, missile attacks might be easier to pull off, as one doesn't have to worry about smuggling and assembly, all of which create opportunities for detection. Indeed, the complex logistics involved with such attacks have likely contributed to the lack of such attacks even with the widely-documented security flaws you described.
I really don't get how we haven't been attacked yet with a nuclear device. Our ports are unsecured. Our borders unsecured. There's plenty of radioactive material out there poorly or not even guarded. If terrorists or states can't even pull the easy way off, why would they go the hard way?
At the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars? We're better off building a souped up version of the Israeli Iron Dome system then the corporate welfare monstrosity we have now.In short, far from seeking to transform the global balance of power, the system is intended to provide some additional insurance against a small-scale missile attack (intentional or accidental). Investing some resources in defensive capabilities, rather than relying strictly on offensive ones, gives the nation greater flexibility and enhances its security. Nothing the nation does can eliminate all risk.
"If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu