Increase Defence Spending

However, air defense is being upgraded year after year. While nobody can defend from an ICBM now doesn't mean it won't be able in the future.

What good are aircraft carriers, invasions etc. when an opponent can launch a missile and cause massive destruction without losing 1 friendly life?

State on state war is not likely because of ICBMs, MIRVs for example could level maybe 8 entire cities with one hit.

However, air defense is being upgraded year after year. While nobody can defend from an ICBM now doesn't mean it won't be able in the future.
To defend a country from an attack or invasion, a nuclear bomb is the ultimate deterrent, having fighter jets, aircraft carriers mean very little.
Keep the nuclear deterrents functional and ahead of the opponent's air defense.

I meant also all forms of missiles, for example the chinese df21d naval ballisitc missile believed to be able to disable an aircraft carrier. What good are aircraft carriers, invasions etc. when an opponent can launch a missile and cause massive destruction without losing 1 friendly life ?

The first duty of any government is to guarantee the safety of it's people.

2% of the country's earning is not a ridiculous sum to ask for. It doesn't matter if that country is poor, all NATO is asking is that they take that requirement and responsibility seriously. Otherwise, don't join.

I try to inject a touch of reality.

User to be in both, though been out of the former a few years, and the latter a few more years.

Defence spending should not be linked to percentages, it should be linked to how effective the spending is and what is proportional to the country's needs. I don't think the US or NATO should be dictating to individual states on how to spend their budget. After all, it is not a legally binding agreement.

Oh really. .. what did you do in them?

Aircraft carriers are not incapable of defending from a ballistic missile though. I guarantee you there's all sorts of technologies being developed in the background. Maybe something similar to APS systems used in some tanks?

That's too arbitrary when governments can change. The percentage is the fairest way of doing it - and has been the chosen way since NATO began.



I was, briefly, an officer in the RAF.

I'm not an expert in the matter but can't the AEGIS system shoot down ballistic missiles?


SS

I'm not an expert in the matter but can't the AEGIS system shoot down ballistic missiles?


SS

Yeah it can. But it's not on every ship. Not even close.
It's used by a few Asian and European countries, but it's not widespread

How briefly? Were you kicked out?

Well. It is. The US currently spends about $8-10b a year on its space related projects. And that's not including NASA (who's budget is a further $20b).

It's all relative - US defence spending last year was more than $600bn, so NASA's pretty small compared to that - plus, judging from what we see in the media, there's usually quite a fight to hang on to NASA budget, whereas 'defence' seems to be a bottomless pit into which the US pours gigantic sums almost without consideration.

The real thread should be "Reduce Defence Spending". The world simply cannot go on ploughing such a large share of production, income and human capital into war fighting and weapons systems. We desperately need to divert this money into environmental issues, climate change, space exploration, human health and many other important issues.

Behind the thinly disguised talk of 'defence' lies a constant preparation for war, with the threat of it always hovering in the background. The wars of the last century were appalling catastrophes and any future major war would be still worse. We can't go on planning this as a race.

I'd rethink that if I were you. The US has deployed THAAD in a few places, has developed (although later cancelled) various laser tech for downing missiles and the Russians have had anti-missile batteries for decades.



The flipside is what good are very large, very complicated, very expensive missile systems when their launch pads are incredibly difficult to conceal and defend?

Aircraft carriers are not incapable of defending from a ballistic missile though. I guarantee you there's all sorts of technologies being developed in the background. Maybe something similar to APS systems used in some tanks?

State on state war is not likely because of ICBMs, MIRVs for example could level maybe 8 entire cities with one hit.

However, air defense is being upgraded year after year. While nobody can defend from an ICBM now doesn't mean it won't be able in the future.
To defend a country from an attack or invasion, a nuclear bomb is the ultimate deterrent, having fighter jets, aircraft carriers mean very little.
Keep the nuclear deterrents functional and ahead of the opponent's air defense.

I meant also all forms of missiles, for example the chinese df21d naval ballisitc missile believed to be able to disable an aircraft carrier. What good are aircraft carriers, invasions etc. when an opponent can launch a missile and cause massive destruction without losing 1 friendly life ?

ICBMs can fly above mach 20 which is practically impossible to defend from. US military leaders themselves have said that they could only defend from top ICBM if they knew the exact projectory beforehand. It is also very important to shoot it down at an early or mid flight stage as it is easiest. If an ICBM was fired over the pacific etc. it would be impossible for someone to shoot it down without knowing it was to be fird days in advance.
These ICBMs change trajectory in mid flight and involve numerous guidance systems like satellites, lasers etc. to prevent 1 system from being interfered with and stopping it.


The americans tested a missile defense shield against an ICBM that worked, however they knew the exact trajectory beforehand.

How would someone attack a launch pad ? Immense air defense would defend from an aerial attack. If an ICBM or other missile was used to take it out then a counter strike would be used.
Militaries have extensive underground networks to conceal warheads and nobody fully knows where any of them are, these are also extremely well defended and near impregnable.

State on state war is not likely because of ICBMs, MIRVs for example could level maybe 8 entire cities with one hit.

I meant also all forms of missiles, for example the chinese df21d naval ballisitc missile believed to be able to disable an aircraft carrier. What good are aircraft carriers, invasions etc. when an opponent can launch a missile and cause massive destruction without losing 1 friendly life ?

It's all relative - US defence spending last year was more than $600bn, so NASA's pretty small compared to that - plus, judging from what we see in the media, there's usually quite a fight to hang on to NASA budget, whereas 'defence' seems to be a bottomless pit into which the US pours gigantic sums almost without consideration.

The real thread should be "Reduce Defence Spending". The world simply cannot go on ploughing such a large share of production, income and human capital into war fighting and weapons systems. We desperately need to divert this money into environmental issues, climate change, space exploration, human health and many other important issues.

Behind the thinly disguised talk of 'defence' lies a constant preparation for war, with the threat of it always hovering in the background. The wars of the last century were appalling catastrophes and any future major war would be still worse. We can't go on planning this as a race.