Why does Saudi Arabia spend so much money on defense?
why does saudi arabia spend billions and billions on dollars on defense when there is no threat to their national security. no country including israel would attack them. who are they scared of?
Should USA INCREASE OR DECREASE defense spending?
Definitely decrease and bring home the troop.That will save us billions. Secure our borders and put money in food,housing,and education. It's not gonna happen because the zionist jews control our government and they want to take over other middle eastern countries epset israel of course and they don't care if American lives are killed in the process. The zionist jews don't care about the average American,they just want to use us in whatever way it benefits them. The jews control everything around us. The newspapers The media The banks(federal reserve) And most politicians are jews. They all work with each other and if you dare speak out against them you're dead. Just look at john f.Kennedy
If the United States decided to invest its entire defense budget in developing an antimatter weapon or bomb, how long would it take to make it a reality? Would it be worth it?
Given that the most antimatter that has been created so far is a few atoms, and given that it only exists for microseconds (and we don’t actually have any way of containing it to make it last longer), there’s no way of knowing what it would take to produce antimatter in any strategic quantities, how to store it if we did, and whether, after all that, it could be turned into a weapon. It might only take ten years. It might take fifty.There’s also the small issue that “investing the entire defense budget” would involve mothballing the Navy and Air Force, discharging all soldiers, decommissioning the nuclear arsenal, and creating a research facility that would make the Manhattan Project look like a lunchtime meeting. To be honest, the money would be more productively spent fetching asteroids and attaching engines and guidance systems to them to use as weapons, at least as far as the amount of destruction you can get per dollar spent.That leads to another point: At this time, any attacking force has to live on the same planet as their enemy. What is the use of creating a weapon that would annihilate the enemy, but also plunge your own country into darkness, a prolonged ice age and famine? It would be like dropping a five-mile-wide asteroid on the enemy. Yes, it would end their ability to commit acts of aggression, but it would end a lot of other things on this planet as well.
Should the U.S. be spending less on nukes?
In the modern era, nuclear weapons are unique in that they are never intended to be used. Rather, by making the cost of engaging in armed conflict unacceptably high, nuclear weapons discourage war between great powers of the sort that took millions of lives in the two world wars. Full scale armed conflict between major nation states was relatively commonplace in earlier eras. Today they are not. The deterrent effect of nuclear weapons is in no small part responsible for this.Because peer competitors, principally Russia, continue to maintain large nuclear capabilities, the U.S. still must maintain a nuclear arsenal sufficiently large to prevent the possibility that an adversary could mount a first strike that prevents retaliation. While this may seem far-fetched now, in the future the threat could be more real. Once the nuclear deterrent is disassembled, it is difficult to reconstitute. So, it continues to be critical that the U.S. maintain a nuclear capability.To maintain a credible deterrent, the US nuclear arsenal must be kept in working order. The U.S. nuclear stockpile is aging and plans are underway for a major modernization program. That costs money.While maintaining a nuclear arsenal is expensive, it is minuscule compared to the cost in blood and treasure of an open conflict between great powers.
Which is mandated by the U.S. Constitution.......defense spending OR "entitlement" spending?
Defense. If you asked Obama which one was more important he would say entitlement.
What would happen if Russia nukes Turkey?
Why in the world would Russia nuke Turkey? There's nothing to be gained. An invasion to annex it might sound more plausible. Read on to find out why nuking Turkey isn't going to happen. The only military response Russia can expect is from NATO. But Russia knows that it cannot go against them; it stands to lose out both militarily and economically because she relies on trade with many of these countries.Militarily speaking, though the strongest NATO member, USA, and Russia are ranked 1st and 2nd respectively on the GFP scale, the difference between the two is simply vast. To put thing's into perspective, USA spends 12 times more than Russia on defense budget. Granted, US army is spread out worldwide. However the other members are not pushovers. They will be able to hold out until American troops arrive.Economically, Russia is already suffering an economic decline. Removing foreign trade will just be a death sentence.In conclusion, despite the lukewarm respond from the West over Crimea'a annexation, Russia should not push her luck.