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.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (6878)	6/1/2006 2:46:26 AM
From: energyplay	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 217710

Missing some points - 1) US military spending is wasteful, but there is an accumulation of military capital equipment and ongoing knownledge development which increases over time. Military equipment is still a significant export. The EU has reduced most military contractors except for France. This means there are only a few sorces of advanced weapons - U.S. France Russia Israel China with occasional contributions from Sweden, Germany, Brazil, South Africa, and India A relatively small reduction in military expenditures can avoid the overspending problem and still leave the US in a very favorable position. This guy wants to "retire" old systems. The B-52s were essential rebuilt with new skins about 10 yars ago. The U-2 is now a 3rd generation redesign, and was frequently updated with new sensor systems. These systems work, and they work really well against anyone stuck with older Soviet gear (before late 1980s). They work really well on third world nations. This guy just wants to reduce US military capability. That might be one way to reduce the number and scope of military adventures. I favor better policies, and still maintaining massive capability, preferably seldom used. He may be creating something of a strawman with how well the Chinese space exploration program is doing, and dodges any evaluation of just what the US would learn vs. what China would learn. ************* I expect that if the US wanted to limit China's growth, the obvious way to do it is high world energy prices and high resource prices. Obvious now, of course. The reason this works is China's and India's growth helps drive demand. This has the enormous problem handing the Russians and the Saudis a significant portion of the worlds income. Also a much higher cost to a certain energy consuming nation, namely the US.

To: TobagoJack who wrote (6878)	6/1/2006 8:42:40 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217710

The US is going to continue to spend a lot of money on the military-industrial complex for reasons too complex to go into but I think you know them anyway. China doesn't need to. We're doing it for you. We like doing it. We're good at it. We're no threat to you. I don't think you're any threat to us, either. You'll always have more people, but the Russians had more people, too, and they couldn't beat Germany without us, nor could you beat Japan without us. It might be impolite to mention this. If so, please forgive me.