Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, March 16, 2017

A Patriot missile -- usually priced at about $3 million -- was used to shoot down a small quadcopter drone, according to a U.S. general. The strike was made by a U.S. ally, Gen David Perkins told a military symposium. "That quadcopter that cost $200 bucks from Amazon.com did not stand a chance against a Patriot," he said. Patriots are radar-targeted weapons more commonly used to shoot down enemy aircraft and ballistic missiles. "Now, that worked, they got it, OK, and we love Patriot missiles," the general said.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

I love Patriot missiles now..

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

This wasn't done by the U.S., but it's an example of the kind of wastefulness that typifies military spending. The military official who authorized that ridiculously expensive missile strike must be completely insulated from the need to be fiscally responsible.

Trump wants to cut State by 28% and put that money into the military, so he's encouraging a lot of money to be burned in the name of our "defense."

There's no part of our government that spends more money less wisely than the military.

#1 | Posted by rcade at 2017-03-16 05:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

The military official who authorized that ridiculously expensive missile strike must be completely insulated from the need to be fiscally responsible.

Since it was one of our allies, the guess is that it was any of the UAE, Kuwaitis or Saudis that launched this and that "military official" was probably the young captain who commands the Patriot battery. He will lucky to keep his rank (along with his head) for wasting a $3M missile.

#2 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-03-16 06:15 PM | Reply

I love Patriot missiles now..

Fiscal "Conservatism" in the works!

#3 | Posted by jpw at 2017-03-16 09:34 PM | Reply

...and a $200 grenade launcher has actually shot down our $52 million Apache helicopter.

US military waste is this countries primary budget problem. The US spends more than the next eight largest countries combined. The military budget doesn't even include nuclear weapons, Homeland Security, the CIA, or NSA. The wasteful clowns in charge win every battle and lose every war. Most alleged threats are imaginary or brought on because of our own unnecessary belligerent behavior.

Trump has now joined the idiot conservatives claiming we need to spend even more on our military. They blame the poor for our budget problems when the predominant causes are out of control spending on healthcare and defense (yet has little to do with defense).

#4 | Posted by nutcase at 2017-03-17 08:17 AM | Reply

No, Nut, military waste is not this countries primary budget problem. The defense budget is 16% of the total federal budget. Non-discretionary spending - entitlements and Social Security - are 60%, and their percentage of the budget continues to grow, as will interest on the debt, which is another 7%. Even if the United States dramatically reduced defense spending, non-discretionary spending (again, 2/3rds of the entire budget) will continue to expand and eventually subsume the rest of the budget.

The CBO that everyone alternately loves and hates said in 2014 that entitlement spending as it exists today is UNSUSTAINABLE.

www.thefiscaltimes.com

#5 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-03-17 08:40 AM | Reply

"The CBO that everyone alternately loves and hates said in 2014 that entitlement spending as it exists today is UNSUSTAINABLE. "

What would they have to say if we took the limit off of income subject to SS taxes? Raise the limit on income subject to SS taxes and everything is fine forever. Ronald Reagan raised that limit so it isn't a wild eyed liberal idea. Conservatives love to whine about problems even when easy solutions are right in front of them.

#6 | Posted by danni at 2017-03-17 08:44 AM | Reply

I think Gen. David Perkins if full of it.

media.giphy.com

#7 | Posted by qcp at 2017-03-17 08:45 AM | Reply

"No, Nut, military waste is not this countries primary budget problem."

Nutcase is sometimes nutty but not on that, of course it is the primary budget problem. It's simply ridiculous that we spend as much as the next 5 biggest spenders on defense combined. Who are we going to use all of this hardware on? WE live in a nuclear world, if we ever get into a war with any of our major competitors and begins to win that war because of all of our hardware nukes will be launched. Conventional war is history, real war today is nuclear and let's hope we never have to experience real war in our lifetimes.

#8 | Posted by danni at 2017-03-17 08:46 AM | Reply

Who are we going to use all of this hardware on?

I've had many military schoolings.

Everyone of them always taught that if you ask that very question, you have already lost the war.

Prior Preparation Prevents Poor Performance.

Conventional war is history, real war today is nuclear and let's hope we never have to experience real war in our lifetimes.

Your country can still be defeated without shooting off one of the many nuclear weapons we have. Conventional war is real war, nuclear is only a tool.

#9 | Posted by boaz at 2017-03-17 09:00 AM | Reply

Social Security is NOT an entitlement. Despite Paul Ryan's Randian fantasies that are lapped up by RWNJs.

#10 | Posted by Reagan58 at 2017-03-17 09:02 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

Conventional war is history, real war today is nuclear and let's hope we never have to experience real war in our lifetimes.

#8 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2017-03-17 08:46 AM | REPLY

Korea, Vietnam, Dominican Republic, Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq (again)...

It's not history, it's a constant. Nuclear powers wage wars against non-nuclear powers. It's no surprise North Korea spent so much of their meager GDP to get them.

#11 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-03-17 09:08 AM | Reply

"It's not history, it's a constant."

Those are not real wars. Those are our unnecessary invasions of countries that never attacked us. A real war would be between us an China or Russia which would end up as a nuclear conflict.

#12 | Posted by danni at 2017-03-17 09:13 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Your country can still be defeated without shooting off one of the many nuclear weapons we have. "

No, you're wrong, when any nuclear power finds itself losing a conventional war it would become a nuclear war at that moment. Nukes are not offensive weapons, they are defensive weapons. That's why so many countries that are threatened by the United States want them or already have them. We won't be invading N. Korea anytime soon will we?

#13 | Posted by danni at 2017-03-17 09:15 AM | Reply

when any nuclear power finds itself losing a conventional war it would become a nuclear war at that moment.

That is what a civilian, someone without military campaign experience, would say. And that isn't always the case.

Nukes are not offensive weapons, they are defensive weapons.

Again, you are misinformed. Any weapon can become an offensive weapon.

Those are not real wars.

Tell that to the people who fought in them. This is why liberals should not be in the war fighting business. We will lose everytime.

#14 | Posted by boaz at 2017-03-17 09:34 AM | Reply

Those are not real wars.

#12 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2017-03-17 09:13 AM | FLAG:

LOL. You don't get to define war by size of the economies involved.

#15 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-03-17 09:48 AM | Reply

by that logic, there is no war in Donbass.

#16 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-03-17 09:51 AM | Reply

What would be worse than a $3 million dollar missile shooting down a $300.00 drone? If it missed.

#17 | Posted by danni at 2017-03-17 09:57 AM | Reply

"That is what a civilian, someone without military campaign experience, would say. And that isn't always the case. "

Is America any safer because of any of the so called wars? No. Because they were unnecessary and idiotic. Donbass is another story, and realize the only reason Donbass is happening is becaue Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons in 1992 with the agreement from the USSR that they would never invade Ukraine. Today, Russia is violating that treaty which they inherited from the USSR and the entire "war" is really just an attempt to gain a road from Russia to Crimea though I have heard fools on the radio still repeating the Russian pretense that is an attempt to "protect" the Russian speakers of Ukraine. I personally know Russian speakers from and still in Ukraine, they are under no threat at all from Ukrainians, only fools believe that lie put out by the Russians as justification for their attempted land grab of eastern Ukraine.

#18 | Posted by danni at 2017-03-17 10:02 AM | Reply

Donbass is another story, and realize the only reason Donbass is happening is becaue Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons in 1992 with the agreement from the USSR that they would never invade Ukraine.

So is Ukraine safer because of that negotiation? As libs like yourself like to tout, negotiation and "talking" can solve every armed conflict. Did it work out for Ukraine?

And if it didn't, what now? Is it just "oh well, we lost"?

And you wonder why the liberal mode of thought is rejected by those who actually win wars..

#19 | Posted by boaz at 2017-03-17 10:11 AM | Reply

What a stupid waste of fiscal dollars and a real waste of military potential.

Someone clearly didn't value the dollar and use of a patriot. It does put in effect though that new smaller far cheaper type weapons are needed to remove these drones.

As less capable military use these cheap drones it will be put on priority for defense.

#20 | Posted by Crassus at 2017-03-17 10:18 AM | Reply

It does put in effect though that new smaller far cheaper type weapons are needed to remove these drones.

I would agree.

It seems to me that a drone wouldn't even trigger the explosion against such a light object as a drone. The weapon would simply push it out of the way.

#21 | Posted by boaz at 2017-03-17 10:27 AM | Reply

"So is Ukraine safer because of that negotiation? As libs like yourself like to tout, negotiation and "talking" can solve every armed conflict. Did it work out for Ukraine?"

I never said that. Ukraine would have been much safer keeping their nukes. Putin wouldn't be invading if they had. You can pretend you know what "libs" think but for the most part you are clueless.

#22 | Posted by danni at 2017-03-17 11:12 AM | Reply

"And if it didn't, what now? Is it just "oh well, we lost"?"

Complicated question, we have sanctions which should definitely stay in place (though Trump wants to lift them) and we should also pressure the Russians in other ways. I would support arming the Ukrainians with more weapons but I fear that would just lead to a full scale Russian invasion. I think we need smart people looking for ways to pressure Russia without provoking a war which would not benefit Ukraine. I fear that with Trump in office it will be terribly mishandled.

#23 | Posted by danni at 2017-03-17 11:16 AM | Reply

It was a test. And everyone knows it.

#24 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2017-03-17 12:38 PM | Reply

Once again the liberals show how ignorant they are.

If the missile have failed to hit the drone it would have been a failure. However since it hit it it proved it works correctly. There are times you might want to shoot down such a drone.

#25 | Posted by tmaster at 2017-03-17 01:51 PM | Reply

The problem is that all we get for 16% of our budget is maimed and killed Americans and holes in a foreign desert.

The money we spend in a year on military is just gone. We paid $3 million to wreck a drone. We spent $3 million to do what could be done with a 35 cent shotgun shell. That is waste

#26 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-03-17 02:02 PM | Reply

#5, Calling something an "entitlement" which is self funded is a widespread LIE in this country, sponsored by lying conservatives. The reason these accounts appear to be in a perpetual budget crisis is because these funds have been robbed to wage unnecessary, morally depraved wars and never accomplish their alleged intent, which have always been LIES. War is expensive and its true cost is deferred or hidden. Shrub never paid for the Iraq war. The SS funds were robbed during the Vietnam war. Defense spending is 54% of all discretionary spending. The 54% does not include nuclear weapons, Homeland Security, CIA or NSA. Paying out what was paid in is not discretionary.

#27 | Posted by nutcase at 2017-03-17 06:12 PM | Reply

" The SS funds were robbed during the Vietnam war. Defense spending is 54% of all discretionary spending."

That is nonsense. The SS funds are still right where they are supposed to be but don't get me wrong the billionaires of today are going to try and move those funds to a private bank so that they can "invest" those funds and make us all millionaires. Until they privatize SS, SS is still solvent because it is tax based and we can always raise the amount of income subject to the SS tax. If we removed the limit all together, SS would be solvent forever.

#28 | Posted by danni at 2017-03-17 07:14 PM | Reply

OK Danni, news to me.

Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

The fund has not been robbed. However it has been used as an accounting trick to make the Federal Budget, always in crisis during our many wars, look better than it actually is. The "unified budget" throws the social security trust fund onto the balance sheet, when prior to 1969 it was not included.

I am defining discretionary spending as those costs outside of SS and Medicare, because those two programs have separate funding mechanisms. As you correctly state, all we have to do to balance health care and social security is raise the tax cap. That's what was done with ACA which Ryan is trying to undo.

We spend more on the military than the next eight largest militarys combined. Anyone claiming the Federal military budget is too small is a liar, which includes Trump as usual. I interpret his budget increase proposal as a defeat of his outreach to Russia.

#29 | Posted by nutcase at 2017-03-17 08:27 PM | Reply

When forces can not do basic maint., meet rediness & performance goals due to years of cuts; budget changes are needed.

#30 | Posted by TIGER at 2017-03-18 05:22 AM | Reply

Raytheon stock just went up 20 points.

If you can spend $200 for a drone and make your opponent shoot off a $3,430,000 missile you just won that battle.

#31 | Posted by SomebodyElse at 2017-03-18 12:47 PM | Reply

"I am defining discretionary spending as those costs outside of SS and Medicare, because those two programs have separate funding mechanisms. As you correctly state, all we have to do to balance health care and social security is raise the tax cap. That's what was done with ACA which Ryan is trying to undo."

Exactly. He'd rather let people die than force millionaires to pay a few more dollars in taxes. He is a vampire, btw. There is no doubt about that, it's a fact.

#32 | Posted by danni at 2017-03-18 12:59 PM | Reply

We spend more on the military than the next eight largest militarys combined.
#29 | Posted by nutcase

ANY discussion of military spending needs to start with that fact and explain why we need to spend that much. Never mind spending more. Are we so stupid that we have to spend that much more than any possible enemy? The Russians have ONE aircraft carrier that is ready for sea maybe half the time. It has to be followed by tugs for when it breaks down. So we need a whole fleet of them?

#33 | Posted by SomebodyElse at 2017-03-18 02:47 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

-->
Drudge Retort