The 10 Most Expensive Weapons in the World

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

There should be ZERO welfare in the federal budget. NONE.

If you read the constitution (I know, I know) there are explicit details about defense spending. Not so much about welfare. None, actually. Contrary to popular belief that doesn't mean the congress is free to do them... it means they can't do them. They have a list of responsibilities and prohibitions. Welfare is nowehere to be found.

Oops, sounds like our air force is not constitutional then. We better dismantle it.

[Laser1 63]

Good thing you're not in charge of the budget.

Where in those programs would you make cuts, if you had to?

Note: I chose MRAPs because, while it would save lives, it would not do much to increase our capabilities. And I chose the Trident II program, because we'd still have a strong nuclear deterrent without it.

Edited January 9, 2012 by Laser1

[웃 910]

Oops, sounds like our air force is not constitutional then. We better dismantle it.

If the constitution said "Slim, jump off a bridge" then Slim would jump off a bridge!

[ScottnIzabela 25]

is that scientific notation or engineering notation?

9. CVN-78 Class

> Price per Unit: $9,782.3

that's a bargain. i think i'll buy one too!

[웃 910]

is that scientific notation or engineering notation?

The number is $1,000,000 paid 9,782.3 times over.

It is the most expensive item on the list (by far) but is a typo. It should read:

$9,782.3 million

AKA 9 billion 782 million 300 thousand dollars per unit. If Charles! could buy one for $9,782 he would instantly be the 32nd richest person in America and the 90th richest person in the world.

Edited January 9, 2012 by ☠

[Ban Hammer 13,509]

Oops, sounds like our air force is not constitutional then. We better dismantle it.

just roll it back in under the army, like it was in the early 40's

waits for all the current and former air force to have a fit.

[slim 1,530]

Oops, sounds like our air force is not constitutional then. We better dismantle it.

Air Force is a misnomer. It's actually a land force that does a little bit of flying.

Where in those programs would you make cuts, if you had to?

Note: I chose MRAPs because, while it would save lives, it would not do much to increase our capabilities. And I chose the Trident II program, because we'd still have a strong nuclear deterrent without it.

I wouldn't cut a penny until all welfare was gone. I also wouldn't cut squat until things like the Department of Education, Housing and Urban Development, etc., were gone.

Since you said, "if you had to" I'll play along. Of those 10... Hands down, the JSF is where I'd start.

If the constitution said "Slim, jump off a bridge" then Slim would jump off a bridge!

See, that's the beauty of the constitution. It doesn't say, "jump off a bridge." It says, "If you desire, you can jump off a bridge and congress can pass no laws abridging (no pun intended) your right to do so."

The number is $1,000,000 paid 9,782.3 times over.

It is the most expensive item on the list (by far) but is a typo. It should read:

$9,782.3 million

AKA 9 billion 782 million 300 thousand dollars per unit. If Charles! could buy one for $9,782 he would instantly be the 32nd richest person in America and the 90th richest person in the world.

just roll it back in under the army, like it was in the early 40's

waits for all the current and former air force to have a fit.

I can't. Just about every piece of gear I was issued in the Air Force was Army handmedowns.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You could shut down the Department of Defense and reopen the War Department when Congress declares war. The States have their own militias, and if the Federal Government needs a little help with some belligerent in the Western Hemisphere, then they can go to the States, hat in hand, they way they did before the Cold War. They still go to the States anyways to fight the non-wars*, including the ones you don't hear about, so what's the difference?

By the way, I would shut down most redundant Federal functions, such as Department of Education and Department of Human Services. As a matter of fact, other than the Department of State, I can't think of any cabinet department as absolutely necessary if the States could perform the same function on their own.

(*Well, they used to, when some well known agencies needed to borrow state of the art military hardware and specialized personnel off the books, but Obama screwed that pooch).

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Weapons and national defense ARE the responsibility of the federal government. The rest if this nonsense is NOT. Cut what they are not responsible for first.

Costs of weapons systems are irrelevent unless one considers also the reduced cost or a much smaller military. ONE plane with ONE bomb can accomplish more than 100 airplanes and 1000 WW2 bombs. ONE plane has 1 or 2 crew, compared to 10 for a WW2 bomber. we rarely lose a plane in combat, it is so rare it is big news if we do, in WW2 65% of planes did not finish their rotation of 25 missions

ONE F-117 and its crew of two men can easily equal the destructive EFFECT of 100 B-17s, B-24s or B-29s

And now we have cruise missiles and drones which can take out a bridge without risking even ONE life. what is that worth? what is it worth that collateral damage is reduced to virtually nothing compared to earlier wars?

For all the whining the Dems made before Obama was elected about the "death toll" of Americans, there were more people killed in ONE DAY in WW2 than the entire 10 years of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. More people were killed to capture tiny islands in the Pacific.

we can send a missile through a window halfway 'round the world and take out a high value target by pushing a button in Missouri. We can send in a small team of specialists, undetected, into a house in Pakistan and shoot Bin Laden twice in the head, take his body out and dump it in the ocean before anyone is the wiser. With -0- casulaties

What is that worth? What would it have been worth in WW2? What would we have paid to save 200,000 Americans lives? 300,000 lives? Even 400,000 lives? What if the ships in Pearl Harbor had a Phalanx system? How many men would have been saved? What would it be worth?

we have less than half the naval warships we had just 30 years ago, is that cheaper or more expensive? Is it cheaper or more expensive to supply the crews for less than half the ships?

[F & J 21]

fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan was/is not fighting for this country's freedom, despite any bullshit rhetoric that's out there....

I actually agree - but it doesn't change the fact that servicemembers have fought and died fighting for this country's "causes", whatever they may be (even wars that were not even theirs to fight to begin with). Cutting health benefits and retirement plans is even more BS for people who have fought for this country.

[ScottnIzabela 25]

for example the A-10 can carry more bombload than a B17 of ww2.

and can deliver with a very high level of precision.

also factor in collateral deaths and damage and aid after the conflict costs.

Weapons and national defense ARE the responsibility of the federal government. The rest if this nonsense is NOT. Cut what they are not responsible for first.

Costs of weapons systems are irrelevent unless one considers also the reduced cost or a much smaller military. ONE plane with ONE bomb can accomplish more than 100 airplanes and 1000 WW2 bombs. ONE plane has 1 or 2 crew, compared to 10 for a WW2 bomber. we rarely lose a plane in combat, it is so rare it is big news if we do, in WW2 65% of planes did not finish their rotation of 25 missions

ONE F-117 and its crew of two men can easily equal the destructive EFFECT of 100 B-17s, B-24s or B-29s

And now we have cruise missiles and drones which can take out a bridge without risking even ONE life. what is that worth? what is it worth that collateral damage is reduced to virtually nothing compared to earlier wars?

For all the whining the Dems made before Obama was elected about the "death toll" of Americans, there were more people killed in ONE DAY in WW2 than the entire 10 years of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. More people were killed to capture tiny islands in the Pacific.

we can send a missile through a window halfway 'round the world and take out a high value target by pushing a button in Missouri. We can send in a small team of specialists, undetected, into a house in Pakistan and shoot Bin Laden twice in the head, take his body out and dump it in the ocean before anyone is the wiser. With -0- casulaties

What is that worth? What would it have been worth in WW2? What would we have paid to save 200,000 Americans lives? 300,000 lives? Even 400,000 lives? What if the ships in Pearl Harbor had a Phalanx system? How many men would have been saved? What would it be worth?

we have less than half the naval warships we had just 30 years ago, is that cheaper or more expensive? Is it cheaper or more expensive to supply the crews for less than half the ships?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I pay a fuckton of taxes and I voted Yes.

Quit your job, live on the dole and your problem is solved.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

for example the A-10 can carry more bombload than a B17 of ww2.

and can deliver with a very high level of precision.

also factor in collateral deaths and damage and aid after the conflict costs.

The Warthog has been retired.

[slim 1,530]

other than the Department of State, I can't think of any cabinet department as absolutely necessary if the States could perform the same function on their own.

The government is supposed to regulate interstate commerce. Notice, throughout the constitution, that regulation is a recurring theme.

In the days the constitution was written, regulation wasn't about laws - it was about practice. In the 2nd Amendment, a "well regulated militia" doesn't mean a militia with a lot of laws. It means a militia that knows well what it's about and is good at what it does.

Much in the same way we can look to congress to ensure interstate commerce is vibrant, fair, and at the very least, encouraged by the federal government. Regulation doesn't mean congress should create a department of regulation and enforcement for everything from your vitamins to your toilet bowl.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Weapons and national defense ARE the responsibility of the federal government. The rest if this nonsense is NOT. Cut what they are not responsible for first.

Costs of weapons systems are irrelevent unless one considers also the reduced cost or a much smaller military. ONE plane with ONE bomb can accomplish more than 100 airplanes and 1000 WW2 bombs. ONE plane has 1 or 2 crew, compared to 10 for a WW2 bomber. we rarely lose a plane in combat, it is so rare it is big news if we do, in WW2 65% of planes did not finish their rotation of 25 missions

ONE F-117 and its crew of two men can easily equal the destructive EFFECT of 100 B-17s, B-24s or B-29s

And now we have cruise missiles and drones which can take out a bridge without risking even ONE life. what is that worth? what is it worth that collateral damage is reduced to virtually nothing compared to earlier wars?

For all the whining the Dems made before Obama was elected about the "death toll" of Americans, there were more people killed in ONE DAY in WW2 than the entire 10 years of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. More people were killed to capture tiny islands in the Pacific.

we can send a missile through a window halfway 'round the world and take out a high value target by pushing a button in Missouri. We can send in a small team of specialists, undetected, into a house in Pakistan and shoot Bin Laden twice in the head, take his body out and dump it in the ocean before anyone is the wiser. With -0- casulaties

What is that worth? What would it have been worth in WW2? What would we have paid to save 200,000 Americans lives? 300,000 lives? Even 400,000 lives? What if the ships in Pearl Harbor had a Phalanx system? How many men would have been saved? What would it be worth?

we have less than half the naval warships we had just 30 years ago, is that cheaper or more expensive? Is it cheaper or more expensive to supply the crews for less than half the ships?

We spend more on defense than the the next 17 nations COMBINED. I say we can do with less than half of our defense spending and be just fine. That'd be a cool $4 trillion saved over the next decade. What's not to like? Just get out of defense related stocks before the cuts are announced.