Does America spend too much on Defense?

We do commit much of our GDP to military defense and offensive capability. But imagine our world If we did not?

If nations did not understand and feel the threat of unimaginable destruction resulting from what civilization considered an wrong, or an evil....there would be no reason to avoid it. Much like a Christian submits to the word of it's God...the world submits to the power of destruction.

 

There were many different Scientists German, Russian, French, British and American who for multiple decades developed various forms of

BUT....Herbert E. Ives and Frank Gray of Bell Telephone Laboratories gave a dramatic demonstration of mechanical television on April 7, 1927. The reflected-light television system included both small and large viewing screens. The small receiver had a two-inch-wide by 2.5-inch-high screen. The large receiver had a screen 24 inches wide by 30 inches high. Both sets were capable of reproducing reasonably accurate, monochromatic moving images. Along with the pictures, the sets also received synchronized sound. The system transmitted images over two paths: first, a copper wire link from Washington to New York City, then a radio link from Whippany, New Jersey. Comparing the two transmission methods, viewers noted no difference in quality. Subjects of the telecast included Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover. A flying-spot scanner beam illuminated these subjects. The scanner that produced the beam had a 50-aperture disk. The disc revolved at a rate of 18 frames per second, capturing one frame about every 56 milliseconds. (Today's systems typically transmit 30 or 60 frames per second, or one frame every 33.3 or 16.7 milliseconds respectively.) Television historian Albert Abramson underscored the significance of the Bell Labs demonstration: "It was in fact the best demonstration of a mechanical television system ever made to this time. It would be several years before any other system could even begin to compare with it in picture quality."

Electronic Television....On September 7, 1927, Farnsworth's image dissector camera tube transmitted its first image, a simple straight line, at his laboratory at 202 Green Street in San Francisco.[28][29] By September 3, 1928, Farnsworth had developed the system sufficiently to hold a demonstration for the press.[29] In 1929, the system was further improved by elimination of a motor generator, so that his television system now had no mechanical parts.[30] That year, Farnsworth transmitted the first live human images with his system, including a three and a half-inch image of his wife Elma ("Pem") with her eyes closed (possibly due to the bright lighting required).[31]
Meanwhile, Vladimir Zworykin was also experimenting with the cathode ray tube to create and show images. While working for Westinghouse Electric in 1923, he began to develop an electronic camera tube. But in a 1925 demonstration, the image was dim, had low contrast and poor definition, and was stationary.[32] Zworykin's imaging tube never got beyond the laboratory stage. But RCA, which acquired the Westinghouse patent, asserted that the patent for Farnsworth's 1927 image dissector was written so broadly that it would exclude any other electronic imaging device. Thus RCA, on the basis of Zworykin's 1923 patent application, filed a patent interference suit against Farnsworth. The U.S. Patent Office examiner disagreed in a 1935 decision, finding priority of invention for Farnsworth against Zworykin. Farnsworth claimed that Zworykin's 1923 system would be unable to produce an electrical image of the type to challenge his patent. Zworykin received a patent in 1928 for a color transmission version of his 1923 patent application,[33] he also divided his original application in 1931.[34] Zworykin was unable or unwilling to introduce evidence of a working model of his tube that was based on his 1923 patent application. In September 1939, after losing an appeal in the courts and determined to go forward with the commercial manufacturing of television equipment, RCA agreed to pay Farnsworth US$1 million (the equivalent of $13.8 million in 2006) over a ten-year period, in addition to license payments, to use Farnsworth's patents.

AS FAR AS BROADCASTING TELEVISION

United Kingdom
The first British television broadcast was made by Baird Television's electromechanical system over the BBC radio transmitter in September 1929. Baird provided a limited amount of programming five days a week by 1930.

United States

The first regularly scheduled television service in the United States began on July 2, 1928.
Hugo Gernsback's New York City radio station began a regular, if limited, schedule of live television broadcasts on August 14, 1928.
General Electric's experimental station in Schenectady, New York, on the air since January 13, 1928 and is considered to be the direct predecessor of current television station WRGB. The Queen's Messenger, a one-act play broadcast on September 11, 1928, was the world's first live drama on television.
Radio giant RCA began daily experimental television broadcasts in New York City in March 1929 over station W2XBS, the predecessor of current television station WNBC....etc...etc....etc.

All of these broadcast and many more were made before any in the United Kingdom.

As far as who is considered the TRUE CREATOR of Television which must consist of MOVING IMAGES not just sending a single non-moving image as was done in many countries were .....

....FARNSWORTH...or perhaps...JENKINS.

AboveAlpha.

 

That's the plan.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24739716

As you yourself said, we don't police Africa. Yet there still seems to be no shortage of 'oil rig/refinery/tanker workers' willing to work there. But, as I have said a number of times now, I have no problem with intervening whenever and wherever necessary, if it's in our national interests to do so. To use the above situation as an example, if these had been US citizens, then we should do whatever, and whoever, required to secure their release.

So you believe that all international trade came to a complete halt during the inter-war period when the US really was isolationist?

 

So Snake...your 0 for 4.

My basic point was that regardless of where or who and idea has come from and by far most ideas credited with revolutionary changes to society and economies via scientific and technological breakthroughs have come from the United States.....regardless even if these ideas did not originate from an American....American's will look at a concept....contemplate how to actually make it work for the general public and how it can be used....and then design and build a practical application using such ideas.

That has always been our strong suit.

AboveAlpha

 

When the members of the treaty are as militarily asymmetric as the US and Europe are, yes it does. Especially when the treaty morphs in a mechanism by which the weaker members can leverage US military power for their own benefit, as NATO has in Yugoslavia and Libya.

Wrong. Without the US NATO would be a joke and everyone knows it. But what 'balance of power' are you referring to?

 

Wrong. Blitzkrieg was not a 'technological threat', it was a tactical innovation. Guderian's vision relied on three technological innovations to make the Blitzkrieg possible; highly mobile mechanized ground forces, highly accurate tactical air support, and communications systems that allowed them to talk to each other in real time. But neither mechanized forces, tactical air power, nor radio were unique to the Germans, some French tanks were actually considered superior to German armor. Guderian's genius lay in the tactics which synergistically integrated them into what amounted to a single weapon. Since then a plethora of technologies have been developed to disrupt one, the other, or all of these. These include, but are not limited to, air and artillery scatterable mines, ATGMs both air and ground launched, SAMs of all varieties, and electronic warfare systems to degrade the communications necessary for the ground and air components to coordinate their efforts. The list goes on. Any history of the Yom Kippur War would provide several insights into this subject.

 

When NATO was formed it was a foil to the Warsaw Pact. Now the biggest single threat in the region is the Russians. Now NATO only needs a combined force capable of defending against an attack by its biggest neighbor

 

Thanks for explaining this to some of the people here Jonsa.

I have FAMILY MEMBERS LIVING IN CANADA.....and the reality is MILLIONS OF AMERICAN'S have Canadian Family Members and MILLIONS OF CANADIANS have American Family Members.

THUS CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES ARE JOINED BY BLOOD.

This is a simple fact and even though these two very large areas of North America....Canada is the 2nd Largest by Area country in the world and the U.S. is 4th....behind Russia, Canada and China....even though there are two names for these regions of North America both Countries really are part of one single large country.

The U.S. and Canada share the longest unprotected boarder in the world....both Canadian and American Military's practice JOINT DEFENSE MANEUVERS IN BOTH COUNTRY'S ON A DAILY BASIS....unlike other U.S. Allies which do so every so often or as part of U.S. Military Base Defense.

Both Canada and the U.S. share SPORTS TEAMS in Hockey...NHL and Baseball...Major Leagues...Basketball...NBA....and soon the NFL....although Canada has some very avid Canadian Football Fans.

The thing is that when you talk about these two countries you are talking about FAMILIES containing MILLIONS OF PEOPLE who are apart of both countries.

Neither Canada or the U.S. would hesitate for a split second to counter attack any other group or nation attacking either country.

AboveAlpha

 

LOL Really? What was the one, and only, time Article 5 of the NATO Charter has been invoked?

 

You are right...NATO would become a complete JOKE if the U.S. was not a part of NATO. If this happened the Russian's would be causing all sorts of issues for Europe both Politically and Economically and even perhaps Militarily.

The truth is without the United States....NATO would have no real cohesive conventional force to combat a Russian Incursion or an Iranian Incursion into Turkey....as all they would have capable of repelling such invasion forces would be NUKES owned by the U.K. and France.

And I hardly think the U.K. would drop a nuke on Russian Forces using conventional weapons to say...Invade Poland, Italy, France or Germany.

However as of right now neither Iran or Russia would even THINK ABOUT invading Europe or Turkey because they know that NATO is fully capable of defeating any conventional army with conventional weapons.....AS LONG AS THE U.S. MILITARY IS A PART OF NATO.

AboveAlpha

 

I have no idea why you ask this question. Do you believe there have been attacks on member nations that should have triggered article 5 and didn't?

 

No, the point is that the only time NATO was actually called upon to carry out it's mission was not in response to a Russian attack on Europe but an attack on the US, and not even by the Russians. So your claim that 'the biggest single threat in the region is the Russians. Now NATO only needs a combined force capable of defending against an attack by its biggest neighbor' is only true if you're a European. From an American perspective, it's completely wrong. And the fact is, Europe lacks the force projection capabilities to respond effectively to any of the threats we face.

 

The only time NATO’s Armageddon Article 5 collective defense clause was ever invoked was on 12 September, 2001 in defense of the United States.

That is his point.

AboveAlpha

 

And it should have been also invoked when?

 

Absolutely as invoking Article 5 allowed the U.S. Military complete and total Air Supremacy of all air space over North America, Central America, Europe, many areas in the Pacific and other air space.

It allowed us to stop all incoming air traffic in to the American Mainland, Territories as well as allow us to properly defend our over 100 Military Bases overseas as well as since the U.S. EUROCOM is responsible for European Defense as well as directing NATO FORCES during such a scenario until the treat can properly be determined which will then allow NATO COMMAND....which is also led by the United States to take over.

But in the opening moments of any such possible attack....elements such as NATO and all other U.S. Allied Non-NATO Forces....await instructions from NORAD, U.S. SPACE COMMAND and EUROCON....CENTCOM....PACIFICON....AFRICON....ASIACON...etc.

The threat must first be understood and determined before the proper Military Force or Coordinated NATO Military response can be enacted.

AboveAlpha

 

I am sure there is a point to this post but I am buggered if I can find it - Dont you have some UFOS or exotic junk physics to go chase?

 

See....this is the kind of posts a person makes by eating that Viggecrap stuff! LOL!!!

SWITCH TO PEANUT BUTTER!!!

AboveAlpha

 

Yes. We spend to much. That's because the US wants to play world cop. We have troops in every other country.

If the US brings the troops home and concentrates on defending only our borders defense will be a lot cheaper. Get out of NATO, Japan, Korea, etc etc Bring the troops home and let the rest of the world defend itself.

Here is another thought. We borrow money from China in order to pay for our budget deficit. So we borrow money from China in order to defend Taiwan from China. If you put this in a movie the audience would be throwing popcorn at the screen because it is an implausible story.

 

Fat Leonard caught up in Navy scandal...

Another Navy officer caught up in 'Fat Leonard' bribery scandal
November 21st, 2013 ~ The Navy has reassigned the second in command of a unit that protects ships and harbors as part of an ongoing criminal investigation into alleged bribery by a defense contractor.