Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The OT' started by Martyva, Aug 1, 2002.
Who was the first person to mention the dangers of a Military-Industrial Complex?
Dwight David Eisenhower
It was well before Nader, I think it was during either Eisenhower or Truman's terms in office. I am not sure of the specific person who coined the pharse.
99% sure it was Eisenhower, his previous military status made the statement stand out in my mind when I learned of them. I believe it was Eisenhower on his final speech before leaving office???
It was Ike.
I thought it was George Washington.
Yes you are correct. Our proposed budget for next year asks for over 400 billion for defense. Do think anyone heeded Ike's words?
Nah, but the Complex pays my salary, so I say keep it...
My sister-in-law went to Woodstock, dropped out, but eventually worked at Rocky Flats. Her old friends gave her a time.
Didn't former "Yippie" Jerry Rubin become an investment banker or stock broker or something (before he died). So lots of people who dropped, dropped back in BIG TIME!
i'm not sure that working for a company that was cleaning up one of our national nightmares, would qualify a dropping 'way in'. She's too special for that
Yeah, and he was run over by a truck!
Apparently his karma ran over his dogma!:righton:
After eight years of our equipment falling apart, and no money to replace it, and now we are at war. What would you propose as a reasonable budget? You want men and women put in harms way with poor compensation, old equipment, planes that are grounded for parts, etc.
Running the DoD isn't like running the corner grocery store. Freedom isn't free - figuratively or literally!
I believe that a soldier should be able to make enough money to afford a modest home, a family, and a car. I also believe that same soldier should be able to carry a rifle that isn't older than he is, he should be able to be flown into harm's way safely and that he should be able to beat any enemy that his president sends him in to fight. If you disagree, then you obviously have no respect for those defending your freedom. :soapbox:
I'm shocked that you don't see the difference between wanting to pay a soldier a proper wage, making sure that they have working weapons, training and spares, and paying for overpriced weapons systems that don't work properly until the B version is produced (while those using the A versions were taking their lives unnecessarily into danger) How much of the 400 Billion goes toward the stuff Eisenhower talked about in his "Military Industrial Complex" SPeech. Have you even read Eisenhower's "Military Industrial Complex" speech??? Please read it before criticizing comments in this thread!!!
There is a difference between not wanting to spend the money and not wanting to WASTE the money!!!
It was the military industrial complex that gave the easily jamming early version of the M-16 to the soldiers in Vietnam. That cost soldiers lives!!! How about the Patriot missle, after all the hype was brushed away the weapon system did pretty poorly in 1991, That cost soldiers lives!!! . Lets talk about the V-22 Osprey, how many soldiers have been killed trying to get that weapon system passed thru approval, that cost soldiers lives!!! . There are endless accounts of weapons systems released to soldiers before they were ready or even work. That is the most sickening, at least if someone is anti-military spending they are open about it. But when those causing the death of soldiers do it under the umbrella of "We are the defense establishment" that is much worse that what you mentioned. And in recent light of companies that have screwed over their own stock holders and workers, I would not ignore the potential for a company to be careless about if a weapon system works or kills the soldiers using it.
Will the B-2 bomber be usable if we invade Iraq. I find it more disgusting that we have to use 50 year old B-52s over and over again (don't know if the B-1B is being used) but the B-2 will probably stay safely in the hangar (perhaps it is tooo EXPENSIVE to lose in combat, yet it is listed as being usable for conventional weapons, but it will never be used in conventional combat at 1.2 Billion/each???) http://www.military.com/Resources/EQG/EQGmain?file=B2&cat=a&lev=2
To add to gcutler's list, how about weapons systems that the military says they don't need, don't want, don't work, can't afford, but get put into the budget anyway because the company building the system is in the right senator's district. Or its a really really cool toy that the senators think is just really awesome. Whether it works or not.
Okay, Okay, I was just getting home from work and in a really foul mood. I have calmed down now and I agree about the weapons systems that don't/can't work properly. We just activated a batallion of soldiers (417 to be exact) for an active duty mission for a year. It was a major amount of work for all of the full-time staff of the Army National Guard here in SLC and I am little frazzled.
I understand everyone's concern about the amount of money spent on military stuff including hardware. I feel I can criticize a little as I live the military life every day. So far in this war on terrorism, we have had two of our National Guard soldiers killed, one get his eye removed by shrapnel, and had others come under heavy fire in the Phillipines. I am not a high-school student or a naive civilian. Give me a little credit. When was the last time you were on the flight line loading weapons on a F-16 or processing pay for personnel activated to serve their country for two years away from their families and full-time jobs? When was the last time you left your family to go to the Persian Gulf to carry out your presiden's orders? I have done all of those things, and feel I can lend a little credence to the discussion.
Let me give you a little example, beyond weapons systems, on some of our costs, and you tell me if they are over the top:
We currently have to upgrade all of the PCs at every full-time employee's desk to Windows XP. MS will no longer be providing support for Windows NT after next year. The cost to the Utah National Guard is $300,000 per year for three years for the licensing. We are one of the smallest National Guards. I'd hate to see the bill for upgrading a state like Texas or California.
One of our copier contract comes due next year for leases for about 35 copiers. The cost to lease bare-bones equipment that meet our minimum needs will be about $150,000 per year. This is in addition to the $150,000 that I already spend on copier under a separate contract. Once again, we are a small organization.
The United States Postal Service (thieves) force us by law to use US Mail for express shipments, even though we can get cheaper service by FedEx. There have been three rate increases over the past 2 years. It costs our organization about $2000 to reprogram our equipment every time there is a rate change in addition to the increased postage.
This kind of stuff adds up really fast. My budget six years ago was $145,000, and it is now $247,000. I am not buying more than I used to, but equipment has gone through the roof, and we are forced by laws set forth by congress to buy certain things. Print shops that used to charge $.015 per sheet for printing are now charging over $.03 becuase we are forced by law to use the Government Printing Office. This is not the choice of DoD, but by congress. I'd prefer to go to Swift Printing down the street, but I am forced to send all volume printing to Denver to the GPO. It sucks!
I do believe that weapons must continue to be devloped, but I, like everyone else, believe that what necessarily works best isn't what is purchased. A prime example is the B-1. What a waste. Most of them have been deactivated and those that are left are on Reserve status. Why not build more B-52's. The plane flat-out works. Just because it ain't pretty doesn't mean it can still be produced.
I hope I have given some good examples. Most of us aren't working on throwing money away. Most of us live within the budget given to us by congress and do our best to serve our country. I am off my soapbox and really understand where everyone is coming from. It has been my pleasure for the past 16 years to serve in both the active-duty Air Force, the Army National Guard and as a DoD civilian.
I didn't mean to offend the military. Eisenhower had a real fear and was a professional soldier. When i was in we went from the M-1 Gerand to the political gun M-14, to the Armalite design. I think Armed Forces, of this country, have always done the best they could with what they had and like school teachers have always been underpaid. RA all the way.
No problem, we very much appreciate your actions during this time. :goodjob:
Just hate having loyalty questioned because of questioning the waste. Sometimes those with less than noble motives will use a time like this to slip things thru, we must be just as vigilant to make sure Lives and Money aren't wasted.
Sadly the MS NT problem exists for everyone. My company is doing the same thing. But since we are in the relatively profitable (at least relatively safe to slowdowns in the economy) world of medical supplies the money is there for the project. We upgraded to 2000Pro, XP would have gotten us a few more years of support by MS, but such is life.
It takes a special breed to live withing the Govt Procurement enviroment. I did some consulting for the USMC and Navy for their e-mail system and was shocked at the procurement of PCs. No standardization, in a room of 20 PCs there were 10 different Brands. And many of them were "Garage Made" by bidders so it wasn't even like you could goto the IBM or DELL or HP site and download drivers based on model #. Had to crack open the unit and inventory the devices and probably download 10 different video drivers just for one 20 person office. The On-Site tech was quite frazzled
B-1 was cancelled by Carter and the decision was reversed by Reagan. Carter justified his decision by saying a new technology was being developed that would make the B-1 obsolete. I think it's safe to say that technology was stealth.
A-10s were slated to be phased out but performed so well in Iraq they were kept on. Main reason they were going to be cancelled IMO was Air Force likes sleek fighters not dumpy looking aircraft like A-10.
One of the biggest wastes was refurbishing old Iowa class battleships. Navy didn't want them but man are they impressive looking. We mothballed them after a little more than 10 years in service. They could've built at least one more carrier for what that folly cost.
As for old equipment, I would like to ride along on a B-52 mission. I don't think many of them are younger than me.
My point? There are many reasons for waste in Defense and it's hard to point at one party or person. Even the Clinton admin approved the F-22 for production. We have Tomahawks because Carter wanted to use them on B-52s as a standoff weapon. Just opening the checkbook doesn't guarantee the money will be spent properly. In the end it's always a guy like Karl who feels the squeeze trying to do his job.