Of course it is about the money just like everything else. However, The money spent on military technology advancements eventually results in that technology ending up in the civilian domain.
Military R&D has translated into the rapid advancement of civilian commercial applications that benefits not only the US but everyone else in the world, friend or foe. If you have a new technology idea and want the government to fund it you need to offer up a possible military application for the science no matter how tenuous. Your chances of getting funding increase. The GPS system started as a purely military project. The feasibility of a redundant node based distributed networking system (ie Internet) was a DARPA military project. The not so visible contributions are advances in materiel sciences, rocket sciences, computer technologies, medical advances in trauma and prosthetics , aeronautics, civilian radar networks, alternate fuel technologies. The navy is working on turning sea water into a renewable energy source for ships at sea and self-sustaining solar powered field tents. All of these technologies paid for by the military budget eventually end up in the civilian domain and as an added benefit you also end up with the most advanced and lethal military force on the planet.
Private space flights will ultimately need the approval of the government and all the various security agencies who constantly monitor and manage orbital traffic. The FAA might be involved somewhere in the approval process but they will hardly be the deciding agency. The government has paid out billions of dollars developing space related technologies for the last 60 years and today the private companies can benefit and take advantage of that accumulated knowledge base to move forward. The break out point in regards to expanding our presence in space will happen as soon as someone comes up with a plan capable of generating a profit. Profit is an extremely effective motivator that really doesn't exist within government agencies and bureaucracies. So far we have relied heavily on limitless military budget to motivate the development of computer systems, material science, high energy physics, nuclear related research, and aeronautic related research and technologies.
Exactly.Beating the crap out of someone has it's uses. International law is useless without someone willing to enforce it. And since the 3 most powerful countries on the planet did not join the ICC that organization is also impotent. Every international territorial boundary of note since the beginning of human civilization has been drawn in blood,and often more than once. Diplomacy only provides the time needed to re-arm for the next war.
IS is a weapon of mass destruction. No need for secret documents to prove it since they have quite a robust advertising and media campaign to make sure there is no doubt that they are brutal serial killers. It's seems there are a whole lot of people are just fine with standing back and letting the madness continue unabated. All IS needs to do to survive is to launch some attacks on the Israelis and these same people standing around would start proclaiming them saviors and freedom fighters.
Your assuming that IS actually gives a shit about killing their own people. And the people funding that pack of serial killers doesn't live any where near the battle field so no matter what happens they are pretty safe sitting in their 5 star hotels in Qatar and Kuwait. If the so called Arab leaders were not such a pathetic bunch of morally bankrupt , incompetent, greedy, and cowardly pussies they could have prevented IS from ever getting started in the first place.
I have found it is usually the older guys who are better at analyzing the proposed changes to determine if the new or just different technology is going to provide you with functionality that you don't already have. Making this determination is easier if you understand both the new and old technology you are replacing.
Well he can't run for re-election and that tends to let second term Presidents do things they normally wouldn't do for fear of negatively impacting the next election. The world cannot continue using the earlier Iraqi and Afghanistan wars as an excuse to completely oppose all potential military involvement in any future situation. When making the decision on whether to commit military forces each situation needs to be evaluated separately and on it's own merits. The ISIS threat needs to be destroyed using any means possible. US air support, spec ops teams, and military advisers are working with both the Iraqi and Kurdish ground forces. It's a low risk strategy for the US military and the Iraqi and Kurd ground forces are doing the lions share of the fighting and dying. After all it's their country and their people. In the past the US provided a no-fly zone to protect the Kurds from retaliation by Saddam Hussein after the 1991 Iraqi War. The people in that region are probably the only ones in the world who actually has a favorable opinion on the US. That fact alone is reason enough to try and help them now. Normally I don't think the US should get involved in any military conflicts unless US interests are realistically and directly threatened. There is currently no country in the world worth the loss of even one US soldier. However, in this particular case I am willing to set that requirement aside and support the destruction of a truly despicable group of serial killers.
A small strip of black electric tape will defeat any camera hack no matter who initiates it.
Mastering and ultimately harnessing quantum entanglement as it pertains to quantum computing and the limits we face right now go right out the window.
They need to defeat their own extremists in Xinjiang before going around helping others. They had an attack a couple weeks ago were 100 people were killed. The fact the government is willing to acknowledge 100 deaths only means the total was most likely closer to 1000.
Didn't Russia just announce a bounty for anyone who could help them identify weaknesses and track TOR users? Maybe the presentation at the Black Hat conference was cancelled because the Russians pay more?
The majority I mentioned are those who want to see the US reduce their involvement in foreign conflicts that have nothing to do with US core interests. The mayhem engulfing the Middle East and Eastern Europe is spinning out of control in part because all the warring parties know without a doubt that the US is not going to intervene militarily in these conflicts in any meaningful way. This state of affairs could actually enhance US security in the short term because as long as no one strikes the US directly like blowing up skyscrapers or bombing naval bases the US government will not have the support of it's citizens to get involved in any military conflict. We have already seen this in regards to Syria. Unfortunately sooner or later some one is going to see less US involvement and think that somehow translates to a decrease in US military capabilities and pull another 9/11 or "Pearl Harbor". After that happens they should have enough time to ponder the depths of their misjudgment before the first missile or spec ops team comes through their bedroom window.
If someone is secretly manipulating or shaping information to push a preferred outcome it first needs to be secret to have any true effects. Without the secrecy you are free to evaluate the posted information with the knowledge that someone is trying to influence your opinion by excluding certain pieces of information or posts in this particular case. If you recognize this pattern you are free to go to another source for information. Unfortunately there are far to many news outlets or websites pushing their own agendas and partisan editorial lines instead of facts. A lot of folks can not recognize fact from opinion and tend to gravitate towards sources that publish information that validates their pre-determined opinion while ignoring any information that contradicts their stated opinion. You have the far right and far left and everything in between supposedly reporting on or describing the same thing but the information they publish turns out looking like the people providing the information all live in their own little universe. Web forums are notorious echo chambers where facts tend to get in the way. "Winning" the argument comes before facts. Most popular news sources and web sources are becoming adept at using "lies of omission" to shape their stories. This allows them to state that everything they published was factually correct which in a sense would be true but the information omitted could have put a whole different slant on the argument.
It's obvious you do not have a clue about what real "censorship" is. So a website rejects posts that do not meet their basic and usually very low standards you agree to when posting there, BFD. On the other hand under real censorship the site would not even exist in the first place and if you tried to start one in some countries you would have state security knocking on your door.