Jump to content

Welcome to Geeks to Go - Register now for FREE

Geeks To Go is a helpful hub, where thousands of volunteer geeks quickly serve friendly answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts. Register now to gain access to all of our features, it's FREE and only takes one minute. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more.

Create Account How it Works
Photo

Where's the money?


  • Please log in to reply

#1
frantique

frantique

    Member 2k

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,700 posts
So, what are your thoughts about this?

This CBS news segment shows the Pentagon is unable to keep track of 25 percent of the money it spends, or about $2.3 trillion a year. No one knows what this money has been spent on; there are no records of it.

Despite this, defense spending has continually increased over the past few years, and few attempts have been made to ascertain where the "missing" money is, and accurate accounting alone could be used to reduce the military budget.

In all, $2.3 trillion comes to about $8,000 for every man, woman and child living in America.

YouTube.com - June 14, 2006


Edited by frantique, 14 December 2006 - 12:14 AM.

  • 0

Advertisements


#2
sarahw

sarahw

    Malware Staff

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,781 posts
It's the easiest way to fund the Illuminati
  • 0

#3
warriorscot

warriorscot

    Member 5k

  • Retired Staff
  • 8,889 posts
To me the obvious answer would be that the extra 25% goes to classified research and procurement projects as well as financing anything they want to keep "off the books" which is rather allot considering the blatant disregard of basic international laws like the Geneva convention.
  • 0

#4
sarahw

sarahw

    Malware Staff

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,781 posts
Yes, that would be the most obvious answer. Most likely research, projects, and operations not disclosed to an oversight committee, or that some would consider not in the general publics interest to know of.
When you think of incidents like Iran-Contra, this would be an easy option to do under the table business.

Edited by sarahw, 15 December 2006 - 09:34 PM.

  • 0

#5
olderwhiskeynandfasterhorses

olderwhiskeynandfasterhorses

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
This isn't really relevent by why does the army need to use a missle that costs several million dollars do destroy an enemy tank that costs a few hundred thousand dollars?
  • 0

#6
warriorscot

warriorscot

    Member 5k

  • Retired Staff
  • 8,889 posts
To prevent loss of life, in order to destroy the tank more cheaply you would have to engage it with infantry or another tank which puts lives and equipment at risk and you would be surprised how much a infantryman costs to train let alone a squad of them and a tank and crew also cost allot more than you think a US tank that costs 4.3 million not to mention crew costs can just as easily be destroyed by a mine, or a cheap soviet tank or artillery gun, the missile starts to become cheaper. Missiles are expensive but they arent usually in the millions unless its a long range missile, the most advanced the RAF uses is only something like £400,000 a unit and they are brand new stealth cruise missiles they dont use them on tanks usually(at least not one).

You're normal anti tank weapon costs allot less than that, LAW,MILAN and TOW missiles are pretty cheap and aircraft mounted anti-tank weapons haven't changed much since the cold war and cost in the thousands or tens of thousands. You could maybe do cheaper with a warthog or apache their main guns are enough to kill a dozen tanks in a short order but they again cost allot of cash and personally they are very dangerous units to use as they rely on pilots who seemed to be trained in bulk in the US as fast as possible.

War aint cheap if you want to save lives and if you can engage an enemy from as far away as possible the better US forces rely heavily on technology and sheer numbers, and usually you want to destroy the enemy with the former rather than the latter.
  • 0

#7
luck4mike

luck4mike

    New Member

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
the U.S is on the way to being the new roman empire
  • 0

#8
warriorscot

warriorscot

    Member 5k

  • Retired Staff
  • 8,889 posts
Nah, the romans had there good points too they brought large scale transport networks, sanitation and of course knowledge all across the world, they had bad points but nothing that wasnt normal at the time and they did allot more good for the world before they fell, Britian wouldn't be the country it is today without the roman influence which we really used after they left.

The US is an Empire(which i dont know how some of its citizens don't understand) but its nothing like the romans it has its own character like every empire does, its nothing like the British empire which was more like the roman one. The US empire differs in that A its so young and B its empire was handed to it on a plate unlike European and Asia empires the Americas were sparsely populated and there was very little organized resistance to the expansion of said empire and of course it was an entirely immigrant empire there really were almost no natives in the empire even now your average American is not of native descent which really gives it an entirely different character from other empires that were always built on existing bases of culture and history the people having been there already and often drew influence from a father nation that they based themselves on or were forced into. Rome was formed with a heavily Greek influence, which was forced into empire by the Persian empire. Although there is one thing for certain every empire is to varying degrees fatal to it predecessor.
  • 0






Similar Topics

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

As Featured On:

Microsoft Yahoo BBC MSN PC Magazine Washington Post HP