Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (265248)	12/20/2005 12:23:07 AM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573714

We used to compete with the Soviets building expensive weapons systems. Now, we just compete with our own previous generation that we've sold to other nations. Some of the MOST expensive, WE'RE the only buyers! A lot of our Navy is like that now, and our Air Force is getting that way too. We keep it going, telling ourselves that maintaining a vast arms industry is part of our national security. But is that REALLY true when there is no competing arms industry at the same level? If we stopped advancing the state of the art in weaponry, would someone else take up the cause?

To: combjelly who wrote (265248)	12/20/2005 12:47:30 AM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1573714

Our military will always be more expensive than any other on a per man basis because we tend to value each individual more. It would seem even that is not always true. The seven men who were featured on a Dateline program Sunday nite were riding in an open truck without the protection of a metal canopy looking for insurgents. It was when a rocket hit the truck that one of them died and another lost his fingers. It was because armored humvees were in short supply that they were riding in the open truck. Lately, I have found it hard to discern sometimes what is propaganda and what is fact. ted