"main engine" =/= "totally based upon"
We are running a very delicate balance right now between throttling down on the feed across the board (the infamous sequester plan) and having the economic growth not meet the political demands. Using your provided reference, if you compare the drop in defense spending actual value over the past five years (847 to 813 billion or 4%) to the drop in total spending (3.758 to 3.457 trillion or 8%) you find that defense is actually growing as percentage of government spending, from 22.5% in 2010 to 23.5% in 2015. The economic growth despite the reduced total "kick" is partially sustained by having a slightly larger share of that kick going to the strongest kicker, but there doesn't appear to be any way for our economy to function without producing an endless stream of arms that we then have to figure out something to do with.
It's false to say military spending is 'growing' when there is a recognized reduction in its spending. Can you provide a link for your numbers please?
I aint responsible for what you found
Are you responsible for what you claimed? You said 'tank' and that's not a tank. Pardon me for actually doing the research and proving you wrong.
They're explosives and they kill and the courts think they're reasonable to use against us, that was my point
There is a difference in non-lethal and not dangerous. Are they designed to kill? No. And by 'us' you also include very well armed criminals more than willing to get into shootouts with the cops.
Again, the number of actual fatalities/incidents from these is extremely minimal in consideration of the overall use. Just because you can find 10 instances of things going wrong in 20 years is not a reason to counter the benefit of using such devices.
I found one site with dozens of cases but they were much more recent than the Minnesota case.
So, lets expand it from 10 to 'dozens' .... over about 20 years of use. And since these are used by other police forces all over the world, it's not really an indication that US polilce forces are any more militarized than anyone else.
They may save the lives of police, and I doubt that, but they dont save the lives of innocent people.
If you don't have to shoot someone because they are stunned it does significantly reduce the chance they will be killed in an encounter with the police. If people are stunned and unable to fire at the police upon entry, then that helps save the lives of police.
These devices are widely used for a reason: they actually work.
http://www.quora.com/What-does-it-feel-like-to-be-affected-by-a-flashbang-grenade
What does it feel like to be affected by a flashbang grenade?
Firstly, you lose your vision. The flash of light
momentarily activates all sensory pigment in the retina, making vision
impossible for approximately five seconds until the eye restores the
pigment to its original, unstimulated state. Its like having someone take a picture with flash right in front of your eyes.
Secondly, your ears ring like a son-of-a- for quite some time, depending on how much experience you have with bangers.
Thirdly, you stumble around looking like a drunk for a little while. the concussion causes a spike in pressure disturbing the fluid in the semicircular canals of the ear. These canals consist of three half circles of tubing, each oriented in one of the three planes of motion, that are filled with saline. The motion of this fluid is detected by small hairlike cilia that line the walls of the canals. This is how we sense balance, so you can see how a spike in pressure would damage these cilia.
Fourthly, you have a generally concussed feeling. As if you had been punched in the face, fallen on your head, or perhaps had a large explosion happen right next to you.
In other words, it can be quite disorienting. As is the designers expressed aim.
Can they cause fires? Sure, but so can tear gas or types of non-lethal crowd control rounds.
Yeah, and tanks aint tanks if they dont have treads and grenades aint military any more "per se" (gee, kinda what militarizing the police means, stuff that was normally used in war has become standard for cops). I'd say anything goes describes what we did in Iraq. Did you fight in Iraq? You asked for a few cases and I looked up a few and you dismissed them because it was a few cases.
Can we agree that words actually have meaning? If so, then yeah, that's not a 'tank' by any reach of the common use of the word. And you found a SINGLE use of a wheeled APC, and a really bad example at that: by a used up action star for a reality show bit.
I dismissed your findings because they simply show the perception just isn't the reality in this situation.
And fwiw, the vast majority of that 'militarized' gear can be bought off the shelf at most of your tactical gear stores right here in the USA.
No, I didn't fight in Iraq (did you?), but I did help in the court martials of more than a few people that did go for the 'anything goes' mindset. There are such thing like Rules of Engagement for the military that exist for a reason.
