Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Defence Budget 2005
    President George W. Bush revealed the 2005 budget of 2.400 billion dollars, that will mainly be granted to defence and security - The defence budget will increase by 7% and will reach 402 billion dollars.

    its amazing how much countries spend on defence, and its increasing in leaps ands bounds. in britain only health and social security have more money spent on them.

    is it really possible to justify the amount of spending on defence? to put this into a bit of perspective....


    to reach the internationally agreed target to halve, by 2015, the proportion of people unable to reach or afford safe drinking water, we will have to provide new access to water for 300 000 people each day. For a similar target in sanitation, an extra 390 000 people per day will have to be provided with new services. This adds up to investments in the water sector of 180 billion dollars per year. But only between 70 and 80 billion are invested at present, leaving a gap of some 100 billion dollars a year

    source: http://www.dse.de/zeitschr/de302-6.htm

    your thoughts welcome
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think we need a nice defence budget with plenty of slack.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    national security is the number one issue for any government / head of state. the americans have got it spot on, while Europe is chronically underspending. its amusing to Europhiles talk about the EU being an alternative power to the US when the US IS our defence policy.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Speaking for the UK, I think the defence budget is woefully small. It would be fine, but Tony seems to think that despite the small size and financial resources of the UK military, he is entitled him to send them anywhere and everywhere.

    I don't think you can spend too much on defence. At the end of the day is a country is every invaded and loses its soverignty, it loses everything.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tednol)
    Speaking for the UK, I think the defence budget is woefully small. It would be fine, but Tony seems to think that despite the small size and financial resources of the UK military, he is entitled him to send them anywhere and everywhere.

    I don't think you can spend too much on defence. At the end of the day is a country is every invaded and loses its soverignty, it loses everything.
    a very basic conclusion, but one that is entirely accurate.

    spending on UK defence is so small no service battleships were available to take part in the forthcoming Normandy remembrance spectacle. Germany cut military spending by 20billion last year and these are the largest military powers on our continent.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tednol)
    Speaking for the UK, I think the defence budget is woefully small. It would be fine, but Tony seems to think that despite the small size and financial resources of the UK military, he is entitled him to send them anywhere and everywhere.

    I don't think you can spend too much on defence. At the end of the day is a country is every invaded and loses its soverignty, it loses everything.
    I think we should be investing much more money on chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.

    (Original post by Howard)
    I think we should be investing much more money on chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.
    Once again I couldn't agree more. Indeed we don't even need to spend more. All we have to do is to nuke the Islamic countries, Leeds, Luton, and France, and all our security problems are over.

    But I suppose that it would offend some minority if we did that and so the liberals wont allow it.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sanctus)
    Once again I couldn't agree more. Indeed we don't even need to spend more. All we have to do is to nuke the Islamic countries, Leeds, Luton, and France, and all our security problems are over.

    But I suppose that it would offend some minority if we did that and so the liberals wont allow it.
    Yes, nuking Leeds and Luton. I'm sure only the left-wing 'do-gooders' would be offended by that :rolleyes:

    (Original post by elpollodiablouk)
    Yes, nuking Leeds and Luton. I'm sure only the left-wing 'do-gooders' would be offended by that :rolleyes:
    ok I'm sure the residents of Leeds and Luton wouldn't be too keen on it either but, as they say, the dead can't talk (just to join the dots for you, if we nuked Leeds and Luton, the citizens of these towns would be dead, hence they can't whine, hence only the liberals would be upset).
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sanctus)
    ok I'm sure the residents of Leeds and Luton wouldn't be too keen on it either but, as they say, the dead can't talk (just to join the dots for you, if we nuked Leeds and Luton, the citizens of these towns would be dead, hence they can't whine, hence only the liberals would be upset).
    And the people from the surrounding area who would be affected by the fallout? The people with relatives in these places?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sanctus)
    ok I'm sure the residents of Leeds and Luton wouldn't be too keen on it either but, as they say, the dead can't talk (just to join the dots for you, if we nuked Leeds and Luton, the citizens of these towns would be dead, hence they can't whine, hence only the liberals would be upset).
    Oh, I don't know. I think most Lutonians would be eternally grateful if Luton was turned into a badly maintained nuclear wasteland. Be an improvement.

    (Original post by elpollodiablouk)
    And the people from the surrounding area who would be affected by the fallout? The people with relatives in these places?
    We'll buy some tissues for the relatives, and we'll send the people in the surrounding area to the Ukraine where they can meet fellow radio-active people.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    a very basic conclusion, but one that is entirely accurate.

    spending on UK defence is so small no service battleships were available to take part in the forthcoming Normandy remembrance spectacle. Germany cut military spending by 20billion last year and these are the largest military powers on our continent.
    since battleships are so necessary for fighting terrorism
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    since battleships are so necessary for fighting terrorism
    Is the UK not going to get involved in any more conventional wars? Ever? Is terrorism the only possible opponent?

    (Original post by Howard)
    Is the UK not going to get involved in any more conventional wars? Ever? Is terrorism the only possible opponent?
    It's increasingly looking like it The Soviets were a worthy opponent. These sand people (Muslims) are totally unworthy. And there's no hope for the slitty eyes becoming an enemy - China will be a capitalist democracy within 50 years.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Is the UK not going to get involved in any more conventional wars? Ever? Is terrorism the only possible opponent?
    i think the days of large battleships are well and truely over regardless of terrorism due to their vunerablitiy to attack from the air, defence requires a flexible responce to the treat we face and at this current time the last thing we need are battleships.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    i think the days of large battleships are well and truely over regardless of terrorism due to their vunerablitiy to attack from the air, defence requires a flexible responce to the treat we face and at this current time the last thing we need are battleships.
    I have just spoken with the guy in the office next door about this, "Chief" for 20 years in the USN. He tell me this;

    A USN aircraft carrier is typically protected by a 250 mile exclusion zone patrolled 24/7 by between 4-6 USN fighters. Two more fighters are 24/7 ready to roll.

    It's also protected by at least one Submarine and a "butt load of ships" (his words)

    If you can get past this lot you would have to deal with a weapons system that fires 1000's and 1000's thousands of rounds of depleted uraniam shells per minute. The sky literally turns black with shells. It turns day into night.

    According to him, a USN Aircraft carrier is probably the safest place on earth.

    I don't think ships are vulnerable to air attack in any way like the old fleets of WWII.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    I have just spoken with the guy in the office next door about this, "Chief" for 20 years in the USN. He tell me this;

    A USN aircraft carrier is typically protected by a 250 mile exclusion zone patrolled 24/7 by between 4-6 USN fighters. Two more fighters are 24/7 ready to roll.

    It's also protected by at least one Submarine and a "butt load of ships" (his words)

    If you can get past this lot you would have to deal with a weapons system that fires 1000's and 1000's thousands of rounds of depleted uraniam shells per minute. The sky literally turns black with shells. It turns day into night.

    According to him, a USN Aircraft carrier is probably the safest place on earth.

    I don't think ships are vulnerable to air attack in any way like the old fleets of WWII.
    the destruction of the british ship (forgotten the name sorry) in the falklands by the french phoneix missiles seems to suggest otherwise

    with vertical take off aircraft becoming more the thing - eg new JSF i think air craft carriers might also be in for a redesigning soon as well
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    the destruction of the british ship (forgotten the name sorry) in the falklands by the french phoneix missiles seems to suggest otherwise

    with vertical take off aircraft becoming more the thing - eg new JSF i think air craft carriers might also be in for a redesigning soon as well
    Sir Gallahad. But that was 22 years ago.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Sir Gallahad. But that was 22 years ago.
    ahh now that is scary i never thought about it being so long ago. they are quite a target for terrorists tho eg the Cole
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.