The Modern Army vs EMP

[KafirChobee]

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.

[BDC]

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]

40%? That's absurd.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications...k/geos/us.html

It's only around 4.06% (2005)

[CrossLOPER]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_military_budget
15.7%(2006 wth)

US military spending is near Cold War levels.

[Fragony]

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]

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.

[Aenlic]

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)

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)

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)

[Fragony]

Not so similar then 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

[Aenlic]

Not so similar then 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

Army with a state! I like it.

[Xiahou]

40%? That's absurd.

60% of it isnt R&D either.

[Crazed Rabbit]

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?



CR

[CrossLOPER]

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]

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]

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.

[Ironside]

Not so similar then 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

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 and wiki The US federal budget of 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]

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]

OK boss, point the way.

tell me what cutting the budget down would do to help,please

[Kralizec]

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]

tell me what cutting the budget down would do to help,please

Do you honestly think that having a large, ridiculously expensive, standing military is helping the US in any way?

[AntiochusIII]

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]

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?

[BigTex]

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.

[yesdachi]

Heres a wonderful Idea on how we can cut our military costs...

I have a better one, its called plunder!
(maybe a little pillage too)

[Redleg]

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/W.../08-Table1.pdf

[KafirChobee]

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]

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]

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.

[ajaxfetish]

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]

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]

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.