-
-
Copy & paste this:
« Previous Probability my wallet contains no bills smaller than $20 | Geometry Next »
Military Spendings 2004-2007
» 49 TPS Reports
Leave a Reply
-
Latest Comments
peter on At Least You Can Still Look… Fakjbf on 15 Ridiculous Law Mikecraft96 on 15 Ridiculous Law Quaver Quill on British Television: The Next B… SemperSolus on So Much Evil in Such a Little… Quaver Quill on At Least You Can Still Look… Quaver Quill on Where’s a Dislike Button… Necrophagist on You Forgot the Pokeball at… AnonE.Moose on So, You Believe in Marriage Ac… Ben Abram on It Doesn’t Have the … Quaver Quill on So, You Believe in Marriage Ac… Quaver Quill on So, You Believe in Marriage Ac… Quaver Quill on So, You Believe in Marriage Ac… Necrophagist on So Much Evil in Such a Little… Eddie on It Doesn’t Have the … 
Cheezburger Company Blog
![\"Quantcast\"/](\"http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-94wNw88f65Rhk.gif?labels=MTVN%20Digital%20Tribes\")
Too true.
worst code pink graph evah.
code pink suuuuuuuckssssss
SECOND !
In Soviet Russia, Military spends you.
Which is why we need to invade more countries.
If you want all of troops to die so USA has to bring back the draft, then good for you. I’d prefer to sit at home and safely play video games tho…
I will refrain from saying that a good portion went to miloitary wives to to help thier ever-increasing waistlines. Because I live in a town with 5 military bases, that would be offensive *crowd of angry obese 20 yr old wives gathers around house* It’s okay, they’ll leave when they figure it’ll take some physical effort to get in.
That is an interesting way to refrain from saying something.
How do you feel about bottling up your feelings like this?
I will refrain from saying that I love you for this. Let me get a container for my joy…
Change that from “military” to “government” and that’ll be true for anything.
1. Weapons are meant to never be used, but are ready to kick ass if needed.
2. Wouldn’t you hope your equipment was tested and upgraded before you were sent to war with it?
3. It’s a GOOD thing “Fielding” is small.
Overall, this graph is fail.
…oh, and sorry for hitting a nerve. If you haven’t noticed the Military Wife epidemic, you’re either blind or naive
I am, too, and I also was in the Army until last year *my four years until I got seriously hurt*, I currently instruct Boilermaker’s apprentices at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, so PLEASE tell me I don’t know. I live it, I run it, I work it, and it makes me sick to walk out of the gates sweaty, hot, covered in slag, burns and metal shavings to see fat wives who couldn’t surmount the energy to walk up the hill to thier hard-working hubbies who have been there since 5 am.
I raise my voice, and two self-proclaimed hot Army wives have a deathmatch. Go me.
Wait a second… first you explain why the graph makes sense… then you say it’s fail. Something is definitely fail, but I’m not sure it is what you think it is…
I’m in the military, and this poster has no idea what he is talking about. Poor form.
meh, I wish maintenance was smaller (not that the gear was less maintained, merely that it took up less of the military budget), and that lobbying was less of a pain in the ass. This graph isn’t funny and didn’t make me think (in fairness, it would take a minor miracle to make that happen). Anybody who comes in with “its all the libtards,” please just say retards, I’m liberal and find it stupid, there are idiots on both sides (which isn’t to say I’m not one of them
)
There’s a saying “it’s funny because it’s true”. Which, by inverse, explains why there’s no humor in this graph at all.
Wow. So untrue. Most military spending goes into FIXING broken stuff.
A civilian made this graph. A very stupid civilian.
Claims that because you’re in the military you know about spending are simply false. Serving — an honorable profession, note: profession — merely puts you in the company of everyone who works in a specific industry and thinks that all and any money spent on it is justified.
Except that one of my many roles in the marines is to allocate our budget. Imagine that huh?
FACED.
Except that I am a professor and study military budgets.
Until you’ve been here and worked on a piece of equipment that one-of-a-kind and costs $700,000 and cannot be replaced and is absolutely neccessary to the livelihood of your best buddies that WILL NOT WORK or has to have a part invented, ordered and machined to fix it, you just don’t know.
Amen!
Military studying professor indeed. I did not order this load of crap.
Beooootiful. You just missed Hell’s point.
hey, I think I love you….
I saw them first!
So then you could tell me how much when into the development of the San Antonio class LPD ships or the modernization of the Arleigh Burke destroyers we just performed. I’m interested to see a $ figure, because I know it.
*holds bated breath*
Waaaiiittt foooor ittt…
Sorry. I thought this thread had ended. As to your query:
Short answer: way the $%^&* too much, versus not quite enough.
OK; that probably isn’t helpful, but it does reflect my opinion of the
relative usefulness of amphibious ships vs. air defense ships,
especially the DDGs (which are stealth, as opposed to the CGs).
First question: By “development,” do you mean just the R&D?
Alternately, do you want the price of R&D, tooling up the “assembly
line,” etc, i.e. everything up to the marginal cost of the first unit?
These may not be that far apart, but the larger figure may be much
easier to derive. One way to get the “development costs” would be
to compare total program expenditure AND a cost for the first unit
that did NOT include fixed costs, then I could just subtract and find
the “development cost.” If I had a price list for every unit, I’d use
the first unit’s price minus the last unit’s price for “development
costs.”
BTW, what do you mean by the “modernization” of the Arleigh
Burkes? Modernization occurs throughout the lives of most US ship
programs. Sometimes, there’s a real change in “class,” like when
we went from “688″ to “688I” submarines (the “I” for improved).
There was enough change across the pre- & post- “I” to make it
clear when you’d want to check the Cost of modernization. For
DDG-51s (which are the Arleigh Burkes), I don’t know if there’s a
clear division over time. There are “flight I” and “flight II” DDGs,
so I guess there are 2 obvious points in time across which you
might want to measure the “costs of modernization.”
Not only does the military NOT lobby for more spending, it is illegal for the military to lobby for spending of any sort. More proper to say that defense contractors lobby to get their product into the system. But that isn’t military spending. What do we expect from those who live under the protection we provide and despise us for providing it.
Get over yourself. Just because people question the use of military budgets does not mean they “despise you” for serving. What a load of crap.
Some of the best-informed pro-military commentary one this site, and one of the worst so-called ‘lolz’ to make front page. (And “spendings”? There are many layers of ignorance here.) ** Shameless Self Promotion: This is the third in a series of four (so far) “Rules of Engagement” lolz of mine, this one created with precisely this thinking in mind: http://mine.icanhascheezburger.com/view.aspx?ciid=2945788
Don’t forget “video game”.
Rawr. Someone’s cranky.
Creator forgot to mention the millions of dollars that it has taken to retrain interpreters, etc, after so many of the gays were fired for being just that.
Yeah, sure. You mean like me, the big bisexual female, who ended four years of service at Ft. Lewis last year. Due to an accident, not discrimination. Actually had tons of higher-up friends, but that’s okay. Keep playing the special interest card.
That’s the reason behind the don’t ask don’t tell policy. The military needs folks of all sexual persuasions, but is too bigoted to admit it.
I think what he means is that he has the balls to be front-line when the equipment has problems….hahahah riiiight
Change the title to “Army R&D” and it’s more or less perfectly accurate.
Dude, chill pill, I’m detecting some strong Dittohead signatures, might want to have that checked out.
Not sure that the graph is suggesting that the situation is BAD, really just suggesting what’s out there.
Militaries are about killing people, but they’re also about protecting the lives of soldiers and civilians. Our military is pretty damn good at killing people, but pretty bad at doing it cheaply. The reason for the inefficiency is that we’re more than willing to pay big $$$ to make sure our troops have badass gear, in hopes that they’ll survive the fight. That’s a trade-off that’s worth making, but it is what it is.
Still, the easiest fight to survive is the one that you’re not in, and we’re in a few right now. It’s not immediately clear that the benefits from those fights are worth the costs either in blood or treasure, and it is pretty clear that the military is gung-ho about the fight. Soldiers have voted pretty solidly for hawks, and then there’s the folks like mr “the me not you” here, sounding off.
So yeah, the military is “protecting us,” but from what, and at what cost? There’s a decent number of dead Americans, WAY more dead Iraqis and Afghanis, and where are we? We spend more on our military than pretty much every other country on the planet, *combined*. What exactly are we protecting ourselves *from*? If you look at the casualty count, it’s *them* who need protection from *us*.
I’m no pacifist, and I’m sure as hell not a liberal, but if my country is spending lives and money, I damn well want to know how, why, and for what purpose. I guess that means that I disagree with some folks who happen to be in the military, but I can’t see how that makes me “anti-military.”
I don’t have to serve as President in order to vote for one, why should I have to be a soldier in order to have a say in the fate of thousands of our nation’s sons and daughters, and billions of our dollars?
The sad part about this graph is the sheer magnitude of even the smallest piece of the pie. It’s thanks to constantly invading multiple countries that the US has to pour every penny it can into the military and pull funding from other things like infrastructure.
Also, VurtualRuler98 has an excellent point about the MMO that they run. The amount of funding that goes into it is comparable to one of the larger slices on this graph.
Thenagain what to I know, I’m just a stupid liberal tax-paying civilian.
We consider ourselves to be a intelligent species and yet we spend most of our time and effort killing each other… What would the world be like if all the military spending went to medical research and improving the quality of life in the 3rd world?
too true. so mnay people talk about what they don’t know just so they can say they said something and prove the 1st amendment is still alive. f that noise. seriously. sometimes the strongest voices are those that say nothing. no one knows how well IBA or the new Strikers work, fail on Eplix part for being ignorant and all those other people who follow in their wake of easy living. Research and then speak. that’s all I have to say.
As someone who works intimately with military spending data, I can tell you that this graph is worthless. Where are personnel salaries and benefits located? They are a substantial piece of the pie. What about military construction? And there are no numbers associated with the chart to boot. I wouldn’t waste more than 2 seconds looking at this chart. If you really want to know where defense dollars are being spent, try looking at the defense appropriations bills. It will stagger you.
I love how people think they know what “new” stuff is going on in the military. People have NO idea what kind of research is going on or what is being used.
Last year, the military spent $1,000,000 on camo socks.