Right now nobody can really compete with us in technology because of the money we spent in the past. If you want to stay on top of the technology pyramid, you cannot stop research/upgrades.
This budget is a major shift in thinking at the pentagon. Our military has been focused on preparing itself to fight a conventional war since WW2. This budget refocuses the military to prepare more for an asymmetric war.
It sucks to see projects like the F-22 are getting virtually eliminated. On the other hand, urban warfare focuses on the soldier more & we might start seeing more soldier centric advances in the coming years/decades.
@Xmar: Yes, but what use is a fighter such as the F-22 if the current generation of fighters is not only sufficient, but virtually unused? To me, the money on the F-22 is something that's incredibly wasteful, and not geared towards what conflicts are turning out to be.
@Xmar: Very true, but at some point, you'll need the technology to work and be able to be implemented in the first place - a system that's far too expensive and faulty isn't going to be a very good deterrent.
People should watch the documentary "Why We Fight" to better understand the business behind war. When WWII happened we used our industrial capacity to meet the threat. Now we spend hundreds of billions of dollars on useless programs. Not every penny of military spending is "defending our shores". People that think cutting back unnecessary military spending will make us vulnerable need to do some more homework on what is actually happening out there and stop using emotional sound bites as an argument.
I'm all for laser beams and soon-to-be robot overlords but there is a lot of waste out there.
@hopskipper: Do you think Russia and China think the same as you do? Sadly no. They're pushing forward with their own next-gen weaponry. Unlike in the US, they can just take whatever resources from their citizens and subsidize everything and no one would ever complain.
Military superiority. Even if we don't actively use our most advanced weapons, they aren't just symbolic. It keeps countries from attacking each other.
What's happening is that the President is hurting our future security for his own peacenik ideology and current political gain. Yes, small scale combat is important and equipping our soldiers for maximum survivability is most important but remember that we wouldn't be able to fight the terrorists in the Middle East unless our amour and our aircraft clear out their conventional armies first.
The average airframe in the Air Force is older than most of the pilots flying them. Same goes for our Navy ships. So what happens when we get into a war with China, North Korea, or maybe even Russia? Against any of those countries, US troops will be outnumbered and held to completely unreasonable rules of engagement so all we're going to have to rely on is superior training and a superior technological advantage.
As far as I'm concerned, cutting back the F-22 and the missile shield is treasonable.
You say it isn't pressing, but you just wait until the Red Chinese invade Alaska, you'll be begging for a Liberty Prime. On a serious note, since most of those books basically say that our air, vehicle, and communications superiority was useless, wouldn't it make even more sense to upgrade footsoldiers since they're the only useful part?
If the books say that our technological superiority was useless, then the books were written by imbeciles.
If we were fighting the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan on an equal technological footing, you can rest assured that our casualties would have been at least one order of magnitude greater, and the wars would last even longer. The outcome would actually be in doubt, as well.
@Klebert L. Hall: They're not saying that technology is useless, they're saying that it doesn't act as a force-multiplier and isn't a silver bullet for all of our problems.
For sure, the technology that's implemented is useful, from night vision goggles to the predator drones, but despite these, there are still problems. We haven't beaten back an insurgency in Iraq or Afghanistan.
No, the real places where this money needs to go is to better cultural understanding and working with people, isolating insurgents and extremists from the rest of the population. Then, we can get to a better stage of this conflict.
This is great news! I was hoping that the Army would fund a way to make more advanced and efficient cancer!
Seriously, you know that the first guy they inject this with is going to get a cut, and end up with a grapefruit sized tumor on his shoulder because the new drug didn't know when to stop repairing him.
I'm wondering what the psychological impacts of this is going to be.
Admittedly, wounded soldiers have been sent back to the battlefield for well over 2 millenia, but if the turnaround time becomes shorter, what's the effect on the soldier's mental well-being?
Are we going to see the creation of "Morale Battalions" (Gods, I hope so!) to help?
There are also some inaccuracies in the post above. The guy was a Vietnam Vet working in a hobby store. The company that gave him the magic powder is owned by his brother, it wasn't a military funded experiment or anything. Just my two cents.
@Smeagol92055: I mean, I understand, the robot was tacked on to the end of the article, but the headline was about wolverine, not something that looks like the love-baby of the Iron Giant and a Sleestack.
@Smeagol92055: this does raise a perplexing question that millions and millions of nerd hours spent on extensive reasearch has been unable to answer, 'which is cooler, wolverine or a robot?'
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
"I know... I'm watching the live feed"
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/17/09
04/06/09
This budget is a major shift in thinking at the pentagon. Our military has been focused on preparing itself to fight a conventional war since WW2. This budget refocuses the military to prepare more for an asymmetric war.
It sucks to see projects like the F-22 are getting virtually eliminated. On the other hand, urban warfare focuses on the soldier more & we might start seeing more soldier centric advances in the coming years/decades.
04/07/09
04/07/09
Look at the "diplomatic effect" that can be made by simply parking an aircraft carrier group in the area.
You are correct in that the current stage of the current conflicts don't need the F-22, but what about the next conflict?
04/07/09
04/06/09
I'm all for laser beams and soon-to-be robot overlords but there is a lot of waste out there.
04/06/09
Military superiority. Even if we don't actively use our most advanced weapons, they aren't just symbolic. It keeps countries from attacking each other.
04/07/09
04/06/09
The average airframe in the Air Force is older than most of the pilots flying them. Same goes for our Navy ships. So what happens when we get into a war with China, North Korea, or maybe even Russia? Against any of those countries, US troops will be outnumbered and held to completely unreasonable rules of engagement so all we're going to have to rely on is superior training and a superior technological advantage.
As far as I'm concerned, cutting back the F-22 and the missile shield is treasonable.
04/06/09
You know that the Secretary of Defense that made these recommendations is a Bush appointee, right?
04/06/09
04/06/09
04/06/09
04/06/09
If the books say that our technological superiority was useless, then the books were written by imbeciles.
If we were fighting the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan on an equal technological footing, you can rest assured that our casualties would have been at least one order of magnitude greater, and the wars would last even longer. The outcome would actually be in doubt, as well.
-Kle.
04/07/09
For sure, the technology that's implemented is useful, from night vision goggles to the predator drones, but despite these, there are still problems. We haven't beaten back an insurgency in Iraq or Afghanistan.
No, the real places where this money needs to go is to better cultural understanding and working with people, isolating insurgents and extremists from the rest of the population. Then, we can get to a better stage of this conflict.
04/06/09
04/06/09
12/23/08
12/23/08
Seriously, you know that the first guy they inject this with is going to get a cut, and end up with a grapefruit sized tumor on his shoulder because the new drug didn't know when to stop repairing him.
12/22/08
Admittedly, wounded soldiers have been sent back to the battlefield for well over 2 millenia, but if the turnaround time becomes shorter, what's the effect on the soldier's mental well-being?
Are we going to see the creation of "Morale Battalions" (Gods, I hope so!) to help?
12/22/08
12/22/08
12/22/08
There are also some inaccuracies in the post above. The guy was a Vietnam Vet working in a hobby store. The company that gave him the magic powder is owned by his brother, it wasn't a military funded experiment or anything. Just my two cents.
12/22/08
12/22/08
12/22/08
12/22/08
12/22/08
12/22/08
12/22/08
12/22/08
12/22/08
12/22/08
Just look at all the cool stuff DARPA does.
12/22/08