• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you support this military project?

Read article in first post and vote...

  • Total voters
    27
Jucon

Jucon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
787
Reaction score
222
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Read article, vote and comment...

DARPA Loses Hypersonic Vehicle, Goes From $320M to Zero in*2,700 Seconds - FoxNews.com

I'm split on this one... I'm bothered that this much has been spent on a currently failing project, yet if they eventually succeed I can only imagine we'd be saving billions more per year if politicians view this vehicle as a reason to close many of the military bases we have all over the world. What would be the point of having bases all around the world when we can attack anywhere on Earth within an hour anyways?

However, I am skeptical that some military advocates would go along with this hypothetical plan...
 
Last edited:
I am against this project, and let me explain why.

So much spending is put into our military. First, we all know that we have the supreme military, at least the majority of US citizens would like to think that. Second, as we have learned from more modern wars, that technology does not win wars, but the men that operate the technology. (Patton has a quote of this, and the movie Captain America plays with this concept.) Recently, a helicopter was shot down, and twenty five special forces soldiers were killed.

Technology doesn't win wars, people do. It would be nice to have a weapon where you just press a button and a war is won. Unfortunately, that is in fantasy land. The only counter argument I can see to this would be the atom bombs that were dropped in Japan during WWII. While it is true that the bomb allowed for an allied victory, the world rushed to obtain that technology. And now, many nations have the power of the a-bomb.

First, I think we as a nation have to balance our check books. Unfortunately, in the real world, when you are in debt so much, you can't keep spending on the things that you want. I feel like the people in power are being immature about this whole situation. Washington spent themselves into this problem, and now they have to face the consequences. This recent bill is pathetic. The amount of cuts over 10 years, we occur over three days. It really is stupid. And now the government, while we owe so much money to so many different lenders, are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a new project? This really is pathetic.

So no, I am totally against this project.
 
I'm totally for the project. Having strike ability without having to have military assets nearby is a positive addition to the military options available to the president.
 
Jucon said:
Read article, vote and comment...

DARPA Loses Hypersonic Vehicle, Goes From $320M to Zero in*2,700 Seconds - FoxNews.com

I'm split on this one... I'm bothered that this much has been spent on a currently failing project, yet if they eventually succeed I can only imagine we'd be saving billions more per year if politicians view this vehicle as a reason to close many of the military bases we have all over the world. What would be the point of having bases all around the world when we can attack anywhere on Earth within an hour anyways?

However, I am skeptical that some military advocates would go along with this hypothetical plan...
Click to expand...

who knows, it's an investment that might pay off somewhere down the road.
 
Jucon said:
Read article, vote and comment...

DARPA Loses Hypersonic Vehicle, Goes From $320M to Zero in*2,700 Seconds - FoxNews.com

I'm split on this one... I'm bothered that this much has been spent on a currently failing project, yet if they eventually succeed I can only imagine we'd be saving billions more per year if politicians view this vehicle as a reason to close many of the military bases we have all over the world. What would be the point of having bases all around the world when we can attack anywhere on Earth within an hour anyways?

However, I am skeptical that some military advocates would go along with this hypothetical plan...
Click to expand...

Reporting the cost of various military projects only means that Obama is prepping public opinion for defense cuts.
 
I am not to sure.Anything the military has can be turned on its own people, this sort of technology might be handed to a ally who might either "accidentally" leak the technology or become our enemies one day and use those weapons against us. Then again a hypersonic vehicle might lead to other technologies.
 
Last edited:
sookster said:
I am against this project, and let me explain why.

So much spending is put into our military. First, we all know that we have the supreme military, at least the majority of US citizens would like to think that. Second, as we have learned from more modern wars, that technology does not win wars, but the men that operate the technology. (Patton has a quote of this, and the movie Captain America plays with this concept.) Recently, a helicopter was shot down, and twenty five special forces soldiers were killed.

Technology doesn't win wars, people do. It would be nice to have a weapon where you just press a button and a war is won. Unfortunately, that is in fantasy land. The only counter argument I can see to this would be the atom bombs that were dropped in Japan during WWII. While it is true that the bomb allowed for an allied victory, the world rushed to obtain that technology. And now, many nations have the power of the a-bomb.

First, I think we as a nation have to balance our check books. Unfortunately, in the real world, when you are in debt so much, you can't keep spending on the things that you want. I feel like the people in power are being immature about this whole situation. Washington spent themselves into this problem, and now they have to face the consequences. This recent bill is pathetic. The amount of cuts over 10 years, we occur over three days. It really is stupid. And now the government, while we owe so much money to so many different lenders, are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a new project? This really is pathetic.

So no, I am totally against this project.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the Indians. The A-bomb wasn't and never has been the first time that wars have been won due to technology.
 
Jerry said:
Reporting the cost of various military projects only means that Obama is prepping public opinion for defense cuts.
Click to expand...

public opinion has already been prepped regardless, IMHO, for better or for worse.
 
RiverDad said:
I'm totally for the project. Having strike ability without having to have military assets nearby is a positive addition to the military options available to the president.
Click to expand...

That's hardly the biggest reason to support this. While I criticize the military industrial complex that is partially the reason for our massive debt, military research tends to trickle down to civilian uses. Having the military actually make a hypersonic transport plane work will lead to civilian commercialization. I hate flying. And if I can get from London to Sydney in less than 2 hours, I'm all for it.
 
These projects not only lead to our military remaining the preeminent power in the world they create jobs and the spin offs are great.

My first Casio digital watch had more computing power than Apollo 11 had when they landed on the Moon. since then look at all the spin offs that came after and because of the space program.

We need more not less of this type of project.
 
Currently I do not see a role that such an aircraft would be needed for. However, research for such aircraft are important to have at least underway before such a role is needed. So I would oppose building them for production at this time without a good explanation of why we need such a role filled, but continuing to work on it, sure. The price tag so far is pretty cheap.
 
Councilman said:
These projects not only lead to our military remaining the preeminent power in the world they create jobs and the spin offs are great.

My first Casio digital watch had more computing power than Apollo 11 had when they landed on the Moon. since then look at all the spin offs that came after and because of the space program.

We need more not less of this type of project.
Click to expand...

Wait. Did Councilman just say that government spending creates worthwhile jobs and wealth?
 
Redress said:
Currently I do not see a role that such an aircraft would be needed for.
Click to expand...

Uh, rapid deployment of troops anywhere on the planet? How about rapid movement of goods and civilians? London to Sydney in a bit over an hour? That's awesome.

So I would oppose building them for production at this time without a good explanation of why we need such a role filled, but continuing to work on it, sure. The price tag so far is pretty cheap.
Click to expand...

Dude, it's nowhere even near that. It's unmanned for a reason right now.
 
obvious Child said:
Uh, rapid deployment of troops anywhere on the planet? How about rapid movement of goods and civilians? London to Sydney in a bit over an hour? That's awesome.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is awesome, but that does not improve our warfighting capability by any significant amount. With carriers, we always have forward deployed units. We rarely if at all need logistics at that level to be effective, and there is no real combat role needed for such.

Dude, it's nowhere even near that. It's unmanned for a reason right now.
Click to expand...

Correct, it is not near the point where they are going to build them for production. When they reach the point where they could, then we need to examine it's role.
 
Redress said:
Yes, that is awesome, but that does not improve our warfighting capability by any significant amount. With carriers, we always have forward deployed units. We rarely if at all need logistics at that level to be effective, and there is no real combat role needed for such.
Click to expand...

The 82nd's motto (well, one of them), "eighteen hours, anywhere in the world, fight on arrival" could be "4 hours..."
 
It's always a shame that the first things to go whenever there are proposed budget cuts are science and education.
 
Hatuey said:
It's always a shame that the first things to go whenever there are proposed budget cuts are science and education.
Click to expand...

Education is way, way overfunded. I claim conflict of interest on science, but in my depth of my heart I know that it too is a cauldron of wasteful spending.
 
I know I'm kinda stealing this from someone else, but I will add something to it.

"The United Kickass States of America. Your ordinance in an hour or less, or we'll give it to you FREE!".

Love the idea, love what I'm seeing. Support it 100%
 
I'm slightly divided on this one.
The technology and the civilian benefits (of course, the military ones also) would be undoubtedly be very great.
However, reform on military spending (which I've alwasy advocated on the basic form of which the government pulls a contract if cost overruns go over 10% of the projected amount) would be very slow and would be very unlikely to be implemented at the time when the project is progressing. No need to mention that the US govt needs to save every penny it can lay its hands on during the current economic situation.
In addition, conventional warfare is almost nonexistent. Ever since the nuke, warfare was limited to small-scale conventional warfare and unconventional warfare. The money spent on this project would be put into better use into more worthwhile projects that concerns unconventional warfare instead of such grand projects that will have little use anyways
Just my opinion
 
sookster said:
I am against this project, and let me explain why.

So much spending is put into our military. First, we all know that we have the supreme military, at least the majority of US citizens would like to think that. Second, as we have learned from more modern wars, that technology does not win wars, but the men that operate the technology. (Patton has a quote of this, and the movie Captain America plays with this concept.) Recently, a helicopter was shot down, and twenty five special forces soldiers were killed.

Technology doesn't win wars, people do. It would be nice to have a weapon where you just press a button and a war is won. Unfortunately, that is in fantasy land. The only counter argument I can see to this would be the atom bombs that were dropped in Japan during WWII. While it is true that the bomb allowed for an allied victory, the world rushed to obtain that technology. And now, many nations have the power of the a-bomb.

First, I think we as a nation have to balance our check books. Unfortunately, in the real world, when you are in debt so much, you can't keep spending on the things that you want. I feel like the people in power are being immature about this whole situation. Washington spent themselves into this problem, and now they have to face the consequences. This recent bill is pathetic. The amount of cuts over 10 years, we occur over three days. It really is stupid. And now the government, while we owe so much money to so many different lenders, are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a new project? This really is pathetic.

So no, I am totally against this project.
Click to expand...

I don't know what scares me more, this post or the fact that you get to vote.
 
I support any military R&D project, that could give us the edge over the bad guys and/or create more force protection on the battlefield.
 
don't know what scares me more, this post or the fact that you get to vote.
Click to expand...

Why don't you elaborate? It is easy to point fingers without any logic to back your claims.

People are suggesting that technology from the defense department gets to be used for commercial use.

What is funny, is when it comes to NASA and space exploration this statement is rarely used. I bet you guys didn't know this, but NASA patents are FREE to the public!!! And, technology from NASA more than likely has been used in the defense realm as well.

The point I am trying to make, is if you are going to take the stance that defense spending leads to higher standards of living, NASA does this way better. If you have this stance, you would be more efficient in promoting technological advancement if you cut the spending in our defense and put it back into space exploration.
 
sookster said:
Why don't you elaborate? It is easy to point fingers without any logic to back your claims.

People are suggesting that technology from the defense department gets to be used for commercial use.

What is funny, is when it comes to NASA and space exploration this statement is rarely used. I bet you guys didn't know this, but NASA patents are FREE to the public!!! And, technology from NASA more than likely has been used in the defense realm as well.

The point I am trying to make, is if you are going to take the stance that defense spending leads to higher standards of living, NASA does this way better. If you have this stance, you would be more efficient in promoting technological advancement if you cut the spending in our defense and put it back into space exploration.
Click to expand...

I think most people are taking issue with your notion that "technology doesn't win wars."

People win wars, but technology sure as hell helps.
 
Sure, technology does help. But it is people that operate the technology that allows it to work, no?

You also didn't mention the microbiological advantage that Europeans had. If you were to read the book Guns, Germs, and Steel the world is the way it is because certain people had early access to Guns, Germs, and Steel. Why did they have early access? It wasn't because one race was superior than the other. It had everything to do with geography. They were just at the right place at the right time.

When we engaged on the Indians, not only did we have guns, but we also had germs.

Once again, technology doesn't win wars, people do. It is people that not only design the innovation but execute and use that said innovation. Navy Seals are getting shot down from basic rockets out in Afghanistan. I'm sure the Seals had way more advanced technology than the Taliban on the ground. Technology didn't save them, now did it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom