Raptor vs Eagle

Recently, Jay Honeck posted:

Of course, in 15 years, when China (or a nuclear armed Iran) is
invading someone, I'll be probably be plenty glad we've got the
F/A-22.

Hmm. That sounds like an unlikely scenario for many reasons, not the least
of which is that in 15 years, China may be building those for us just as
they're building some of Boeing's fleet, now. Seriously, if we haven't
figured out how to peacefully resolve disputes with civilized nations by
then, the Raptor isn't likely to be of much help.

Lyndon Johnson tried to have both "guns and butter" (Viet Nam and
Apollo) -- and started our long, death spiral of deficit spending.

NASA's budget is rather insignificant compared with *any* military
spending. Why concentrate on the pennies while wasting the megabucks? And,
one of the most wasteful types of military spending is to build systems
for which there is no application. We did that in Viet Nam, and we're
still doing that today. I really can't see the Raptor, or even F15s for
that matter, being challenged by any real-world "enemy".

Just look at the recently passed transportation bill to see the
ultimate example of government waste and stupidity. Let's hope a
future Congress can do something about the problem -- the guys and
gals that are there now have shown that they clearly have no clue.

Jay... "they" are "us". We middle-aged citizens are the ones in the
driver's seat. And, from what I can see, we're not doing so hot at
driving. Or even thinking about what direction we should be driving. So,
instead, we run in circles like chickens missing our heads, enacting piles
of pointless legislation and hoping that no one with any power objects.

Neil

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 16:02:47 GMT, Neil Gould wrote:

Of course, in 15 years, when China (or a nuclear armed Iran) is
invading someone, I'll be probably be plenty glad we've got the
F/A-22.

Hmm. That sounds like an unlikely scenario for many reasons, not the least
of which is that in 15 years, China may be building those for us just as
they're building some of Boeing's fleet, now. Seriously, if we haven't
figured out how to peacefully resolve disputes with civilized nations by
then, the Raptor isn't likely to be of much help.

and China has no need to attack the US. China only has to wait, time is on
their side. they will (and already are) outnumber the US.

#m

--
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed,
most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we
come in; we're computer professionals. We cause accidents.
-- Nathaniel Borenstein

Martin Hotze wrote:
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 16:02:47 GMT, Neil Gould wrote:

and China has no need to attack the US. China only has to wait, time is on
their side. they will (and already are) outnumber the US.


The issue is Taiwan. In principle it's similar to East and West Germany
in that everyone would like reunification but on somewhat opposite
terms. The Taiwanese would prefer to wait for the Communists to
liberalize more, while the Communists see it as a matter of national
sovereignty.

The key here is time. If the PLA can land large numbers of troops on
Taiwan, they win. If they can't, the mainland government will go up in
flames. So an invasion needs to be a pretty sure thing which requires
high force superiority. The longer it takes to get across, the more US
reinforcements arrive and the harder the job gets.

Every F-22 we have forces the Chinese to buy/build 5-10 more
conventional fighters, which takes time and money. The longer it takes
for the PLA to achieve sufficient superiority, the more time everyone
has to find a political solution.

I can understan where resentment of the US comes from and it's not
entirely misplaced. But anyone who thinks a world where the current
Chinese leadership will produce a net increase in human rights is in
for a real nasty surprise.

-cwk.

Every F-22 we have forces the Chinese to buy/build 5-10 more
conventional fighters, which takes time and money. The longer it takes
for the PLA to achieve sufficient superiority, the more time everyone
has to find a political solution.

.... and the weaker one side gets w.r.t the other. So it's not about
finding a (political) solution, it's politics to enourage one solution
over another.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Lyndon Johnson tried to have both "guns and butter" (Viet Nam and
Apollo) -- and started our long, death spiral of deficit spending.

NASA's budget is rather insignificant compared with *any* military
spending. Why concentrate on the pennies while wasting the megabucks?

Guess you weren't around during the heady Apollo days, eh? NASA's budget
was hardly insignificant when we were building moonships.

Nowadays, of course, you are correct.

L.B.Johnson tried to do all sorts of things besides NASA on the "butter"
side of the budget, including "The War On Poverty" and "The Great
Society" -- both of which squandered trillions and failed to do anything but
make entire segments of our society utterly dependent upon the government
teat.

Which was, of course, the ultimate goal -- but that's another thread.

Of course, when he tried to do all these things AND Apollo AND Viet Nam,
something had to give.

In the end, we lost Mars, and possibly the future of the human race. It's
very sad, and future generations will probably look back on the time
immediately following the moon landings as a bizarre, anti-exploration
backlash, not unlike what the Islamo-Fascists are trying to impose on the
world today.

Jay... "they" are "us". We middle-aged citizens are the ones in the
driver's seat. And, from what I can see, we're not doing so hot at
driving. Or even thinking about what direction we should be driving. So,
instead, we run in circles like chickens missing our heads, enacting piles
of pointless legislation and hoping that no one with any power objects.

True enough, but look at our choices! My God, we've got the conservatives
controlling the Federal Government, which should virtually assure a balanced
budget and fiscal restraint -- something I have supported my entire adult
life. Instead we've got unfettered pork-barrel spending, on an almost
universal scale. There isn't a county in America that isn't receiving some
sort of Federal payola in the current budget, and it's disgusting.

And the loyal opposition presents absolutely no alternative. If anything,
the situation would be frighteningly worse, if the tables were turned. I
can't imagine what the deficit would be if the Democrats were to ever
control both houses of congress, and the presidency. It boggles the mind.

No, I'm afraid we are screwed until the Libertarians figure out how to
present a politically viable candidate. It will be a race to see if that
will happen before the next revolution.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Recently, Jay Honeck posted:

Lyndon Johnson tried to have both "guns and butter" (Viet Nam and
Apollo) -- and started our long, death spiral of deficit spending.

NASA's budget is rather insignificant compared with *any* military
spending. Why concentrate on the pennies while wasting the megabucks?

Guess you weren't around during the heady Apollo days, eh? NASA's
budget was hardly insignificant when we were building moonships.

I was an adult before we landed on the moon, so I remember those days
pretty well... ;-)

Those days were in the midst of the war in Viet Nam and the arms race
w/the Soviet Union. AIRC we weren't outspending those involvements to get
to the moon.

Of course, when he tried to do all these things AND Apollo AND Viet
Nam, something had to give.

We were spending big bucks on many other military projects that were not
deployed in Viet Nam. What do you think cost us more; the Apollo program,
or the ICBMs, nuclear subs and Polaris programs during that time span?

Jay... "they" are "us". We middle-aged citizens are the ones in the
driver's seat. And, from what I can see, we're not doing so hot at
driving. Or even thinking about what direction we should be driving.
So, instead, we run in circles like chickens missing our heads,
enacting piles of pointless legislation and hoping that no one with
any power objects.

True enough, but look at our choices! My God, we've got the
conservatives controlling the Federal Government, which should
virtually assure a balanced budget and fiscal restraint -- something
I have supported my entire adult life.

The problem is, those controlling the Federal Government are not
conservatives, regardless of what label they assign to themselves. I tend
to go by what people do, rather than what they say. And, what they are
doing is about as far from conservative as one can get. I think they get
away with it in part because people are satisfied to believe that they are
what they call themselves.

And the loyal opposition presents absolutely no alternative. If
anything, the situation would be frighteningly worse, if the tables
were turned. I can't imagine what the deficit would be if the
Democrats were to ever control both houses of congress, and the
presidency. It boggles the mind.

The only real-world examples I recall would call this notion into
question. What does appear to happen is that the focus of the spending
shifts, but overall, the amount of spending doesn't seem to change much.

Neil

Jay Honeck opined


No, I'm afraid we are screwed until the Libertarians figure out how to
present a politically viable candidate. It will be a race to see if that
will happen before the next revolution.

We're screwed then... Libertarians are philosophically against buying votes
using taxpayer money.



-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?