Russia-Georgia-Ottesia News Explanations PLEASE?

All I was trained to say is:

"Puhzhalsta vstanche bleechy ya bolchy?..?

 

A timeline of this change

Source data

 

...so today it happens to be the case that the pie is growing faster than the slice is shrinking

look at this again (you can actually see vietnam, reagan and dubya on that graphic if you know where to look)

think about the pie analogy

much bigger things have established themselves on uncle sam's shopping list

 

Perhaps Uncle Sam buys his pies at the faux bakery, as the devil is in the details.

One will note the "defense budget" of 517 billion does not count little things like the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, all the nuclear weapons, nor veterans' benefits and other expenses war/defense related that go on different books.

Rather tragic considering that taking one half of the true figure that could pay for a college education and health insurance for every American and still have a reserve for other social redeeming programs.

Fear, terror and war make great profits for that minority.


http://www.globalissues.org/article...ContextUSMilitarySpendingVersusRestoftheWorld

 

Okay, we'll call those supplementary expenses the "whipped topping." I'll even say there's a generous amount of it.

The point is: the slice of pie underneath all that topping is still the bulk of the dessert. Your source says total spending was $711 billion, which means there is almost $200 billion in whipped topping, compared with $517.9 billion in the slice of pie.

And when you compare Eisenhower's pie to Dubya's, today's defense slice is less than a third the size of Ike's. There's no way to find enough Cool Whip® to make up the difference.

And that isn't taking into consideration that there's plenty of topping on the rest of the pie as well. Like the $62.3 billion that went toward Hurricane Katrina, for instance.

I think you're missing the point that:

-even though defense spending is up in terms of dollar amounts (even when adjusted for inflation)
-and it has increased as a portion of the budget under Bush Jr.

...its share of the budget is still WAAAAAAAY down from what it was when Eisenhower made his speech (you know the one I'm talking about). You're forgetting that if we were still using Dwight's pie, defense's piece would be

[SIZE=+4][HIGHLIGHT]$1.5-2 trillion[/HIGHLIGHT][/SIZE]

...and that's before adding the topping.

 

Russia revives Soviet era strategic bomber patrols. That's something I read a while ago, that I even forgot to mention at the time of this discussion.

What I want to point out with this is that your argument of "we can get mad because for all we know they put nukes in their ABM's" doesn't hold. Especially considering you have strategic bombers flying around, which for all we know can be fitted with nukes.

Guess the roles between the US and Russia were reversed back then.

-Z

 

btw sorry for all that politik chatter, felt like i was taking the thread for a ride

[SIZE=-10]i'm sure loosephool will respond, but i've already made my point too many times[/SIZE]

 

squirel;

It seems we have conflicting info. take a look at this quote from my ref. :


" Commenting on the earlier data, Chris Hellman, noted that when adjusted for inflation the request for 2007 together with that needed for nuclear weapons the 2007 spending request exceeds the average amount spent by the Pentagon during the Cold War, for a military that is one-third smaller than it was just over a decade ago. PDF formatted document "


That said, perhaps we should return to the main discussion of what is the cause of the Russian-Georgian conflict.

Is the United States playing the cold war game even though Russia is no longer the "super power" and threat to the free world as we were lead to believe for so many years after WW2?

Was the US involvement in Georgia another instigation just like the US support in Afghanistan that "tricked" Russia into invading? (that's my opinion anyway).

My point is that I believe the powers that be- call it military industrial complex for lack of a better description, still want to play the only game they know; cold war checkers. They still want to make those great cold war, war profits where governments sign virtual blank checks for arms and missile systems that most of the time don't work as they are promised, will need more and more upgrading and maintenance and will never be actually used.

 

these are the times we live in, you pay more for what you feel you might someday need and even just for a couple of times, then for what you are using at the moment frequently

 

All want to suck at the teat of the American taxpayer, post Cold War, post reality. But soon the "American taxpayer" will be no more -- to be replaced with the many millions of Third World illiterate, clannish, tribal groups imported to perform the few remaining industrial tasks left on USA soil. Well, the so-called "meek" shall inherit the earth.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Disappointment

i take it you are among the lot who would be too proud to rejoice when your predictions of the apocalypse turn out to be wrong

 

human resources already shows how screwed up is the USA government.

 

PS: didnt squirl go away?

 

pffffffff, are you blind?!

squirl has always been here, you just need to open yer eyes a bit to see that

 

he's found a clever chart, trying to manipulate us away. it's hiding the fact that US's budget power is growing, so percentages can drop.

here is the military investing in real money:



one wonders whether, the bearded men readying in caves in the desert are as powerful enemy as the glorious chinese army in the 50s or the russian nukes in the 80s?
or is this army build up for purposes other than 'protection from terrorism'?...

 

this whole bomber thing is just a show off for the home audience. Putin also has to cater for the electorate

for example, submarines matter much more in the nuclear stand off. here is what is happening with them:
"After the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the annual number of patrols continued to decline until it reached its lowest level in 2001 with only two patrols accomplished. 2002 was particularly noteworthy because it was the first time the Russian Navy did not send any strategic submarines on extended deterrent patrols.
...strategic submarines, which in 2006 only accomplished five deterrent patrols. (see chart below)

Moreover, the total 2006 patrol number corresponds to the five submarines Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov declared were on patrol on September 11. That all patrols occurred at approximately the same time, instead of being spread out over 12 months, suggests that Russia in 2006 did not have a real operational sea-based deterrent posture with ongoing patrols.

...
On the other hand, not sending the submarines on extended deterrent patrols is a very powerful message if Russia wants to signal that it is not a strategic threat. It is one less argument for U.S. and British admirals to justify sending their attack submarines to monitor and potentially counter Russian strategic submarines during patrol. And it reduces the risk of accidents and incidents. Finally, it might also indicate that the Cold War is over and the Russian Navy has decided it simply doesn't need to deploy SSBNs on deterrent patrols anymore.

If and when Russia resumes routine strategic submarine patrols at a more significant level (which the other nuclear weapons states have continued in the meantime)..."

http://www.nukestrat.com/russia/subpatrols.htm

 

It might also suggest, that after the Kursk incident they're shitting their pants that it might happen again and this time further away from home, and don't want to stretch their luck.

 

Grobar, I've got one more graphic for you:



It shows that, no matter how greedy/corrupt the defense industry may be, that sector has not grown along with the rest of the US. It is subject to sizable fluctuations as the President and Congress reshuffle, whereas the overall budget experiences almost constant growth.

And regarding how the US spends its defense dollars, consider the following statement by an ambassador:

This was said by Tripoli's ambassador to London in 1786 about the Barbary Pirates, who were part of a heritage responsible for raids along the Mediterranean coast of Europe and the resulting enslavement of 1-1.25 million people and the destruction of thousands of ships.

In 1801 the US went to war against those pirates (who, as you amusingly pointed out about the US's current enemies, were mere bearded men with a relative disadvantage in equipment). Yet, the United States was at war with a major power just 11 years later...

It has been said that the US was unprepared to fight an insurgency in Iraq. However, it would be wishful thinking to suppose that the US no longer requires the ability to engage a major power.

p.s. I realize that, as tired as I may be of this subject, the forum is probably more so.