Cost of Protecting US Soldiers

Good to know where my taxes are going...


| Send to Facebook | Send To Twitter
  • Leave A Comment

    Subscribe
    Notify of
    17 Comments
    Inline Feedbacks
    View all comments
    Jet

    money well spent… i would buy one for myself too…

    deleted_user

    Saw this in the San Jose Mecury News several weeks ago.

    deleted_user

    .

    knogoodidleft

    future weapon looks similar to the F2000

    El_Chupachichis

    This doesn’t factor in medical technologies and proper battlefield First Response Care.

    Not trying to start an argument, but it is possible to overarmor and weigh down, negating the value of the armor in the first place. If you can be hit, you can be killed. More armor != Less deaths.

    RepairmanJack

    Well some of the new armor technologies contain lift support, composite exoskeleton that allows the soldier to lift more and carry more weight. How about this, lets stop spreading democracy by force, can’t we just stick with Jeffersonian government, of no intervention. I mean we can get the new armor for defense, but we don’t need to spend so much on defense.

    Caio

    Not anymore, Jack. The US put its nose in so many places, it would cost millions just to figure out how to untangle yourselves.

    sansbutt

    Does anyone remember why we stopped using the jeffersonian government policy of no intervention? i believe it started with WW1 and ended with WW2, idk maybe the two world wars within half a century was important enough to break our notion that we can exist independently from the rest of the world

    Caio

    Well, Sansbutt, it certainly did convince Switzerland.

    sansbutt

    yes well I am sure the Swiss are glad that they can live peaceful lives without a Nazi regime ruling over them

    Max

    Monroe Doctrine certainly got us started, sansbutt.

    bosephus

    Monroe Doctrine started it, but after the US invaded and possessed territories after the Spanish American war, they learned it was difficult to do that. The US became isolationist and very reluctantly entered WW1. The modern arms race started during WW2 and continued into the cold war. They started looking for more conflicts, including Korea, which got started 6 or 7 years after WW2 ended. Right now, just like Eisenhower warned in his farewell speech, the US is run by the military industrial complex. Is this a bad thing? Well, Jeffersonian democracy is an ideal for an agrarian society. Things… Read more »

    Caio

    “Whether it’s good or bad depends on what you want.”

    Not to be nuked because which monotheistic abrahamic god is the *right* one? Or howabout not to be nuked because some American millionaire needed to augment his wealth by a hefty 0.3%? Which option is better for *me*?

    deleted_user

    Things like the internet most likely would never have come into being without the military’s prodigious growth over the past 50 years. Whether it’s good or bad depends on what you want.

    Sorry, but you have Technology to thank for the internet, not the military.

    Are you forgetting where the first computer was built? In a garage, of an average American family.

    Not on some military base or something of that nature.

    Tux

    wasn’t the beginning of the internet the ARPA-net or whatever, which was military designed? Or at least designed for military use?

    bosephus

    “Are you forgetting where the first computer was built? In a garage, of an average American family. Not on some military base or something of that nature.” I’m sorry, but you’re completely, utterly, and embarrassingly wrong. That was the first “personal” computer. Technology was not invented by Apple. For decades before that, we’ve had computers that were developed by military and scientific resources. Computers were developed coming out of world war 2 as part of the arms race for communication encryption. And you’ve got to be kidding me if you think an agrarian agriculture is going to develop computers. All… Read more »

    TheRogue47

    Anyone who watches the history and discovery channels picks up pretty quickly on the fact that historically speaking, military technology has always been the most current and advanced.

    But, this is bullshit anyway. Another ten years and we’ll have robots fighting by proxy. I hope.