You've got such a simplistic view of government it's cute.
Are you going to enlighten me or are you just going to continue insulting me?
You can enlighten yourself, but I did give you a few sources. Check out Wikipedia for costs of maglev construction. Also check out the actual budgetary numbers for Amtrak, which is the Federalized passenger railway company. Note that most of the track isn't actually owned by Amtrak anyway, it's owned by rail companies that move freight and is rented to Amtrak.
Of course, the Department of Transportation's budget is far higher than Amtrak's but go ahead and look through it. Here you go.
What would you replace in that budget to make room for a Maglev?
The United States should scrap every single element of it's military except the Marines, a big tank battalion, one carrier group, and a shitload of drones. That will both prevent the declaration of stupid wars, as it will be unable to fight a war of occupation, and save a ton of money that can be used to rebuild the country. And you'll still be able to defeat any other army on Earth.
(At the current point in time, if every single army in the world declared war on the US and used all it's non-nuclear assets, the US could defeat every single conventional army in sequence with room to spare. It is absurd how powerful the US military is.)
Just do it for like, twenty years. Anything that happens in that time, just plaster it with drones and have the Marines check the bodies. At the end of that time, once the new infrastructure has boomed the economy massively, maybe you could rebuild the military, if you still think you need it.
Personally I'm more of a fan of TGV-style high speed rail. It's compatible with existing rail lines (maybe, the US' rail lines are decrepit and still have joints and breaks in them), and you don't have to build a whole new industry just to maintain them.
Of course, you'll never get all the right of way you would need to be able to get a high speed train up to high speeds in the northeast. Too crowded.
Personally I'm more of a fan of TGV-style high speed rail. It's compatible with existing rail lines (maybe, the US' rail lines are decrepit and still have joints and breaks in them), and you don't have to build a whole new industry just to maintain them.
Of course, you'll never get all the right of way you would need to be able to get a high speed train up to high speeds in the northeast. Too crowded.
Well we don't need to do 300 MPH, but at least 100 MPH would be better than apparently 74 MPH the fastest "High speed" train does.
The United States should scrap every single element of it's military except the Marines, a big tank battalion, one carrier group, and a shitload of drones...
Honestly, we should be spending more money on drone development than manned bombers and fighters. Why build a manned bomber? Just build huge supersonic flying-wing drones that are nuclear-capable.
Well we don't need to do 300 MPH, but at least 100 MPH would be better than apparently 74 MPH the fastest "High speed" train does.
I think those speed limits are there because of aging electrical power infrastructure over the rails. The Acela itself can operate at 150MPH easily. No need for a big shiny new maglev. Just improve the existing infrastructure slowly to expand the Acela's service down the coast a bit further.
The United States should scrap every single element of it's military except the Marines, a big tank battalion, one carrier group, and a shitload of drones...
That is a ridiculous and simplistic suggestion.
Yes, it is. But I don't think you grasp how incredible OP the US military is. It could straight-up cut itself in half, just fire half the people in every single position, break half of all their fancy toys, and still win any conventional war you ask of them. It was a hyperbolic suggestion meant to rely how stupidly oversized the US army is.
There are small homogenous groups of assets within the US army more powerful than two or three national militarizes put together.
The United States should scrap every single element of it's military except the Marines, a big tank battalion, one carrier group, and a shitload of drones...
That is a ridiculous and simplistic suggestion.
Yes, it is. But I don't think you grasp how incredible OP the US military is. It could straight-up cut itself in half, just fire half the people in every single position, break half of all their fancy toys, and still win any conventional war you ask of them. It was a hyperbolic suggestion meant to rely how stupidly oversized the US army is.
There are small homogenous groups of assets within the US army more powerful than two or three national militarizes put together.
Oh, I grasp it. I think you underestimate the value of truly overwhelming force projection capabilities, nevermind our ability to act unilaterally when the situation demands it. I'd love to see the US take a greater peacekeeping role, not a lesser one.
The United States should scrap every single element of it's military except the Marines, a big tank battalion, one carrier group, and a shitload of drones...
That is a ridiculous and simplistic suggestion.
Yes, it is. But I don't think you grasp how incredible OP the US military is. It could straight-up cut itself in half, just fire half the people in every single position, break half of all their fancy toys, and still win any conventional war you ask of them. It was a hyperbolic suggestion meant to rely how stupidly oversized the US army is.
There are small homogenous groups of assets within the US army more powerful than two or three national militarizes put together.
This. I don't agree with sketch %100 (I think we should keep 3 carriers, matching Italy's current #2 spot), but it's all semantics.
Were ND, WA, or NM to secede from the union, they would instantly become the worlds 3d largest nuclear power. If Georgia did, they would be in the top 5, IIRC.
Oh, I grasp it. I think you underestimate the value of truly overwhelming force projection capabilities, nevermind our ability to act unilaterally when the situation demands it. I'd love to see the US take a greater peacekeeping role, not a lesser one.
So then why do we have bases in Germany, Italy, and Bulgaria? Why do we have a naval base in Greenland? If we had 5 well placed aircraft carriers, we could respond to any feasible outbreak of war in the world; instead, we have 11.
One reason that many other countries don't bother with having armies is because they know they can call on the U.S. Military to do things for them. Our allies don't have to bother spending money on a large military. So they don't.
The omnipresence of the US military does a fair part to dissuade international belligerence as well. No one wants to cause trouble if it means "Big Papa USA" is gonna "whoop yo punk ass" if you do.
A significant reduction in the US military would simultaneously force our allies to start building up theirs while removing one of the largest checks on international belligerence we have.
I'm not saying that we should probably cut down on military spending. I just think we should do so by being more efficient in how the money is spent, and without compromising our "Number 1" spot.
There's a lot of money to be saved in overhauling the bid and contract system, honestly. We're not doing a lot to foster good competition and efficiency with the current system.
One reason that many other countries don't bother with having armies is because they know they can call on the U.S. Military to do things for them. Our allies don't have to bother spending money on a large military. So they don't.
The omnipresence of the US military does a fair part to dissuade international belligerence as well. No one wants to cause trouble if it means "Big Papa USA" is gonna "whoop yo punk ass" if you do.
A significant reduction in the US military would simultaneously force our allies to start building up theirs while removing one of the largest checks on international belligerence we have.
I'm not saying that we should probably cut down on military spending. I just think we should do so by being more efficient in how the money is spent, and without compromising our "Number 1" spot.
I've given up arguing for non-interventionalism. Too messy a fight. I just want us to go back down to omnipotent instead of omnipotent and then some. We refuse to fire our generals, so we overcompensate with overspending. The lesson of the Cold War (in terms of foreign policy) was two fold: -Thou shalt not start a land war in Asia -Leadership is more important than strength.
During Operation Rolling Thunder, every $10 the US spent on Vietnam, it only destroyed $1 of North Vietnamese property. It took us 10 years and over $3 Trillion to kill Osama bin Laden. I just want efficiency.
There are plenty of places on this Earth without a functioning government. All you need is an AK-47 and a plane ticket. Freedom!
You missed my point. I like government. I don't like Big government. Scale EVERYTHING back.
Earlier in this thread:
Imagine a maglev going up and down the east coast hitting all the major cities there.
And I bet we could do it with the budget we've got, and don't put fucking words in my mouth WUB.
The Chūō Shinkansen is a ~$100 billion project, which is something like 2% of Japan's GDP, or something like 10% of their yearly budget. The cost will be spread over several years, though.
An equally fast east coast line (let's say, Boston - D.C.) would probably be significantly more expensive than that (maybe upwards of $200bn); it's almost 1.5x the distance, and the U.S. doesn't have the kind of already-existing infrastructure that Japan does.
It's hard to see how you would expect to fund projects like that while scaling everything back and cutting taxes. What parts should be cut?
That was neatly sidestepped. I think we can all agree that a maglev up and down the east coast is something that will not be seen, despite it being a neat idea. I also wish we'd be able to see any sort of high speed rail outside of Acela in the northeast, but I'm doubtful about that happening due to the mess we've pushed ourselves into regarding rail system management.
I'm not sure Amtrak could pull themselves out of their hole anymore. I love train travel, but the last time I took Amtrak a long distance (up to Boston, so about 12 hours) it was in no way superior to flying. It was as expensive, slower, only slightly more comfortable, and wasted so much time.
Argue that you have a medical condition. Fake it if you have to. Or get enough AP credits to be a second-year.
I am a second year. That's why I'm pissed that I'm having trouble. Although everything seems to be working out now, so hopefully things are fine. The site finally let me change my meal option to all debit, but it hasn't given me the debit yet. But yeah, with Physics from 6-8 3 days a week, I don't want to have to eat at Gracie's 5 times a week.
Comments
Of course, the Department of Transportation's budget is far higher than Amtrak's but go ahead and look through it. Here you go.
What would you replace in that budget to make room for a Maglev?
(At the current point in time, if every single army in the world declared war on the US and used all it's non-nuclear assets, the US could defeat every single conventional army in sequence with room to spare. It is absurd how powerful the US military is.)
Just do it for like, twenty years. Anything that happens in that time, just plaster it with drones and have the Marines check the bodies. At the end of that time, once the new infrastructure has boomed the economy massively, maybe you could rebuild the military, if you still think you need it.
Of course, you'll never get all the right of way you would need to be able to get a high speed train up to high speeds in the northeast. Too crowded.
Easy to do, aside from the fact that it's not.
There are small homogenous groups of assets within the US army more powerful than two or three national militarizes put together.
Were ND, WA, or NM to secede from the union, they would instantly become the worlds 3d largest nuclear power. If Georgia did, they would be in the top 5, IIRC.
EDIT: Ninja'd by Rym.
One reason that many other countries don't bother with having armies is because they know they can call on the U.S. Military to do things for them. Our allies don't have to bother spending money on a large military. So they don't.
The omnipresence of the US military does a fair part to dissuade international belligerence as well. No one wants to cause trouble if it means "Big Papa USA" is gonna "whoop yo punk ass" if you do.
A significant reduction in the US military would simultaneously force our allies to start building up theirs while removing one of the largest checks on international belligerence we have.
I'm not saying that we should probably cut down on military spending. I just think we should do so by being more efficient in how the money is spent, and without compromising our "Number 1" spot.
-Thou shalt not start a land war in Asia
-Leadership is more important than strength.
During Operation Rolling Thunder, every $10 the US spent on Vietnam, it only destroyed $1 of North Vietnamese property. It took us 10 years and over $3 Trillion to kill Osama bin Laden. I just want efficiency.
An equally fast east coast line (let's say, Boston - D.C.) would probably be significantly more expensive than that (maybe upwards of $200bn); it's almost 1.5x the distance, and the U.S. doesn't have the kind of already-existing infrastructure that Japan does.
It's hard to see how you would expect to fund projects like that while scaling everything back and cutting taxes. What parts should be cut?
I'm not sure Amtrak could pull themselves out of their hole anymore. I love train travel, but the last time I took Amtrak a long distance (up to Boston, so about 12 hours) it was in no way superior to flying. It was as expensive, slower, only slightly more comfortable, and wasted so much time.