The long, sad tale of the V-22

Message Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic

   Has anyone read the latest edition of TIME magazine (Oct 8, 2007)? 

In it is an article about the incredibly costly V-22 Osprey(development pricetagged at 20 billion and 30 lives), that is now being sent to Iraq. The problem? The cool-looking V-22 isn't even safe. Not only does it have a much larger death zone than any helicopter, it has no weaponry (except for a small machine gun, which they have to open the back ramp to use), no pressurized cabin, no autorotation (which saved half of the helicopter crews who where shot down in vietnam), only 62% reliable to be ready for action, and we are trusting in a piece of junk like this to protect and transport U.S. troops?

And the V-22 isn't the only fiasco, either. But the focus of narrow interest groups and huge military spending on miltary equipment that is not needed, not safe, or completely irrelevant to the kind of wars we now fight, is a complete outrage. 

The government currently spends $500 billion annually ($550 billion after Bush's 2008 demands) on the military. Needed for security you say? Well, that is a blatently misjudged statement. Only $200 billion of that money goest toward the Iraq war effort. 

Furthermore, the estimated cost of providing every child around the world with a basic education is 6 billion. Similarly, the cost of providing clean water to everyone in the world is only 9 billion. Lastly, the cost of providing basic health and nutrition to everyone in the world is 13 billion

What if the United States was to cut it's military spending by one third? That is to say, cutting $166.67 billion from the budget (Bush's additional 50 billion not included), the military budget would still be an enormous $383.33 billion, but the United States would have 166.67 billion to give every kid in the world a good school, every family in the world clean water, and every individual in the world with basic health and nutrition, leaving 138.67 billion to equalize our schools and libraries, revamp the aging U.S. electrical grid and bridges, and to start paying off our 9 trillion dollar debt.

This makes perfect sense to me. But why isn't it happening? Because a few narrow-minded special interest groups with good lawyers want to keep production of military weapons in their own cities to prevent loss of jobs, and because the military is still in the mindset that we are fighting a conventional war and need conventional weapons.

PLEASE! Why do we need a 'stealth ship' at 3 billion apiece to use a gun that can shoot 100 miles inland when you can purchase a $500,000 dollar cruise missile that can be launched anywhere? Why do we need a program that is estimated to cost $100 billion developing the DDX destroyer, when a few radicals can load a small raft with home-made bombs and sink the thing? 

Please, someone come up with a valid arguement for this extravagent military spending so that I can regain some sanity.

Edited by ConradWeiser - 04-Oct-2007 at 19:20