Military Grounds Stealth Bomber Fleet 430
Ponca City, We Love You writes "America's entire B-2 stealth bomber fleet, which has played a crucial part in all major US conflicts since 1989, has been grounded after one of the jets crashed near a military base in Guam. The crash — the first involving the B-2 — was the most expensive single aircraft accident in history. (The planes cost $1.2B each.) Officials assume the crash was caused by either mechanical failure or human error, but have grounded all B-2s to ensure there is not some fundamental fault developing in the 21-strong fleet. The crash occurred Saturday morning local time as the B-2 was taking off from Andersen Air Force base on Guam, a US territory south of Japan. An Air Force spokesman said, 'The cause of crash is unknown, pending an investigation. The pilots had ejected safely — no serious injuries. One is mobile, one is still in the hospital under observation.'"
Please mod me down (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I hate you all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Crash (Score:5, Funny)
Stealth? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's obvious! (Score:2)
Besides, on a more serious note, I don't think the status of the fleet matters too much, it's a bomber at the end of the day and as far as I'm aware, the US doesn't need to do any bombing that requires a stealth approach at the moment. Any regime counting on doing something nasty that would require such a stealth bombing response by the US might just find itself
Re: (Score:2)
What tells you that it actually matters? Maybe the B2 isn't state-of-the-art anymore, and the US just doesn't care that much about the secrecy of this "archaic" plane?
Besides, even if you know how many B2's might be flying, there's no way you can tell where they are until it's too late. I've read they even have kamikaze units now...
Re:Stealth? (Score:5, Funny)
Apparently they're doing their training out near Guam...
Re:Stealth? (Score:5, Informative)
When it comes to US military aircraft in general, they typically last for a long time. "State of the art" might be somewhat of an understatement if such a thing is possible due to crazy amounts of military spending and overall lack of many contesting forces in the skies even over the long term.
The F-15 Strike Eagle rolled out in 1989, same year as the B-2; it remains an advanced "Air Superiority" fighter and it's planned to be in service until 2025.
The F-14 Tomcat was just retired, after 30+ years in service.
The A-10 Thunderbolt II (or "Warthog"), 1977, still in service (brief retirement).
The F-4 Phantom went into production in 1960, ended in 1981, but the "Wild Weasel" variant was used even in the Gulf War. That's over 35 years, the longest of US jet aircraft.
And dipping slightly out of theme, the UH-1 Huey was introduced in 1959. Though the Blackhawk replaced it, they are still occasionally dusted off for missions.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Remember the BUFFs! (Score:3, Informative)
The F-4 Phantom went into production in 1960, ended in 1981, but the "Wild Weasel" variant was used even in the Gulf War. That's over 35 years, the longest of US jet aircraft.
The B-52 [wikipedia.org] will reach 53 years of operational service this June. This type has flown since the avionics used vacuum tubes. It is expected to remain in service until 2040!
Re:Stealth? (Score:5, Funny)
Hold on, I think you dropped something. Looks like your sense of humor. Here. Try not to lose it again, you might need it around here.
Ummm, why wouldn't they? (Score:5, Insightful)
You also have to remember that the planes aren't being destroyed or anything, just taken out of operation until they do a review. In the event of an emergency, they could be put right back in service. Also, the B2 isn't untrackable, it is just very hard to see on radar. It isn't invisible or anything. Any nation with reasonable satellite intelligence can easily keep watch on the bases (or maybe just base, they used to only fly out of Whiteman, not sure if that's still true) where they fly from and tell when they leave.
The B2 is a stealth jet, and there certainly are some things about it that are classified, but it isn't as though it is some big secret anymore. You can go and see them at air shows and such. It generally isn't even secret what they are being used for. They are just high altitude bombers for whatever conflict the US happens to be in. They are only special in that they are extremely difficult to track on radar (and thus to get a missile to lock on) and that they have a truly world-wide range with refueling (and like a 6000 knot range even without).
Re:Ummm, why wouldn't they? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
According to this story [telegraph.co.uk], you can use the path disruption caused by stealthy aircraft flying through areas covered by mobile phone masts and fix the aircraft's position to within 10m or so.
Irrelevant. You're missing the point. Pretty hard to guide a SAM using that technique. The point of stealth isn't to keep people from knowing it's there (the explosions of the bombs are a dead giveaway), but to make it nigh-impossible to shoot down.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stealth? (Score:4, Informative)
"See? See what happens when you force us to fly 30-year-old fighter aircraft? The defense of the nation is compromised because we can't afford new aircraft, and maintenance of the old aircraft uses up our entire budget. We need money NOW to buy NEW aircraft that will be more capable and cheaper in the long run to maintain."
And they have a point. Many of you may double-take when you see the price tag of new fighters or bombers, but let me tell you: The cost of the airplane is matched at least bi-annually by fuel, munitions, and maintenance costs. The biggest one is maintenance. One example is the F-16. It is small cheap, relatively simple, and it only has one engine.
A base flying around 18 F-16's will require manning of around 800 well-paid, full-time personnel (~$122,000 per day).
JP-8 fuel is around $3/gallon, and if you fly 3 sorties of 6 aircraft each, with wing tanks, that's about 3*6*2000*$3=$54,000 worth of fuel PER DAY, 5 or 6 days per week.
The regularly-scheduled phase tear-downs probably cost well into the millions in terms of parts alone.
Add to this the infrastructure (the base itself, heat, vehicles, electricity, support facilities like RADAR, comm, etc).
What I'm saying is that aircraft maintenance is a spendy affair. The cost of the actual aircraft makes up only a small portion of the air forces expenditures.
This relates to your question in a roundabout way. The reason that it's not secret is that the air force is looking for new aircraft. The B-2 fleet is older than many slashdotters. They are INCREDIBLY labor-intensive to maintain. The new F-22 can take over many of the original roles of the B-2, yet congress is only funding a handful of new aircraft.
The B-2 is a gorgeous machine, but we need to move to a more nimble, adaptable flight platform. Times change. We don't need to penetrate deep into soviet airspace to deliver massive quantities of nuclear ordnance anymore. We need aircraft that can be based out of forward operating locations, load up and scramble quickly, and change their mission in-flight and without compromising the aircraft or the crew. It also helps if the aircraft can fit into hardened hangars at the FOB. The F-22 fits the bill perfectly. The B-2 only flies out of its 2 bases for any mission. Yes, that's right- For a b-2 to fly a mission over Afghanistan, it takes off from Missouri, flies all the way there (subsonic), and returns to Missouri. The missions can take 24-36 hours. There are beds in the cockpit for a relief crew.
That is why this is public. That, and everyone would know anyways. It's hard to keep a crash like this secret- You know, a huge airplane crashing in front of a bunch of people.
-b
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We can do much more with a modern aircraft than with our aging F-15C/D / F-16C fleet. The F-16 was intended to be basically a 'throw-away' aircraft; when it was introduced, not many people liked it, and it seemed do
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Stealth? (Score:4, Interesting)
Possibly funny story: when the FAA came out with the first generation of the Aircraft Situation Display (since superceded by the amazingly similar Traffic Situation Display), one of the filters available when selecting flights to display was "aircraft type". That lasted for a while, and then somebody giving a tour to some Air Force generals decided to impress them with the Agency's technowizardry and said "Wanna see where all your B52's are?" (This was almost 20 years ago--before the B2--and the B1's never go anywhere.) He made a couple entries on a keyboard and all the little airplane silhouettes dropped off except the B52's over the continental U.S. The generals promptly crapped themselves, and soon thereafter the FAA got a phone call from somebody important, and since then it's a little harder to track the bombers and the fighters. But not very hard.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
$9 000 of fuel per second * 60 seconds per minute * 1440 minutes per day = $777 600 000 of fuel per day. Per plane.
One of these numbers has to be wrong.
Re:Stealth? (Score:5, Funny)
$9 000 of fuel per second * 60 seconds per minute * 1440 minutes per day = $777 600 000 of fuel per day. Per plane.
One of these numbers has to be wrong.
Math (Score:5, Informative)
Which is pretty comparable to commercial 4 engine passenger and cargo jets.
Oh -- that means it carries 20 tons at less than 5 gallons per ton-mile.
A 22 mpg pickup with 3/4 ton load is 29 gal/ton-mile.
A Prius at 45 mpg and an 500 lb load (4 pax) is 11 gal/ton-mile.
I don't think they make a Stealth Prius yet.
Re:Math (Score:4, Informative)
OK. I'm confused. For the prius 11gal/ton-mile seems way off. I work it as : 45 mile/gallon -> 1/45 gallon/mile. divide that by 0.25 tons to get 4/45 gallon/ton-mile, right? Or 0.088 gal/ton-mile?
Or is this wrong (no coffee yet this AM)? Is there another way to do this that gives the numbers you cite.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Math (Score:4, Funny)
Oh and BTW 4 passengers = 500 pounds? Not in America, unless perhaps you mean Mom and Dad and their newborn twins.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For most people, the rear seats in a Prius are as useful as the rear seats in a Porsche Carrera - yes, you can call it a 4 seater, but two of those seats are really just convenient places to put groceries.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Does the entire military fleet really run off of JP-8? I would think that the large transport aircraft that are based on the 707, DC-10 and similar airframes would run off of Jet-A like their civilian badged counterparts.
This is just out of curiosity, not a flame.
With the exception of a few additives (anti icing, antistatic, anti corrosive) JP-8 and Jet-A are essentially the same thing, and with the exception of the odd aircraft type here or there with bizarre needs, basically the whole air fleet runs JP-8. But that's just the start. The interesting thing is that when I say "entire military fleet", I'm not just talking about aircraft, I'm talking about all combat deployed vehicles. JP-8 in planes, JP-8 in helicopters, JP-8 in CUCV's, JP-8 in tanks, JP-8 in APCs...
Navy Jets (Score:3, Informative)
Bzzzzt. Wrong. Thank you for playing.
F-18 (fighter)
EA-6 (Electronic warfare)
AV-8 (Attack/Fighter)
S-3 Viking (ASW)
Now, before you go all "the Harrier is a Marine Corps aircraft" on me, the Harrier is deployed on U.S. Navy commanded assets like the Bonney Dick, and the Corps is part of the DON.
Re:Stealth? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
See some info here [fas.org] on the proposed B-3.
Re:Stealth? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Of course this probably isn't really a huge problem for two reasons: firstly, Australia is an ally [wikipedia.org] of the US, and secondly, Jindalee is an
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Stealth? (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, I believe you meant "This is not a good development for the US." The rest of us think being able to detect your stealth bombers is actually a good thing since it decreases the risk of your leaders deciding to "liberate" us for one reason or another (I'm in northern europe so this is unlikely but it is still nice to have some way of detecting possible threats).
/Mikael
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is this something they teach in schools in the US? I find it bewildering that so many people from that country have this extraordinarily unbalanced view of WWII.
Had the UK gone turtle we'd have survived fine without the US. Had the USSR not had US materials/equipment they'd maybe have lost 25m men not just the 20m they did lose.
If it weren't for the US, the Germans would still have lost the war. Had America joined the war sooner, it may have been over quicker. Instead the UK had to bankrupt the world's larg
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A plurality of nations of equal military strengh would lead to WWIII in short order, unless you think something basic about people has changed in the last 60 years.
Brian
Re:Stealth? (Score:5, Insightful)
The US was key to victory in the Pacific theatre (Europeans tend to forget that half of the war). Without the US entering the war, likely large portions of China, Indochina (including large chunks of the British Empire), the Pacific islands, and possibly even Australia would've become part of the Empire of Japan. The Russians didn't want to get involved in that side of the war, even signing a non-aggression pact with the Japanese. The US had to beg and plead with them to get them to even declare war on Japan following the atomic bombings (giving up portions of Korea and Indochina to Soviet influence as a result).
You're barking up the wrong tree. The US doesn't use its military to apply imperialistic pressure. The military is used sparingly (Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Kuwait, Somalia, Iraq - hardly an empire). The vast majority of any US imperialistic influence comes from using its economic might. The sooner you recognized this, the sooner you'd become more effective at combating US influence. Instead you're wasting your time complaining about and belittling US military power (probably because it better fits the Evil stereotype you wish to believe), while the its true power and influence remains uncontested. China has realized this and is acting accordingly (some would say brilliantly); many who pushed for a unified EU economy understood this. The Soviets did not fully grasp this, tried to counter the US militarily, and lost the Cold War as a result; you appear to be following in their footsteps.Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They might have introduced a communist style government across much of Europe, but many of the people fighting the Germans supported that viewpoint anyway. The regimes would quickly have destablised and changed.
Until Gorbechev, communist regimes weren't allowed to destabilize and change. If they did, the Soviet Union would invade your country and rid it of counterrevolutionaries. Czechoslovakia learned this lesson the hard way.
There's a good chance that the Benelux countries, Scandinavia and France would all have worked out much as they have anyway, as the Russians would have had no reason to go beyond German borders anyway (and by the time Berlin fell the UK along with armies from those countries would've forced a second front irrespective of US involvement).
I think you severely underestimate Stalin. Stalin was no better than Hitler, and was doing his part to expand Soviet control not only after, but even before the war. If he had the ability to opportunistically take advantage of a weakened western Europe, the miserable failure and ultimat
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not on about who was better (and I recognize you're not, either), but you may be making my point - and you have a few inaccuracies.
The Japanese won a moral and military victory over the British Navy in the Pacific before the US involvement. Wish I could remember the names of those ships lost or the Japanese admiral who devised the plan. Point is, the east colonies we
Re:Stealth? (Score:5, Funny)
http://www.bugimus.com/stealth/b2_refuel02.jpg [bugimus.com]
No Bling for the Stealth-Guy (Score:4, Funny)
>Not just overclocking, the latest drivers support SLI too.
Man, that hood ornament must really fuck up the radar cross section.
Re:Stealth? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Stealth? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Stealth? (Score:5, Insightful)
One of which is:
"We already have the means to travel among the stars, but these technologies are locked up in black projects and it would take an act of God to ever get them out to benefit humanity..... anything you can imagine we already know how to do."
I find it really hard to believe this.. but this is coming from someone with a huge reputation and know-how. I guess I should try to pick up an 'I want to believe poster' somewhere.
But you can be sure something is available which is not visible for the general public. Why can you be sure?
They've retired the SR71 Blackbird, supposedly because 'we now have satellites'. The thing is a) satellites are not always over the location you're interested in at the correct time. and b) everyone can determine the orbit of the satellite and hide under a camel or two if the thing flies over.
I would estimate the chance that they solely depend on satellites now to be small. But I'm not an expert in any of these fields, so do not take my word for it.
Re:Stealth? (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/sr71.htm [fighter-planes.com]
"The SR-71 entered service in 1968 and was retired in 1990, but in 1994 the US Congress directed that the SR-71 should be re-instated to operational readiness and deployed to meet the need for a broad area coverage reconnaissance platform. The aircraft were brought out of retirement and two aircraft were mission ready by the third quarter of 1995. "
NASA also owns and operates two SR-71's still to this day for scientific testing.
O really? (Score:2)
Re:O really? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:O really? (Score:5, Funny)
More information (Score:2, Informative)
Fleet is 20 years old... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There are only 20 after this crash. They only built 21 operational B-2s.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The key part of his phrase was "...and makes it safe for the commerce of all." Unless the American Navy is impressing [wikipedia.org] foreigners, the situations are entirely different.
satellite debris? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:satellite debris? (Score:4, Funny)
Atlantic insight (Score:5, Interesting)
So who are these guys?
Re:Atlantic insight - AKA bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
Marginal Cost (Score:3, Informative)
Sometimes I wonder how much it would cost to build some more B52s. It's an ancient aircraft, but it does the job.
Re:Marginal Cost (Score:5, Informative)
The only reason there are B52 still in service is because they built over 1000 of them orginally. It's not a particularyly good aircraft (maintenance wise), but by the shear number of airframes and spare parts it continues to serve.
A B-52 replacement would only need to satisfy a "dump truck" roll. There are plenty of modern airframes that could be modified to fill that role at a considerably cheaper cost than keeping the B52's flying.
Re:Marginal Cost (Score:5, Informative)
Re maintenance: O RLY? The B-52 fleet has over 95% readiness rate, because they are a well-understood problem. The B-1 and B-2 have a far lower rate, on the order of 50 to 60%, because they are more complex and less mature (can't get more mature than a 50-year-old aircraft). Plus the '52 is easier to stick new ECM tech into, because the original ECM was so huge that there are nice big ECM bays in the aircraft, and more room equals more room for the ground crew to work; compare working on a stuffed microATX case versus a sparsely-populated full-tower ATX.
Don't get me wrong, the Buffasaurus has its problems, but it's not as bad as you think.
Re:Marginal Cost (Score:5, Interesting)
It is as bad as I think because I've worked on all three bombers. The B-52 is robust much in the way an old pick-up truck is, things work because they're old school electronics. The only problem is that they're just like working on an old truck. If you need a replacement part alot of the time it meens a trip to the junk yard. I also got real sick real quick trying to trace down wiring problems on 50 year old wire bundles that are not necessarily wired the same on every aircraft. Of course while the newer digital aircraft are easier to fix, they can be nightmares when things don't show up on the diagnostics or don't hard break but fail erratically. That'll even have the engineers scraching their heads. Space wise I've only run into a few times where things were too cramped to work on. Typically of things that I'm sure some dumb ass design engineer said "They'll never need to get to that the plane is only going to be used for 20 years then replaced" Even the "brand new" B2 is over twenty years old
To say the B-52 has extra space is an understatement since most electronics these days are hundreth the size they were in the sixties, but again most of the Buff's problems are not lack of space or the inability to be upgraded, it's just the simple fact they are freakin ancient.
With the new weapon systems & munitions you don't need a specialized military aircraft to deliver them anymore. You just need something reliable that has a long endurance and can fly high.
My ideal B-52 replacement would be a B-747-8, (New Boeing 747 model coming out out). It's a well vetted design, with commonly available off the shelf commercial parts. It could carry 105,000lbs of cargo (bombs) and a full load of fuel with an 8000 mile range. For those keeping count that's 210 Mk 82 bombs compared to the B-52's 51. Park two or three of those in a race track pattern at high altitude along with two extra flight crews each and you could keep them up there 24/7. Throw in a little air refueling and they'd stay on station until either they ran out of bombs or out of hot pockets and little debbies, which ever comes first.
About a decade off (Score:3, Informative)
This statement is incorrect by about ten years. The B-2 didn't make it's combat debut until 1999 during the Kosovo war.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:About a decade off (Score:4, Informative)
I suspect you're thinking of the F117, which *was* heavily involved in Desert Storm.
Crashes will happen... (Score:5, Interesting)
In this case no one died, and the situation doesn't call for any immediate use of that plane so it's no big issue that the fleet is grounded.
It's also important to consider that much of the technology that is developed for military aircraft will find its way into civilian aircraft in one way or another. Fly-by-wire, composite materials, titanium details etc. are all a result from the military development. And if the accidents happens with military aircraft where there usually is an ejection seat available it also means that the risk of killing a lot of people is decreased. OK, the ejection seat can fail, it can eject at the wrong moment or the plane can crash into a bad position and kill people. But if a flaw with a design feature can be found on such an aircraft and not be put into the next generation of passenger super-aircraft it can mean a lot.
Of course it's bad that an expensive aircraft crashes, but it's still just money - and essentially the money is already paid and has already looped through the system a few times since. Leading edge tech is always expensive, but usually there are a lot of spinoffs coming through. Otherwise we would still be using artificial limbs using wood and hooks instead of carbon fiber structures, servo motors and computers for our handicapped. (OK, not everyone gets it but its coming through)
Then you may ask what the use there is for a B2 bomber in the end. It is useful in some cases, but the original intent spurned from the cold war is actually no longer there. It sure is a long way better at what it is designed for than the B52, but the B2 is a highly specialized craft while the B52 actually has found some other secondary uses too, which I suspect that the B2 will never achieve. And don't forget that the stealth aircraft business is always a developing part - which means that as soon as someone is able to spot the B2 as easy as a B52 then it will effectively be as obsolete as the B52 - or actually even worse. So in that case the B2 has to be replaced with something new. And I suspect that such work is already in progress regardless of what is said.
As for future military aircraft there is a high probability that they will be unmanned weapons carriers that gets updates from remote systems while still being able to function mostly autonomous. Such solutions will be cheaper per unit and still being able to pack a considerable punch. The disadvantage with such systems is that the picture sometimes changes by the minute in a battle and that means that they can end up doing the completely wrong thing. "Friendly fire - isn't". Of course - humans can also do that mistake so it's no real safeguard to have manned aircraft.
But in all - in today's world the use for heavy weapons is very limited since most conflicts of today are no longer on the scale of nations but reduced to conflicts within nations or even small groups as terrorists and using a bomber in such situations is like using a sledge to eradicate cockroaches in a kitchen. The collateral damage will be too great. And it doesn't matter how great an army you have if you don't have the information to use that army. Failure to get the correct intelligence about your enemy is just leading to overall failure.
not the most expensive aircraft accident in histor (Score:5, Informative)
Re:not the most expensive aircraft accident in his (Score:3, Informative)
First off (Score:2)
question ... (Score:4, Funny)
2.1 Billion ! (Score:4, Informative)
Someone else pointed out that the marginal cost is lower, but the cost of starting up the production line again might even make it higher.
But if they only crash one ever 10 years, then we can probably hold out until the fully robitized versions designed and built in Bangladesh (or somewhere) get cheap...
Dear insane military-industrial complex (Score:5, Funny)
We lost one of your ultra-secret, 1.2 billion dollar stealth planes on a routine mission in the Pacific. The nation was wondering if you would consider replacing this one for free. We've given you just about all the extra money we had saved up for years and years, and we've taken out serious loans to be able to pay for increasingly flamboyant and unnecessary toys. I'm only asking for this freebie because it is getting more and more difficult to convince people that we really need to be spending money on weapons like this when an insurgent army can bring us to our knees in the middle of Iraq. Plus, people are starting to wonder if 1.2 billion dollars would be better spent teaching more intelligence analysts how to speak Arabic, Urdu, and Pashto, and I really think that 1.2 billion would go a long way toward helping us really fight terrorism.
When you crash a B-2 bomber... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:No biggie (Score:5, Informative)
Huge Military Budget = Declining Empire (Score:4, Insightful)
A classic sign of a declining empire is a massive surge in military spending. During the rise of an empire, many countries will voluntarily join the empire because it is in their own economic interest to do so. As the empire ages, satisfaction with the empire in outlying states begins to decline. The dominant power makes increasing economic demands on these outlying states, while providing decreasing benefits to them. In order to quell the dissatisfaction, the dominant power needs to use increasing amounts of force to preserve imperial power. The increased military spending becomes a huge economic burden for the dominant power, which in turn further increases the economic demands on the outlying states. This becomes a vicious circle of surging dissatisfaction in the empire, and surging military spending. It ends when the economy of the dominant power can no longer sustain the large military. The outlying states fall away to form other alliances, and the former imperial power becomes "just another country".
History has shown this to be true. The Roman Empire collapsed partly because its outlying states rebelled against a huge economic burden. The Spanish Empire collapsed after building a huge armada of ships, only to see the fleet destroyed by an upstart Britain. The British Empire collapsed, as outlying states fell away, despite its huge military power. The Soviet Empire collapsed under the burden of massive military spending. I believe that something similar is happening to America.
Many of America's client states are rebelling against the economic burdens placed upon them. A clear example of this is seen in South America, where several countries (Venezuela included) are acting in contravention to America's economic wishes. One can arguably say that the Islamic insurgency in the Middle East is also a symptom of dissatisfaction by outlying states in the Empire. As the American dollar has declined recently, other currencies, such as the Euro are displacing the US dollar is the currency of choice for international trade. Furthermore, the American economy is in deep trouble, largely because it has borrowed hundreds of billions of dollars to build expensive weapon systems (and also to build too many unproductive but expensive toys such as big screen TV's).
I don't want this decline to happen because I am a part of this empire, but make no mistake: it is happening. Our only hope in this is that America will fade peacefully, like Britain, to become "just another country".
Sources? Evidence? Rhetoric != cash (Score:5, Interesting)
Many of America's client states are rebelling against the economic burdens placed upon them. A clear example of this is seen in South America, where several countries (Venezuela included) are acting in contravention to America's economic wishes.
Which explains why the U.S. and Peru just struck a free trade agreement [washingtonpost.com] and why the U.S. already has a free trade agreement with, pound for pound, what is arguably the most powerful and stable economy in South America - Chile [ustr.gov].
Oh, but Chavez. He makes a lot of angry speeches against the U.S.! He MUST hate us! He must just be screwing us and cutting us out!
Try again. Venezuela's main export partner - still by massive, massive margins (46% in 2006, according to the CIA world factbook) is the U.S. He still sends vast majorities of his oil to the U.S. Economically speaking, he's lining up just fine. Security wise, he's causing a few issues with neighboring countries that we would like him to stop, but as far as his massive oil industry - which is the only real engine his economy has - massive amounts of it are coming here, and there's little reason for him to change that.
Also of note, according to CIA World Factbook figures from 2006: Brazil [cia.gov] imports almost twice as much from the U.S. as it does Argentina and exports twice as much to the U.S. as well.
Furthermore, the American economy is in deep trouble, largely because it has borrowed hundreds of billions of dollars to build expensive weapon systems (and also to build too many unproductive but expensive toys such as big screen TV's).
Oh please. The American economy has stalled a bit, but we're not even at the point of a classic recession (failure to increase GDP).
The economic system you are discussing is referred to generally as "neo-Marxism", with its focus on large states ruining the outlying countries for their wealth in an evil capitalistic world. What neo-Marxists never came to realize is that the world is not a zero sum game - and that rhetoric rarely translates into cold hard cash.
Now, what the U.S. likely is experiencing is more akin to hegemonic diffusion. The U.S. is, pretty much, an undisputed world Hegemon at this time. However, to maintain this hegemony, it must maintain trade (using its own resources) and trade a great deal with other countries, slowly diffusing its wealth to others. The great examples of this at the moment would be China and perhaps India. China is building a massive military based on income largely from U.S. trade, for example. China improves quickly, and the U.S. finds it increasingly difficult to maintain its relative position. The big question is whether this will switch to a bi-polar world (U.S./China), remain a uni-polar world (U.S., possibly China) or become multi-polar in the end.
Re:Sources? Evidence? Rhetoric != cash (Score:4, Interesting)
You make some good points, but I don't entirely agree with you.
I disagree. I am not discussing a "neo-Marxist" system. The simple fact is that American client states send America resources, and America sends them back other resources in trade. If the client state is sending America goods in return for a pittance, then this situation is in America's favor. This imbalance in the trade of goods is highly comparable to the situations in previous empires. It doesn't matter whether the trade takes place in the context of a free market system between private corporations, or within the confines of a neo-Marxist empire. You still have a dominant power receiving a huge amount of goods without having to give much back in return. That for me is at the heart of what it means to be an empire.
I didn't say that Venezuela had stopped trading with America. What I said was that Venezuela was not acting according to the economic wishes of America. They have expropriated oil producing properties from American oil companies, including Exxon Mobile. They are keeping a larger amount of the proceeds of selling oil in the country, and they are redistributing those resources. They are also selling oil in currencies other than the US dollar, which is a huge blow to America's economic power. The moves in South America against the US are largely moves to demand more from America in compensation for the goods they ship to the US. And although there are still some US friendly governments in South America, opposition is growing.
We'll see. However, let's look at some of the facts. Firstly, if America is such an economic juggernaut, then why is it such a huge net borrower? One would think that such an economic superpower would be a net lender. And it might not be such a problem if that money was loaned out to finance increased production, to finance the building of factories and infrastructure. But instead, much of that money has been spent on unproductive consumption of disposable consumer goods, or indirectly on outrageously expensive weapons systems. The only redeeming factor of the American debt is that it is in American dollars, and will thus shrink as the dollar loses value. The simple fact is that the American manufacturing sector has been hollowed out, as evidenced by their shockingly large trade deficits. Close to 70% of the American economy is based on consumer spending.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Huge Military Budget = Declining Empire (Score:5, Informative)
Do you just make this stuff up as you go along? If you're referring to the battle of the Spanish Armada in 1588, you should read Garett Mattingly's Pulitzer-prize winning "The Armada". You'd discover that (1)England was not an "upstart," and its fleet was roughly as powerful (probably more powerful) than the Spanish fleet; (2)It was an English fleet, not a British fleet (and yes, there was a real difference then), (3)The English fleet did not "destroy" the Spanish fleet, and, most important, (4)The defeat of the Armada marked the beginning, not the end, of Spain's strongest navy, and the Spanish empire *grew* in strength following that defeat; it did not "collapse."
Most of your other comments were similarly simplistic or just outright wrong. If you want to make sweeping historical statements it might help if you actually studied some history first.
Re:No biggie (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't dispute that america spends a lot on military, but the way people like to exaggerate and bias to make it seem more than it really is is annoying. My ex-gf used to ignorantly claim the *majority* of US government spending is military thanks to her believing disingenuous people misleading folks with selective stats and the like.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
See how that doesnt help your argument one bit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But the (great-great? grand) parent was not interested in that - he just using the story as an excuse to post the same crap that gets posted to EVERY SINGLE STORY on the US military.
At the very least, it's "redundant".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's be fair here: it's not exactly fair to compare the US military budget with the needs of defending the US alone, since we have many obligations to other countries. Japan, for instance, only has a small "Self-Defense Force", and depends on the U.S. to defend it from attack. A lot of the peace and prosperity of east Asia stems from our obligation to protect Japan--if Japan were to re-arm, it would endanger their relations with South Korea and China, severely hurting trade. Likewise, our presence in South
Re:Stop talking out of your ass (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Stop talking out of your ass (Score:4, Informative)
Without the USA the allies would probably have lost, that is obvious. England would not have turned back the German attack without all the food, supplies and money the USA sold and loaned. Loan with interest from private banks, who also financed the nazi before , and some even after, the USA entered the war. I think the last payment from England has been made just a few years ago. But the USA surely did not win the war by itself.
Re:Stop talking out of your ass (Score:4, Informative)
The Democratic party wants to get out of Iraq because, well, we WON. Saddam is out of power. His constant genocides stopped. He is no longer training terrorists -- in fact, the only terrorists in Iraq are a hell of a lot closer to the patriots of the American Revolution than the dimwitted asshats who attacked in 2001.
Those who say we never should have gotten into Iraq don't say it because they feel that somehow it was a morally bad thing. It was a tactically bad thing -- with Iraq neutralized, Iran is now unchecked in the region. We should have stayed in Afghanistan, maybe Pakistan, and finished what we started. And if we HAD to invade Iraq, we should have gone in and handled it a hell of a lot better than we did. (Did you know that there were still Nazis running Germany immediately after WWII?)
The only thing morally reprehensible here is the lies that the right-wing neo-facists constantly spread about what Democrats believe. It's as if they can't come up with a simple argument about why they're right and the other guy is wrong, without misrepresenting what the other guy is saying. No, wait... that's exactly it.
In parting:
1: Democrats began nearly every just war we've ever fought. And more than a few of the unjust ones. If you wanted to split the political parties to simple terms, the Democrats think the military is a tool to be used. The Republicans feel that the military is a good end unto itself. (Both are oversimplifcations.)
2: Interesting how you're ignoring things like WWI, or the Indian Wars, or the Civil War, or the War of 1812, or the American Revolution. Sometimes we fight an army with no moral compass. Other times we do. It happens. (And the only post-American withdrawl "genocide" I recall was in Iraq, when we didn't follow through like we said we would. Korea and Vietnam were, well, war, followed by run of the mill starvation.)
liberals talk out of their asses because they are. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:O'RLY! other ways to crash. (Score:2)
Gallons, litres. They're pretty much the same, aren't they?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)