Weapons industry

julio
atheist
Posts: 290
Joined: 2008-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Weapons industry

Worse threat than Climate Change?
[Absolutely. Kill people, one way or another!]
...
"The 10 biggest military spenders last year were: the United States (607 billion dollars), China (84.9 billion), France (65.7 billion), Britain (65.3 billion), Russia (58.6 billion), Germany (46.8 billion), Japan (46.3 billion), Italy (40.6 billion), Saudi Arabia (38.2 billion) and India (30.0 billion)."
Souce: http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48409

No gods with indirect messages to me.


Deadly Fingergun
atheist
Deadly Fingergun's picture
Posts: 237
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
julio wrote:Worse threat

julio wrote:
Worse threat than Climate Change? [Absolutely. Kill people, one way or another!]

Your logic sucks. Weapons will just sit there unless we make the choice to use them. Climate change will maul us no matter what.

 

julio wrote:
... "The 10 biggest military spenders last year were: the United States (607 billion dollars), China (84.9 billion), France (65.7 billion), Britain (65.3 billion), Russia (58.6 billion), Germany (46.8 billion), Japan (46.3 billion), Italy (40.6 billion), Saudi Arabia (38.2 billion) and India (30.0 billion)." Souce: http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48409
Nations buy weapons. Yes. Hardly news.

(Though, despite being perfectly aware of the US' military budget, it always takes my breath away to actually see the sheer magnitude of that budget.)

Weapons manufacturing and sales is not the problem. It's simply a symptom. The problem is the nature of the beast, something we might be able to change, but not easily and certainly not soon.

Big E wrote:
Clown
Why, yes, I am!


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
So France is third on the

So France is third on the list?  France?  Seriously?

 

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10588
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
As amusing as it is to watch

As amusing as it is to watch your two countries hate each other so much despite having been good friends not so long ago, do really think they've forgotten their shock at Germany's technological dominance? They're not about to let that happen to them again if they can avoid it. I'm pretty sure they've even tested more nukes than anyone else, and have a massive stockpile comparable to your own. France lost so fast because Germany had shit noone was expecting. It could have happened to anyone at the time. To their benefit, even under occupation they fought, and were a significant part of winning the war. It's even harder to fight the enemy when he's in control, and they did.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Check your history books.

Check your history books. France clearly remembered when Germany handed their asses to them a mere 22 years earlier. Hence the reason why the built the Maginot line. That and enacted mandatory firearms registration just before Germany ignored the Maginot line and instead chose to invade along the route that they normally use to invade France through the Ardennes.

 

The largest reason why France went down so quickly was because they had everything lined up behind the Maginot fortifications and Germany flanked them. Also, did I mention that Germany really likes to invade France through the Ardennes and not across the supposedly impregnable line the French built to stop them? Also, the one fort in Belgium that they did attack directly held out for almost two whole days?

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Check your history books. France clearly remembered when Germany handed their asses to them a mere 22 years earlier. Hence the reason why the built the Maginot line. That and enacted mandatory firearms registration just before Germany ignored the Maginot line and instead chose to invade along the route that they normally use to invade France through the Ardennes.

 

The largest reason why France went down so quickly was because they had everything lined up behind the Maginot fortifications and Germany flanked them. Also, did I mention that Germany really likes to invade France through the Ardennes and not across the supposedly impregnable line the French built to stop them? Also, the one fort in Belgium that they did attack directly held out for almost two whole days?

 

Didn't hurt that the Maginot Line didn't protect from border to border either - nothing like depending on incomplete, unproven defenses.

I like to mention this every time I hear about the "missile defense shield" - you know, the one that can't cover the entie country and can only hit missile that have transponders broadcasting their location?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Indeed. Also, let's not

Indeed.

 

Also, let's not forget the wall across 80% of the US/Mexico border.  Yah, that sounds like a great way to spend millions of dollars.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10588
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Yes, I was confusing the two

Yes, I was confusing the two wars a bit, but most of my post was right on target. So what if France fell quickly? Anyone would have. Or maybe you forgot what England looked like even with a massive natural trench between them and the rest of Europe? Or how far into Russia the nazi's got? Frankly, France didn't stand a chance no matter their blunder. Constantly assuming a nation is incapable of defending itself due to a loss more than 50 years ago is the height of arrogant stupidity.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Deadly Fingergun
atheist
Deadly Fingergun's picture
Posts: 237
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
I'm curious, what in the

I'm curious, what in the hell does the fact that France has a rather poor history with war have to do with their spending on weapons?

You can buy 10,000 guns even if you can't hit the side of a barn standing inside it with any of 'em.

Big E wrote:
Clown
Why, yes, I am!


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Yes, I was

Vastet wrote:
Yes, I was confusing the two wars a bit, but most of my post was right on target. So what if France fell quickly? Anyone would have. Or maybe you forgot what England looked like even with a massive natural trench between them and the rest of Europe? Or how far into Russia the nazi's got? Frankly, France didn't stand a chance no matter their blunder. Constantly assuming a nation is incapable of defending itself due to a loss more than 50 years ago is the height of arrogant stupidity.

France doesn't need to test nukes. They can simply sell them to others who will do that.

they are the "whores of nuclear power" after all.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
 It'd be interesting to

 It'd be interesting to compare these figures with how much each of these countries is spending on Green Technology. I'd look for it, but I'm too lazy.

R


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
smartypants wrote: It'd be

smartypants wrote:

 It'd be interesting to compare these figures with how much each of these countries is spending on Green Technology. I'd look for it, but I'm too lazy.

R

Reducing human population by killing, I think that's about the greenest technology we have. Also underwear briefs.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Yes, I was

Vastet wrote:
Yes, I was confusing the two wars a bit, but most of my post was right on target. So what if France fell quickly? Anyone would have. Or maybe you forgot what England looked like even with a massive natural trench between them and the rest of Europe? Or how far into Russia the nazi's got? Frankly, France didn't stand a chance no matter their blunder. Constantly assuming a nation is incapable of defending itself due to a loss more than 50 years ago is the height of arrogant stupidity.

Agreed anyone would of fallen quickly and well everyone did untill the Germans started a to sided war. The simple fact is the ussr or even russia today is just to big and to cold to be conquered for any length of time. And well the british RAF did an awesome job for how out numbered they were. That said france is more than capible of defending them selves, france is just in the wrong place.... the germans were just better not that france sucked. Hell if america was next to germany at that time america would of gotten a huge  piece cut out of it.

 

Btw Vastet you say how far into russia the nazis got that is kinda the point everytime they are invaded what do they do, retreat and what for winter and suddenly they have the upper hand. napolean nazis it makes no differance. The place is to big and to cold.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


Aristine
Aristine's picture
Posts: 13
Joined: 2009-12-14
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote: Reducing human

EXC wrote:

 

Reducing human population by killing, I think that's about the greenest technology we have. Also underwear briefs.

 




 
 

I agree. This way people like the duggars can procreate without fear of a global one child policy as called for by people like Diane Francis.

 

"I can resist anything, except temptation..."
~Wilde


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10588
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Russia really is neither too

Russia really is neither too big nor too cold to be conquered. It just requires preparation the likes of which have never been taken. Both Hitler and Napoleon were fools. Not only did they not have sufficient preparation, they opened their attacks on multiple fronts. Both were fighting in much of Europe and in North America too. Both of them had the capability to conquer Russia. Neither prepared for it, instead underestimating the Russians, making Russia the focal point for allied victory against both of them.

Also, until Stalingrad, the Russians weren't putting up much of a fight in WW2. The leaders were hiding in fear of the nazi advance. Hitler nearly pulled it off even without proper prep. But in the end his forces were overstreched, and the stalemate in Russia turned into a rout.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Russia really

Vastet wrote:
Russia really is neither too big nor too cold to be conquered. It just requires preparation the likes of which have never been taken. Both Hitler and Napoleon were fools. Not only did they not have sufficient preparation, they opened their attacks on multiple fronts. Both were fighting in much of Europe and in North America too. Both of them had the capability to conquer Russia. Neither prepared for it, instead underestimating the Russians, making Russia the focal point for allied victory against both of them. Also, until Stalingrad, the Russians weren't putting up much of a fight in WW2. The leaders were hiding in fear of the nazi advance. Hitler nearly pulled it off even without proper prep. But in the end his forces were overstreched, and the stalemate in Russia turned into a rout.

Purhaps i should refrase, russia is to big and to cold for it to be worth conquering, even if you did it would take one hell of a big army to occupy the place it is just not a reasonable thing to do. The further you invade the more  streched your troops become and the more concentrated the russians troops become the result is almost inevitable. But that said napolean retreated because he couldn't feild an army there any longer, they were starving, hitler had a slightly better time because it was easier to get supplies to the army because of the invention of the engine. But as you say his forces were to streched out witch has alot to do with the ussr's size but also because he decided that attacking the brits would be a good idea. But really my only point to that was that russia is to big and to cold for it to be reasonable to attack and expect to hold any significant amount of ground, sure maybe it can be done but it won't be worth it and most times it wil back fire and in any case it will always be to costly for a sane man to bother.

 

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3325
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
i think on the whole stalin

i think on the whole stalin just lucked out.  hitler was preparing barbarossa for like 2 years and stalin was in total denial about it, even in the face of all his commissars' frantic advice. 

there were definitely problems from the german side, one of the biggest being that the nazis focused way more on quality than quantity in weaponry.  for example, the luger was the supreme example of the gunsmith's art: like a swiss watch that kills.  it was also a helluva propaganda victory.  however, the cost and the intensity of skilled labor involved made mass production prohibitive.  not only that, it was so fucking perfectly made that it was hypersensitive to dirt and mud, making a fully-covering wooden holster with a hinged lid necessary.  the soviets, however, had no scruples about pounding shit out that would explode in a heartbeat--however, there was a lot of that shit.  it's kind of like a romero film: the humans have the intelligence and the technology but there are just too many fucking zombies.  (as someone who would have rooted for the soviets, i ask you to please not take that analogy too far.)

still, the soviets were not prepared at all, and stalin rabidly denied the possibility of any nazi breach of the molotov-ribbentrop pact until multiple reports of attacks against soviet positions reached the kremlin.  stalingrad was a brilliant fight, no doubt about it, and a helluva propaganda victory, but i think the tide was already turning due to the crazy logistics that russian conditions require. 

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen