11 replies to this topic

[Frank274]

As some of you know, in May 2013 I get my commission as an Ensign in the US Navy. This is very exciting, not only because I can't wait to serve my country, but also because shortly after I get my commission, the Navy plans on doing some pretty awesome things.

This is one of the new weapons that the Navy is about to put on the new class of ships, the DDG-1000's (DDG 1001 and 1002 are currently being built).

http://www.digitaltr...e-coming-weeks/

features a 32-megajoule payload. To add some perspective, one megajoule of energy is equivalent to a one ton car traveling at 100 miles per hour.

Thoughts?

[Sweeney]

I recently read that the cost of each missile of this sort could instead be used to educate 100 children for five years.

Or some such thing.

It may even have been on this forum.

[iargue]

I recently read that the cost of each missile of this sort could instead be used to educate 100 children for five years.

Or some such thing.

It may even have been on this forum.

Ramen goes a long way bro.

[Nonexistent]

I recently read that the cost of each missile of this sort could instead be used to educate 100 children for five years.

Or some such thing.

It may even have been on this forum.

Yes well, its the US; they take their defenses very seriously.

[Elindoril]

Yes well, its the US; they take their defenses very seriously.

They're insecure about their Military penis size, those Europeans can be so mean in the locker room with their wet towels.

[iargue]

They're insecure about their Military penis size, those Europeans can be so mean in the locker room with their wet towels.

It might have started out like that, but our Military penis size is kinda fucking huge at this point. Like, can't get anything but a pornstar huge. At this point, everyone else is jealous of us. Except maybe china. We have fencing matches in the locker room with them.

[redlion]

Yes well, its the US; they take their defenses very seriously.

While I'm not going to comment on the dubious necessity of the policy in today's geopolitics, the US has such high military output because of the policy of being able to fight two simultaneous ground wars. This stems historically from our inability during WWII to respond to threats from both the Pacific and Atlantic theaters when faced with the necessity of doing so.

[namida]

soooo US navy soldiers play neopets...huh...who could have guessed. or I misunderstood and frank274 isn't a soldger. ..my english isn't that great .

[Waser Lave]

While I'm not going to comment on the dubious necessity of the policy in today's geopolitics, the US has such high military output because of the policy of being able to fight two simultaneous ground wars. This stems historically from our inability during WWII to respond to threats from both the Pacific and Atlantic theaters when faced with the necessity of doing so.

It also helps to keep a shit load of people employed in both the armed services and in the wider defence and research industries. If they reduced the budget to be relative with other nations you'd be talking about millions of extra unemployed people and that would be very politically damaging given the types of jobs they do.

[Frank274]

soooo US navy soldiers play neopets...huh...who could have guessed. or I misunderstood and frank274 isn't a soldger. ..my english isn't that great .

I'm not technically in the Navy yet. I need to finish my schooling first.

It also helps to keep a shit load of people employed in both the armed services and in the wider defence and research industries. If they reduced the budget to be relative with other nations you'd be talking about millions of extra unemployed people and that would be very politically damaging given the types of jobs they do.

Except for the fact that every branch is cutting down. The Navy is downsizing by about 9000, while the Marine Corps is going down by between 9000 and 15000.

With the advent of such advanced weapons, fewer and fewer sailors are needed to operate them. For example, I was recently on a ship that needed about 350 people to safely operate (24/7). Now, new ships (DDG-1000's and newer CG(x)'s) only require about 200-250 people to operate. As technology improves, the need for a "large" population-based military decreases.

[Waser Lave]

Except for the fact that every branch is cutting down. The Navy is downsizing by about 9000, while the Marine Corps is going down by between 9000 and 15000.

With the advent of such advanced weapons, fewer and fewer sailors are needed to operate them. For example, I was recently on a ship that needed about 350 people to safely operate (24/7). Now, new ships (DDG-1000's and newer CG(x)'s) only require about 200-250 people to operate. As technology improves, the need for a "large" population-based military decreases.

A cut to bring the US defence budget down to a similar level relative to other countries would be much more significant than just a few thousand from each branch.

[iargue]

Except for the fact that every branch is cutting down. The Navy is downsizing by about 9000, while the Marine Corps is going down by between 9000 and 15000.

With the advent of such advanced weapons, fewer and fewer sailors are needed to operate them. For example, I was recently on a ship that needed about 350 people to safely operate (24/7). Now, new ships (DDG-1000's and newer CG(x)'s) only require about 200-250 people to operate. As technology improves, the need for a "large" population-based military decreases.

What you don't get is how budgeting works when it comes to the government. You are assigned a flat amount. If you don't use all of that flat amount, you don't get as much next year. No body likes having less money to work with. So they just fuck off and spend that money on things they don't need, so they can keep the same budget next year.

Thus, even if they reduce everything down to 1 guy, we will still spend the same amount of money researching things.