S
smndtupidisaftr
Guest
What would Iran have to gain by attacking the US?
- Status
G
Ghosty
Guest
A 100 pound nuclear device wouldn’t make anywhere close to the EMP you’re talking about. Neither would a thousand pound device.
Could a nuke of that size be loaded on a SCUD? Of course. Could it set the U.S. back to the 1800s? Not even close.
Peace and God bless!
Could a nuke of that size be loaded on a SCUD? Of course. Could it set the U.S. back to the 1800s? Not even close.
Peace and God bless!
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
We couldn’t be absolutely sure it was Iran … unless they told us. But the crew in Tehran WANTS armageddon. They have said so. The 12th Imam, and all that.
I will post a link to U.S. military spending as a percent of GDP.
Maybe you can take that chart and post the actual chart; your computer skills are better than mine are.
The attack on 9/11 caused a lot of actual physical damage to lower Manhattan and to the Pentagon and cost less that $500,000 for al Qaeda to execute. The crater where the World Trade Center used to be was 16 square blocks in area.
The cost of the attack on Pearl Harbor was almost negligible in terms of fuel and lost airplanes. Sank a lot of our ships. Killed 2000 of our people. There was supposed to be a formal declaration of war by Japan but their embassy people screwed up and they were slow in decrypting the message from Tokyo.
So, when someone declares war and blows you up, what exactly are you supposed to do?
The U.S. honored a treaty obligation when in June 20, 1950, North Korea invaded South Korea.
Were there screw-ups? Yes.
Should Japan have attacked Pearl Harbor? No, bad idea. Yes, Japan had “issues” … when DuPont invented Nylon, the market for Japanese silk used in women’s stockings suddenly went to zero. That was ALL of Japan’s foreign exchange. They had a problem. They had to buy oil to run their country. Instead of “repurposing” their silk, they went to war to get oil and to get natural resources in China and Korea and Manchuria.
If the United States been stronger at the time, we might have “deterred” the attack. Everybody knew all of everybody else’s war plans. We had moved some battleships and aircraft carriers from California to our forward operating base in Hawaii. The Japanese figured they had an opportunity to deliver ONE strong blow. Japan miscalculated.
North Korea also miscalculated.
When the Vietnam war started, the Communists made sure they had their propaganda assets well deployed and so they prevailed.
I will post a link to U.S. military spending as a percent of GDP.
Maybe you can take that chart and post the actual chart; your computer skills are better than mine are.
The attack on 9/11 caused a lot of actual physical damage to lower Manhattan and to the Pentagon and cost less that $500,000 for al Qaeda to execute. The crater where the World Trade Center used to be was 16 square blocks in area.
The cost of the attack on Pearl Harbor was almost negligible in terms of fuel and lost airplanes. Sank a lot of our ships. Killed 2000 of our people. There was supposed to be a formal declaration of war by Japan but their embassy people screwed up and they were slow in decrypting the message from Tokyo.
So, when someone declares war and blows you up, what exactly are you supposed to do?
The U.S. honored a treaty obligation when in June 20, 1950, North Korea invaded South Korea.
Were there screw-ups? Yes.
Should Japan have attacked Pearl Harbor? No, bad idea. Yes, Japan had “issues” … when DuPont invented Nylon, the market for Japanese silk used in women’s stockings suddenly went to zero. That was ALL of Japan’s foreign exchange. They had a problem. They had to buy oil to run their country. Instead of “repurposing” their silk, they went to war to get oil and to get natural resources in China and Korea and Manchuria.
If the United States been stronger at the time, we might have “deterred” the attack. Everybody knew all of everybody else’s war plans. We had moved some battleships and aircraft carriers from California to our forward operating base in Hawaii. The Japanese figured they had an opportunity to deliver ONE strong blow. Japan miscalculated.
North Korea also miscalculated.
When the Vietnam war started, the Communists made sure they had their propaganda assets well deployed and so they prevailed.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Another repeat post:
For example, in a few places they publish the trend line of U.S. military spending as a percent of GDP … but not as a percent of the Federal budget … “Total government outlays” …
U.S. military spending is 4.4% of GDP which is nearly the lowest in our history.
Go here and scroll down:
airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Magazine%20Documents/2011/April%202011/0411chart.pdf
It’s not that our government is spending too much on defense, but too little.
When we spend too little, our enemies have no respect for us and figure we are easy targets.
THE lowest was just before 9/11 … when under President Bill Clinton, military spending was only 2.8% of GDP … we were at our weakest, both in perception and in reality. We no longer had the capability to deter those 9/11 attacks. Our enemies perceived that and attacked us successfully.
We were in a similar situation just prior to the Korean War. We had demobilized and disarmed until we were so weak, that we were a pushover. The North Koreans were able to push the United States Army almost to extinction on the Korean peninsula. Our soldiers weren’t even given marksmanship training. Basic stuff.
Someone asked me how could our military fall so far so fast. The answer is that because enlistments are only two years … at the time, they were pretty short … may be longer now … you have to rebuild it constantly … and if you don’t put that money out constantly, then the military will fall apart within months.
If you cut the military budget, then there are consequences … YOUR ability to defend yourself will go away. And quickly.
For example, in a few places they publish the trend line of U.S. military spending as a percent of GDP … but not as a percent of the Federal budget … “Total government outlays” …
U.S. military spending is 4.4% of GDP which is nearly the lowest in our history.
Go here and scroll down:
airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Magazine%20Documents/2011/April%202011/0411chart.pdf
It’s not that our government is spending too much on defense, but too little.
When we spend too little, our enemies have no respect for us and figure we are easy targets.
THE lowest was just before 9/11 … when under President Bill Clinton, military spending was only 2.8% of GDP … we were at our weakest, both in perception and in reality. We no longer had the capability to deter those 9/11 attacks. Our enemies perceived that and attacked us successfully.
We were in a similar situation just prior to the Korean War. We had demobilized and disarmed until we were so weak, that we were a pushover. The North Koreans were able to push the United States Army almost to extinction on the Korean peninsula. Our soldiers weren’t even given marksmanship training. Basic stuff.
Someone asked me how could our military fall so far so fast. The answer is that because enlistments are only two years … at the time, they were pretty short … may be longer now … you have to rebuild it constantly … and if you don’t put that money out constantly, then the military will fall apart within months.
If you cut the military budget, then there are consequences … YOUR ability to defend yourself will go away. And quickly.
S
smndtupidisaftr
Guest
How can you, seeing that chart I posted, declare that the US is anywhere close to spending too little? I really just can’t buy it when it looks like we spend more than the rest of the world combined.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Some hands-on assistance from someone with better computer skills than me, would be appreciated.
You really need to look at the trends in Government spending … and you can tell that a lot of places that post numbers don’t really want you to know what the trend line really is on military spending of the United States.
Go to this Web page. It is by the Government Printing Office:
gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/hist.pdf
Visit Table 3.1
Just scroll down.
It shows from 1940 to 2014 spending … And at the BOTTOM, is National Defense spending as a percent of total Federal Government outlays.
Unfortunately, until someone here can find a graph that shows all that data in one graph, you [or someone here who has a better computer than I have] would need to manually write the data down and graph it and post the graph here.
But the current military spending as a percent of total U.S. outlays is about as low as it has ever been … except for Bill Clinton’s spending just before 9/11.
That’s the actual Federal government data.
Interesting stuff.
Could someone take the time to plot the data on their computer and post it here?
I can’t find that data plotted onto a graph by year anywhere and if someone would do it, they would be making an actual contribution to the world of research.
Thanks.
You really need to look at the trends in Government spending … and you can tell that a lot of places that post numbers don’t really want you to know what the trend line really is on military spending of the United States.
Go to this Web page. It is by the Government Printing Office:
gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/hist.pdf
Visit Table 3.1
Just scroll down.
It shows from 1940 to 2014 spending … And at the BOTTOM, is National Defense spending as a percent of total Federal Government outlays.
Unfortunately, until someone here can find a graph that shows all that data in one graph, you [or someone here who has a better computer than I have] would need to manually write the data down and graph it and post the graph here.
But the current military spending as a percent of total U.S. outlays is about as low as it has ever been … except for Bill Clinton’s spending just before 9/11.
That’s the actual Federal government data.
Interesting stuff.
Could someone take the time to plot the data on their computer and post it here?
I can’t find that data plotted onto a graph by year anywhere and if someone would do it, they would be making an actual contribution to the world of research.
Thanks.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Start with a threat assessment.
You DO have a threat assessment, right?
And read this article, it is very good:
americanthinker.com/2011/05/the_budget_how_we_got_here.html
Every time that the United States cuts its military spending below that 4% or 5% number per cent of GDP], there is big trouble.
Using the Federal government data, some guy did graph the data and presented his detailed analysis here:
mhodges701.home.comcast.net/~mhodges701/fed_budget-a.htm
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
An actual contribution to the world of research? 
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Here is another important article to read:
washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-dangerous-debate-over-cutting-military-spending/2011/10/28/gIQAnPWEXM_story.html
The whole article is very good, but here is just one excerpt:
[second objection to U.S. military spending:]
Second, we spend so much more than anyone else that cutbacks won’t make us vulnerable.
In 2009, U.S. defense spending was six times China’s and 13 times Russia’s, according to estimates from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. The trouble with these numbers is that they don’t truly adjust for differences in income levels. U.S. salary and procurement costs are orders of magnitude higher than China’s, for example. But China’s military manpower is about 50 percent greater than ours, and it has a fighter fleet four-fifths as large. This doesnt mean that China’s military technology yet equals ours, but differences in reported spending are wildly misleading.**
** here is the link to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s Web site:
milexdata.sipri.org/
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Nowadays, the technology is so good, that all the new designs are very light:
windsofchange.net/archives/count_down_to_irans_nuclear_test_revisited.html
G
Ghosty
Guest
Yes, nukes have gotten smaller, but a SCUD sized nuke of modern technology proportions still couldn’t produce the EMP you’re talking about.
As for military spending per GDP, the point is that the U.S. doesn’t require the amount of spending on military that our GDP allows for. If I’ve got thirty bodyguards with assault rifles I don’t need to add another 200 just because I can afford it asa percentage of my income when I get more money.
It’s not about proportion to income, it’s about proportion to need.
Peace and God bless!
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Got timed out.
Here is what is public information:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse
Excerpt:
Physicists have testified at United States Congressional hearings, however, that weapons with yields of 10 kilotons (42 TJ) or less can produce a very large EMP.[33]
A W-44 using 1962 technology will do the job:
nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Allbombs.html
And this is all public information. Old stuff.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
How many times have you personally gotten sucked into a world war?
The United States went to war in 1941, in 1948 [Berlin Blockade which triggered the Cold War], in 1950 [Korean War], in 2001 with 9/11. Not to mention countless other messes that we responded to.
How do you assess what our need might be?
R
Roselle
Guest
Economically, it appears the west’s and middle east too war against Iran is paying dividends. Their currency looks to be collapsing. This is undoubtably why the UK embassy was stormed a few weeks back. It is becoming tougher for the mullahs to keep on the same path.
“Iran’s Currency Collapse”
blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/12/23/irans-currency-collapse/
“Iran’s Currency Collapse”
blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/12/23/irans-currency-collapse/
R
Roselle
Guest
& thought this interesting to see - a top Al Qeada agent working in Iran. We might not have much choice about going after Iran in the future.
“U.S. Offers $10M for Iran-Based Al Qeada Financier”
foxnews.com/world/2011/12/22/us-offers-10m-for-iran-based-al-qeada-financier/
“U.S. Offers $10M for Iran-Based Al Qeada Financier”
foxnews.com/world/2011/12/22/us-offers-10m-for-iran-based-al-qeada-financier/
G
Ghosty
Guest
Bases all over the world are not necessary preparation for a world war that isn’t even remotely on the horizon. They certainly aren’t necessary for any likely conflicts we might be involved in that aren’t of our own making.
Peace and God bless!
I
incense
Guest
And let’s not forget the embarrassment of what happened under President Carter and the hostage situation in Iran. He sent a team to rescue them, but the equipment was not up-to-date. Their helicopter engines became clogged with sand and had to abort. And we watched the nightly news add a day for over a year to the count of the hostage situation. (Of course another lesson to be learned is that they released them when Ronald Reagan was elected, they were afraid of him. Bullies pick on weak people, which is what Obama appears to be.)
E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
The mythical fear of Ronald Reagan really had nothing to do with the release. The terms of their release were already being negotiated a full two months before election day and a deal was reached on January 19th. The reasons why the hostages weren’t released until after Reagan’s inaugural speech are all purely logistical ones ranging from the Federal Reserve bank’s difficulty in locating the assets that were to be transferred to Iran as part of the deal to the fact that the airport, from which the plane carrying the hostages was to depart, had a blackout.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Yeah right.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Sorry, but I have no idea what this means.
The United States gave up the vast majority of the bases it acquired during WWII, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. For various reasons.
France wanted us out. Fine. So we left. [Although France went ahead and spent BILLIONS to develop their own nuclear warheads, missiles, and aircraft.] Ditto, the Philippines; although the eruption of Mount Pinatubo got us out of there somewhat ahead of schedule. Ditto, Puerto Rico.
Bases in Thailand and various Pacific Islands and Morocco and Libya: We’re not there anymore.
Sometimes a friendly government would like us to stick around to act as a deterrent against aggression, such as South Korea … and it serves a training and logistical purpose for us.
When some crisis or other occurs, we negotiate with the host nation for basing rights. Some agree and some disagree. When the need goes away, we go away.
I asked some other poster to provide details of all the overseas bases and he was unable to provide any actual details. Just a bunch of generalities which didn’t pan out. Deliberately confusing “installations” with “bases”. An installation could be a rental locker at an airport in Karachi. A base could be a tent city in Iraq. And they open and close as needed.
In this age of internet and publicly available satellite photos, there are no secrets anymore.
No generalities or global statements, please. Specifics only.
So, sorry, but I just don’t understand your comment.
- Status