Re: Russia threatens Lithuania on US missile defense

On 10 juuli, 23:53, Vladimir Makarenko <vmak...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
vello wrote:
On Jul 10, 9:51 pm, Vladimir Makarenko <vmak...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
vello wrote:
On Jul 10, 5:59 am, Vladimir Makarenko <vmak...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
vello wrote:
On Jul 9, 9:27 pm, Vladimir Makarenko <vmak...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
vello wrote:
On Jul 4, 10:28 pm, Vladimir Makarenko <vmak...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
vello wrote:
On Jul 4, 7:37 pm, Vladimir Makarenko <vmak...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
But it is amusing to see how much you guys "trust" your Nato membership.
It is IMO paranoia.
Maybe IYO. But half a world stays on it for half a century. Why not
further?
I cannot understand what you've meant to say. half of world stays on
what for half of century?
world peace stands on belief that opposite sides are serious about
protecting their members
This is exactly what made me wander: that Baltics according to you and
other supporters of anti missile are not guaranteed protection by Nato.
In other words - you don't trust Nato.
It was a very interesting insight.
But why?
Your insight is really interesting. My post was about North Atlantic
Treaty keeping world peace for 50 years - and for sure also in future.
Where you read out mistrust?
this sentiment by Martin commented by you to make me wonder:
==============
 >>>  With a major component of US
 >>> military hardware based on Lithuanian soil, a Russian attack on
 >>> Lithuania will be a direct attack on the USA. Therefore security of
 >>> the Baltic states is assured.
 >> You are right. For now, Baltic airspace is secured by NATO planes. 2-3
 >> times in a month there are airspace violations from Russian airplanes
 >> by report of our air defence. But there is one exclusion - in months
 >> US planes are on duty, not a single one  violation is detected from
 >> the very beginning of patrol flights.
 > Yep, or maybe the US command carefully choose the months when Russkies
 > are known to relax. Or flying saucers are active.
...
 > But it is amusing to see how much you guys "trust" your Nato
          > membership.
=====================
Anyway, as expected the whole thing is quietly, under honorable pretext
going away:
http://www.dawn.com/2008/06/24/int18.htm
US is not too cash rich for today so it may be not the only thing what
experienced delays or cut.
I can assure you that money involved are big for those who'd supposed to
receive them,not for Pentagon: it is noticeable but very much tolerable.
  It is more nuanced thing - Russia/Euros/Iran.
Well, but it is clear society don't want to pay the same % to military
as they did back in 1950-1991 when there was some real danger to US.
That's why US runs planes and tanks more then twenty years old.
???
Wow. Wow. Wow.
Vello, here is the news: the US military budget is already long time ago
exceeded peak size of Cold war times- doesn't matter how you measure it
- inflation adjusted or absolute.
Your data are probably from the end of Clinton times, almost a decade old.
VM.
Sole real scale is % from GDP - you don't buy a car for 1000 bucks
novadays also.
Is it so? If GDP is growing much faster than inflation as until recently
was the US case for at least 15 years, then we can have what? - Factual
growth of a particular expenditure despite its shrinking share in GDP %%.
Well I just discover I live in a country planning ww3, coz by this
logic growth of Estonian military budget is in times faster then for
US :-) If salaries of a soldiers/officers go up - and so in all
military sector, raising prices (even inflation adjusted ones) for
weaponry it in fact don't make army stronger but just more expencive.
Rough data for nuclear warheads, military ships, planes and tanks are
not classified, you can check it by yourself.
Now this is really simple as there is no magic there only numbers.

But as I understand you think that it is a false statement:

"If GDP is growing much faster than inflation as until recently
was the US case for at least 15 years, then we can have what? - Factual
growth of a particular expenditure despite its shrinking share in GDP %%. "

Btw, it is not "my" logic, it is Math.

No Vladimir. False statement was that US is putting more effort in
military then back in cold War days. A pint of beer is less then a
litre despite it might be more expencive.

Let's look at the inflation numbers and size of US military budget,
which doesn't btw include the nuke due to some weird tradition.

Inflation was since Cold war on average ~2.5% annually, the budget more
than doubled since than. Do the math. I repeat the budget of nuke
arsenal and its maintenance, R&D, etc. is a separate and not known. At
least I don't know where to look for these numbers, they maybe classified..

Vello, the only way you can prove that this budget is not bigger than
that of Cold war if you claim that Gods told you so.

Do you know that today's share of the US in the WORLD military expenses
is ~50%?

Thanks, I do not know it but I had read sources claiming that so it
may be true. US govt may exclude some expences from some line in
budget but they can't cut nukes from US military expenditures coz that
money is used for military no matter will we find that money on line
of charity or education (how much I know it is Dept of Energy). I have
no data about costs of nuke things. But fact that just a few countries
have been able to develop them is probably proof that nukes are much
more costly then planes-tanks-cannons anyone can buy or build.
Vladimir, ANY budget of any US govt department is normally year by
year bigger and bigger - it is result both inflation and real
development. So sole way how to compare nations military efforts in
different timeframes is to compare % of GDP military money is making.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Non existent VOR
    ... Budget driven by Congressional methods, ... Inflation is caused by monetary policy and the printing ... money trying to keep hourly equivalent value. ... government accountant figured out that inflation reduced the ...
    (rec.aviation.ifr)
  • Re: Bush and OReilly, in denial.
    ... and put it into a mutual fund retirement account. ... > system is not funded from the GDP, but from wages only. ... federal budget, ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: THE COUNTRY of TEXAS
    ... How about a budget that doesn't run the national debt up to 82% of GDP ... coming years -- deficits that have nothing to do with the current ... $4.8 trillion to the baseline deficits over the 2010? ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: OT our fearless leader
    ... We do know for sure that in 2009 the GDP dropped into the sewer, ... almost every year to keep up with the increase in debt. ... Is the CBO another one of those "fringe partisan sources", ... Obama's Budget Would Increase Debt by 26.3 Percent of GDP Compared to ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Lisa Benson Editorial Cartoon I Dont Get
    ... spending equate to "budget cuts"? ... Departments of Education, HHS, and other agencies. ... In the case of education or HHS, it equates to a budget cut if the ... what else besides inflation should be taken into account. ...
    (rec.arts.comics.strips)
Loading