To: vannrox
3% additional spending tips the scales in our favor? I find it hard to believe that such a little bit at the margin could have such a decisive impact.
To: ProtectOurFreedom
Probably involves moving around existing money as well.
To: ProtectOurFreedom
I'm no military expert, I am however very fluent in disaster recovery scenario's for Enterprise I.T. The entire point of our exercises is to find where failures happen and remediate them prior to a disaster
actually happening and re-test to make sure we can recover.
Based on what I've read over the years about these military simulations, they appear to be the same thing so I'm not surprised that 3% annual spending increase tips the scales back in our favor. It's all about finding the gaps and cracks that cause the loss and fixing them.
Seems to me the same principles in Disaster Recovery are applicable here. (Just my guess and opinion of course.)
8 posted on
03/23/2019 6:23:45 AM PDT by
usconservative
(When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
To: ProtectOurFreedom
"3% additional spending tips the scales in our favor? I find it hard to believe that such a little bit at the margin could have such a decisive impact." I would wager that 3% could be recouped by eliminating all the touchy-feely sensitivity training and GLBTQXYZ outreach and support programs.
14 posted on
03/23/2019 6:34:08 AM PDT by
Joe 6-pack
(Qui me amat, amat et canem meum.)
To: ProtectOurFreedom
3% additional spending tips the scales in our favor? I find it hard to believe that such a little bit at the margin could have such a decisive impact. Obviously you did not read the report and the fine print carefully.
The proposed 3% additional funding includes an allocation of $20billion to the RAND corporation as a consultant to the DoD.
43 posted on
03/23/2019 6:57:46 AM PDT by
nwrep
To: ProtectOurFreedom
3% additional spending tips the scales in our favor? I find it hard to believe that such a little bit at the margin could have such a decisive impact.Clearly, you do not speak Washington DC-ese. What they are saying is the if the government handed over just a measly 3% of the military budget to this private "think tank", then they will make sure that future computer simulations go better for the US. *wink wink* Isn't it WORTH $24 billion to make sure that RAND doesn't have their computer games have those results for nobody to pay attention to???
69 posted on
03/23/2019 7:43:07 AM PDT by
Teacher317
(We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson