Article

2008-06-11 India-Pakistan

Indian Govt hints at doubling defence expenditure

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by john frum 2008-06-11 00:00|| || Front Page|| [6 views ] Top

#1 Current US defense spending is also 3% of GDP, while 4% is being urged. In comparision, the United states spent 7.5% of GDP during the Cold War.

Posted by Ptah">Ptah 2008-06-11 09:27|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2008-06-11 09:27|| Front Page Top

#2 #1 Current US defense spending is also 3% of GDP, while 4% is being urged. In comparision, the United states spent 7.5% of GDP during the Cold War. Posted by: Ptah 2008-06-11 09:27

Yes, and we won the Cold War because Russia, who was spending almost 15% of its GDP couldn't produce either the quantity or quality of weapons necessary to confront the US. We should still be spending 4% or more of our GDP on the military, for the simple reason that the world is a hostile place, and we need to be prepared for whatever happens. Unfortunately, a major party in our government doesn't believe we need weapons - that we can talk our way through anything. Roosevelt's words are applicable here - "Speak softly, but carry a big stick". The Democrats have allowed our "stick" to be shortened, considerably.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2008-06-11 15:11|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2008-06-11 15:11|| Front Page Top

#3 I'm not sure we need to spend more money, but we sure need to spend more intelligently. F-22s, DDG1000s, LCS and all the other cold war style nation-state warfare weapons are not the highest and best use of limited resources.

My only regret is that Gates doesn't get to stay around a lot longer. He really seems to be shaking things up the right way, which is a lot more than I ever expected from career CIA.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-06-11 15:23|| 2008-06-11 15:23|| Front Page Top

#4 NS - I was envisioning an expansion of combat forces, rather than just a bunch of new hardware. We need several additional divisions, so we can fight on as many fronts as A-Q and the rest of the islamonutz choose, and still have enough reserves to spell our fighting forces when they become exhausted. Weaponry is fine, but if you don't have trigger-pullers, it's useless.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2008-06-11 16:22|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2008-06-11 16:22|| Front Page Top

#5 Agree completely. This is a war of boots on the ground. That's where we should be spending the money. Maybe even give the rifleman a weapon that's not a half century old, too.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-06-11 17:08|| 2008-06-11 17:08|| Front Page Top

#6 I will probably get flamed for saying this but the M-16 design as modified over the past 30 years is still functional and acceptable. What needs to be changed is the caliber in use : 5.56mm is just too small, has bullets that are too lightweight, and is too short-ranged for today's combat. Way too many confirmed reports of having to hit the enemy with 3 or 4 rounds to do a takedown. The caliber can easily be bumped up to a 6.8mm or 6.5 Grendel, thereby retaining the lower receivers and all the muscle memory and training associated with them. Just replace the upper receivers, the magazines and the ammo itself. And the changeover could be done for less than the cost of a single DDG1000. Plus the leftover 5.56mm ammo could be sent back to the States to be linked and then used in the SAWs presently issued. Within a couple of years, all new SAWs would have to be in the new caliber but the SAW in 5.56mm is a very effective weapon right now.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2008-06-11 17:34|| 2008-06-11 17:34|| Front Page Top

#7 the M-16 design as modified over the past 30 years is still functional and acceptable.

The same could be said for the F-15 and the DDG-51. I do think a variety of weapons for the infantryman is advisable. And a far lower maintenance device than the M-16 could be developed. It would have been if Generals had to use it daily.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-06-11 17:56|| 2008-06-11 17:56|| Front Page Top

23:35 Iblis
23:26 Slolugum Tojo8008
23:10 FOTSGreg
22:59 tu3031
22:51 DMFD
22:49 Chinegum McGurque5166
22:32 Gullible Traveler
22:28 Gullible Traveler
22:27 ed
22:18 Chaviter the Wicked aka Broadhead6
22:12 Gullible Traveler
22:03 Harcourt Jush7795
21:50 badanov
21:44 Threse Ghibelline5495
21:40 Clereling Lumplump3369
21:36 Skunky Glins 5***
21:24 Eric Jablow
21:23 Fred
21:07 Frank G
20:53 Jack Murtha
20:46 OldSpook
20:41 JosephMendiola
20:29 Nimble Spemble
20:25 phil_b