Why do you think this country needs more invested in the Military.

[jbander]

I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.

I don't understand it either. A conventional military is not how wars will be fought in the future. We could close at least half our bases and stop making tanks and ground crap such as that. Also cut it with the Trumpian interventionist, warmongering bluster and hubris.

The only thing areas that need additional money are covert ops, drones, and much better cyber intel. Do all that, and we could cut the bloated military budget in half and be far safer than we are now.

Future wars will be fought thru cyber attacks

A room full of geeks half way around the world will hack into your financial system and hold your economy for ransom unless you surrender

Easier and not as deadly as a nuclear attack

Our enemies are by no means limited to one method of attack. We must be prepared to defend against all possible forms of attack or we may well die. Just that simple.

so maybe you can enlighten us over any part of military weapons that we are lacking or that other weaponry we have has made obsolete. Apples for apples from this country to any potential war opponent.

 

[jbander]

Our enemies are by no means limited to one method of attack. We must be prepared to defend against all possible forms of attack or we may well die. Just that simple.

Maybe sorta. I don't believe we need to be very concerned about a ground invasion. Ground wars are nearly obsolete and so the hardware required for such should be scaled way back. As for ground wars we have started, they've largely been enormous failures over the past 60+ years. We need to mind our own damn business, keep an eye on our borders and beef up missile defense systems to the point where we can take out an ICBM 99% of the time.

yup on the last part.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Useless wars

Spanish American War: Remember the Maine was an accident blamed on Spain

WWI: Lusitania was carrying ordinance and brought us into a senseless war

Vietnam: Gulf of Tonkin was a ruse made up to get us into the war

Iraq: WMDs ? My ass

Just because you don't know them doesn't mean good reasons didn't exist. Our wars have taken us from being a tiny backwater colony to being the world's preeminent superpower. I admit to being pleased about that.

What made us a superpower is everyone was destroyed in WWII while our Homefront was untouched

We were untouched for the same reason we do not bother to defend our homeland now. Huge oceans and friendly neighbors

WWII was a war and it did advance our status.
The oceans stopped being much defense in themselves because of technology. ICBMs and bombers as well as naval missiles could wipe out any nation on Earth within a matter of minutes or hours and they would work just as well for our enemies as they would for us. The importance of oceans these days centers around the high-tech and very expensive navy we have on and under them. Takes way more than chump change.

Bullshit , this from the mind of a confused gun Bubba. We could get by with way way less military , since much of it for policing the world and making the fatted rich fatter and not for protecting our borders.
Years back it was very apparent that we didn't need anything close to the military numbers we had. So they came up with this goofball idea saying we need enough military so that can fight two wars at once, hell why not 3 or 10 or 50.
Now again it is looking that we need only a shadow of what we have now ,so now the hate party needs enough weapons to be able to fight in two wars and a intergalactic war. They say they are out there and they intercepted a communication saying they were planning a attack any day now. I got that inside information from 9thLDdoc and we have to believe him because he has been so accurate here.

Same old bullshit over and over without the first shed of evidence to back it up.
Fact is our idiotic downsizing came back to bite us in the ass big-time when things got hot in the ME.
Wonder how many wars you think we fought during WWII.

 

[jbander]

Yahoo your scum -yahoo and can't read "
My post your scum partner is responding to "far as wars are concerned simply look at the endless list of wars we have been in and I bet you can't come up with a handful out of those hundreds of wars that we needed to be in.
We have interests around the world, but we can't dictate with our military and we can't waste one life on the bottom line of some corporation. If you think we should tell me how many lives are you willing to waste for any corporation's bottom line.
AND THIS IS BRAIN DEADS ANSWER" What exactly make you think you are an authority on (or are even capable of understanding) what wars "we" should fight.
WTF is "we"? And how exactly do you think we can avoid fighting when we are attacked?"
Give me your telephone number and I'll call you up and read it to you. Just because I'm that kind of guy. By the Way Yahoo your scum!!!!!!!!

This is a test now, Who asked a question first Yahoo?????????

1. Dumbass, "far as wars are concerned simply look at the endless list of wars we have been in and I bet you can't come up with a handful out of those hundreds of wars that we needed to be in." and "We have interests around the world, but we can't dictate with our military and we can't waste one life on the bottom line of some corporation." are not questions. In English they are known as statements. More accurately they are known as lies because we have not been in "hundreds of wars" and we've never wasted "one life on the bottom line of some corporation".
2. "If you think we should tell me how many lives are you willing to waste for any corporation's bottom line." only becomes a question if I think lives should be lost for a corporations bottom and I obviously do not.
3. The above non-questions were not made in post #170 as you have repeatedly claimed.
4. I know of no reason to believe the above non-questions were addressed to me.

What I do know is that you continually refuse to answer questions or defend positions you have taken. Nor have you given any reason to believe you are anything but clueless on the subjects you attempt to address.

Anyone who is interest simply go to comment 170 and see if the comment and the response are there, he says they are not. but he says a lot of bullshit.

A bald-faced lie. In #170 he did not ask a question. or make a comment. Or write adamn thing. I alone asked questions in #170; he wrote nothing at all. I wrote it and I have quoted it twice as proof. Once again here is #170:

What exactly make you think you are an authority on (or are even capable of understanding) what wars "we" should fight.
WTF is "we"? And how exactly do you think we can avoid fighting when we are attacked?

OK everyone knows that your responding to something , some other comment, the comment that you your self added when you pushed the QUOTE button on the options on the bottom of every comment here." This is my comment that your responding to "far as wars are concerned simply look at the endless list of wars we have been in and I bet you can't come up with a handful out of those hundreds of wars that we needed to be in.
We have interests around the world, but we can't dictate with our military and we can't waste one life on the bottom line of some corporation. If you think we should tell me how many lives are you willing to waste for any corporation's bottom line." This is clearly seen by anyone who is interested, in post 170. There is no way you can billshit your way out of this , you can't change the facts, you can't change the truth.

Maybe I was addressing your comment but I certainly was not failing to answer a question you asked me which is what you claimed. Nor have I failed to address your idiotic comments. You are the one attempting to disguise the fact that you are unable to answer questions or defend your positions by your use of bullshit and lies.

Good point, so answer my question to you that was first and I will be glad to answer any one question you have "
"far as wars are concerned simply look at the endless list of wars we have been in and I bet you can't come up with a handful out of those hundreds of wars that we needed to be in.
We have interests around the world, but we can't dictate with our military and we can't waste one life on the bottom line of some corporation. If you think we should tell me how many lives are you willing to waste for any corporation's bottom line." " That's it show us what you got.

 

[sakinago]

More money just thrown at it noooo, but I would like to cut some programs and add to programs that really really matter. Like the f-22 program that should have never been stopped. There’s really nothing more important than air superiority in modern day warfare.

The F-22 program in no way was stopped it was completed in fact many years ago, they starting using them in 2005 I think and we have just short of 200 of them now. WE need no more if our potential enemy's have none or just a few. If we had to make more no country could make them faster then this country. So no I don't see it. You are right ,They are a great plane.

No it was stopped prematurely, I know we have F22s but we were supposed to have a lot more. And if I remember correctly we have maybe 150 of these, and only 2/3s for active military. On top of that we drastically cut our air power under Obama, not just in the case of the F22s. Like I said air power is nothing to mess with. You spend that money, that’s the shit that actually wins wars. And if you have enough air power to show that you can dominate any sky in the world...that’s a lot cheaper than actual war. But now we’ve limited our AirPower, China’s j-20 looks like it could be the best plane in the sky, our f35 program is flailing (trump did not help with that) and now China and Russia are getting pretty bold.

I mean come on now we have been at war 214 years of the 235 years we have existed as a country. We don't need a real reason to go to war as the over 100 wars we have been in proves. Any old corporate lie or goofball lie is enough. The handfulwes of wars that needed to be fought are one thing but all the rest are bullshit. Thing we shouldn't have done , things that weren't justifiable, things that were strictly for corporations bottom line.
195 F-22 were built 187 put into service and during the competition to build these, their price went right through the ceiling. 150 million apiece. so when the f-35 came into existence it was by far a more versatile fighter and the final price will be close to 85 million per example. Their projected number will be 2,663. So no I don't in any way see that as pulling the plug on the f-22 for some budgetary bullshit that your trying to sell here. . The whole thing was a fighter program F-22 f-35 ,
If you really are interested . instead of looking at the numbers that possibly opponents have look into the number breakdown, Our f-15 and f-16 will be viable and over powering of most of the fighters these other country have for many years. Then I would ask you why we should build any military weapon type, that no other country has or have in their numbers now. So China has a couple of stealth fighters and Russia has 10 prototypes. su-57. Iran claims to have one but it is said to be a mock-up for photo shoots.
I'll explain the scenario of anyone in the world that we possibly would have a war with. During the first Iraq war Iraq lost 4000 tanks. The American Abrams lost 18 in number ,12 to friendly fire and If I remember 3 because we blew them up ourselves, I don't think one American was killed in the tank core.
The British Challenger 1 , not one was lost and they took our 300 Iraqi tanks. This tell just about all the story , there is little deviation between countries. This country and half our Allies could take on the rest of the world in total and we would win quite Easily.
All you supporters of a bigger military are being sold bullshit by the ton. Check into what Eisenhower said about the military industrial complex.
Any money above what the spend now is 100% waste. The military has one mission to protect our country, that means our borders and the population that live in those borders nothing else. WE could cut our budget in half and still be able to do anything needed to do what the military should be used for.

Never said I was for a bigger military spending, I’m saying ditch or drastically cut back on ineffective programs (plenty of them), and put more money into programs that actually work, like the f22. And let’s talk about this bogus claim of America has been at war for 220 years, just a stupid claim, it counts pretty much any tiny skirmish with Indians, the bannana wars, the Cold War, etc. just a dumb dumb stat. I agree that we shouldn’t be fighting wars like we have been in Afghanistan and that certainly needs to change, and I’m very well aware of Eisenhower’s military-industrial complex speech and happen to agree with him.

THE f35 DOESNT WORK. It cannot climb or turn anywhere close to what’s necessary, and isn’t even a safe plane to fly. Are they cheaper yea, but if they don’t fix the hundreds of problems plaguing the program...you might as well be wasting 85 million over 2000 times. VS the f22 that is so much better than any other plane out there (outside of the j-20) it scores something like a 1/20 K/D ratio, which is incredible. So an F22 is essientially worth 20 f15s which are still great planes, and I’m all for spending money to upgrade and make them even better. And I can’t stress enough the importance of air superiority, and how much cheaper (since you only want to look at numbers with out using secondary level thinking) it is to have air superiority...like the f22 provides. So do you still really want more f35s? If they can get the f35 working I’m all for that, would love to have a stealth fighter that can take off from a carrier and take off vertically but it isn’t. I don’t think we should ditch it, but it’s probably wiser to just repurpose some f22, to take off from carriers...gonna be a lot cheaper than the billions were pouring into a plane that doesn’t work.

And your whole point on the tanks in desert storm is adding to my point...they were so much better than Iraqi tanks that were quite modern, that it’s immensly cheaper (and life saving) in the long run to have much better equipment (by the way we also had air superiority in desert storm which helped a good bit). And they were so much better because we spent the money to make them that much better, money that the left was complaining about spending just as much back then as they do today.

Now China and Russia are both putting the pedal to the metal on war tech, and are making very good progress doing so...yea it sucks that the US spends as much as it does, but the US (despite how much we want to complain about it) is a far better force in the world than say Russia and China would be once they become superpowers. And they only become superpowers once we take our foot off the pedal, and no longer are one...which is def their goal. The US had stabilized and brought so much peace to the world, it’s absolutely ridiculous.
Why the World Is Not Falling Apart
The Sum of Our Fears | IPS
War used to plague humanity, it was one of the biggest killers, not anymore...

And we as a society and humanity in general have benighted immensely from the technology that “war” or preparing for war brings us. Cell phones, GPS, computers, internet, microwaves, medicine (our biggest breakthroughs in medicine are thanks to wars), flight, space flight, energy, etc. just hundreds of thousands of pieces of tech that has brought humanity out of the mud, as well as out from under the boot of oppression, is all thanks to war and we take a lot of it for granted. So to say “we’re just wasting money on the military,” is ridiculous...

Manned fighter aircraft are obsolete

A drone, without having to accommodate the safety of a pilot can fly faster and does not have to make concessions to G forces
You can also be more aggressive with a drone because you do not have to be concerned about the safety of the pilot

Human pilot or remote/AI pilot aside...you still need to build better planes than them...which is where the large majority of cost lies. And AI piloting isn’t there yet so we’re still gonna have to spend money to train pilots, less pilots sure. But still.

 

[sakinago]

I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.

I don't understand it either. A conventional military is not how wars will be fought in the future. We could close at least half our bases and stop making tanks and ground crap such as that. Also cut it with the Trumpian interventionist, warmongering bluster and hubris.

The only thing areas that need additional money are covert ops, drones, and much better cyber intel. Do all that, and we could cut the bloated military budget in half and be far safer than we are now.

Future wars will be fought thru cyber attacks

A room full of geeks half way around the world will hack into your financial system and hold your economy for ransom unless you surrender

Easier and not as deadly as a nuclear attack

Someone watches too many movies...

actually I have no doubt that it could happen but I also saw it in a movie I watched. So your both right.

They could cause chaos sure (not to the degree y’all are imagining)...but it needs to be anonymous, so you can’t really fight war that way. Since the country could say stop hacking us or we’ll bomb you, and you can’t do anything about it since you got rid of most of your military, and traded it for hackers.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Our enemies are by no means limited to one method of attack. We must be prepared to defend against all possible forms of attack or we may well die. Just that simple.

Maybe sorta. I don't believe we need to be very concerned about a ground invasion. Ground wars are nearly obsolete and so the hardware required for such should be scaled way back. As for ground wars we have started, they've largely been enormous failures over the past 60+ years. We need to mind our own damn business, keep an eye on our borders and beef up missile defense systems to the point where we can take out an ICBM 99% of the time.

All I can say is that history has proven otherwise quite conclusively.
What ground wars do you think we've started?

 

[sakinago]

I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.

I don't understand it either. A conventional military is not how wars will be fought in the future. We could close at least half our bases and stop making tanks and ground crap such as that. Also cut it with the Trumpian interventionist, warmongering bluster and hubris.

The only thing areas that need additional money are covert ops, drones, and much better cyber intel. Do all that, and we could cut the bloated military budget in half and be far safer than we are now.

Future wars will be fought thru cyber attacks

A room full of geeks half way around the world will hack into your financial system and hold your economy for ransom unless you surrender

Easier and not as deadly as a nuclear attack

Someone watches too many movies...

It is already happening
What happens when a major corporation gets hacked and they are threatened with having their records destroyed?

Well they’d have to make demands of some sort, so if it’s say China doing it, we say fuck you, we’ll start dropping kinetic strikes from the sky that you can’t defend against....that’s what would happen. Which is why you still need a military...guns still beat computers. You aren’t thinking this all the way through...which is why I said you were very short sighted. On top of that cyber security, cloud computing, and a jillion of other factors make your scenario outlandishly unlikely. As of now hackers are pretty much limited to stealing identity’s, stealing information, and perhaps framing people...it can cause chaos sure, but that’s the best they got. They can’t hold a country hostage.

 

[9thIDdoc]

1. Dumbass, "far as wars are concerned simply look at the endless list of wars we have been in and I bet you can't come up with a handful out of those hundreds of wars that we needed to be in." and "We have interests around the world, but we can't dictate with our military and we can't waste one life on the bottom line of some corporation." are not questions. In English they are known as statements. More accurately they are known as lies because we have not been in "hundreds of wars" and we've never wasted "one life on the bottom line of some corporation".
2. "If you think we should tell me how many lives are you willing to waste for any corporation's bottom line." only becomes a question if I think lives should be lost for a corporations bottom and I obviously do not.
3. The above non-questions were not made in post #170 as you have repeatedly claimed.
4. I know of no reason to believe the above non-questions were addressed to me.

What I do know is that you continually refuse to answer questions or defend positions you have taken. Nor have you given any reason to believe you are anything but clueless on the subjects you attempt to address.

Anyone who is interest simply go to comment 170 and see if the comment and the response are there, he says they are not. but he says a lot of bullshit.

A bald-faced lie. In #170 he did not ask a question. or make a comment. Or write adamn thing. I alone asked questions in #170; he wrote nothing at all. I wrote it and I have quoted it twice as proof. Once again here is #170:

What exactly make you think you are an authority on (or are even capable of understanding) what wars "we" should fight.
WTF is "we"? And how exactly do you think we can avoid fighting when we are attacked?

OK everyone knows that your responding to something , some other comment, the comment that you your self added when you pushed the QUOTE button on the options on the bottom of every comment here." This is my comment that your responding to "far as wars are concerned simply look at the endless list of wars we have been in and I bet you can't come up with a handful out of those hundreds of wars that we needed to be in.
We have interests around the world, but we can't dictate with our military and we can't waste one life on the bottom line of some corporation. If you think we should tell me how many lives are you willing to waste for any corporation's bottom line." This is clearly seen by anyone who is interested, in post 170. There is no way you can billshit your way out of this , you can't change the facts, you can't change the truth.

Maybe I was addressing your comment but I certainly was not failing to answer a question you asked me which is what you claimed. Nor have I failed to address your idiotic comments. You are the one attempting to disguise the fact that you are unable to answer questions or defend your positions by your use of bullshit and lies.

Good point, so answer my question to you that was first and I will be glad to answer any one question you have "
"far as wars are concerned simply look at the endless list of wars we have been in and I bet you can't come up with a handful out of those hundreds of wars that we needed to be in.
We have interests around the world, but we can't dictate with our military and we can't waste one life on the bottom line of some corporation. If you think we should tell me how many lives are you willing to waste for any corporation's bottom line." " That's it show us what you got.

Again.
A comment is not a question.
You did not ask me any questions.
I have already responded to your comments at least twice.
I bet you cannot prove we have ever been in an "unnecessary" war. If far better minds than yours hadn't deemed them necessary we would not have become involved.
How exactly does someone die for a corporate bottom line (that-by the way-is an example of an actual question)?

 

[usmcstinger]

I am always amazed by those who do not have the courage to serve in our Armed Forces. They make themselves feel better by spouting the typical BS.

Good God , he thinks that you have to go into the service to have courage. Follow that logic. I can say what I like because I live in this country and there is only one threat to me being able to say what I want to say and that is the hate party that is in office now.

 

[Spare_change]

Useless wars

Spanish American War: Remember the Maine was an accident blamed on Spain

WWI: Lusitania was carrying ordinance and brought us into a senseless war

Vietnam: Gulf of Tonkin was a ruse made up to get us into the war

Iraq: WMDs ? My ass

LMAO !!!!

Seriously? This is it?

 

[Spare_change]

I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.

I don't understand it either. A conventional military is not how wars will be fought in the future. We could close at least half our bases and stop making tanks and ground crap such as that. Also cut it with the Trumpian interventionist, warmongering bluster and hubris.

The only thing areas that need additional money are covert ops, drones, and much better cyber intel. Do all that, and we could cut the bloated military budget in half and be far safer than we are now.

Sorry - it just doesn't work that way.

You can't own the land until you walk on the land.

 

[Spare_change]

I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.

I don't understand it either. A conventional military is not how wars will be fought in the future. We could close at least half our bases and stop making tanks and ground crap such as that. Also cut it with the Trumpian interventionist, warmongering bluster and hubris.

The only thing areas that need additional money are covert ops, drones, and much better cyber intel. Do all that, and we could cut the bloated military budget in half and be far safer than we are now.

Future wars will be fought thru cyber attacks

A room full of geeks half way around the world will hack into your financial system and hold your economy for ransom unless you surrender

Easier and not as deadly as a nuclear attack

That's simply not true --- and anyone who pushes this nonsense has no real understanding of the global confrontation.

How's that cyber thing working against N. Korea? How about how we are holding NK hostage by our sanctions.

Cyber "attacks" will be but a single component in a multi-faceted war. Hacking a financial system doesn't stop tanks or aircraft. In fact, dysfunctional economic systems are the prime cause of wars - not a tool to stop them.

 

[Spare_change]

I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.

I don't understand it either. A conventional military is not how wars will be fought in the future. We could close at least half our bases and stop making tanks and ground crap such as that. Also cut it with the Trumpian interventionist, warmongering bluster and hubris.

The only thing areas that need additional money are covert ops, drones, and much better cyber intel. Do all that, and we could cut the bloated military budget in half and be far safer than we are now.

Future wars will be fought thru cyber attacks

A room full of geeks half way around the world will hack into your financial system and hold your economy for ransom unless you surrender

Easier and not as deadly as a nuclear attack

Someone watches too many movies...

actually I have no doubt that it could happen but I also saw it in a movie I watched. So your both right.

Let me guess .....

Looney Toons, right?

 

[Spare_change]

Our enemies are by no means limited to one method of attack. We must be prepared to defend against all possible forms of attack or we may well die. Just that simple.

Maybe sorta. I don't believe we need to be very concerned about a ground invasion. Ground wars are nearly obsolete and so the hardware required for such should be scaled way back. As for ground wars we have started, they've largely been enormous failures over the past 60+ years. We need to mind our own damn business, keep an eye on our borders and beef up missile defense systems to the point where we can take out an ICBM 99% of the time.

I believe you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

 

[rightwinger]

Our enemies are by no means limited to one method of attack. We must be prepared to defend against all possible forms of attack or we may well die. Just that simple.

Maybe sorta. I don't believe we need to be very concerned about a ground invasion. Ground wars are nearly obsolete and so the hardware required for such should be scaled way back. As for ground wars we have started, they've largely been enormous failures over the past 60+ years. We need to mind our own damn business, keep an eye on our borders and beef up missile defense systems to the point where we can take out an ICBM 99% of the time.

All I can say is that history has proven otherwise quite conclusively.
What ground wars do you think we've started?

Iraq and Afghanistan

 

[rightwinger]

I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.

I don't understand it either. A conventional military is not how wars will be fought in the future. We could close at least half our bases and stop making tanks and ground crap such as that. Also cut it with the Trumpian interventionist, warmongering bluster and hubris.

The only thing areas that need additional money are covert ops, drones, and much better cyber intel. Do all that, and we could cut the bloated military budget in half and be far safer than we are now.

Future wars will be fought thru cyber attacks

A room full of geeks half way around the world will hack into your financial system and hold your economy for ransom unless you surrender

Easier and not as deadly as a nuclear attack

That's simply not true --- and anyone who pushes this nonsense has no real understanding of the global confrontation.

How's that cyber thing working against N. Korea? How about how we are holding NK hostage by our sanctions.

Cyber "attacks" will be but a single component in a multi-faceted war. Hacking a financial system doesn't stop tanks or aircraft. In fact, dysfunctional economic systems are the prime cause of wars - not a tool to stop them.

North Korea is a great example

A tiny military that has no chance of winning a ground war
But they are heavily invested in their cyber program. Their best minds are working on inflicting cyber attacks. They can't beat us with their army but they can beat us if they can penetrate

 

[sakinago]

I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.

I don't understand it either. A conventional military is not how wars will be fought in the future. We could close at least half our bases and stop making tanks and ground crap such as that. Also cut it with the Trumpian interventionist, warmongering bluster and hubris.

The only thing areas that need additional money are covert ops, drones, and much better cyber intel. Do all that, and we could cut the bloated military budget in half and be far safer than we are now.

Future wars will be fought thru cyber attacks

A room full of geeks half way around the world will hack into your financial system and hold your economy for ransom unless you surrender

Easier and not as deadly as a nuclear attack

That's simply not true --- and anyone who pushes this nonsense has no real understanding of the global confrontation.

How's that cyber thing working against N. Korea? How about how we are holding NK hostage by our sanctions.

Cyber "attacks" will be but a single component in a multi-faceted war. Hacking a financial system doesn't stop tanks or aircraft. In fact, dysfunctional economic systems are the prime cause of wars - not a tool to stop them.

North Korea is a great example

A tiny military that has no chance of winning a ground war
But they are heavily invested in their cyber program. Their best minds are working on inflicting cyber attacks. They can't beat us with their army but they can beat us if they can penetrate

That’s a terrible example....they can barely host the internet. What makes NK dangerous isn’t their retarded cyber program, it’s the fact they can wipe out Seoul, a city of 10 million, in an hour with conventional mobile artillery. We can shoot down nukes, we can’t stop shells.

 

[rightwinger]

I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.

I don't understand it either. A conventional military is not how wars will be fought in the future. We could close at least half our bases and stop making tanks and ground crap such as that. Also cut it with the Trumpian interventionist, warmongering bluster and hubris.

The only thing areas that need additional money are covert ops, drones, and much better cyber intel. Do all that, and we could cut the bloated military budget in half and be far safer than we are now.

Future wars will be fought thru cyber attacks

A room full of geeks half way around the world will hack into your financial system and hold your economy for ransom unless you surrender

Easier and not as deadly as a nuclear attack

That's simply not true --- and anyone who pushes this nonsense has no real understanding of the global confrontation.

How's that cyber thing working against N. Korea? How about how we are holding NK hostage by our sanctions.

Cyber "attacks" will be but a single component in a multi-faceted war. Hacking a financial system doesn't stop tanks or aircraft. In fact, dysfunctional economic systems are the prime cause of wars - not a tool to stop them.

North Korea is a great example

A tiny military that has no chance of winning a ground war
But they are heavily invested in their cyber program. Their best minds are working on inflicting cyber attacks. They can't beat us with their army but they can beat us if they can penetrate

That’s a terrible example....they can barely host the internet. What makes NK dangerous isn’t their retarded cyber program, it’s the fact they can wipe out Seoul, a city of 10 million, in an hour with conventional mobile artillery. We can shoot down nukes, we can’t stop shells.

Actually, North Korea has a very advanced cyber program and is investing heavily

 

[sakinago]

I don't understand it either. A conventional military is not how wars will be fought in the future. We could close at least half our bases and stop making tanks and ground crap such as that. Also cut it with the Trumpian interventionist, warmongering bluster and hubris.

The only thing areas that need additional money are covert ops, drones, and much better cyber intel. Do all that, and we could cut the bloated military budget in half and be far safer than we are now.

Future wars will be fought thru cyber attacks

A room full of geeks half way around the world will hack into your financial system and hold your economy for ransom unless you surrender

Easier and not as deadly as a nuclear attack

That's simply not true --- and anyone who pushes this nonsense has no real understanding of the global confrontation.

How's that cyber thing working against N. Korea? How about how we are holding NK hostage by our sanctions.

Cyber "attacks" will be but a single component in a multi-faceted war. Hacking a financial system doesn't stop tanks or aircraft. In fact, dysfunctional economic systems are the prime cause of wars - not a tool to stop them.

North Korea is a great example

A tiny military that has no chance of winning a ground war
But they are heavily invested in their cyber program. Their best minds are working on inflicting cyber attacks. They can't beat us with their army but they can beat us if they can penetrate

That’s a terrible example....they can barely host the internet. What makes NK dangerous isn’t their retarded cyber program, it’s the fact they can wipe out Seoul, a city of 10 million, in an hour with conventional mobile artillery. We can shoot down nukes, we can’t stop shells.

Actually, North Korea has a very advanced cyber program and is investing heavily

Oh boy, they really showed us using bots to tie up broadband....and guessing the email passwords of Sony executives....Again you watch too many movies. Hacking isn’t basement nerds using algorithms to crack into mainframes, it’s guessing passwords, and using bot nets for things like tying up broadband or other tasks, and sending out malware in mass to get more bots.