View Full Version : The Modern Army vs EMP
KafirChobee
11-13-2006, 07:04
The present US military budget is 40% of the overall US budget. Of that, 60% of the Army's goes to R&D - which is why Ft. Hood couldn't pay its electric bill (was 3 months past due). I mean the Army is having trouble doin O&R (overhaul and repair) work on their Humvees and even keeping up with parts replacement for the Apaches. The other services (aside from the orphan Coast Guard, which actually is fighting the war on Terror - or islamist-fascists as Bushy now likes to call them) are doing about the same thing. This is simply a curiousity, I'm not sure whom we are competeing with, but one can believe we must be winning. Must be, our military budget is equal to about 2/3 of the worlds.
I really don't care that the military gets such a disproportionate slice of the pie, I mean we do need protection. But, the R&D has gotten out of hand - it is in a sense their form of pork projects and "bridges to no where", and the things they are planning have no basic back-up. That is, they see the virtues of an all electronics army independent of a purely mechanical one as back-up.
Which brings me to my point - sort of. A military project I was involved in (many moons ago) started with a one system premise and wound up with six integrated electronic ones, none of which related to the original - a mechanical one - which, though it worked was disgarded and then salvaged. Primarily because the military (Army in this case, but believe me the AirFarce is the worst for adding things to the requirements and changing the mission of a system from its original premise) believe elctronics stuff is sexy - and it is. But, it is also succeptable to electronic countermeasures - and EMP (Electro-magnetic-pulse .... think nuke, though today one can be generated without an actual nuclear device being detonated).
During the asaid mentioned project I was talking with one of the older Engineers who said off hand that this project was one of the better ones since they reinstated the mechanical premise. Say what? Me, I was an electronics is sexy devotee - mechanical was so old wave. Why? I asked, out of curtosy more than anything. His response was a story about the first modern Soviet Fighter we captured (actually the pilot landed at the wrong airfield - he got lost - N. Korean as I recall), he was on the project to disect it. What they found totally amazed them and had them giggling like school girls - the Soviets were still using vaccume tube electronics in their aircraft. Oh, what a laugh they had that day and the next, until one of the scientist said "Its genious". It's what? As it turn out the scientist thought it through. He asked them. "What happens when there is a nuclear occassion (blast to the rest of us)?" An EMP is created that destroys or magnetizes all micro-electronics - but, cathode tubes? Cathodes survive - so while the enemy (US) planes are falling like stones from the sky, theirs keep right on going.
For me, it was a lesson. Never underestimate low tech - it has its advantages. Even if they're not as sexy as a multilayered hybrid with memory that exceeds any PC built and is only an inch cubed.
By going high tech, we expose ourselves to low tech resolves. Especially when it looks like we have solved the EMP problem of having to use nukes to create one. Meaning, if we done it so have others. Which means that those that mean the world harm are aware of it as well. Thing is, these devices are cheaper and easier than acquiring nukes - one could take out the electronics in NYC ... electricity, autos, computers, the works - except the mechanical stuff, like a 1932 Studabacher - pretty much annihilate the economy and strand millions. To say nothing about the jets falling from the sky.
Of course, you must be thinking, the military must know this (they do) and have created shields for their highly sensitive stuff. Sure, but it ain't enough ... it's about distance from them. Cause their simply is no shield within the ground-zero of an EMP.
My belief is the military needs to return to basics. Stop the sexy crap; and feed the troops, house them better, pay them better and get them body armor. Screw all this R&D BS. Get back to reality.
Of course a lot of the R&D money goes straight back into America, forces forward technology, enables America to stay at the top of the pile, etc.
Kralizec
11-13-2006, 14:37
40%? That's absurd.
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html
It's only around 4.06% (2005)
CrossLOPER
11-13-2006, 14:57
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_military_budget
15.7%(2006 wth)
US military spending is near Cold War levels.
Tried to find the dutch budget on military but couldn't find it, it's probably similar. You can cross the entire country in 2 hours and there are more then 150(?) fighterplanes, that's a bit overkill.
yesdachi
11-13-2006, 15:13
My belief is the military needs to return to basics. Stop the sexy crap; and feed the troops, house them better, pay them better and get them body armor. Screw all this R&D BS. Get back to reality.
I think America in general needs to get back to basics. I think we should turtle for a few turns years.
Tried to find the dutch budget on military but couldn't find it, it's probably similar. You can cross the entire country in 2 hours and there are more then 150(?) fighterplanes, that's a bit overkill.
The Netherlands military budget in 2004 was $9,408,000,000 (US dollars). (CIA World Factbook - Military Expenditures - Rank Order (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2067rank.html))
According to the same source, The Netherlands' military budget for 2004 was 1.6% of the GDP. (CIA World Factbook - Military Expenditures - Percent of GDP (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2034.html))
That appears to be almost double what it was in 2002, which was $5.6 billion USD. (http://www.cdi.org/issues/wme/spendersFY03.html)
Not so similar then :laugh4: Still it's a lot for such a small place, we have a lot of money but sooooooo little space to house so much awesomeness. So Israel, the example of an army with a state, just beat us in warmonging :beam:
Not so similar then :laugh4: Still it's a lot for such a small place, we have a lot of money but sooooooo little space to house so much awesomeness. So Israel, the example of an army with a state, just beat us in warmonging :beam:
Army with a state! I like it. :laugh4:
40%? That's absurd.60% of it isnt R&D either. :no:
Crazed Rabbit
11-13-2006, 17:02
Well, now that we've confirmed 24% of our nation's budget is not being spent on military R&D, did you ever consider that some of R&D might be related to protecting electronics from EMPs? Or that your idea of taking the R&D money and spending it just on infantry might make liberals warm and fuzzy, but that technological advantage and advancement is how you win wars?
:rolleyes:
CR
CrossLOPER
11-13-2006, 17:19
Well, now that we've confirmed 24% of our nation's budget is not being spent on military R&D, did you ever consider that some of R&D might be related to protecting electronics from EMPs? Or that your idea of taking the R&D money and spending it just on infantry might make liberals ...
Tuned out just a little too late.
I think the point is that too much money is spent on the US military. Who is the US trying to fight at this point where they need this kind of military?
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
11-13-2006, 18:52
Tuned out just a little too late.
I think the point is that too much money is spent on the US military. Who is the US trying to fight at this point where they need this kind of military?
cutting back won't help ethier. Who we trying to fight? Terrorists, Where we need this type of miliatry? Em, In this day of age, you need a good modern army..
CrossLOPER
11-13-2006, 19:02
cutting back won't help ethier. Who we trying to fight? Terrorists, Where we need this type of miliatry? Em, In this day of age, you need a good modern army..
OK boss, point the way. :dizzy2:
Ironside
11-13-2006, 19:29
Not so similar then :laugh4: Still it's a lot for such a small place, we have a lot of money but sooooooo little space to house so much awesomeness. So Israel, the example of an army with a state, just beat us in warmonging :beam:
It's the weapon exports that makes it ~;)
Kralizec, it's about 18-19% (probably 1-2% higher) of the total budget of the US, according to CIA Same link as above, I'm assuming that this one counts the war-costs too (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2067rank.html) and wiki The US federal budget of 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2007)
2800/518=0.185
The military budget by itself gives
2800/466=0.166=16,6%
Using GDP doesn't say that much IMO.
And CR, KafirChobee does have a point about focusing too much on R&D can be costful as a good opponent will try to negate that technological advantage with EMP for example. It can certainly been considered and covered by Pentagon though.
And the current focus on high-tech armies comes a lot from the abillity to destroy low-tech armies with low losses in conventional warfare.
Current warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan is very grunt (and intel) intensive though.
Vladimir
11-13-2006, 19:43
The present US military budget is 40% of the overall US budget. blablabla
Sorry, that first sentence implies that you have no idea what you're talking about. Do your research and provide links.
I believe that during the Korean war, it was over 50% of the total budget; not discretionary spending.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
11-13-2006, 20:02
OK boss, point the way. :dizzy2:
tell me what cutting the budget down would do to help,please :inquisitive: :juggle2:
Kralizec
11-13-2006, 20:04
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_military_budget
15.7%(2006 wth)
US military spending is near Cold War levels.
Whoopsie...my figure was expressed in % of GDP.
Edit: beaten to it by Ironside, I see.
CrossLOPER
11-13-2006, 23:17
tell me what cutting the budget down would do to help,please :inquisitive: :juggle2:
Do you honestly think that having a large, ridiculously expensive, standing military is helping the US in any way?
AntiochusIII
11-14-2006, 01:15
Do you honestly think that having a large, ridiculously expensive, standing military is helping the US in any way?Why, the military-industrial complex does tend to provide crucial jobs for sectors of the economy, not to mention being a source for first-rate pork projects with, amazingly, actual possible use. Of course, in my opinion, the brains, "human resources," would be better off in universities and private research centers inventing cures for cancers, life-extending super-duper stuff, and nifty hi-tech marketable gadgets instead of building bigger and bigger guns.
But that's just my opinion. You gotta admit we do spend insane amounts of money for the military in such a day and age where national debt is really the bigger threat than some other militaries of the world.
That 15% wiki figure does not include the "special budgets" for war purposes, though.
In any case, the largest part of the US budget -- by far -- is the Medicare/Medicaid/Medi-whathaveyou crap. Damn old people.
Samurai Waki
11-14-2006, 03:45
Can anyone say state bankruptcy? mwahahaha.
Heres a wonderful Idea on how we can cut our military costs... just leave the middle east the hell alone. The west is making these countries thrive economically, we're making the bad guys rich, and in turn, these fundamentalists are supporting terrorists... so by proxy, we're funding the people who like to kill us. If the guys on top have little or no money, how are the guys on the bottom going to harm us, if they don't have the weapons and money to do so?
R&D is quite important, without we'd lack the tremendous edge we have. Without a solid R&D we wouldnt have such beautiful dinosours as the F-22. It was just back in 2002 that we reached the new high of having full first strike capabilities over China.
Alot of the problem is we don't spend R&D in the right area, and we let far to many politico's use it for political gain. The crusader project has been nearly all but scraped, becuase some of the congressmen figured mobile artilery was just to stoneage to fund, bless their hearts. Doubt the germans with their leopard (nearly the same imo) would agree. We've also recently developed a nice new type of fuel bomb to destroy personel in tunnels/caves. Something they were originally going to need nukes for. R&D could use some looking into but it is a neccesity.
And CR, KafirChobee does have a point about focusing too much on R&D can be costful as a good opponent will try to negate that technological advantage with EMP for example.
This is pretty much a null threat atm. Granted in the future it could be possible so something to prevent the EMP from destroying electronics would be nice. But currently the only way of generating a EMP big enough to have an effect on the battle field is a Nuclear explosion. I don't see anyone developing ways to detonate a nuke at 100,000 FT+ in the atmosphere. Not to mention the backlash from the amount of fallout spread everywere would be well umm..... brutal.:skull:
yesdachi
11-14-2006, 14:45
Heres a wonderful Idea on how we can cut our military costs...
I have a better one, its called plunder! :pirate:
(maybe a little pillage too)
Do you honestly think that having a large, ridiculously expensive, standing military is helping the US in any way?
Care to guess what precentage of our population is in the currently military. Give you a hint there is less then 3 million men and women under arms while the population is over 300 million.
It might be large to some but as a percentage of the population the United States has one of the smaller ratio's under 1%
And having a little experience in the area and having researched it some to answer your question it isn't hurting the United States either.
Use the link from FAS for a comparsion of nations through 1999. You will discover some interesting stastics about militaries and expenditure by nation
http://fas.org/asmp/profiles/wmeat/WMEAT99-00/08-Table1.pdf
KafirChobee
11-19-2006, 19:28
Had written a rather long explanation - but it disappeared. So out of frustration I will simply do this.
Budget:
http://www.cdi.org/issues/wme/spendersfy04.html
http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.html
The latter has an agenda, but their method seems fair - though some will argue biased. Then again, the governments assessment is certainly biased.
On EMP:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_ bomb
The latter makes reference to non-nuclear devices and even has references of possible terrorist uses (from Popular Mechanics and Scientific journals). Point is, a nuclear device is no longer the only method to generate one - and the use of one is devestating to modern electronics.
These also show what are and are not affected by an EMP.
ajaxfetish
11-20-2006, 03:52
Heres a wonderful Idea on how we can cut our military costs... just leave the middle east the hell alone. The west is making these countries thrive economically, we're making the bad guys rich, and in turn, these fundamentalists are supporting terrorists... so by proxy, we're funding the people who like to kill us. If the guys on top have little or no money, how are the guys on the bottom going to harm us, if they don't have the weapons and money to do so?
And as soon as we find a way to stop relying on mideastern oil for our energy needs, that is exactly what America will do . . . and the middle east will drop to the same level of concern as Africa or any of the rest of the world that is screwed up and suffering but unimportant in American eyes.
Ajax
Samurai Waki
11-20-2006, 04:17
I'm not saying the Middle East is unimportant, as someone who appreciates History, I have a fondness for the cradle of civilization. They don't want us to be there, in any way, shape, or form. And I think we should give them what they want. I would love to see the middle east as a place where people can freely choose to travel without much risk of any bodily or psychological harm, but as it stands now, its not much of an option. :no:
ajaxfetish
11-20-2006, 05:07
I agree with you. We don't make the best international policemen, especially when we're interfering in places that don't want us. But our economy (in an essentially commercial nation) currently relies on this area and compels us to get involved. Once we solve that issue we'll be able to return to the apathy we Americans love so much.
Ajax
Samurai Waki
11-20-2006, 07:26
Our economy relies on middle eastern oil, because our economy depends on the cheapest means to an end. However in hindsight, we're spending what...like 1 Billion Dollars a week in Iraq, and our oil revenue in the US is how much per week? It might be close to a Billion, but barely breaking even, and in some instances much lower than that (Oil Companies essentially force the prices lower than what they really are) so we're losing money in the broader picture, and putting thousands of lives at risk at the same time. Middle Eastern Oil is just as expensive as Russian Oil, except Exxon and other companies want the status quo, so we, in our infinite wisdom, give it to them.
Avicenna
11-20-2006, 09:35
Redleg: umm... even the PLA (I'm talking about all branches: navy, AF, ground army) doesn't have 3 million men. It has 2.25. It's the largest standing army in the world and feels it is too big. It doesn't really matter what percentage it is anyway, if Luxembourg had an army of 90% it's population it still would be crushed by a major power if it went to war with it.
Wakizashi: Middle Eastern oil costs as much because Middle Eastern oil is still sold to the USA.
Anyway, would you dare say that you were wrong and pull out if you were the president? You'd look like a fool.
Redleg: umm... even the PLA (I'm talking about all branches: navy, AF, ground army) doesn't have 3 million men. It has 2.25. It's the largest standing army in the world and feels it is too big. It doesn't really matter what percentage it is anyway, if Luxembourg had an army of 90% it's population it still would be crushed by a major power if it went to war with it.
Population percentage is one of the statistics used to determine if a military is costing the economy of the country problems. Estimates vary depending on which economists one is using, but most agree military percentages less then 1% do not harm the economy of the nation.
CrossLOPER
11-20-2006, 19:13
most agree military percentages less then 1% do not harm the economy of the nation.
That still depends on what, with what, where, and how long that percentage is doing.
That still depends on what, with what, where, and how long that percentage is doing.
Again I refer you to the orginial statements. A percentage of less then 1% of the population of the United States being in the military does not present a burdern on the American Economy. Nor according to many economicists a percentage of less then 1% will not present a problem for many economies of the world.
The United States has had a military for the last 30 odd years just below 1% of the population. Our economy remains for the most part a growing economy. So the arguement presented so far concerning the military being a burdern on the US economy is not valid.
Your initial comment was "Do you honestly think that having a large, ridiculously expensive, standing military is helping the US in any way?"
My rebuttal is that it is not large given the size of the population, and that its not hurting us either. With the reasons stated. If you are going to counter my postion it would help if you presented evidence that the United States military, its equipment is hurting the United States. Politically it doesn't hurt us since before Iraq - The United States was using its military to support the European community.
Using one event to say the size of the United States military is a problem does not equate to a logical arguement, given that other factors come into play such as poor planning for its use by the politicans of the United States, inadequate mission criteria from the civilian government. The list can grow large just in factors that effect the current mission. Your initial premise which I responded to was a negative statement. What I have shown that the negative you proposed was false.
The size and the cost of the military is not hurting the United States. As a percentage of GNP, nor as a percentage in comparision to population. One can state safely that the failed policies of the Bush Adminstration with the use of the military as a means of influencing foreign nations is an extremely costly, in both fianicial and political currency.
CrossLOPER
11-20-2006, 21:47
Again I refer you to the orginial statements. A percentage of less then 1% of the population of the United States being in the military does not present a burdern on the American Economy. Nor according to many economicists a percentage of less then 1% will not present a problem for many economies of the world.
Someone has to pay for that military and its equipment and the benefits to veterans, and you did not address my statement.
The United States has had a military for the last 30 odd years just below 1% of the population. Our economy remains for the most part a growing economy. So the arguement presented so far concerning the military being a burdern on the US economy is not valid.
Your initial comment was "Do you honestly think that having a large, ridiculously expensive, standing military is helping the US in any way?"
My rebuttal is that it is not large given the size of the population, and that its not hurting us either. With the reasons stated. If you are going to counter my postion it would help if you presented evidence that the United States military, its equipment is hurting the United States. Politically it doesn't hurt us since before Iraq - The United States was using its military to support the European community.
Economies tend to go into a slump AFTER the war. Payments have to be made to respective parties and the total debt increases because the US can't and never could pay it off.
Using one event to say the size of the United States military is a problem does not equate to a logical arguement, given that other factors come into play such as poor planning for its use by the politicans of the United States, inadequate mission criteria from the civilian government. The list can grow large just in factors that effect the current mission. Your initial premise which I responded to was a negative statement. What I have shown that the negative you proposed was false.
No, you did not, and yes it does.
The size and the cost of the military is not hurting the United States. As a percentage of GNP, nor as a percentage in comparision to population. One can state safely that the failed policies of the Bush Adminstration with the use of the military as a means of influencing foreign nations is an extremely costly, in both fianicial and political currency.
Did you already forget about "expensive"? You are bordering on saying that "one event" such as a war cannot have ill consequences. You are looking at the situation in the present and not thinking after.
Here's one link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/).
Here's another (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/17/MNG5GDPEK31.DTL).
Someone has to pay for that military and its equipment and the benefits to veterans, and you did not address my statement.
Actually it did, it seems your unwilling to look at the answer. here it is once again. A percentage of less then 1% of the population of the United States being in the military does not present a burdern on the American Economy. Nor according to many economicists a percentage of less then 1% will not present a problem for many economies of the world.
Economies tend to go into a slump AFTER the war. Payments have to be made to respective parties and the total debt increases because the US can't and never could pay it off.
The United States Military has been less then 1% of the population for over 30 years, it has not hurt the economy in peace or war. What the effects of the Iraq war will be on the country will take several years to come to fruitation. Will it crash the economy, or even hurt the economy is yet to be seen. WW2 by itself disproves your point here for the United States. It only bears witness to the effects of war on those nations that lost. To make the claim that you have, you have to demonstrate that basis for that postion - something that the actual statastics do not bear fruit for you. When looking at the potential of the future your statement makes more sense, but when looking at the past to the present - your statement is easily shown to be false.
No, you did not, and yes it does.
Presenting a negative where the data shows the negative is incorrect is not a sound base for an arguement. Unless of course you are utilizing emotional appeal as your only base for your postion.
Did you already forget about "expensive"? You are bordering on saying that "one event" such as a war cannot have ill consequences. You are looking at the situation in the present and not thinking after.
Here's one link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/).
Here's another (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/17/MNG5GDPEK31.DTL).
Again try reading what is written, I stated clearly -The size and the cost of the military is not hurting the United States. As a percentage of GNP, nor as a percentage in comparision to population. One can state safely that the failed policies of the Bush Adminstration with the use of the military as a means of influencing foreign nations is an extremely costly, in both fianicial and political currency.
Utilizing a strawman positon about my statement seem to conclude the usefullness of this discussion.
CrossLOPER
11-20-2006, 23:40
Actually it did, it seems your unwilling to look at the answer. here it is once again. A percentage of less then 1% of the population of the United States being in the military does not present a burdern on the American Economy. Nor according to many economicists a percentage of less then 1% will not present a problem for many economies of the world.
The United States Military has been less then 1% of the population for over 30 years, it has not hurt the economy in peace or war. What the effects of the Iraq war will be on the country will take several years to come to fruitation. Will it crash the economy, or even hurt the economy is yet to be seen. WW2 by itself disproves your point here for the United States. It only bears witness to the effects of war on those nations that lost. To make the claim that you have, you have to demonstrate that basis for that postion - something that the actual statastics do not bear fruit for you. When looking at the potential of the future your statement makes more sense, but when looking at the past to the present - your statement is easily shown to be false.
Presenting a negative where the data shows the negative is incorrect is not a sound base for an arguement. Unless of course you are utilizing emotional appeal as your only base for your postion.
Again try reading what is written, I stated clearly -The size and the cost of the military is not hurting the United States. As a percentage of GNP, nor as a percentage in comparision to population. One can state safely that the failed policies of the Bush Adminstration with the use of the military as a means of influencing foreign nations is an extremely costly, in both fianicial and political currency.
Utilizing a strawman positon about my statement seem to conclude the usefullness of this discussion.
The size the size THE SIZE THE SIZE? Look at the expense of this tiny army of almost three million.
The campaign in Iraq and Afghanistan is going to have long term effects that include the total cost of the conflict, including military expenses. The soldiers, as tiny as you make out the army they make up to be, have to be paid, equipped, cared for now and later, and trained. The military expenditure on the campaign as a whole should show you that keeping this army up and running is proving to be a problem.
That is what I meant by my statement.
The size the size THE SIZE THE SIZE? Look at the expense of this tiny army of almost three million.
Again look at the GNP of the United States. Are you ignoring the answer because it does not set with your preconieved viewpoint. I also noticed that your not backing up your initial claim with any hard facts.
The campaign in Iraq and Afghanistan is going to have long term effects that include the total cost of the conflict, including military expenses. The soldiers, as tiny as you make out the army they make up to be, have to be paid, equipped, cared for now and later, and trained. The military expenditure on the campaign as a whole should show you that keeping this army up and running is proving to be a problem.
Never stated that it wouldn't or couldn't be a problem at some future point. However you have not shown that its going to be a problem. Your arguing a point that could happen, but might not. During the 1980's similiar arguements were being used during the Reagan push to destroy the USSR in an Arms Race. That did not happen, in fact the resulting draw down of the United States Military was expected to cause problem, some problems existed, but on the whole the United States economy did not take a major hit from the increase nor the decrease in the size of the military
What I stated is the size of the United States Military does not have a negative effect on the economy of the United States.
What does have a major impact on the United States is the size of the Military Industrial complex which is control by civilians whom have large lobbying blocks in Congress. But that is a different area then your orginial statement.
That is what I meant by my statement.
That however is not what you stated.
CrossLOPER
11-21-2006, 05:56
stuff...That however is not what you stated.
I'll be sure to spell it out next time so people won't get worked up.~;)
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.