Cut foreign aid for a start, we can't keep throwing money around like it's water.

It would be extremely naive of us to imagine that new development are going to cause any change in Soviet expansionist policy... :O:

1. Be annexed by Finland
2. ??????
3. Profit!!! :yeah:

my idea:http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...oices=ml5un9qj

some other ideas: legalized drugs and prostitution, just charge extreme tax
Form the United States of North America?

Not Soviets obviously but need to stay strong as a deterrent to say "ex" soviet Putin who runs Russia, China in the future. Let our guard down and it emboldens our enemies.Must always stay on offense, ready for a fight in this world, to think "hey cold war is over so lets have a weaker military to save $$" is just naive.

Here is an idea, stop giving money to all the charity cases around the world like Haiti and various African nations.Stop the lavish travel of Obama, his wife and various officials, it adds up and would save us.Eliminate earmarks, talking all special projects not approved in the budget.Reform trade policies.etc etc etc

The obvious issue is that our government spends way too much money on BS

they need to eliminate social security completely for example (IMHO)

What did you think they were through with us?
http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/8...ec0f954661.gif

:rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:

Fistonia, damnit:stare:

If the ability to wipe out the 10 biggest Russian cities and kill two dozens of millions of Russians, and intoxicate this number again over the next decade - if that is not recognised by the Russians as a believable deterrance, than the ability to wipe out 1,000 Russian cities would not be recognised as a deterrance either.

Moscow alone has over 10 million population. Petersburg has 4,5 million, 10 more cities have between 1 and 2 million.

You do not need 2000 warheads for a nuclear deterrance. A hundred already would be enough for intimidating not only one but all possible enemies on this earth simultaneously.

Not to mention that if you want a huge military, you need to have an economy able to maintain it.

Ow right, sorry had forgotten that. :oops:

Its not the ablity to wipe out a thousand Russian cities over ten its the ability to make sure our warheads reach those ten cities. Don't forget that the Russians have a ballistic missile defense system in place (and its been in place since the 1960s). We need those warheads to saturate their defenses and reach the their targets, which are BTW the Russian ICBM sites and not their cities. We need something like one warhead for each enemy ICBM plus one for each ABM... its adds up. :03:

EDIT: Correction... we need one ICBM for each ABM not one warhead since the Soviet/Russian ABMs are area effect weapons (nuclear) they can take out several MIRVs each.

I have not ignored missile defenmce. But I wonder whether it is reasonable to assume that the Russian's existing system works so much more reliable than the american planned missile shield based in Poland, Czech republic etc . I also wonder why you invest so hilariousa mmounts of money into developeing the B-2 if it still does not make you confident that you can penetrate any air defence with that (several missiles instead of one B-2 woulöd be the mor economic solution). Next, there have been and still can be nuclear TLAMs, or comparable systems, plus SLBMs whose flight time to target does not compare to that of an ICBM, reducing their reaction time.

Next, I never believed in the ide aof sclaed nuclear exchaange between nuclear arsenals as big as the Russian and American ones. Any strike versus a taregt in the other nation hardly will be seen as a "limited" strike, but will trigger a full response. When America and Russia start to exchange nukes, you can bet your money on that they reach fast the stage when they do not target "military" goals (in closer vicinty to civil cities...), but cities, starting with the capitals Washington and Moscow.

Finally, you maybe have not understood what a deterrance is. Deterrance is not to let the enemy believe you would limit your strikes and keep one arm bound on your back. Detrrance means that you make the other believe that if he blinks you immediately will hang on his throat.

The luxury of limiting a nuclear exchange to "military targets" only (tell that a radioactive cloud wandering with the wind - we do not talk about nuclear bunker busters and mini-.nukes here, but ICBMS and SLBMS and major airdelivered nuclear bombs)...) a nation will only afford - when the enemy has no nukes at all. ;) Once both enemies have nukes, we talk about the destruction of cities from much sooner on than you maybe believe. Becasue then both believe they are both fighting nut for some abstract concept of "victory", but for mere biological, physical "survival".

Point of it all is: the threat of even just warhead coming through, already is sufficent a detrrance. No side can or will ever be able to guarantee that it can elimininate 100% of all incoming warhgeads, no matter how many or how few there are. Ands that uncertainty that always remains - that is what the balance of terror really was and is basing on.

It's not about a thousand big bangs. It is about even just one. The chance that they will lose Moscow, will make the Russians think twice. Americas will never risk a conflict when it needs to gamble over New York or Los Angeles.

You now see why I am so bitterly detemrined to deny Iran nukes, and to prevent a nuclear arms race in the Mid East, and why I am so outraged over Pakistan having been allowed nukes. Pakistan has around 50 warheads and not even intercontinental carrier systems - and already is claimed to be untouchable by many. North Korea is not even proved but suspected to have even less - and they are considered almost untouchable. It is like with a submarine in naval war. You do not need to have a sub in the vicinity ofd the enemy fleet for real - just letting the enemy think that there is a sub already forces him to massively alter and limit his actions.

We have a large military so the rest of the west doesn't have to.

You're welcome.

That said, the military is a large, but legitimate expense. Both legit from a Constitutional standpoint, and as a "public good" (some libertarians will likely argue this, and I'm cool with that). The real problem is "programatic" spending. AKA the "entitlements." Failure to massively curtail the latter means failure to tame the budget.

There were a few good ideas that just came out of the Obama admin's panel, but they don't go far enough in some areas, and do other things that are wrong. Mainly increasing the taxes to pay for it. There is a trouble here. The SSA calls SS (OASI and DI) a trust fund. We all know that it really isn't in any normal sense (like a trust fund I might set up for the kids). That said, the language implies that we get the money we put in back. Raising the cap (which is how they talk about raising the tax) means that more, or even all income above 100-whatever grand it is today (105?) will be taxed. The amount I would get BACK, however, would still be capped. Wither the "trust fund?" I'm supposed to get out what I put in, if we pay some multiple of what we do now, but only get the same "benefit" how can I get paid back? Do I get to live longer by the same multiple (there's a benefit I'd pay for, happily)?

No. They can't maintain the fiction of a trust fund if they collect higher taxes, and do not give those that pay more larger returns commensurate with the raised cap. They expose it for the ponzi scheme it is. The trouble of course is that the boom is ended, and now there are fewer workers to pay in.

I say cut benefits NOW. Yep, cut benis. Have the people collecting now paid in already? Yes, yes they did. They paid in too much, and the government THEY controlled took the excess money (SS has been over collecting for decades (ie: surplus)) and... loaned it to the USA via t-bills. Where it was spent. This is no secret. The SS surpluses have always been spent, just laundered through t-bills. Who benefitted from all that spending? The people who are now collecting SS, that's who. It was spent on programs for THEM, during their working (and voting) lifetime by people THEY elected. They are responsible.

So no, I don't think anyone has any special exemption from taking a hit, and the entitlements have to be FIRST on the chopping block, as they are the largest expense, and are not constitutionally defensible into the bargain.