a little excessive?

[blackhole123]

I read in a magazine that 6.1 billion dollars was just spent on the presidents helicoptor Marine 1. Does anyone else think this i a little excessive. I mean I completely understand that he needs to be safe but 6.1 billion? I dont think that people should have to pay taxes just for the money to go to a person and not the country.

[ecoli]

you do have to admit, though, it's a sexy machine.

 

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviationspace/fe69366fbff8a010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

[Skye]

There's 23 of them, and the cost probably includes support which is often the majority of the cost of military procurements. They are still pricey though.

[Sisyphus]

Let it be known: I hereby declare that I will drive the President around anywhere he needs to go for HALF that amount.

[zyncod]

That is more than the entire budget request from the NSF for 2007 ($6.02 billion). Which is incredibly sick, considering how much better off the world would be if a poorly built Marine 1 crashed in flight (joking, of course, because then Cheney would be our president).

[drochaid]

People need to move away from the obsurd idea that the US president runs the world (oops, I meant country). His role is exceptionally minor and all the fear of a "headless state" if he were assasinated is false. There are many many people who already make the descisions without him, often leaving him soley as a figurehead which, let's face it, is all any country leader really is.

 

The assination of such may be devastating emotionally for a country, but would have virtually no impact on its operation. Spending the level of money the US (and all the other countries) does to keep a single man alive is just ridiculous.

 

I'm sure there may be a few people homeless, ill without medical insurance, working three jobs and can barely pay rent etc who would be remarkably happy for a tiny slice of that $6.1bn (USD) alone.

[Jim]

People need to move away from the obsurd idea that the US president runs the world (oops' date=' I meant country). His role is exceptionally minor and all the fear of a "headless state" if he were assasinated is false. There are many many people who already make the descisions without him, often leaving him soley as a figurehead which, let's face it, is all any country leader really is.

 

The assination of such may be devastating emotionally for a country, but would have virtually no impact on its operation. Spending the level of money the US (and all the other countries) does to keep a single man alive is just ridiculous.

 

I'm sure there may be a few people homeless, ill without medical insurance, working three jobs and can barely pay rent etc who would be remarkably happy for a tiny slice of that $6.1bn (USD) alone.[/quote']

 

The aircraft themselves cost $110 million. The money is to be spent over five years beginning in 2009.

 

In any event, these machines, I imagine, are designed to minimize the impact of EMP damage and, no doubt, have considerable defenses against surface to air missiles.

 

These systems are designed to allow the government to function during times of crisis. It would be foolish in the extreme not to do everything possible to ensure continuity of command.

[drochaid]

The aircraft themselves cost $110 million.

I'm wondering which part of this you think makes it better, and thanks but I actually did read the article.

These systems are designed to allow the government to function during times of crisis. It would be foolish in the extreme not to do everything possible to ensure continuity of command.

What's foolish is protecting the select few against an event which may or may not occur rather than the many, the people they have been elected to serve, NOW.

 

Quite frankly in the event of such an attack I couldn't care less if a few people in power are safe. They almost certainly had rather a lot to do with the cause of the attack and who's going to be left for them to function for?

[Jim]

I'm wondering which part of this you think makes it better, and thanks but I actually did read the article.

 

$6.1B over five years and for a fleet of several aircraft does seem to be more reasonable than the converse. I wasn't saying you didn't understand this. *shrug*

 

What's foolish is protecting the select few against an event which may or may not occur rather than the many, the people they have been elected to serve, NOW.

 

Quite frankly in the event of such an attack I couldn't care less if a few people in power are safe. They almost certainly had rather a lot to do with the cause of the attack and who's going to be left for them to function for?

 

Try to get out of attack mode for a minute and let's see if we can't agree on a few things.

 

You would agree that the military should not be allowed to launch a nuclear strike without presidential authority? If so, then you want the president to be in communication with the military in the event of a national crisis simply as a matter of keeping control of the nukes.

 

If a civilian order is necessary to launch nukes and an EMP pulse could sever the US military from civilian command, a first strike in a time of crisis becomes more thinkable for an enemy. Secure command, control and communication makes an attack less likely in the first place.

 

How much money is it worth to you to keep control of nukes and to reduce the risk of a nuclear exchange?

[blackhole123]

Yeah but should the money be spent on things like a 25x8 ft cabin with a lavatory, galley kitchen and stairs so he doesnt have to duck when exiting?

Tax money should not be spent on luxery items for 1 man.

[john5746]

How much money is it worth to you to keep control of nukes and to reduce the risk of a nuclear exchange?

 

How much money is it worth to you to keep babies from starving to death?

 

These types of questions aren't very practical in discussing budgets.

[Sisyphus]

Yeah but should the money be spent on things like a 25x8 ft cabin with a lavatory' date=' galley kitchen and stairs so he doesnt have to duck when exiting?

Tax money should not be spent on luxery items for 1 man.[/quote']

 

Somehow I doubt those were the parts that cost $110 million. More like a few hundred thousand at the most, which seems like a small price to pay to give America's representative to the world some extra dignity.

[Jim]

How much money is it worth to you to keep babies from starving to death?

 

These types of questions aren't very practical in discussing budgets.

 

 

Sure they are. You can't just consider the gross cost without considering the rationale for the expenditure. In this case, we are going to spend $6.1B over five years to solidify the C3 link in a time of crisis. I'm not saying this means you can spend every dime of the budget on C3 but it is an important element of defense and deterrence.

[john5746]

Sure they are. You can't just consider the gross cost without considering the rationale for the expenditure. In this case, we are going to spend $6.1B over five years to solidify the C3 link in a time of crisis. I'm not saying this means you can spend every dime of the budget on C3 but it is an important element of defense and deterrence.

 

Yes, and you also have to think about the likelyhood of the crisis compared to others and possible cheaper alternatives. It just seems to me that the DOD is getting their way with the budgets and going over the top with stuff like this. Since budgets are so large, waste gets lost in the pile.

 

Maybe we will have a President that doesn't stay on vacation during a predicted catastrophe and seem inept in dealing with emergencies riding in those helicopters. Then, they might be worth 1 billion.

[Jim]

Yes' date=' and you also have to think about the likelyhood of the crisis compared to others and possible cheaper alternatives. It just seems to me that the DOD is getting their way with the budgets and going over the top with stuff like this. Since budgets are so large, waste gets lost in the pile.

 

Maybe we will have a President that doesn't stay on vacation during a predicted catastrophe and seem inept in dealing with emergencies riding in those helicopters. Then, they might be worth 1 billion. [/quote']

 

Having spent so much money on the nuclear triad, I want the President to stay in communication with it at all times. As to whether all $6.1B is required to do this, I have no idea.

 

Katrina doesn't really have a lot to do with this issue although the more partisan Dems find a way to fit it into about every conversation imaginable.

[john5746]

Having spent so much money on the nuclear triad, I want the President to stay in communication with it at all times. As to whether all $6.1B is required to do this, I have no idea.

 

So the President and Vice President can NEVER be in the same area? If they are both killed we are just so screwed? Sounds like we need communication more than any single person.

 

Katrina doesn't really have a lot to do with this issue although the more partisan Dems find a way to fit it into about every conversation imaginable.

 

Not a Dem, but biased Anti-Bush I admit

 

We have limited resources, so handling emergencies of any kind would compete for those resources. I think that is why the movement of FEMA under homeland security was considered a mistake by many. It had to compete for resources and lost.

[Jim]

So the President and Vice President can NEVER be in the same area? If they are both killed we are just so screwed? Sounds like we need communication more than any single person.

 

I'm sure they are in the same area on occassion and the next in line is in a secure location plugged into the system.

 

Not a Dem, but biased Anti-Bush I admit

 

We have limited resources, so handling emergencies of any kind would compete for those resources. I think that is why the movement of FEMA under homeland security was considered a mistake by many. It had to compete for resources and lost.

 

My comment wasn't so much directed towards you as wondering if there is any limit that will ever be imposed by the MSM or public in the Dems ability to exploit Katrina. Dems and their allies refer to it almost on a subliminal basis.

 

Chris Mathews: Good evening... Katrina... Secretary Rumsfeld, thank you... Katrina... for joining us... Mike Brown ... today. Excuse me, I have something caught in my throat: *coughingKatrina!Katrina!Katrina!*

 

Sec. Rumsfeld: Er, hello Chris. We were going to talk about Iraq, I thought?

 

Chris Mathews: Yes, WMD liar, I'm sorry I meant Katrina! I did.

[ecoli]

So the President and Vice President can NEVER be in the same area? If they are both killed we are just so screwed? Sounds like we need communication more than any single person.

 

Why take unnecesary risks. These people were voted into power, so shouldn't we make sure at least one of them survive the office?