Russian Submarine Patrols Gulf of Mexico Undetected.

the chance of china or russia vs US conflict is very very small. even it happen we still #1 in military, we have superior navy/air force both in quality and quanity. also all country will try to avoid wars, however our incresing debt could destroy us. economy is the backbone of military.

 

yeah thats cool and all, but eventually we arent going to pluck money from the money tree.... and then we will be invaded because of our financial fallings......... like most countries that end up failing. I can point to numerous examples through out history of countries that may have had the strongest army but were still defeated ( rome).... but what they all had in common was HUGE debt. Eventually you run out of money and can no longer pay your troops, upkeep, etc.... (soviet union)I think we need to review our war tactics and evaluate our enemies better then just throw more money at the problem.

 

Bin Laden flat out said the master plan was to get the USA spend itself into collapse with ever more military spending.

Odd, how a few here seem to be demanding we go along with that plan.

 

...well, you are bad for America...it's people like you that cause wars...


Kabuki Joe

 

A stealth sub would make quiet diesels obsolete. Relax, understood it is a cat-and-mouse game, but to gain complete tactical advantage is not a sure thing here.

 

National defense is the only thing the government is supposed to be spending money on.

We already spend too much on health and education. Do you know why college costs have increased? Do you know why healthcare costs have increased?

Ill tell you for free, but you probably dont really wanna hear it...

College costs so much because the GOVERNMENT PAYS FOR IT.

Healthcare costs so much because the GOVERNMENT PAYS FOR IT.

If colleges and hospitals had to compete for customers, everything would be cheaper, not more expensive.

 

Well Obama doesn't seem to have a problem spending. In just 4 years in office he has rung up more debt than anythime in our history. Then he wants to add 12 million illegals as new citizens where half to three quarters will land on our already bloated welfare rolls.

US News
President Obama Has Outspent Last Five Presidents

President Obama has shelled out more in federal spending than the five presidents that came before him.

A new chart by the Comeback America Initiative (CAI), a non-partisan group dedicated to promoting fiscal responsibility by policymakers, shows federal spending by president as a percentage of GDP, and it doesn't reflect well on Obama.

"There has been a dramatic increase in spending under the Obama administration," David Walker, Founder and CEO of CAI, told Whispers. "Most of it is attributable to year one of his presidency and the stimulus... but President Obama has continued to take spending to a new level."

Federal spending was close to 20 percent under the Carter administration, dropped to 18 percent under Clinton, and is currently at an incredible 24 percent of GDP. According to the Congressional Budget Office, federal spending may hover around 22 percent for the next decade.

Federal spending is also higher this year than any year since 1949. The last time spending was higher—in 1946, it was 24.8—the country was just coming down from the exorbitant rates of spending during World War II.

GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney has said he would cut federal spending down to just 17 percent of GDP.

President Obama is facing some heat over the economy Friday after a depressing job report showed the jobless rate climbed to 8.2 percent in May.

 

If these electric/diesal subs are as quit and as cheap as they say, it could be a real danger if China and Russia decided to load up on them. If I remember right Rob, we lost around 17,000 ships during WWII. I have no idea how many were sunk by subs. I do know one thing, we couldn't lose a third of that now. We don't have that many and no way to replace most of those we could lose. I wouldn't count out China and Russia joining together if a war broke out against us with either one. The have gotten much closer the last 10 or so years.

 

Yes, the homosexual activists are a driving force in progressive politics.

_

 

was hoping for a response.... none came. WAHHHHHHHHHHHH!

 

Marine there is where our old friend Warrior can provide the expertise. I feel you are creating anxiety for yourself. Its too bad he doesn't visit this site.

 

So how did all those nuclear subs and aircraft carriers work out for ya' on 911?

Then you need to take your meds.

 

What "mission" was that exactly?

 

Ummm, the mission of saving the world of course. Mission (*)(*)(*)(*)ing accomplished!

 

I expect better from you Marine than such overly broad generalizations.

Without getting into details- while there are some liberals who frankly are against any military, most liberals want and expect a U.S. military that is capable of defending the United States.

Myself, I am pro-defense, while at the same time I reject the idea that any discussion of cuts to our military budget is anti-American.

 

I would say the aircraft carriers have been invaluable, not only in Afghanistan, but also in our war with Iraq and also used heavily in Kuwait. Don't know how we could have fought any of those wars effectively without them.


"The aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln has moved from the Persian Gulf into the Gulf of Oman so its warplanes can fly missions over Afghanistan, where attacks have been rising, the U.S. military said Tuesday.

The carrier was ordered to move so it could conduct potential airstrikes over Afghanistan by flying over Pakistani airspace."


The U.S. is preparing for a massive step up of air strikes in Afghanistan with Defence Secretary Robert Gates ordering a second aircraft carrier into the Arabian Sea off the coast of Pakistan, said a media report.

USS Lincoln has been ordered to be deployed in the northern Arabian Sea apparently as part of moves to support a major offensive against Taliban in Afghanistan.

“Two carriers operating off the coast of Pakistan means about 120 aircraft available for missions over Afghanistan. And that's not counting U.S. Air Force missions flown out of Bagram and Kandahar,” CBS news reported.

 

Enjoy the Neocon Koolaid.

 

You know a person doesn't want to generalize, but when you get so many Libs coming at you that are anti military, it's not that easy to hold yourself back. I do realize it's not all Liberals that feel that way, the same as I realize not all Republicans want to sink GM. But there are enough of both on this board and they make no bones on how they feel. I'm sorry for lumping you all together. But you guys know who you are. I think we have way to many that can't tell right from wrong anymore.

 

**sigh**

 

Guess what? The Iraq war is ended. We have no more combat troops there.

 

I know what you mean- often I am tempted to say that all Conservatives 'think this' because I get frustrated by the anti-Liberal insults of certain fringe individuals. But the majority of Conservatives and the majority of Liberals all want a safe and secure United States. We may disagree on the budget or priorities but those are details- we don't disagree on the fundamental need for defense.

You are a Conservative that I find who is able to look at issues from a better balanced perspective than most who post here, which is the only reason I called you on it

 

Not a liberal, but for the most part I am anti war. In my opinion, which may seem extreme to some, we should do this. Close at least 20-30 of our foreign military bases. Pull troops out of middle east. Build/buy 50-100 super powerful atomic bombs. Point one at every single country in the world. Then , release a message telling the entire world that if anyone attacks us, we will send a nuke pronto to your location. Then , reduce our troop numbers heavily and maintain maintenance on the nuclear bombs. After the initial expense, it will be much cheaper to just maintain our high nuclear arsenal and no country will want to end its self over some bull(*)(*)(*)(*). I think we got lucky in the 40`s when we dropped the nuclear bomb, because no one we were fighting had one to strike back with yet . If they did, they surely would have dropped one back and then we would have beaten the bloody hell out of each other with those bombs.

 

Ori

Good thing you weren't around in WWII. You'd be speaking German or Russian. Do you know we lost more men fighting for 6 weeks at the Battle of the Bulge than we have lost in 10 years fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan?

 

I really get pissed when you anti war Libs start showing American caskets to boost your anti war senaments. That hits way below the belt. We would have never won WWII if you people were around. This was only about 6 weeks of fighting.

How many United States casualties were there in the Battle of the Bulge?

Answer:

The Americans had a total of 89,987 casualties. 19,276 dead, 23,554 captured or mising and 47,493 wounded.


Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_...here_in_the_Battle_of_the_Bulge#ixzz23eUgIjzz