Notices
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Army and the Peace

  1. #1 Army and the Peace 
    sak
    sak is offline
    Forum Junior sak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Presently at ME
    Posts
    210
    How much the army cost us? ( not US )


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    128
    No army, no peace.
    Just because others all have army.
    A lot of technology evolution first made in army.
    So, even we can say no army, no development.

    The only important thing is that the best army is for defense.
    Never let invading being the first demand of army.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    Who is "us?"

    I don't think every nation shares this information, so we can't calculate all military spending. We can only estimate given the amount of spending we know most countries do, and guess that those countries who don't share this info are doing x,y,z to such and such an extent, they therefore must be spending about... etc.

    I'm not going to do the dirty work though for you, do a search on google or yahoo, and find out for yourself.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by wangwy13
    No army, no peace.
    Just because others all have army.
    True, but a few nukes can go a long way toward deterring foreign invaders.

    A lot of technology evolution first made in army.
    So, even we can say no army, no development.
    Couldn't any arbitrary task do this just as well? Space exploration, for example.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    128
    Couldn't any arbitrary task do this just as well? Space exploration, for example.
    Space exploration is obviously motivated by military goals.
    Who will make such expensive project without benefit? After all, it needs money.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    15
    I don't know what the Americans soldiers cost but the most expensive soldiers on earth are the British Royal Marine Commando SBS special forces. Because they have to first go through Royal Marine Commando training(Green Beret) and then they have to gain years of experience there through further training and then they are allowed to go into SBS and then are trained once again. The second most expensive troops are the British SAS.

    Figures are hard to come by, but currently Special Forces spending may be as high as 2m per soldier invested in the SAS and SBS, according to the Scotsman newspaper. The Single Intelligence Vote (SIV), which is the budget provision for all three security and intelligence agencies, is over 1bn - we know that in 1997/8 it totalled 701 million - though this includes all the domestic services, such as MI5, as well.

    2 million pounds per SAS/SBS soldier which is $3,749,467.24 USD ($3.75 million) each.


    But all the money in the world could not stop a sniper's bullet.
    We are shocked and appalled to hear that the number of animals condemned to lives of suffering in EU laboratories has hit a ten year high.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by angelrose
    But all the money in the world could not stop a sniper's bullet.
    Sure it will. Just stack the bills back to back. You don't even need 1/8th the money in the world. It will become so thick that it acts as armor. :P
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Senior Kukhri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by wangwy13
    Space exploration is obviously motivated by military goals.
    Who will make such expensive project without benefit? After all, it needs money.
    Space exploration is not motivated by military goals. The military's interest in space is mostly limited to improving communication, navigation and observation technologies. Exploration offers little benefit to the military.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    A lot of technology evolution first made in army.
    So, even we can say no army, no development.
    Couldn't any arbitrary task do this just as well? Space exploration, for example.
    Nope. Medicine is only a single example of military pioneering. Particularly in the U.S., trauma medical equipment and procedures are first developed and tested on the battlefield. Thousands of casualties can be exposed to the newest medicine and success can be quickly trended. When the U.S. Army solidifies it's standards on procedures and equipment, it usually takes a few years for the nation's hospitals to follow suit but they almost always do. For instance, Military Anti-Shock Trousers, were developed during the Vietnam War by a soldier. More recently the widespread, less discriminate use of effective tourniquets has proven to be a major lifesaver in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are now known to be less damaging to the patient than previously thought.

    Long term patient care is also heavily influenced by the groundbreaking work done at the massive, military echelon V hospitals like Brooke Army Medical Center and Walter Reed Army Medical Center.


    It also helps that military patients can't sue.
    Co-producer of Red Oasis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax

    True, but a few nukes can go a long way toward deterring foreign invaders.
    You would think so, but even though Israel had the nuclear bomb it didn't stop the 6 day war and the Yum Kipur War.

    Defensive military technology does help prevent war though. Only because offensive military technology is so much worse for maintaining peace. During WWI everyone was focused on offensive technology, how you won a war was you mobilized faster than the enemy and threw everything you had at them, if you didn't win right away you ended up with trench warfare. The problem with offensive technology is it promote a do or die mentality, you either use your offensive technology preemptively or it becomes useless. Nuclear weapons are unfortunately like this, who ever hits first wins. What is a deterrent though is nuclear submarines, now even if you nuke the USA first, they'll still be able to nuke you back.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    The best defense is diplomacy, also the best offense. But promises and threats both need to be backed up and made believable. Only so many of each need to be fulfilled, and due to their nature, you can get away with more unfulfilled threats than unfulfilled promises.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •