The Ship Model Forum

by **Gerarddm** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 2:24 pm

I guess the U.S. will need to place a SONUS net in the Caribbean...

by **Guest** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 11:21 am

Incidentally, I suspect that one would not easily find another period in history where very large portions of the world devoted less percentage of its economy to defense than during the first half of Roman empire.

I would surprised if the total defense expenditure of early Roman empire exceeds 1% of its total economic output. Perhaps for a couple of years Wiemar republic nominally matched that.

Our defense spending right now represent by far the highest percentage of our peace time economy that we've ever devoted to defnese except during the period of the Cold War.

by **Guest** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 11:12 am

JWintjes wrote:
Chuck wrote: Is it as farcical as it is to say the current level of defense spending the lowest since Sparta....
Well, it depends really on your point of view, doesn't it.

In terms of percentage of GDP Sparta comes in at a towering 100% (ok, that's probably not entirely correct, let's say 90%...) from late archaic times to the 4th century.

That's quite a lot, you know...

Jorit

That depends on whether the GDP includes those of the helots. Conisdering it takes about 10 helots to feed a Spartiate, and in general helots needs shelter, food and other necessities of life as well, and they take no part in defense at all, I would say much less than 10% of Sparta's economic output could conceivably be devoted to defense.

The fact that much less than 10% of any economy's output could have been dedicated to defense would have remained true right up to well past the start of industrial revolution.

by **JWintjes** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:45 am

Werner wrote:Wait - wait! I didn't tell you which movie...

The US Army's epic The Perils of V.D., starring Goofy and Donald Duck.

Ok, that earns you a better grade for a nice attempt at going interdisciplinary, which is all the rage these days.

Still only a "C".

Jorit

by **Werner** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:40 am

Wait - wait! I didn't tell you which movie...

The US Army's epic The Perils of V.D., starring Goofy and Donald Duck.

The 17-year locusts are keeping me up all night with their racket.

by **JWintjes** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:37 am

Werner wrote:
JWintjes wrote:In terms of percentage of GDP Sparta comes in at a towering 100% (ok, that's probably not entirely correct, let's say 90%...) from late archaic times to the 4th century.

That's quite a lot, you know...

Jorit
Thank you for coming to the biologist's aid. That was the point I was trying to make, that Sparta's economy was completely oriented toward military operations. I learned that watching a movie.... Can I have an "A", or "High Pass" or whatever term you use there?

You get a weak "D" for admitting your knowledge comes from a movie. Even the dounciest (now that is a word...) of my students always claim "I've read that in a book!" when making gross statements during their presentations...

Jorit

by **Werner** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:52 am

JWintjes wrote:In terms of percentage of GDP Sparta comes in at a towering 100% (ok, that's probably not entirely correct, let's say 90%...) from late archaic times to the 4th century.

That's quite a lot, you know...

Jorit

Thank you for coming to the biologist's aid. That was the point I was trying to make, that Sparta's economy was completely oriented toward military operations. I learned that watching a movie.... Can I have an "A", or "High Pass" or whatever term you use there?

by **JWintjes** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:40 am

Chuck wrote: Is it as farcical as it is to say the current level of defense spending the lowest since Sparta....

Well, it depends really on your point of view, doesn't it.

In terms of percentage of GDP Sparta comes in at a towering 100% (ok, that's probably not entirely correct, let's say 90%...) from late archaic times to the 4th century.

That's quite a lot, you know...

Jorit

by **Guest** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 12:55 am

Werner wrote:Chuck as usual seems to have forgotten George Washington made his reputation in The French and Indian Wars!

Furthermore, the Virginia Regiment he was part of would have been supplied and financed by a tariff raised against citizens of the Colony of Virginia, and probably approved by the local legislature.

Was it not William Pitt who led a movement to repeal the Stamp Act, finding all the tariffs pressed into the America Colonial treasury for the defense of North America without any voice in Parliament represented a stance antithetical to the very soul of the English Constitution?

In any event, Waterloo represents the end of nearly 100 years of unremitting war between the French and English speaking peoples. It is farcical to say there was no military or defense spending in 1770-1775.

Is it as farcical as it is to say the current level of defense spending the lowest since Sparta....

by **Werner** » Sun Jun 17, 2007 5:31 pm

Chuck as usual seems to have forgotten George Washington made his reputation in The French and Indian Wars!

Furthermore, the Virginia Regiment he was part of would have been supplied and financed by a tariff raised against citizens of the Colony of Virginia, and probably approved by the local legislature.

Was it not William Pitt who led a movement to repeal the Stamp Act, finding all the tariffs pressed into the America Colonial treasury for the defense of North America without any voice in Parliament represented a stance antithetical to the very soul of the English Constitution?

In any event, Waterloo represents the end of nearly 100 years of unremitting war between the French and English speaking peoples. It is farcical to say there was no military or defense spending in 1770-1775.

by **Jean-Paul Binot** » Sun Jun 17, 2007 3:55 pm

Anonymous wrote:Then our current defense spending must be negative because it has to be less than the zero value that it had assumed in all the years prior to 1776.

Well, technically, there was quite a lot of defense spending going on in America prior to the US Declaration of Independence, as it was nothing like a peaceful place at all. Obviously, the then crown colonies supported some of the burden, mostly by providing militia, while the mother country provided the heavy stuff, i.e. regulars, artillery and above all naval power, i.e. the Royal Navy. The Crown spent a lot of money during the French wars to expel France from North America, eventually succeeding in 1763 at the conclusion of the Seven Years war.

It is partly because His Majesty's government wanted the ungrateful colonists to take a bigger share of the burden of their own defense that they enacted the unpopular tax hikes that ultimately led to the "no taxation without representation" concept, the Boston Tea Party, and the American War of Independence.

by **Lesforan** » Sun Jun 17, 2007 3:30 pm

If the Democrats win big again in the next election, I predict a gutting of defense spending that will rival the Carter administration.

Better to get appropriations while you can.

I suspect those people will want to make sure we can't intervene in foreign affairs militarily. Simpelist way to do that is pare the military to the point it hasn't enough personnel or weapons to project power.

It wouldn't be the first time. Consider the condition of the US military in the 1870s and 80s, or in the 1920s and 30s. We had to rebuild the Navy pretty much from scratch in the 1890s, and again in the late 1930s. then again in the 1970s.

I'll admit that Chavez isn't much of a threat, with or without submarines.
Maybe he can team up with Castro, being the sugar daddy that the Soviet Union once was. Then again, the Soviet Union could actually produce weapons systems. Chavez has to buy his on the world market.

by **Guest** » Sun Jun 17, 2007 2:17 pm

Werner wrote:
Our defense spending (and the world's spending) is the lowest it has been since Sparta fell.

Then our current defense spending must be negative because it has to be less than the zero value that it had assumed in all the years prior to 1776.

by **Guest** » Sun Jun 17, 2007 2:15 pm

Then perhaps you would have been happier living in the Soviet Union.

by **Werner** » Sun Jun 17, 2007 2:13 pm

Hamas was democratically elected -- Jimmy Carter certified it.

Dr. Mugabe was democratically elected. Saddam and Kaddafi put themselves up for "election" year after year. Was that "the will of the people"?

Our defense spending (and the world's spending) is the lowest it has been since Sparta fell.

by **Lesforan** » Sun Jun 17, 2007 1:47 pm

by **Guest** » Sun Jun 17, 2007 1:22 pm

Lesforan wrote:Well, Chuck (or whoever the anonymous guest is),

I was not trying to be either ironic nor funny.

Percieved threats are at least as effective as a fundraising tool as are real threats, and always have been.

In fact, I can recommend that Chavez check out the excellent German export subs. They may be of better quality than the Russian models.

Maybe he could pay for them with Citgo oil products.

The question would then be "Are funds deserved, rightly allocated, and in the long run conducive to transparent operation of a democratic government when it is acquired based on threats that might be perceived, but are known to be unreal?" - Or is it your position that any increase in defense funds (above the 50% of the world's total as it already stands now) is still always a good thing however duplicitously it might have been acquired?

by **Guest** » Sun Jun 17, 2007 1:17 pm

largeallan wrote:"Therefore we much pray for the enemy to appear stronger so we may properly justify increasing the strength of our navy."

"the enemy"....Venezuela???...WHAT??? LOL

as for "praying" for it....are you a christian? There seems to be a bit of a contradiction in that, somehow

I would certainly not have prayed for the Venezuelans acquisition of submarines. But I suspect many of those in this country who wishes for such an opportunity to advance disingenuous claims of additional defense needs would in fact pray for it.

by **Lesforan** » Sun Jun 17, 2007 12:38 pm

Well, Chuck (or whoever the anonymous guest is),

I was not trying to be either ironic nor funny.

Percieved threats are at least as effective as a fundraising tool as are real threats, and always have been.

In fact, I can recommend that Chavez check out the excellent German export subs. They may be of better quality than the Russian models.

Maybe he could pay for them with Citgo oil products.

by **Werner** » Sun Jun 17, 2007 12:28 pm

Jean-Paul Binot wrote: However, being the only superpower brings specific responsibility to exercise one's power particularly carefully. Being seen as the world's super bully is not in the interest of the United States.

Wait a moment, I didn't see that in the US Superpower Handbook Wolfowitz mailed me when he left The Pentagon.....

In fact, we can and ought to bully as much as we want. Right now our smaller forces are worth much more than we paid for them. Since it is only natural for another superpower bloc to develop, we would be wasting time not achieving things that were best for America.

If you will recall, Kaiser Wilhelm had to go "hat in hand" to ask Queen Victoria if he could take the wastelands of Namibia as a colony. She also gave him the OK for such useful locations as The Marshall Islands and the Solomon Islands, and a not particularly useful enclave in China.

My! What luck! Imagine the colonial demand for precision instruments in Togo and Samoa!

The Ship Model Forum

Venezuela: Nation May Buy 5 Russian Subs

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Venezuela: Nation May Buy 5 Russian Subs

Spending

Defense Spending

Re: No Irony

No Irony