|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 30 2016 08:58 LegalLord wrote:
Looking at the Twitter the only thing that catches my attention is that Kaine wants even more carriers, also known as overpriced boats that wouldn't be any good against any real country.
Yeah, I have a hard time believing that our carriers could survive hundreds of missiles being fired at them, and that's without factoring in the emergence of hypersonic weaponry.
|
On November 30 2016 08:58 LegalLord wrote:
It really pissed me off how Obama tried to turn every shooting into an anti-gun talking point. He absolutely was being an opportunist each time and after a while I found it to be quite distasteful.
Looking at the Twitter the only thing that catches my attention is that Kaine wants even more carriers, also known as overpriced boats that wouldn't be any good against any real country.
Why would the US need ships to fight real countries when it has no interest in a real war.
Boots on the ground is unpopular after Iraq so the #1 military force projection America has is airstrikes.
Either you make deals with other countries to use their bases (not always possible) or you use carriers.
I would say its one of the more logical ships to make if you want to project America's force across the world.
As for Obama, he keeps bringing it up every time because the US is the only civilized country with this problem (to this excessive extent) and no one is trying to fix it.
School shootings have become a 'normal' thing that just happens from time to time and that is terrifying.
|
On November 30 2016 09:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 08:58 LegalLord wrote:
Looking at the Twitter the only thing that catches my attention is that Kaine wants even more carriers, also known as overpriced boats that wouldn't be any good against any real country. Yeah, I have a hard time believing that our carriers could survive hundreds of missiles being fired at them, and that's without factoring in the emergence of hypersonic weaponry.
Missile spam is one factor, yes. Add in sea mines, submarines, and area denial weapons (S-300/400 batteries) and soon enough you have a bunch of expensive boondoggles that are countered by cheap and often not particularly advanced hardware.
They do look really impressive and they're alright for bombing third world countries though, if that's any consolation.
|
On November 30 2016 09:12 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 09:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2016 08:58 LegalLord wrote:
Looking at the Twitter the only thing that catches my attention is that Kaine wants even more carriers, also known as overpriced boats that wouldn't be any good against any real country. Yeah, I have a hard time believing that our carriers could survive hundreds of missiles being fired at them, and that's without factoring in the emergence of hypersonic weaponry. Missile spam is one factor, yes. Add in sea mines, submarines, and area denial weapons (S-300/400 batteries) and soon enough you have a bunch of expensive boondoggles that are countered by cheap and often not particularly advanced hardware. They do look really impressive and they're alright for bombing third world countries though, if that's any consolation.
Yeah, the submarines are the other thing. I've heard some stories from people in the know that submarines routinely rape our carrier groups in wargames.
|
On November 30 2016 09:11 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 08:58 LegalLord wrote:
It really pissed me off how Obama tried to turn every shooting into an anti-gun talking point. He absolutely was being an opportunist each time and after a while I found it to be quite distasteful.
Looking at the Twitter the only thing that catches my attention is that Kaine wants even more carriers, also known as overpriced boats that wouldn't be any good against any real country. Why would the US need ships to fight real countries when it has no interest in a real war. Boots on the ground is unpopular after Iraq so the #1 military force projection America has is airstrikes. Either you make deals with other countries to use their bases (not always possible) or you use carriers. I would say its one of the more logical ships to make if you want to project America's force across the world.
A superpower which isn't really equipped to fight a real war isn't much of a superpower. It's more of a scrub-basher that way. Given how much money is spent on those carriers and even more so their airplanes, they better be worth it.
And if spammy cheap missiles or mines can kill them, then you can barely deploy them. Something that Russia and China are well aware of.
|
By the way, reports are rolling in that Trump picked Mnuchin to be Treasury Secretary. That's far more worrisome for Trump supporters than Chao.
|
On November 30 2016 09:12 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 09:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2016 08:58 LegalLord wrote:
Looking at the Twitter the only thing that catches my attention is that Kaine wants even more carriers, also known as overpriced boats that wouldn't be any good against any real country. Yeah, I have a hard time believing that our carriers could survive hundreds of missiles being fired at them, and that's without factoring in the emergence of hypersonic weaponry. Missile spam is one factor, yes. Add in sea mines, submarines, and area denial weapons (S-300/400 batteries) and soon enough you have a bunch of expensive boondoggles that are countered by cheap and often not particularly advanced hardware. They do look really impressive and they're alright for bombing third world countries though, if that's any consolation.
Which first/second world county is America likely to go to all our war with within the next decade that requires you to construct additional ways to fight this country?
The last time America went to war with a country that was able to fight back was WW2.
|
On November 30 2016 09:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 09:12 LegalLord wrote:On November 30 2016 09:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2016 08:58 LegalLord wrote:
Looking at the Twitter the only thing that catches my attention is that Kaine wants even more carriers, also known as overpriced boats that wouldn't be any good against any real country. Yeah, I have a hard time believing that our carriers could survive hundreds of missiles being fired at them, and that's without factoring in the emergence of hypersonic weaponry. Missile spam is one factor, yes. Add in sea mines, submarines, and area denial weapons (S-300/400 batteries) and soon enough you have a bunch of expensive boondoggles that are countered by cheap and often not particularly advanced hardware. They do look really impressive and they're alright for bombing third world countries though, if that's any consolation. Yeah, the submarines are the other thing. I've heard some stories from people in the know that submarines routinely rape our carrier groups in wargames.
The high end submarines are some scary shit. In the case of battles that those carriers would actually be deployed in, though, missiles, AA, and mines are a bigger concern. Those are the kind of inexpensive spam weapons that countries without all that many resources could use to force the carriers away and/or make the already obscenely overpriced US military ventures even more expensive.
US tech is remarkably cost-inefficient. That's part of why the two wars cost so much.
|
On November 30 2016 09:16 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 09:11 Gorsameth wrote:On November 30 2016 08:58 LegalLord wrote:
It really pissed me off how Obama tried to turn every shooting into an anti-gun talking point. He absolutely was being an opportunist each time and after a while I found it to be quite distasteful.
Looking at the Twitter the only thing that catches my attention is that Kaine wants even more carriers, also known as overpriced boats that wouldn't be any good against any real country. Why would the US need ships to fight real countries when it has no interest in a real war. Boots on the ground is unpopular after Iraq so the #1 military force projection America has is airstrikes. Either you make deals with other countries to use their bases (not always possible) or you use carriers. I would say its one of the more logical ships to make if you want to project America's force across the world. A superpower which isn't really equipped to fight a real war isn't much of a superpower. It's more of a scrub-basher that way. Given how much money is spent on those carriers and even more so their airplanes, they better be worth it. And if spammy cheap missiles or mines can kill them, then you can barely deploy them. Something that Russia and China are well aware of.
So spending more then every other country in the world combined is not enough to guarantee the US states as a superpower if they build a carrier or 2 with it?
Sorry but that is horseshit.
There is plenty of super inflated defence budget left to spend on maintaining your edge with China or Russia.
Heck you can probably fully build and equip a carrier group and still have a bigger budget left then China + Russia combined.
|
On November 30 2016 09:19 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 09:12 LegalLord wrote:On November 30 2016 09:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2016 08:58 LegalLord wrote:
Looking at the Twitter the only thing that catches my attention is that Kaine wants even more carriers, also known as overpriced boats that wouldn't be any good against any real country. Yeah, I have a hard time believing that our carriers could survive hundreds of missiles being fired at them, and that's without factoring in the emergence of hypersonic weaponry. Missile spam is one factor, yes. Add in sea mines, submarines, and area denial weapons (S-300/400 batteries) and soon enough you have a bunch of expensive boondoggles that are countered by cheap and often not particularly advanced hardware. They do look really impressive and they're alright for bombing third world countries though, if that's any consolation. Which first/second world county is America likely to go to all our war with within the next decade that requires you to construct additional ways to fight this country? The last time America went to war with a country that was able to fight back was WW2.
Iran is the one that comes most to mind. A second world country that could probably take out 1-3 carriers right now, and far more if Russia or China are willing to sell them weaponry.
If every shitty country had anti-ship missiles available then that would make Middle East ventures that much more difficult.
|
On November 30 2016 09:22 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 09:16 LegalLord wrote:On November 30 2016 09:11 Gorsameth wrote:On November 30 2016 08:58 LegalLord wrote:
It really pissed me off how Obama tried to turn every shooting into an anti-gun talking point. He absolutely was being an opportunist each time and after a while I found it to be quite distasteful.
Looking at the Twitter the only thing that catches my attention is that Kaine wants even more carriers, also known as overpriced boats that wouldn't be any good against any real country. Why would the US need ships to fight real countries when it has no interest in a real war. Boots on the ground is unpopular after Iraq so the #1 military force projection America has is airstrikes. Either you make deals with other countries to use their bases (not always possible) or you use carriers. I would say its one of the more logical ships to make if you want to project America's force across the world. A superpower which isn't really equipped to fight a real war isn't much of a superpower. It's more of a scrub-basher that way. Given how much money is spent on those carriers and even more so their airplanes, they better be worth it. And if spammy cheap missiles or mines can kill them, then you can barely deploy them. Something that Russia and China are well aware of. So spending more then every other country in the world combined is not enough to guarantee the US states as a superpower if they build a carrier or 2 with it? Sorry but that is horseshit. There is plenty of super inflated defence budget left to spend on maintaining your edge with China or Russia. Heck you can probably fully build and equip a carrier group and still have a bigger budget left then China + Russia combined.
The US spends more than enough, that much is true. Furthermore, if it were true that it isn't capable of fighting a real war, it wouldn't be a real superpower (and it obviously isn't true, the US is wiser than to do that).
Budgets don't mean as much as you think. If it costs $5k to counter a $20m weapon, what is that $20m weapon really worth?
|
On November 30 2016 09:25 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 09:22 Gorsameth wrote:On November 30 2016 09:16 LegalLord wrote:On November 30 2016 09:11 Gorsameth wrote:On November 30 2016 08:58 LegalLord wrote:
It really pissed me off how Obama tried to turn every shooting into an anti-gun talking point. He absolutely was being an opportunist each time and after a while I found it to be quite distasteful.
Looking at the Twitter the only thing that catches my attention is that Kaine wants even more carriers, also known as overpriced boats that wouldn't be any good against any real country. Why would the US need ships to fight real countries when it has no interest in a real war. Boots on the ground is unpopular after Iraq so the #1 military force projection America has is airstrikes. Either you make deals with other countries to use their bases (not always possible) or you use carriers. I would say its one of the more logical ships to make if you want to project America's force across the world. A superpower which isn't really equipped to fight a real war isn't much of a superpower. It's more of a scrub-basher that way. Given how much money is spent on those carriers and even more so their airplanes, they better be worth it. And if spammy cheap missiles or mines can kill them, then you can barely deploy them. Something that Russia and China are well aware of. So spending more then every other country in the world combined is not enough to guarantee the US states as a superpower if they build a carrier or 2 with it? Sorry but that is horseshit. There is plenty of super inflated defence budget left to spend on maintaining your edge with China or Russia. Heck you can probably fully build and equip a carrier group and still have a bigger budget left then China + Russia combined. The US spends more than enough, that much is true. Furthermore, if it were true that it isn't capable of fighting a real war, it wouldn't be a real superpower (and it obviously isn't true, the US is wiser than to do that). Budgets don't mean as much as you think. If it costs $5k to counter a $20m weapon, what is that $20m weapon really worth?
My point is that carriers serve a real and significant purpose in the US's current force projection strategy.
That they are not a 'catch all' weapon is true and they may not be worth much in a full on war with a developed nation but that is fine because that is not their purpose and the US has plenty of other means to fight and win if such a war were to break out.
As for efficiency.
I will take the inefficient carrier that lets me bomb the Middle East/Africa when I want to over the high tech sub that will never engage an enemy outside of mock battles with my allies.
|
On November 30 2016 08:43 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 08:34 Logo wrote:On November 30 2016 08:25 Gorsameth wrote:On November 30 2016 08:20 Logo wrote:On November 30 2016 08:17 Gorsameth wrote:On November 30 2016 08:10 Logo wrote:On November 30 2016 07:56 LegalLord wrote:On November 30 2016 07:52 Logo wrote:On November 30 2016 07:49 LegalLord wrote:On November 30 2016 07:45 Logo wrote:
[quote]
How does this view account for Clinton's position coming out of the very well mannered and policy driven primary debates and speeches vs Trump's non-stop garbage fest primary? Like it's hard to entirely think Clinton had freedom to discuss policy when she spent a long primary doing just that, but ended up repeatedly losing ground to Trump even before things like the basket of deplorables. There was certainly an effect of Trump's bullshit passing by favorably through the media when the Clinton campaign wasn't prodding them. Like his horrible statements only seemed to really affect him in the polls when Clinton did something that put them in a contrast (like the debates or the DNC convention).
Plus you know you'd think being a public servant for many years with a high approval rating (when holding office) would account for something in terms of showing policy.
Overall I don't disagree with a lot of what you are saying, but there's also underlying things here and it's a complex situation. This election was anything but normal or straightforward. She was a Senator in New York, a state which couldn't possibly be more friendly to her as a candidate if it tried. Other than that her history of holding elected office is remarkably sparse. Most people agreed that the debates did her a lot of good. I absolutely believe they did. I suppose it just turns out that people underestimated the rural vote to an extent we simply didn't consider. No one in the mainstream spoke much about the rural folk until after the election. Her approval rating while Secretary of State was pretty high as well. Plus her approval rating isn't that bad nationwide during her Senator term: http://www.people-press.org/2015/05/19/hillary-clinton-approval-timeline/She only has had bad approval ratings when tries to get a promotion. The beginning of her SoS term was a honeymoon marked by the status quo folks being really happy about a status quo FP choice. That sharp decline at the end is Benghazi, the first real well-acknowledged symptoms of a failure in Libya. Syria mostly fell into Obama's second term. If she stuck around her popularity decline would have happened while in office. That only accounts for a very favorable rating to a pretty decent one and it held at about that level until it 2016 presidential bid talks started to ramp up (early 2015). And of course there's many factors and its complex, but it's hard to just fully dismiss a decently liked politician in office from the hated candidate as a delayed realization by the public. Some big consequences of the Foreign Policy under Hillary did not crop up until after she left office. And then there was the long smear campaign as the Republicans sought to discredit her at all costs (because they saw the Election run coming) with however many Benghazi commitees ect. Her decline in popularity is a case study in showing that enough dirt thrown can make anything look bad, even if non of it ever sticks. Just look at how many debunked 'Hillary is dirty' stories kept propping up during the election. Tell a lie often enough and people will start believing it. "Because surely it wouldn't be told so often if its a lie". And she lacks the charisma to prop up her image. Yeah good points, but it's worth noting the favorability did ok until right (like 1 month) before her bid was formally announced. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/clinton_favorableunfavorable-1131.html is another look that shows that pretty dramatically. Though as Nevuk says the Email scandal was most of that maybe (but a lot of the worst parts of the email server were only relevant after her approval tanked). I don't know. I guess its because no one cared before? People tend not to change their opinion of someone if that person isn't actively engaged in anything. Once her election bid started people looked back and started to adjust their opinions? Donno what else it would be. @Legallord how many of those voters are in swing states though? Like I know Bernie was popular in those areas, but there's a difference between than and the type of voter who would abstain from voting (or vote Trump) because of that. I do agree it's yet another area that could have made up the difference though (there's like at least 4-5 bits that Clinton could have won with if it went the other way). Enough. Not voting is primarily a youth decision, and there's plenty of those everywhere. Then we have the independents who don't like Trump but would vote for a candidate who doesn't piss them off as much as she did. And the union folk, who feel betrayed by the fact that their unions mostly abandoned them and make deals with Clinton that don't help them. I think there's plenty of good votes in there that were lost, more than just enough to tip the scales but enough to have a big margin. We can't guess what the thought process of everyone who voted is. But the Sanders fanbase was big and had far too many people who were rightfully pissed off at Hillary. Their choice was not to vote for a candidate they hated.
I don't disagree, but I do think the numbers are murky. Especially in places like Wisconsin that also featured new voter ID laws which makes it hard to separate a turn-out decline from those efforts with apathy. Though maybe not impossible, seeing those numbers would be interesting.
On guns... In some ways the gun debate is the perfect example of the problems with the US government and why it's important to keep bringing it up. There's some legislation that the vast majority of people support (background checks) and some existing things are not being properly managed (ATF has its hands tied basically) and yet we get no where on those issues. So you have an issue where a bunch of regular people all agree on something but nothing is done because of heavy lobbying efforts.
|
On November 30 2016 09:33 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 09:25 LegalLord wrote:On November 30 2016 09:22 Gorsameth wrote:On November 30 2016 09:16 LegalLord wrote:On November 30 2016 09:11 Gorsameth wrote:On November 30 2016 08:58 LegalLord wrote:
It really pissed me off how Obama tried to turn every shooting into an anti-gun talking point. He absolutely was being an opportunist each time and after a while I found it to be quite distasteful.
Looking at the Twitter the only thing that catches my attention is that Kaine wants even more carriers, also known as overpriced boats that wouldn't be any good against any real country. Why would the US need ships to fight real countries when it has no interest in a real war. Boots on the ground is unpopular after Iraq so the #1 military force projection America has is airstrikes. Either you make deals with other countries to use their bases (not always possible) or you use carriers. I would say its one of the more logical ships to make if you want to project America's force across the world. A superpower which isn't really equipped to fight a real war isn't much of a superpower. It's more of a scrub-basher that way. Given how much money is spent on those carriers and even more so their airplanes, they better be worth it. And if spammy cheap missiles or mines can kill them, then you can barely deploy them. Something that Russia and China are well aware of. So spending more then every other country in the world combined is not enough to guarantee the US states as a superpower if they build a carrier or 2 with it? Sorry but that is horseshit. There is plenty of super inflated defence budget left to spend on maintaining your edge with China or Russia. Heck you can probably fully build and equip a carrier group and still have a bigger budget left then China + Russia combined. The US spends more than enough, that much is true. Furthermore, if it were true that it isn't capable of fighting a real war, it wouldn't be a real superpower (and it obviously isn't true, the US is wiser than to do that). Budgets don't mean as much as you think. If it costs $5k to counter a $20m weapon, what is that $20m weapon really worth? My point is that carriers serve a real and significant purpose in the US's current force projection strategy. That they are not a 'catch all' weapon is true and they may not be worth much in a full on war with a developed nation but that is fine because that is not their purpose and the US has plenty of other means to fight and win if such a war were to break out. As for efficiency. I will take the inefficient carrier that lets me bomb the Middle East/Africa when I want to over the high tech sub that will never engage an enemy outside of mock battles with my allies.
Subs are also useful for cockblocking movements by your adversaries. Nothing says "fuck off" to a fleet quite as well as a few nuclear submarines.
Carriers, and naval power in general, are definitely important for the US strategy due to its geography (continental powers are far more land-based). If I had to pick the most substantial weakness of the US military though, it would be how bad it is at making war on a reasonable budget. Every single weapon the US has is obscenely overpriced, and it wouldn't be hard to push the costs way up with some rather cheap shit. Arm peasant nations with relatively cheap anti-ship missiles, and now carriers are in a ton of danger and need to be protected by even more expensive hardware. Give them some AA that's better than 70s Soviet era tech, and a large part of the aircraft fleet becomes vulnerable, requiring more of the overpriced stealth stuff (F-22, F-35, B-2). And so on. If every peasant nation like Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc., packed some cheap anti-carrier/anti-aircraft tech, military intervention would become that much more expensive. The US hasn't been good at saving money for a long time.
|
Carriers are fine. There's scenarios where they are vulnerable to spam weaponry or whatever, but the US is hardly going to put carriers in a position where they can be taken out easily.
there are plenty of cost efficiencies that could be realized but carrier do a good enough job at what they were designed for. stuff like congress shoving through funding for the tanks that the army literally tells them it doesnt need, for example.
also, kaine advocating for building ships isnt particularly surprising considering he's from a state that, y'know, builds ships.
i agree with legal's point that us military hardware is stupid expensive. if we got in a war where we can't our sweet time and spend a billion dollars on a fighter jet, you bet we'd bother churning out cheaper shit though.
|
On November 30 2016 09:52 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 09:33 Gorsameth wrote:On November 30 2016 09:25 LegalLord wrote:On November 30 2016 09:22 Gorsameth wrote:On November 30 2016 09:16 LegalLord wrote:On November 30 2016 09:11 Gorsameth wrote:On November 30 2016 08:58 LegalLord wrote:
It really pissed me off how Obama tried to turn every shooting into an anti-gun talking point. He absolutely was being an opportunist each time and after a while I found it to be quite distasteful.
Looking at the Twitter the only thing that catches my attention is that Kaine wants even more carriers, also known as overpriced boats that wouldn't be any good against any real country. Why would the US need ships to fight real countries when it has no interest in a real war. Boots on the ground is unpopular after Iraq so the #1 military force projection America has is airstrikes. Either you make deals with other countries to use their bases (not always possible) or you use carriers. I would say its one of the more logical ships to make if you want to project America's force across the world. A superpower which isn't really equipped to fight a real war isn't much of a superpower. It's more of a scrub-basher that way. Given how much money is spent on those carriers and even more so their airplanes, they better be worth it. And if spammy cheap missiles or mines can kill them, then you can barely deploy them. Something that Russia and China are well aware of. So spending more then every other country in the world combined is not enough to guarantee the US states as a superpower if they build a carrier or 2 with it? Sorry but that is horseshit. There is plenty of super inflated defence budget left to spend on maintaining your edge with China or Russia. Heck you can probably fully build and equip a carrier group and still have a bigger budget left then China + Russia combined. The US spends more than enough, that much is true. Furthermore, if it were true that it isn't capable of fighting a real war, it wouldn't be a real superpower (and it obviously isn't true, the US is wiser than to do that). Budgets don't mean as much as you think. If it costs $5k to counter a $20m weapon, what is that $20m weapon really worth? My point is that carriers serve a real and significant purpose in the US's current force projection strategy. That they are not a 'catch all' weapon is true and they may not be worth much in a full on war with a developed nation but that is fine because that is not their purpose and the US has plenty of other means to fight and win if such a war were to break out. As for efficiency. I will take the inefficient carrier that lets me bomb the Middle East/Africa when I want to over the high tech sub that will never engage an enemy outside of mock battles with my allies. Subs are also useful for cockblocking movements by your adversaries. Nothing says "fuck off" to a fleet quite as well as a few nuclear submarines. Carriers, and naval power in general, are definitely important for the US strategy due to its geography (continental powers are far more land-based). If I had to pick the most substantial weakness of the US military though, it would be how bad it is at making war on a reasonable budget. Every single weapon the US has is obscenely overpriced, and it wouldn't be hard to push the costs way up with some rather cheap shit. Arm peasant nations with relatively cheap anti-ship missiles, and now carriers are in a ton of danger and need to be protected by even more expensive hardware. Give them some AA that's better than 70s Soviet era tech, and a large part of the aircraft fleet becomes vulnerable, requiring more of the overpriced stealth stuff (F-22, F-35, B-2). And so on. If every peasant nation like Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc., packed some cheap anti-carrier/anti-aircraft tech, military intervention would become that much more expensive. The US hasn't been good at saving money for a long time.
No argument from me there.
Probably the result of a tiny industry with little competition, lobbying and a massive budget that doesn't care about a few millions more.
|
Well, the one good thing that can be said about a lot of the US's expenditure upon expensive weapon systems is that new technologies -- particularly drone technology -- complement the expensive weapon systems very well and will function as force multipliers for the more limited expensive systems. As such, I'd expect the US military to be more cost effective in ten years than it is now.
|
So who's laughing now? #makeamericagreatagain
From the earliest days of his campaign, Donald J. Trump made keeping manufacturing jobs in the United States his signature economic issue, and the decision by Carrier, the big air-conditioner company, to move 2,000 of them from Indiana to Mexico was a tailor-made talking point for him on the stump.
On Thursday, Mr. Trump and Mike Pence, Indiana’s governor and the vice-president elect, plan to appear at Carrier’s Indianapolis plant to announce they’ve struck a deal with the company to keep a majority of the jobs in the state, according to officials with the transition team as well as Carrier.
Mr. Trump will be hard-pressed to alter the economic forces that have hammered the Rust Belt for decades, but forcing Carrier and its parent company, United Technologies, to reverse course is a powerful tactical strike that will rally his base even before he takes office.
In exchange for keeping the factory running in Indianapolis, Mr. Trump and Mr. Pence are expected to reiterate their campaign pledges to be friendlier to business by easing regulations and overhauling the corporate tax code. In addition, Mr. Trump is expected to tone down his rhetoric threatening 35 percent tariffs on companies like Carrier that shift production south of the border.
Source.
Now, I hope y'all don't miss that third paragraph that the NYT just couldn't help itself from inserting into the article. It's a perfect example of the bullshit media bias that we were railing against a few days ago. This should be a happy, positive story. Period.
|
On November 30 2016 10:08 xDaunt wrote:
Well, the one good thing that can be said about a lot of the US's expenditure upon expensive weapon systems is that new technologies -- particularly drone technology -- complement the expensive weapon systems very well and will function as force multipliers for the more limited expensive systems. As such, I'd expect the US military to be more cost effective in ten years than it is now.
I'm not a fan of drones. Among other things, they're vulnerable to the little AA weapons like manpads.
Really, the entire structure of the military industry has no incentive to lower prices and I don't think it will at any time in the near future. It's a great gravy train for a lot of people.
|
United States15275 Posts
On November 30 2016 09:52 LegalLord wrote:
If I had to pick the most substantial weakness of the US military though, it would be how bad it is at making war on a reasonable budget. Every single weapon the US has is obscenely overpriced, and it wouldn't be hard to push the costs way up with some rather cheap shit. Arm peasant nations with relatively cheap anti-ship missiles, and now carriers are in a ton of danger and need to be protected by even more expensive hardware. Give them some AA that's better than 70s Soviet era tech, and a large part of the aircraft fleet becomes vulnerable, requiring more of the overpriced stealth stuff (F-22, F-35, B-2). And so on. If every peasant nation like Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc., packed some cheap anti-carrier/anti-aircraft tech, military intervention would become that much more expensive. The US hasn't been good at saving money for a long time.
It's hard to save money when military expenditure is a business in itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
