Comments on: Study: US Accounted for 42% of Record Global Defense Spending in 2008 http://firedoglake.com/2009/06/08/study-us-accounted-for-42-of-record-global-defense-spending-in-2008/ Firedoglake weblog Sat, 18 Feb 2012 07:17:34 -0600 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: Lochmon http://firedoglake.com/2009/06/08/study-us-accounted-for-42-of-record-global-defense-spending-in-2008/#comment-1914299 Lochmon Tue, 09 Jun 2009 01:10:21 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2009/06/08/study-us-accounted-for-42-of-record-global-defense-spending-in-2008/#comment-1914299 <p>You’re probably thinking of “Operation Anchorage”, which is downloadable content for the Fallout 3 game, in which the Chinese take over Alaska. See, Palin knew there was a real threat after all!</p> You’re probably thinking of “Operation Anchorage”, which is downloadable content for the Fallout 3 game, in which the Chinese take over Alaska. See, Palin knew there was a real threat after all!

]]> By: x174 http://firedoglake.com/2009/06/08/study-us-accounted-for-42-of-record-global-defense-spending-in-2008/#comment-1914136 x174 Mon, 08 Jun 2009 20:19:14 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2009/06/08/study-us-accounted-for-42-of-record-global-defense-spending-in-2008/#comment-1914136 <p>Democracy Now is reporting that US defense spending accounts for 58% of the global defense spending, not 42%.</p> Democracy Now is reporting that US defense spending accounts for 58% of the global defense spending, not 42%.

]]> By: alank http://firedoglake.com/2009/06/08/study-us-accounted-for-42-of-record-global-defense-spending-in-2008/#comment-1914128 alank Mon, 08 Jun 2009 19:58:27 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2009/06/08/study-us-accounted-for-42-of-record-global-defense-spending-in-2008/#comment-1914128 <p>I found a 2000 GAO report that underscores your point about the relative waste of just supporting weapons systems, accounting for 75% of the cost in the system life cycle.</p> I found a 2000 GAO report that underscores your point about the relative waste of just supporting weapons systems, accounting for 75% of the cost in the system life cycle.

]]> By: biodieselvw http://firedoglake.com/2009/06/08/study-us-accounted-for-42-of-record-global-defense-spending-in-2008/#comment-1914120 biodieselvw Mon, 08 Jun 2009 19:36:24 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2009/06/08/study-us-accounted-for-42-of-record-global-defense-spending-in-2008/#comment-1914120 <p>Some people believe that the role of the federal government is to protect us, not to provide for us. Thus, defense spending is fine, but the stimulus plan that was passed goes against their belief of the role of the federal government…</p> Some people believe that the role of the federal government is to protect us, not to provide for us. Thus, defense spending is fine, but the stimulus plan that was passed goes against their belief of the role of the federal government…

]]> By: robspierre http://firedoglake.com/2009/06/08/study-us-accounted-for-42-of-record-global-defense-spending-in-2008/#comment-1914114 robspierre Mon, 08 Jun 2009 19:22:53 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2009/06/08/study-us-accounted-for-42-of-record-global-defense-spending-in-2008/#comment-1914114 <p>“It always gets me that borrowing money to increase destructive defensive capability is looked at as prudent and sensible. Borrowing money to build civil infrastructure is going to bankrupt us though.”</p> <p>You are right. It is even sillier than you point out when one realizes that defense expenditures depreciate at a spectacular rate compared to civil infrastructure and offer little or no return on the investment (ROI). A bridge stays in service for 100 years or more with minimal maintenance and faciliates commerce and communication, both of which generate economic growth and revenues that offset the original cost–ROI. A jet fighter is obsolete within 10-20 years with lots and lots of very expensive maintenance. Yet, except for the profits earned for its sharedholders, it does nothing for the civilian economy.</p> “It always gets me that borrowing money to increase destructive defensive capability is looked at as prudent and sensible. Borrowing money to build civil infrastructure is going to bankrupt us though.”

You are right. It is even sillier than you point out when one realizes that defense expenditures depreciate at a spectacular rate compared to civil infrastructure and offer little or no return on the investment (ROI). A bridge stays in service for 100 years or more with minimal maintenance and faciliates commerce and communication, both of which generate economic growth and revenues that offset the original cost–ROI. A jet fighter is obsolete within 10-20 years with lots and lots of very expensive maintenance. Yet, except for the profits earned for its sharedholders, it does nothing for the civilian economy.

]]> By: alank http://firedoglake.com/2009/06/08/study-us-accounted-for-42-of-record-global-defense-spending-in-2008/#comment-1914111 alank Mon, 08 Jun 2009 19:17:06 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2009/06/08/study-us-accounted-for-42-of-record-global-defense-spending-in-2008/#comment-1914111 <p>The biggest budget for the <a href="http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/85186/" rel="nofollow">biggest polluter in America</a> that pollutes with impunity around the world.<br /></p><blockquote> <p>By Joshua Frank, AlterNet. Posted May 12, 2008.</p> <p>The nation’s biggest polluter isn’t a corporation. It’s the Pentagon. Every year the Department of Defense churns out more than 750,000 tons of hazardous waste — more than the top three chemical companies combined.</p> <p>Yet the military remains largely exempt from compliance with most federal and state environmental laws, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Pentagon’s partner in crime, is working hard to keep it that way.</p></blockquote> <p>The <a href="http://www.groovygreen.com/groove/?p=1908" rel="nofollow">single greatest consumer/waster of fossil fuels</a>.<br /></p><blockquote> <p>Some interesting facts to pass along regarding the US Military and its consumption of oil. According to a Energy Bulleting report from earlier this year, the Pentagon is the world’s largest consumer of oil. In fact, there are only 35 countries (out of 210) in the world that consume more oil per day than the Pentagon.</p></blockquote> <p>They are a waste, period. It’s time to decommission the Pentagon.</p> The biggest budget for the biggest polluter in America that pollutes with impunity around the world.

By Joshua Frank, AlterNet. Posted May 12, 2008.

The nation’s biggest polluter isn’t a corporation. It’s the Pentagon. Every year the Department of Defense churns out more than 750,000 tons of hazardous waste — more than the top three chemical companies combined.

Yet the military remains largely exempt from compliance with most federal and state environmental laws, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Pentagon’s partner in crime, is working hard to keep it that way.

The single greatest consumer/waster of fossil fuels.

Some interesting facts to pass along regarding the US Military and its consumption of oil. According to a Energy Bulleting report from earlier this year, the Pentagon is the world’s largest consumer of oil. In fact, there are only 35 countries (out of 210) in the world that consume more oil per day than the Pentagon.

They are a waste, period. It’s time to decommission the Pentagon.

]]> By: Airpower http://firedoglake.com/2009/06/08/study-us-accounted-for-42-of-record-global-defense-spending-in-2008/#comment-1914102 Airpower Mon, 08 Jun 2009 18:53:41 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2009/06/08/study-us-accounted-for-42-of-record-global-defense-spending-in-2008/#comment-1914102 <p>And to see how the DoD budget is generated inside the Pentagon, go to <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/7/2117/59341" rel="nofollow">this link</a>.</p> And to see how the DoD budget is generated inside the Pentagon, go to this link.

]]> By: bigbrother http://firedoglake.com/2009/06/08/study-us-accounted-for-42-of-record-global-defense-spending-in-2008/#comment-1914095 bigbrother Mon, 08 Jun 2009 18:47:43 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2009/06/08/study-us-accounted-for-42-of-record-global-defense-spending-in-2008/#comment-1914095 <p>Message to Congress critters:<br /> Thank you for supporting our progressive agenda and please vote no on the supplemental.<br /> Responses were pretty good on the first 20 I called. Will call the rest later. They are getting a lot of calls but the lines were never jammed. </p> <p>Smile and dial…put down the bailing buckets for a while please ans …<br /> Smile and dial</p> Message to Congress critters:
Thank you for supporting our progressive agenda and please vote no on the supplemental.
Responses were pretty good on the first 20 I called. Will call the rest later. They are getting a lot of calls but the lines were never jammed.

Smile and dial…put down the bailing buckets for a while please ans …
Smile and dial

]]> By: wmd1961 http://firedoglake.com/2009/06/08/study-us-accounted-for-42-of-record-global-defense-spending-in-2008/#comment-1914093 wmd1961 Mon, 08 Jun 2009 18:44:27 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2009/06/08/study-us-accounted-for-42-of-record-global-defense-spending-in-2008/#comment-1914093 <p>It always gets me that borrowing money to increase <strike>destructive</strike> defensive capability is looked at as prudent and sensible. Borrowing money to build civil infrastructure is going to bankrupt us though. It’s OK to have bridges collapse, but if we can’t drop bombs on foreign lands then we’ve lost our mojo.</p> <p>I’ve worked for defense contractors. May be doing civilian work for DoD again. I’ve got friends that work for Lockheed Martin. And I have no doubt that the money spent on defense could be better spent elsewhere.</p> <p>Talking with a lead engineer at Lockheed a month or so ago when “cuts” were announced - he’s working on the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_Kill_Vehicle" rel="nofollow">MKV</a> (a system that targets MIRV re-entry vehicles). He’s adamant that his work is “producing something”, and that it is needed, even though it <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-24_(ICBM)" rel="nofollow">reinvigorates</a> a strategic arms race with Russia, the only significant holder of MIRV’d missiles outside the US. I still gibe at him as a welfare king that buys lots of toys with taxpayer money. He’s not a ghetto queen driving a cadillac, he’s a suburban cracker king riding a Ducati or one of many dirt bikes.</p> <p>And I’ll know that I’m working for taxpayers again if I do go to work for the DoD again.</p> It always gets me that borrowing money to increase destructive defensive capability is looked at as prudent and sensible. Borrowing money to build civil infrastructure is going to bankrupt us though. It’s OK to have bridges collapse, but if we can’t drop bombs on foreign lands then we’ve lost our mojo.

I’ve worked for defense contractors. May be doing civilian work for DoD again. I’ve got friends that work for Lockheed Martin. And I have no doubt that the money spent on defense could be better spent elsewhere.

Talking with a lead engineer at Lockheed a month or so ago when “cuts” were announced – he’s working on the MKV (a system that targets MIRV re-entry vehicles). He’s adamant that his work is “producing something”, and that it is needed, even though it reinvigorates a strategic arms race with Russia, the only significant holder of MIRV’d missiles outside the US. I still gibe at him as a welfare king that buys lots of toys with taxpayer money. He’s not a ghetto queen driving a cadillac, he’s a suburban cracker king riding a Ducati or one of many dirt bikes.

And I’ll know that I’m working for taxpayers again if I do go to work for the DoD again.

]]> By: katymine http://firedoglake.com/2009/06/08/study-us-accounted-for-42-of-record-global-defense-spending-in-2008/#comment-1914091 katymine Mon, 08 Jun 2009 18:41:59 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2009/06/08/study-us-accounted-for-42-of-record-global-defense-spending-in-2008/#comment-1914091 <p>There are Defense contractors located in 48 states, AZ has several plus the military bases. These business hold our congresscritters hostage with jobs and local income. This is all by design and it will take huge process to remove them out.</p> <p>Can you imagine pissing off Honeywell or Allied Signal with cutting their contacts?</p> There are Defense contractors located in 48 states, AZ has several plus the military bases. These business hold our congresscritters hostage with jobs and local income. This is all by design and it will take huge process to remove them out.

Can you imagine pissing off Honeywell or Allied Signal with cutting their contacts?

]]>