San Francisco, 11:54 AM
Fri Nov 27
15 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors: tips@io9.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz | Email
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders | Email
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner | Email
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis | Email
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan | Email
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier | Email
Ed Grabianowski | Email
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan | Email
Lauren Davis | Email
Chris Hsiang | Email
Lynn Peril | Email
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins | Email
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox | Email
Interns:
Tim Barribeau | Email
Julia Carusillo | Email
Alex Eichler | Email
Cyriaque Lamar | Email
Caitlin Petrakovitz | Email
Mary Ratliff | Email
Josh Snyder | Email
| posts about #powerarmor more → |
Budget Cuts Push Back Future Military Systems |
Power-Armor Vs. Nano-Tech Super Soldiers, In G.I. Joe |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
io9 
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