cheesemoo

Member Profile

A little about me...
Moo.

Member Since: May 8, 2007
Last Power Points used: never
Available: now
Power Points at Recharge: 1   Get More Power Points Now!

Comments to cheesemoo

siftbot says...

Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 6 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!


siftbot says...

Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 5 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!


siftbot says...

Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 4 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!


siftbot says...

Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 3 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!


siftbot says...

Congratulations on reaching new heights on VideoSift. You have earned yourself 35 stars, earning you status of Silver Star member. You have been awarded 1 Power Point for achieving this level. Thanks for all your contributions.

Constitutional_Patriot says...

43.3 Billion eh? I guess the fiat banking system needed the money more. Seriously.. the military spends a huge amount on the technology to kill yet leaves their troops with minimal protection. The outcome is more deaths all the while someone is profiting from the sale of arms and overpriced no-bid contracts. Such a shame.

In reply to this comment by cheesemoo:
There's about 1.4 million people on active duty in the whole of the US military. Out of those, there are 433,000 enlisted people in the Army. Ignoring the other branches, and officers in the army, and at $100k a pop, it would cost $43.3 billion to equip all of the enlisted army soldiers. That's a bit under 1% of the military's annual budget of ~$550 billion. (from wikipedia)

On a per-soldier level, the army spends in the neighborhood of $50k to train a new recruit, from enlistment to their first assigned post. (source) Not 100% sure what exactly this figure entails, but I am guessing it does not include equipment. Could be wrong.

Anyway, regardless of its effectiveness in saving lives, it seems unlikely that the army would want to ~triple the cost of a new recruit. I believe it was mentioned in the discussion for the AK47 vs. M16 video that the main reason we are still using the M16, even though better weapons have been developed, is that we already have a lot of M16s, and it's cheaper to make small changes to the existing design instead of buying new guns for everybody.

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Member's Highest Rated Videos