America's Unwelcome Advances

[93crawler]

This is a rather lengthy, but extremely well-written and thoroughly researched article detailing America's presence around the globe with regards to military bases and personnel. Currently we have 761 active military bases in foreign countries, and 5,249 military bases total, both domestic and foreign. Pretty astonishing right? I myself was very shocked, to see we still maintain that much of a presence in so many foreign countries. We had, as of December of last year, 510,927 active military personnel deployed to various foreign countries and on ships.

Now, this article is more than about highlighting our military presence in so many foreign countries, it is however about America's overreaching imperialism that has been prevalent after the end of World War II. Don't mistake what I'm saying, I think we made the right choices with regards to military bases after WWII. What I really don't understand, is why we need such a presence since we are the lone superpower left in the world...although Russia is steadily regaining it's status as such, and don't forget China. Yes, I'm well aware of the current status of the world, and the fact we are fighting two wars, and have a severely overextended military, but do we need this much of a presence?

I'm often reminded of a show I watched on the Military Channel, which was talking about how carriers changed the way wars are fought, and if the US wants to change your policy, or at the very least make you think about it, all we really need to do is park a carrier battle group off your coast. This along with in-flight refueling allows our military to be anywhere within 24 hours. The link to the article is below, as stated, it's rather long, but well worth the read.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/09/chalmers-johnson-on-pentagon.html

[BackdoorJesus]

Pre-WWII taught us that our isolationism allowed a great deal of tyranny to go unchecked and gain purchase as a greater threat that we ultimately had to deal with anyway...I think our presence worldwide is more of a deterrent to that happening again than any "imperialism" on our part.

[licupssy]

I don't think the 761 so called bases are factual. He appears to be counting every ship in the the Fleet(282) and every foreign embassy as a military base. The bases we do have overseas are mutually beneficial. Many bases in Europe are connected with NATO. Other provide protection for Korea and strategic support for the Navy and Air Force. And as the case of someone that did want our bases anymore, we pulled out of Subic Bay, Clark Air Feild, etc. in PI. You see how cocky Russia's been getting lately, can you imagine how they would act if we didn't have these bases.

A list of all US bases in the USA and overseas with complete info. http://benefits.military.com/misc/installations/Browse_Location.jsp#overseas

A list of Active duty personnel by location/Country. http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/history/hst0803.pdf

A list of the ships in the US Navy Fleet. http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/FLEET.HTM

[ddoubleez]

Pre-WWII taught us that our isolationism allowed a great deal of tyranny to go unchecked and gain purchase as a greater threat that we ultimately had to deal with anyway...I think our presence worldwide is more of a deterrent to that happening again than any "imperialism" on our part.


I thought you were a libertarian!??! Libertarians are dead set, and I agree, on decreasing the size scope and range of our military, because I can not be sustained and it invites hostile action..... We have military bases in over 40 countries, that are oil barring or strategic locations for oil rich areas of the world... To 'convince' another country to 'allow' a military base, we often waged economic war-fair to break a countries economy, in order to make them dependent on aid from us, which is almost always in a package with at least one permanent base....

The three following quotes are off libertarian websites:

Bob Barr on: Foreign Intervention & Foreign Bases
America should not be the world’s policeman. The American purpose is to provide a strong national defense, not to engage in nation building or to launch foreign crusades, no matter how seemingly well-intentioned.

It is time to reemphasize the word “defense” in national defense. By maintaining a military presence in more than 130 nations around the world in more than 700 installations, with hundreds of thousands of troops deployed overseas, the U.S. spends more to protect the soil of other nations than our own. Bringing these soldiers home would better protect America while saving lives and money. The U.S. requires a military strong enough to defend this nation, not to support and defend much of the rest of the world.

3.1 National Defense

We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

FOREIGN INTERVENTION
We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid, guarantees, and diplomatic meddling. We would end all limitation of private foreign aid, both military and economic. Voluntary cooperation with any economic boycott should not be treated as a crime.
We would repeal the Neutrality Act of 1794, and all other U.S. neutrality laws which restrict the efforts of Americans to aid overseas organizations fighting to overthrow or change governments.

We would no longer incorporate foreign nations into the U.S. defense perimeter. We would cease the creation and maintenance of U.S. bases and sites for the pre-positioning of military material in other countries. We would end the practice of stationing of American military troops overseas.

We make no exceptions to the above.



In addition, there is far more tyrants now(many of them funded and armed by the US), then there were in the 40's and much of the Nazi war machine was funded by private interest groups, including the current presidents grandfather....... It was not that we were passive, it was that we invested in a nation's war machine and ignored those that tried to profit from it...........

George Bush’s grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany. The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.His business dealings, which continued until his company’s assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy. The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator’s action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy

I don't think the 761 so called bases are factual. He appears to be counting every ship in the the Fleet(282) and every foreign embassy as a military base. The bases we do have overseas are mutually beneficial. Many bases in Europe are connected with NATO. Other provide protection for Korea and strategic support for the Navy and Air Force. And as the case of someone that did want our bases anymore, we pulled out of Subic Bay, Clark Air Feild, etc. in PI. You see how cocky Russia's been getting lately, can you imagine how they would act if we didn't have these bases.

A list of all US bases in the USA and overseas with complete info. http://benefits.military.com/misc/installations/Browse_Location.jsp#overseas

A list of Active duty personnel by location/Country. http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/history/hst0803.pdf

A list of the ships in the US Navy Fleet. http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/FLEET.HTM


If you had spent anytime on YOUR OWN sources you would not have even posted this, your first link indicates a fantastic number of bases!!!

A global empire like the United States needs overseas bases to accommodate its troops, now in 135 countries. Although the latest "Base Structure Report" of the Department of Defense admits to having 96 military installations in U.S. overseas territories and 702 military installations in foreign countries, it has been documented that this number is far too low.

The official list of countries that we have bases in is as follows:

Antigua
Australia
Austria
Bahamas
Bahrain
Belgium
Canada
Columbia
Cuba
Denmark
Egypt
France Germany
Greece
Honduras
Iceland
Indonesia
Italy
Kenya
Japan
Luxembourg
Netherlands
New Zealand Norway
Oman
Peru
Portugal
Singapore
Spain
South Korea
Turkey
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
Venezuela

To this must be added the bases that we have in Diego Garcia, Greenland, Hong Kong, Kwajalein Atoll, and St. Helena. This makes a total of 39 foreign locations that the United States officially has bases in, not counting bases in U.S. overseas territories like Guam, Johnston Atoll, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.

But there are problems with this official list. First of all, it has some notable omissions. The Air Force Technical Applications Center in Thailand is not listed. And neither is Eskan Village and Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia. The United States has had a troop presence in the former Soviet Republics of Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan since October of 2001, yet they are not listed either. The huge Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo is not even listed, although President Bush has spoken there. According to the Department of Defense publication, "Active Duty Military Personnel Strengths by Regional Area and by Country," the United States has 2,997 active duty military personnel in Qatar. Yet, no base in listed in the Base Structure Report. Incredibly, no bases are even listed in Afghanistan, Kuwait, or Iraq. With critical omissions like these, God only knows how many more foreign bases we have that are not listed.

The issue is not just how many countries the United States has bases in. The issue is U.S. troops on foreign soil. Having an official base just makes our foreign presence worse. It would be better for U.S. troops to patrol our border with Mexico than to patrol the borders of countries half way around the world that most Americans could not locate on a map.

[BackdoorJesus]

I thought you were a libertarian!??! Libertarians are dead set, and I agree, on decreasing the size scope and range of our military, because I can not be sustained and it invites hostile action...
Since when does being a registered member of a political party mean you have to be in agreement with 100% of that party's beliefs?

[licupssy]

If you had spent anytime on YOUR OWN sources you would not have even posted this, your first link indicates a fantastic number of bases!!!

You should have done some counting.

My first source shows a total of 76 US military bases in 17 countries and less than 300 bases in the US(if you want to count them go ahead, The longest column of the three was 97). This is a far cry from what's quoted by 93crawlers.

we have 761 active military bases in foreign countries, and 5,249 military bases total

Where all these other bases are, the base names and military compliments aren't in the information I posted.

Granted the bases located in Iraq and afgahnistan aren't listed. It still doesn't fiqure where the other 4000 or so bases are in the US or it's territory.

The secound site list our military overseas but one poor sucker in Iran isn't a military base nor a couple hundred marines in a detachment training foriegn troops. Same as a Air National Guard hanger doesn't make the municipal airport a military base.

Even our 11 aircraft carriers with a compliment of 5000 or more each aren't classified as US naval bases.

Just do the math; 1,400,000 didvide by 5,249 gives you only 267 servicemen per base.

[ddoubleez]

Since when does being a registered member of a political party mean you have to be in agreement with 100% of that party's beliefs?


Understood, but it is a fundamental building block for their party. They craft most of their policies around the above mentioned....

To me, a libertarian that is interested in maintaining an aggressive military, would be nearly the same as hearing someone describe themselves as a socialist republican!?


You should have done some counting.

My first source shows a total of 76 US military bases in 17 countries and less than 300 bases in the US(if you want to count them go ahead, The longest column of the three was 97). This is a far cry from what's quoted by 93crawlers.



Where all these other bases are, the base names and military compliments aren't in the information I posted.

Granted the bases located in Iraq and afgahnistan aren't listed. It still doesn't fiqure where the other 4000 or so bases are in the US or it's territory.

The secound site list our military overseas but one poor sucker in Iran isn't a military base nor a couple hundred marines in a detachment training foriegn troops. Same as a Air National Guard hanger doesn't make the municipal airport a military base.

Even our 11 aircraft carriers with a compliment of 5000 or more each aren't classified as US naval bases.

Just do the math; 1,400,000 didvide by 5,249 gives you only 267 servicemen per base.


Military base
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A military base is a facility directly owned and operated by and/or for the military or one of its branches that shelters military equipment and personnel, and facilitates training and operations.

Definition: (DOD) A base or group of installations for which a local commander is responsible, consisting of facilities necessary for support of Army activities including security, internal lines of communication, utilities, plants and systems, and real property for which the Army has operating responsibility.

You understand than many, many of our bases have half a dozen to a couple of dozen people in them, this is typical of a missle base..... You should also understand that the military is open about haveing MANY MANY unreported military bases...... The following is a map that will indicate it, CNN takes data and comes up with about 4 times as many unreported bases as reported, and you will love it, because a few of them are boats....

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/military.map.html

[ravenshrike]

Understood, but it is a fundamental building block for their party. They craft most of their policies around the above mentioned....


I'm not a Libertarian. And the reason I'm not is because there's three questions Libertarianism has never adequately answered for me:

How do we provide for the national defense?

How do we defend against domestic enemies, to include criminals?

And what about public health? By which I mean plague prevention, not socialized medicine.

I haven't heard a decent, credible, non-vomit-in-the-gutter answer from a Libertarian on any of those three. - Tom Kratman

[licupssy]

Military base
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A military base is a facility directly owned and operated by and/or for the military or one of its branches that shelters military equipment and personnel, and facilitates training and operations.

Definition: (DOD) A base or group of installations for which a local commander is responsible, consisting of facilities necessary for support of Army activities including security, internal lines of communication, utilities, plants and systems, and real property for which the Army has operating responsibility

You understand than many, many of our bases have half a dozen to a couple of dozen people in them, this is typical of a missile base..... You should also understand that the military is open about having MANY MANY unreported military bases...... The following is a map that will indicate it, CNN takes data and comes up with about 4 times as many unreported bases as reported, and you will love it, because a few of them are boats....

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/military.map.html
I can agree with the first two paragraphs as noted.

As far as it goes there are no longer any Nike or Bomarc missile sites. Since I'm from the Philly area I can note of one missile site within 5 miles of my home and other abandoned sites that I have seen in my travels. but I didn't see it until after it was no longer in service. I knew of the McGuire AFB Bomarc Missile Site pictured below but never saw it. There is a road leading to it from NAS Lakehurst. A friend of mine who was duty driver for the mess hall came up on a guard post for it while out joy riding on the base. He was told to make a quick turn around. He missed the warning signs on the fence that note trespasser would be shot on sight. It had 84 missiles and launchers. The three quotes indicate 3 of the 4 Air Force bases with ICBM sites for the 550 total ICBMs presently active in out defense force. I greatly doubt there are any missile silos sites out back of the 7-11 maned by a handful of serviceman and listed as Air Force missile bases. The 25 trains with 2 each missile garrison cars were discontinued. See photos below.

The CNN makes no mention of US Military bases. It's title "Bases for coalition operations during Operation Enduring Freedom" has nothing to do with what is or isn't a military base. And, the information is so old that there is no telling if we even have any personnel at any of these locations. The Kennedy by the way was decommissioned last year.



F. E. Warren Air Force Base operates 50 Peacekeeper Missiles and 150 Minuteman III Missiles as part of the United States strategic defense. Nearly 4,000 military personnel and 600 civilians operate and maintain the base which covers 5,866 acres at the main base near Cheyenne, Wyoming, and 220 remote missile facilities spread over 12,600 square miles in Wyoming, Nebraska, and Colorado. Francis E. Warren AFB near Cheyenne Wyoming is one of four strategic missile bases in the United States. The base has the distinction of evolving from a noteworthy frontier infantry and cavalry post into the largest, most modern strategic missile facility in the United States.
The base encompasses approximately 1,279 ha (3,159 ac) of Government-owned land. An additional 182 ha (449 ac) of restrictive easements are held on adjacent lands. Associated with the base is the 341st Missile Wing missile complex, which includes 4 missile squadrons with 20 missile alert facilities, and 200 launch facilities distributed throughout a 60,865 sq km (23,500Êsq mi) area in north-central Montana. The missile complex is known as the Malmstrom deployment area. Land use inside the base boundaries includes a military airfield, operational, industrial and administrative facilities to support the base, the airfield and the various missile sites under the control of Malmstrom and military housing areas.
The 150 nuclear-tipped Minuteman ICBMs buried in the prairie around Minot Air Force Base, ND, remain as much on alert today as during the Cold War. And B-52s still rumble down the concrete runway of the former Strategic Air Command stronghold in America’s midland. In addition to Minuteman ICBMs, Minot AFB hosted another type of strategic missile, once the assigned B-52H bombers were modified to carry Air Launched Cruise Missiles (ALCMs). Since President George H. Bush ended nuclear alerts, emphasis at the northern tier base has changed.

McGuire AFB missle site
http://www.airfields-freeman.com/NJ/McGuire_BOMARC_NJ_05.jpg

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/us_peacekeeper_01.jpg

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/rgmx_02.jpg

[ddoubleez]

I can agree with the first two paragraphs as noted.

As far as it goes there are no longer any Nike or Bomarc missile sites. Since I'm from the Philly area I can note of one missile site within 5 miles of my home and other abandoned sites that I have seen in my travels. but I didn't see it until after it was no longer in service. I knew of the McGuire AFB Bomarc Missile Site pictured below but never saw it. There is a road leading to it from NAS Lakehurst. A friend of mine who was duty driver for the mess hall came up on a guard post for it while out joy riding on the base. He was told to make a quick turn around. He missed the warning signs on the fence that note trespasser would be shot on sight. It had 84 missiles and launchers. The three quotes indicate 3 of the 4 Air Force bases with ICBM sites for the 550 total ICBMs presently active in out defense force. I greatly doubt there are any missile silos sites out back of the 7-11 maned by a handful of serviceman and listed as Air Force missile bases. The 25 trains with 2 each missile garrison cars were discontinued. See photos below.

The CNN makes no mention of US Military bases. It's title "Bases for coalition operations during Operation Enduring Freedom" has nothing to do with what is or isn't a military base. And, the information is so old that there is no telling if we even have any personnel at any of these locations. The Kennedy by the way was decommissioned last year.


The US does not make a habbit of telling its people when it is opening a new icbm base..... Their budgets, however, do indicate that there is development, and Bush Jr. has budgets for nuclear weapons that exceed Reagans, he is just more quiet, and peoples concern for nuclear weapons died in the 80's......


part one of four:

4rbj9BnM3WI&feature=related

part two(if you do not want to watch all 4 just watch this one):

lqr9_OCOMPM

On a side note, I have done some research on purchacing a base for a vacation home and still consider it for my future.... http://www.missilebases.com/

The US defence department has banned the giant internet search engine Google from filming inside and making detailed studies of US military bases.

Close-up, ground-level imagery of US military sites posed a "potential threat" to security, it said.

The move follows the discovery of images of the Fort Sam Houston army base in Texas on Google Maps.



As far as CNN goes, that was a just an example, and if you think we do not have a number of military bases that are not reported, I think you may want to think about that for awhile.... Couple of years ago, we were accused of having bases in western europe for 'questioning' terrorists...

[ddoubleez]

Originally Posted by ddoubleez
Understood, but it is a fundamental building block for their party. They craft most of their policies around the above mentioned....





Quote:
I'm not a Libertarian. And the reason I'm not is because there's three questions Libertarianism has never adequately answered for me:

How do we provide for the national defense?

How do we defend against domestic enemies, to include criminals?

And what about public health? By which I mean plague prevention, not socialized medicine.

I haven't heard a decent, credible, non-vomit-in-the-gutter answer from a Libertarian on any of those three. - Tom Kratman

Cute, but the answer to the above is that libertarians are interested in having a very strong military with in their borders, where it is needed and FAR MORE EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE........

Question: Did a military base in Saudi Arabia keep NY and the twin towers safe, or did it create the incentive for the attack to begin with?


Question: Does shipping someone off to do serve their country help you, or could the urge to serve the country be more effectively filled if that person stayed and served as a fireman or policeman?

[joerockhead]

....Question: Does shipping someone off to do serve their country help you, or could the urge to serve the country be more effectively filled if that person stayed and served as a fireman or policeman?

That person that gets shipped off is going of his/her own choice. That individual joined the US Armed forces knowing what is going on, and that they may be sent in harms way.

Now, they all have differing reasons for joining.
1 - Life sucks where they live, and they just want out
2 - Some of the positions in the Armed Forces do not require a lot of book smarts, like being a police officer or fireman.
3 - Join out of opportunity to see the world and get paid while doing it
4 - so many more then can be listed

[licupssy]

The US does not make a habbit of telling its people when it is opening a new icbm base..... Their budgets, however, do indicate that there is development, and Bush Jr. has budgets for nuclear weapons that exceed Reagans, he is just more quiet, and peoples concern for nuclear weapons died in the 80's......

On a side note, I have done some research on purchacing a base for a vacation home and still consider it for my future....

As far as CNN goes, that was a just an example, and if you think we do not have a number of military bases that are not reported, I think you may want to think about that for awhile.... Couple of years ago, we were accused of having bases in western europe for 'questioning' terrorists...

As far as it goes you won't be seeing any new ICBM sites. We're pretty well tied to what we already have. What your referring to is the annual budget for the Ballistic Missile Defense System required by the National Missile Defense Act of 1999(Pre-Bush) Look at the MSD Info pdf it covers quite a bit. Any new silos would be to house missiles like the eight interceptor missiles emplaced at Ft. Greely, Alaska(Photo Below). Two interceptors are emplaced at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. Whether the silos are new or originally housed ICBMs I don't know for sure. Whether a budget is larger is subjective. You have to consider inflating and increased prices for newer technology, etc.

MDS info http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/pdf/bmdsbook.pdf

MDS Photo Gallery http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/html/nmdimg.html

I don't think I'd be interested in buying an ICBM site that's like doing submarine duty.

I take the CNN story as it was actually presented.

I greatly doubt they built an entire base just to house and interrogate a few terrorist. Not that they may have shipped some off to some existing base in Germany


We've had men in those silos since before any of you guys were watching "Howdy Doody"! Now I myself sleep pretty well knowing those boys are down there.

Production of the Minuteman ended in January 1977, after more than 2400 missiles had been built. Since then, many missiles were refurbished, because cracks in the solid fuel required a complete refill of the motors. The future of the Minuteman force was for many years dictated by the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties (START). As a result of START, production and deployment of the LGM-118 Peacekeeper, originally developed as a Minuteman successor, had been halted. START II limited the land-based ICBM force to 500 single-RV missiles, so all LGM-30F Minuteman IIs have been retired or converted to single-RV Minuteman IIIs, and the remaining Minuteman IIIs were planned for conversion to single warheads. However, since the demise of START II these plans have been dropped, and some LGM-30Gs have retained their MIRVs. However, after the retirement of the Peacekeeper in September 2005, the latter's more modern Mk.21 RVs are available, and all LGM-30G missiles will have their three Mk.12A RVs replaced by a single Mk.21. This conversion is planned to be completed in 2010. There are also ongoing programs to replace propulsion and guidance components of the LGM-30G with modern systems. The Minuteman III is expected to remain in service until at least 2020.

Between January 1997 and December 2002, retired Minuteman II missiles have been converted as sub-orbital launch vehicles to provide targets for 11 flight tests of the GBI (Ground-Based Interceptor) missile defense program. Current prime contractor for the latest variant of these launchers is Orbital Sciences Corp, which labels them as Minotaur 2 TLV (Target Launch Vehicle). The official designation NLGM-30F has been allocated to Minuteman IIs converted to test vehicles, but it is not quite clear if the designation is actually applied to the Minotaur 2 TLV.

The motors of retired Minuteman missiles have been used since the early 1970s to assemble cheap high-performance rockets for experimental and test purposes, like boosting targets or interceptor vehicles in the ongoing ballistic missile defense development program. Examples for such vehicles include the Space Vector Aries, Coleman Hera, OSC SR19-SR19, OSC Storm, Lockheed Martin PLV and Coleman SRALT/LRALT rockets.

It is the policy of the United States to deploy as soon as is technologically possible an effective National Missile Defense system capable of defending the territory of the United States against limited ballistic missile attack (whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate) with funding subject to the annual authorization of appropriations and the annual appropriation of funds for National Missile Defense.

— National Missile Defense
Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-38

http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/images/ldc6vert.jpg

[ddoubleez]

That person that gets shipped off is going of his/her own choice. That individual joined the US Armed forces knowing what is going on, and that they may be sent in harms way.

Now, they all have differing reasons for joining.
1 - Life sucks where they live, and they just want out
2 - Some of the positions in the Armed Forces do not require a lot of book smarts, like being a police officer or fireman.
3 - Join out of opportunity to see the world and get paid while doing it
4 - so many more then can be listed


Many polls have been done and the #1 reason people join the military, is they are poor and can not afford an education... Our military pray on the poor and uneducated........

In today’s political climate, with two wars being fought with no end in sight, it can be difficult for some people to understand why young folks enlist in our military.

The conservative claim that most youth enlist due to patriotism and the desire to “serve one’s country” is misleading. The Pentagon’s own surveys show that something vague and abstract called “duty to country” motivates only a portion of enlistees.

The vast majority of young people wind up in the military for different reasons, ranging from economic pressure to the desire to escape a dead-end situation at home to the promise of citizenship.

Over all, disenfranchisement may be one of the most accurate words for why some youth enlist.

When mandatory military service ended in 1973, the volunteer military was born. By the early 1980s, the term “poverty draft” had gained currency to connote the belief that the enlisted ranks of the military were made up of young people with limited economic opportunities.

Today, military recruiters react angrily to the term “poverty draft.” They parse terms in order to argue that “the poor” are not good recruiting material because they lack the necessary education. Any inference that those currently serving do so because they have few other options is met with a sharp rebuke, as Sen. John Kerry learned last November when he seemed to tell a group of college students they could either work hard in school or “get stuck in Iraq.”

[Krasch]

The US does not make a habbit of telling its people when it is opening a new icbm base..... Their budgets, however, do indicate that there is development, and Bush Jr. has budgets for nuclear weapons that exceed Reagans, he is just more quiet, and peoples concern for nuclear weapons died in the 80's......

Just a question sir, but in saying that Dubya's budget for nuclear weapons exceeds Dutch's, are we talking nominal or real dollars here?

[ddoubleez]

Just a question sir, but in saying that Dubya's budget for nuclear weapons exceeds Dutch's, are we talking nominal or real dollars here?

Dollar for dollar, I do believe, but I will research it......

Undoing His Father's Legacy

There is considerable irony in President George W. Bush's apparent zeal to overturn this law, given that the political-military consensus favoring it was largely forged during his father's administration, when the current secretary of state, Colin Powell, was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In September 1991, when the Soviet empire was falling apart, the first President Bush announced that all U.S. tactical nuclear weapons deployed with land forces and surface fleets worldwide would be removed from overseas storage sites and surface ships, retired from the stockpile, and ultimately destroyed, and he challenged the Soviet Union to do the same. Russia reciprocated with a substantial removal effort of its own, securing thousands of nuclear warheads in the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union and shipping them back to Russia, where they destroyed a large but indeterminate number of them. The United States assisted these efforts under the aegis of the Nunn-Lugar program.

In July 1992, President Bush went a step further, issuing an executive order stating that in the changed security environment, the United States had no military requirements for new nuclear weapons, and would henceforth limit its efforts to evaluating and improving the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear stockpile. Following this White House directive, new warhead development efforts not already terminated by Congress were scrubbed, and shortly thereafter Congress cut off funding for nuclear test explosions. According to the current administration's testimony on April 8, 2003, this situation remains true today: The Pentagon does not have any approved military requirements for new nuclear weapons.

In the current political context of heightened global concern about nuclear weapons proliferation in East Asia, South Asia and the Middle East, the current Bush administration's sudden resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons could hardly be more anomalous and discordant, or more damaging politically to the credibility and moral standing of the United States as its pursues the indispensable task of shoring up the global nonproliferation regime.

[Krasch]

Dollar for dollar, I do believe, but I will research it......
Dollar for dollar would imply NOMINAL dollars, at least to me (and I have been currently embroiled in financial planning courses for a while now).

Which makes a HUGE difference.

$1,000,000 today is a lot less than $1,000,000 in the 80's. Which is why I asked if we're talking real dollars (adjusted for inflation, etc.) or nominal (unadjusted).

Let's clarify which of the two we're dealing with and then it might be worth some real discussion.

[ddoubleez]

Dollar for dollar would imply NOMINAL dollars, at least to me (and I have been currently embroiled in financial planning courses for a while now).

Which makes a HUGE difference.

$1,000,000 today is a lot less than $1,000,000 in the 80's. Which is why I asked if we're talking real dollars (adjusted for inflation, etc.) or nominal (unadjusted).

Let's clarify which of the two we're dealing with and then it might be worth some real discussion.

Agreed, however, any president that is overturning agreements and rivaling spending with the first president in US history to triple our dept, but purchasing weapons, is a problem..... And lets spin this for you and ask you a question, do you think that it cost more or less to produce a nuclear weapon with technology that is 30 years old, or the technology we have now? Just a question........

Now lets get back on subject, and maybe you can learn from lickpussy (sp), he actually brought a diffenent pov from mine that was researched and insiteful :mstad: .......

e0JCJ4pIFEw

T6ITC5IL2Mw