Treblaine said:
Vivi22 said:
Treblaine said:
That feel, when I realise we as a species have to spend more resources looking out for insane suicide bombers or nuclear-weapon proliferation than discovering the origins and wonders of the universe.
It's a not the best feel.
I'm not objecting to the reconnaissance, I'm objecting to the sate of the world that recon is so needed.
The real kick in the nuts is that the amount of money spent on defense by the US alone is pretty unnecessary. Particularly when the most prevalent threat is terrorism and not state vs. state warfare.
I'm sure F22's and F35's are very useful for infiltrating terrorist networks and gathering intelligence and that money couldn't be better spent on exploring the Universe.
Actually I'm afraid they are. People who are prepared to end their life to kill thousands are such a huge yet elusive threat.
And many people seem to think since the Cold War is over suddenly nukes aren't a problem. No. They are. Imminent nuclear war may not be as likely but there are still thousands of nuclear weapons still in active deployment and worse of all is how they are proliferating. Of particular concern is how Extremist elements in Pakistan may be able to steal or otherwise gain control of their nuclear weapons. Even an extremist revolution seizing control of the government or an already extremist government procuring their own nuclear weapons.
PS: F22 has been mostly abandoned as too expensive. F35 is in deployment as a pseudo-stealth fighter is needed with proliferation of cheap radar-warning technology. F-35 orders have been comparatively small compared to the previous generations. The main military aircraft investment is in unmanned high-endurance aircraft precisely for hunting down terrorist and monitoring nuclear proliferation.
I'm sorry. I'm not interested in starting a flame war, but everything you've stated regarding the need for reconnaissance, the presence of hostile insurgents and their detection through space based surveillance, is ridiculous. It is no less spurious then the CNN reports about the great successful defence of Israel by the Patriot missile. I would further add that the future of the F-35 is just as certain as that of Greece in the Euro Zone. And the F-35 is not presently deployed its still in its production/delivery phase. Its hard to comment on however given the way in which the plane was designed to be developed, phasing in new technology as it becomes available. Unfortunately there are serious concerns with under performance due to the weight of such technology among many other distinct concerns from likewise distinct interested parties.
As for terrorists... Just stop. You don't use fighter jets to get a terrorist. Terrorists move and weave among us, but they are not militant insurgents and don't act like them making a fighter jet strike a ridiculous waste of both resources and money in collateral damage, particularly in the western world. If you're referring to strikes on training camps and 'terrorist compounds' in places like Yemen, of late these have been conducted by unmanned air craft launching guided missiles. And comparing the sorts you see getting killed in these camps to anything in or around America, at the moment, is obtuse. Give it time though, Mexico's going to hell in a hand basket. Of course that won't lead to terrorism, it will lead to gorilla warfare along the US/Mexico border as cartels start killing the so-called 'minute men' and the military moves in more and more to attempt to curb their access. This will be unsuccessful of course, the cartels aren't fighting the military their running drugs. They don't need to destroy the lines, just punch a hole in them.
The US intelligence community as a whole owes a great deal to its citizens. And quite obviously such high powered surveillance-satellites being even discussed suggests either they have better or intend to replace it and their using this time to advertise that they had it. I'm simply pleased they chose to advertise by handing over this technology to NASA rather then warning fishermen away from where it crashes into the ocean after its expected lifespan.
Frankly just tanking the satellite in the drink would be a waste of money. This way NASA gets some - for it at least - new equipment and the intelligence agencies of the US get good propaganda, from look how cool our tech is to look how benevolent we are.
EDIT:
SORRY. Sorry. I didn't realize you'd gone on. I saw the first post and assumed - admittedly making me and you look like asses - that you were just banging the drum. I won't amend my post any really. But I realize you don't think fighter jets are the answer to terrorists. As for them being used in 'no fly zones,' for quite a few decades air power, fighters/fighter bombers/bombers have been in an economic 'death spiral' with each generation costing at least three times as much as the previous. Air power is a lazy general's crutch, compared to anti-air technologies like SAM sites. Perhaps you think everyone has radar stealth planes, but they don't. Gadafi wasn't poor but he fought poor enemies, his standards of weapons were no where near current never mind future standards of air power. And I assure you, not one of the few F-22s produced by the US was used in that conflict. The plane is financial disaster. As for the F-35, it wasn't there either, I missed Woodstock, it missed Libya. All of this suggests to me that when handling conflict in poorer nations, one need invest less in high technology. So unless you think China's about to declare ? and it ain't it wants you to be its economic slave because it had a good teacher at that sort of thing ? there isn't a great deal of point in investing in new planes. New guns though... A good infantry weapon and body armour? Maybe an effective APC/Battle Vehicle? Cheaper heavy air lift capacity and cheaper choppers for aid/medical/supply missions? These would be interesting avenues of study.
