Opinion Why US spends so much on the army?

Panmisiek

Banned
Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2015
Messages
2,915
Reaction score
0
Why not use fraction of that sum and have 1000's of maintained and ready nukes instead. And use rest of the money for whatever US needs?

Just curious.
 
Why not use fraction of that sum and have 1000's of maintained and ready nukes instead. And use rest of the money for whatever US needs?

Just curious.

We do have thousands of maintained and ready nukes in addition to all the other military stuff we have.
 
Eh? The US has 14 active SSBNs prowling the oceans virtually undetectable. There are people at the highest levels of government that don't even know where the fuck they are at any given time.

The Trident II's it has on board re-enter the atmosphere at Mach 24 and split up into eight independent re-entry vehicles that each carry a 475 kiloton nuclear warhead. A full deployment from just one of them would let off 192 warheads in less than a minute and strike targets from distances of up to 12,000 km. So 2,688 nukes in 60 seconds or less if they all got busy. And that's just the SLBM leg of triad.
 
Eh? The US has 14 active SSBNs prowling the oceans virtually undetectable. There are people at the highest levels of government that don't even know where the fuck they are at any given time.

The Trident II's it has on board re-enter the atmosphere at Mach 24 and split up into eight independent re-entry vehicles that each carry a 475 kiloton nuclear warhead. A full deployment from just one of them would let off 192 warheads in less than a minute and strike targets from distances of up to 12,000 km. So 2,688 nukes in 60 seconds or less if they all got busy. And that's just the SLBM leg of triad.

<{katwhu}>

That's fucking terrifying.
 
Eh? The US has 14 active SSBNs prowling the oceans virtually undetectable. There are people at the highest levels of government that don't even know where the fuck they are at any given time.

The Trident II's it has on board re-enter the atmosphere at Mach 24 and split up into eight independent re-entry vehicles that each carry a 475 kiloton nuclear warhead. A full deployment from just one of them would let off 192 warheads in less than a minute and strike targets from distances of up to 12,000 km. So 2,688 nukes in 60 seconds or less if they all got busy. And that's just the SLBM leg of triad.

I think 2 tjings

1) Russia and US and everyone else with nukes lie about the nunber of missiles they have active and non actice in stockpile.

2) Probably only countries with a known amount or capabilties are North korea, pakistan, france and UK. The Chinese, Russiand etc lie for sure and decieve.

3) You probably have lot more nukes then you think in cruise missiles sitting on air craft carriers or other submarines. And in bases.
<{katwhu}>

That's fucking terrifying.

Pretty beast. You should be proud if your American. The Ohio class holds the most SLBM ever made of submarine. Its a huge sub.
 
Boots on the ground are essential. You can use many means to win a war but a standing army will secure your victory, and interests. An example of this is how the U.S. established permanent bases in Japan, and have used them following WW2. The U.S. bases out there helped greatly with the Vietnam War. Nukes can't run bases. Personnel.....an army...….is needed.

An army needs to be armed, needs vehicles, aircraft and other logistics, lodging, pay, food, etc etc. All of these things cost money. The U.S. spends so much money on its army because it uses it.
 
Eh? The US has 14 active SSBNs prowling the oceans virtually undetectable. There are people at the highest levels of government that don't even know where the fuck they are at any given time.

The Trident II's it has on board re-enter the atmosphere at Mach 24 and split up into eight independent re-entry vehicles that each carry a 475 kiloton nuclear warhead. A full deployment from just one of them would let off 192 warheads in less than a minute and strike targets from distances of up to 12,000 km. So 2,688 nukes in 60 seconds or less if they all got busy. And that's just the SLBM leg of triad.

<mma4><5><{Joewithit}><{katwhu}><Huh2>
 
1. as pointed out, the US already have those nukes.

2. It is a good thing, A REALLY good thing, that there are alternatives to a nuclear option.

3. In the end, wars are won by boots on the ground. You can defeat a opponent with other weapons, but sooner or later you need the boots to finish the job.
 
I believe it is mostly about funneling money to the companies developing and manufacturing the weapons and equipment. The US spends more than anyone else when we have no threats from other countries.
 
The US basically has that dystopian sci-fi doomsday device all those sci-fi authors, filmmakers base all their works on. Ever see that Kubrick film, Doctor Strangelove? We are actually living in it.
 
There are people at the highest levels of government that don't even know where the fuck they are at any given time.

Well, 'they' don't know where 'they' are either. Only one thing is certain to 'them'. They are under a lot of sea water somewhere on the planet Earth. U.S. Navy - got to love them...
 
Last edited:
Why not use fraction of that sum and have 1000's of maintained and ready nukes instead.

I think you are the only one that has not figured this out yet. No one is ever going to use nukes. They were really never built with the intention of being used -- just to scare the other side into thinking we would use them.
 
Because the military industry has good lobbyists.
 
I think warfare in this age is through economic and cyber means. Nukes have neutralized most of the developed countries and forced us to play on those fields now. That doesm't stop countries from constantly testing control at borders so I don't think the military should be completely scaled down but it's fair to say it's pretty excessive where it's at considering what we could do with the money instead.
 
Last edited:
Why not use fraction of that sum and have 1000's of maintained and ready nukes instead. And use rest of the money for whatever US needs?

Just curious.
So do we nuke an insurgency? There are groups out there (that we more or less created but that is another thread) that would love for nothing more than us to start indiscriminately nuking.

Edit:

But yeah point taken, fucking congress just gave the military over 50 billion more than the executive even asked for. The military industrial complex has been smart - weapons systems and aircrafts are being made in as many districts as possible to keep as many politicians in favor of funding them.

Situations like this: https://www.military.com/daily-news...n-buys-abrams-tanks-the-army-doesnt-want.html

The Ohio Rep openly admits they were paying for $120 million in tanks the army doesn't want because it will keep his constituents employed.
The new defense spending bill includes $120 million for tanks that the Army has repeatedly said it doesn't want.

For three years, the Army in numerous Congressional hearings has pushed a plan that essentially would have suspended tank building and upgrades in the U.S. for the first time since World War II. The Army suggested that production lines could be kept open through foreign sales.


Each time, Congress has pushed back. Last week, Congress won again in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2015.

In a statement, Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, said that Congress "recognizes the necessity of the Abrams tank to our national security and authorizes an additional $120 million for Abrams tank upgrades. This provision keeps the production lines open in Lima, Ohio, and ensures that our skilled, technical workers are protected."
 
Last edited:
I believe it is mostly about funneling money to the companies developing and manufacturing the weapons and equipment. The US spends more than anyone else when we have no threats from other countries.

I think warfare in this age is through economic and cyber means. Nukes have neutralized most of the developed countries and forced us to play on those fields now. That does stop countries from constantly testing control at borders so I don't think the military should be completely scaled down but it's fair to say it's pretty excessive where it's at considering what we could do with the money instead.

The current posture is definitely getting bulky and archaic, tens of billions could be far better utilized if they were redirected towards R&D investment in quantum information systems, artificial intelligence, robotics and emergent bio-technologies, for both defense and non-defense related applications. US economic and national security is contingent on remaining at the forefront of science and technology.
 
Pretty beast. You should be proud if your American. The Ohio class holds the most SLBM ever made of submarine. Its a huge sub.

They're actually already up for replacement, a dozen new Columbia-class SSBN's will replace them and serve from 2030-2085. The principal nuclear armament will consist of "only" 16 x D5 but given how hydro-acoustic sensing and processing technologies are always advancing, the stealth upgrades will be worth it. These things scare the piss out of China.
 
Cause a standing military is paramount to maintaining peace around the world. The costs are high because of government inefficiencies and lobbyist.
 
Back
Top