Cost of Japanese earthquake vs cost of F-35s


Omicron
#1
The CBC reports that Japan faces a cost in the "tens of billions" to rebuild damage from the recent Richter 8.9 earthquake.

Given that the 65 F-35s are now expected to cost $30 billion, it implies that Japan's costs to rebuild back to first-world status from one of the strongest earthquakes in history will be equal to the cost of forty to sixty five F-35s.

Some will think, "Oh, I guess that means the earthquake didn't do so much damage"...

While others will think, "Woah, we're spending too much for 65 special-purpose jets, especially when there are cheaper and equally effective alternatives, and especially when they'll probably hardly ever be used."

Which of those two perspectives is more rational and/or realistic?
Last edited by Omicron; Mar 14th, 2011 at 05:25 AM..
 
CDNBear
#2
Quote: Originally Posted by Omicron View Post

That means Japan's costs to rebuild back to first-world status from one of the strongest earthquakes in history will be equal to the cost of forty to sixty five F-35s.

Neat opinion. I wonder how much of that cost was for loses to the Japanese whaling fleet in port?

http://glossynews.com/science-and-te...eet-decimated/

Quote:

Some will think, "Oh, I guess that means the earthquake didn't do that much damage"...

I guess it didn't.
Quote:

While others will think, "Woah, we're spending too much for 65 special-purpose jets, especially when there are cheaper and equally effective alternatives, and especially when they'll probably hardly ever be used."

Only if they're stuck in a single obsessive circle, like yourself.

What was it you said we needed again? Blimps? Or was it less Montreal Jews?

Quote:

Which of those two perspectives is more rational and realistic?

The former.
Last edited by CDNBear; Mar 14th, 2011 at 05:07 AM..
 
Stretch
#3
I think, more to the point is whats the cost going to be to the rest of the planet? the earthquake actually altered the earths axis, again, as did the Chilian and Indonesian quakes......how much more "altering" can it handle
Last edited by Stretch; Mar 14th, 2011 at 05:21 AM..
 
Omicron
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by Stretch View Post

I think, more to the point is whats the cost going to be to the rest of the planet? the earthquake actually altered the earths axis, again, as did the Chilian and Indonesian quakes......how much more "altering" can it handle

By how much did it alter the axis?

My bet would be that unless it's more than 3-5 degrees, it's not going to be as damaging to the ecosphere as global warming.

In any case, does it not seem odd that 65 barely useful planes should cost as much as the reconstruction costs of a Richter 8.9 earthquake on an entire industrialized nation's housing and infrastructure, or is it that people are supposed take it for granted that *of course* flying baubles cost that much and are necessary even if hardly used for anything other than air-shows.


For $30 billion, Canada could build, and then pay someone to launch, its own network of GPS and signal-control satellites, plus build a command and control center, plus pay Bombardier to build literary *thousands* of Predator-style drones to patrol the arctic and the coastlines looking for drug smugglers and illegal immigrants, none of which F-35s can do very well, and yes, drones can shoot missiles, so they can be put into battle without endangering the life on an on-board pilot if Canada gets called to help with a UN/NATO mission.

Think of it in terms of bang for the buck.

After all, what are Americans using to do long range patrols and search-and-destroy missions in west-Pakistan and east-Afghanistan?

Not their own F-35s.

They use drones, piloted from the continental USA, controlled via satellite.
Last edited by Omicron; Mar 14th, 2011 at 06:09 AM..
 
Cliffy
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Stretch View Post

I think, more to the point is whats the cost going to be to the rest of the planet? the earthquake actually altered the earths axis, again, as did the Chilian and Indonesian quakes......how much more "altering" can it handle

I heard the Earth righted itself shortly after the axis shift. Have you heard anything about that?

BTW Stretch, where ya been hidin' mate?
 
Stretch
#6
3 good (by present standards) hits to the earths balance, remember, we already in a wobble, will take a toll...for a spinning top to regain its balance after a "distrubance" requires a firm suface, something to anchor on.......sumpin we lack........... just my thorts

been busy, fighting off floods, cyclones, floods, rain...did I mention floods....and now we have julia kissing us arse, BIG time! and floods
Last edited by Stretch; Mar 14th, 2011 at 06:15 AM..
 
Omicron
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Stretch View Post

3 good (by present standards) hits to the earths balance, remember, we already in a wobble, will take a toll...for a spinning top to regain its balance after a "distrubance" requires a firm suface, something to anchor on.......sumpin we lack........... just my thorts

Well, it's a conservation of angular momentum issue.

Keep in mind the earth has a metal core surrounded by liquid rock with a solid crust.

When an earthquake disrupts the crust's axis for a bit, there's an equal and opposite offsetting somewhere else in the sphere, i.e. the core would wobble the opposite way.

After awhile, through forces passed back and forth through the liquid rock mantle, the two cancel each other out and the planet will tend to settle back to where it was.

Where a wobble can turn into a permanent change is if a source of new angular momentum comes from outside, like a big asteroid hitting the planet.

In that case it's a question of what angle and speed the asteroid hits, and at what latitude.

Even then, it tends to be a small shift. Geological evidence indicates that the earths been at about a 23 degree tilt for most of it's history. Small changes have happened for assorted asteroid impacts, but as huge as those impacts might appear to be from the ecosphere's point of view, like when that asteroid smacked out the dinosaurs, in terms of the total mass of the planet, it was a pin-prick.

To get a serious shift of axis you'd have to get hit by something the size of a Galilean moon.

You might be confusing wobble with presses, because yes, the axis does presses, but that's a different effect with a different cause, and yes, sometimes media or some teachers will try to explain the concept of presses by saying it's "like" a wobble.
 
mentalfloss
#8
Wow. That really puts things into perspective. And the actions of this government are supposed to be 'conservative'?
 
MHz
#9
That cost would seem to be based on the total cost of events can be tabulated already. The disaster might be just starting to unfold.

Japan has lots of money for rebuilding, if they brought it all back home there would be more than enough to cover rebuilding costs, without foreign donations. Taking that much cash out of 'other investments' might tank them, like supporting the US dollar to the tune of $900B.
 
petros
#10
Here is a little fact to chew on.

Japan will be rebuilding without taxing it's citizens or borrowing money from foreigners.

When Japan needs money they sell bonds to the citizens and pay them back with interest.
 
mentalfloss
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Here is a little fact to chew on.

Japan will be rebuilding without taxing it's citizens or borrowing money from foreigners.

When Japan needs money they sell bonds to the citizens and pay them back with interest.

We should learn from Japan.
 
Johnny Utah
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Omicron View Post

The CBC reports that Japan faces a cost in the "tens of billions" to rebuild damage from the recent Richter 8.9 earthquake.

Given that the 65 F-35s are now expected to cost $30 billion, it implies that Japan's costs to rebuild back to first-world status from one of the strongest earthquakes in history will be equal to the cost of forty to sixty five F-35s.

Some will think, "Oh, I guess that means the earthquake didn't do so much damage"...

While others will think, "Woah, we're spending too much for 65 special-purpose jets, especially when there are cheaper and equally effective alternatives, and especially when they'll probably hardly ever be used."

Which of those two perspectives is more rational and/or realistic?

The CBC is pathetic, they're against these needed Fighter Jets so they use the Japan tragedy to take a cheap political shot against the purchase and the Conservative Government..
 
Cliffy
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by Johnny Utah View Post

The CBC is pathetic, they're against these needed Fighter Jets so they use the Japan tragedy to take a cheap political shot against the purchase and the Conservative Government..

OK, let's take cheep shots at the Conservative government without using Japan. Harper is wasting money on those jets because we don't need them and won't use them. Harper is just building his personal military so he can declare himself as emperor of Canada. The little weasel needs the jets for his own protection.
 
Corduroy
#14
Kinda puts things into perspective. What if instead of obscenely unnecessarily advanced weapons of war, we spent that money on disaster relief?


Quote: Originally Posted by Stretch View Post

I think, more to the point is whats the cost going to be to the rest of the planet? the earthquake actually altered the earths axis, again, as did the Chilian and Indonesian quakes......how much more "altering" can it handle

Billions of years worth I'd think.
 
mentalfloss
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

OK, let's take cheep shots at the Conservative government without using Japan. Harper is wasting money on those jets because we don't need them and won't use them.

That's not a cheap shot. It's just true.
 
captain morgan
+1
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

OK, let's take cheep shots at the Conservative government without using Japan. Harper is wasting money on those jets because we don't need them and won't use them. Harper is just building his personal military so he can declare himself as emperor of Canada. The little weasel needs the jets for his own protection.


Which party signed the original contract?
 
Cliffy
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

Which party signed the original contract?

I don't know nutting. I was just taking cheep shots.
 
captain morgan
+1
#18
Couldn't you post pics of cleavage instead?
 
Cliffy
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

Couldn't you post pics of cleavage instead?

Really. Do you actually believe there is a difference between liberals and conservatives? Do you think politics has anything to do with reality? At least cleavage is real, even if the hooters are silicon. In fact, politicians have more in common with silicon hooters.
 
Johnny Utah
+3
#20  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

OK, let's take cheep shots at the Conservative government without using Japan. Harper is wasting money on those jets because we don't need them and won't use them. Harper is just building his personal military so he can declare himself as emperor of Canada. The little weasel needs the jets for his own protection.




Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

Couldn't you post pics of cleavage instead?


 
captain morgan
+1
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

Really. Do you actually believe there is a difference between liberals and conservatives? Do you think politics has anything to do with reality? At least cleavage is real, even if the hooters are silicon. In fact, politicians have more in common with silicon hooters.


I just wanted to see some cleavage Cliffy... Really, that's it



Thanks Johnny!!!!
 
Tonington
+1
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Stretch View Post

3 good (by present standards) hits to the earths balance, remember, we already in a wobble, will take a toll...for a spinning top to regain its balance after a "distrubance" requires a firm suface, something to anchor on.......sumpin we lack........... just my thorts

One period of the wobble in Earth's axis is 23,000 years. It has a special name too, it's called Earth's precession. There have been massive earthquakes before, and there will be more in the future.

The moving continents shift earth's mass too, as does sea level change.

Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

Which party signed the original contract?

The Liberals signed on for $160 million, no orders for aircraft, but it allowed Canadian companies to bid for contracts, which according to former assistant deputy Minister of National Defense Alan Williams, generated $490 million in contracts from 2002 through to 2012 for Canadian companies.
 
captain morgan
+1
#23
It's still a take-or-pay contract and seeing how representatives of the left are screaming over anything, had Harper walked away from the commitment, that same group would rail at him for cancelling
 
Tonington
#24
There was no commitment to buy...Harper is the one who announced we would be buying jets, in 2010.
Last edited by Tonington; Mar 14th, 2011 at 09:16 PM..
 
Stretch
#25
Satellite Photos - Japan Before and After Tsunami - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com= NYT-E-I-NYT-E-AT-0316-L9
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
#26
I really have two points I would like to make, or rather a point and a question.

  • We need the jets. Defense cost money.
  • Omicron, what the the hell happened to the guy inyour avatar?
Last edited by Retired_Can_Soldier; Mar 18th, 2011 at 06:53 PM..
 
hunboldt
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

Neat opinion. I wonder how much of that cost was for loses to the Japanese whaling fleet in port?

Japan Quake Silver Lining: Whaling Fleet Decimated¬*|¬*GlossyNews.com

I guess it didn't.
Only if they're stuck in a single obsessive circle, like yourself.

What was it you said we needed again? Blimps? Or was it less Montreal Jews?

The former.

Blimps would be nice. as to the second, we kinda need you to cancel your hydro and throw your CPU in the nearest canal...

Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

It's still a take-or-pay contract and seeing how representatives of the left are screaming over anything, had Harper walked away from the commitment, that same group would rail at him for cancelling


Nice try, but even the ND's are in favor of the Boeing F18-E/f instead of the L-M plastic fat turkey of the skies at 185 million a copy...
 

Similar Threads

1
Two More; The Continued Cost
by FiveParadox | Jul 24th, 2006
2
The human cost of war
by Paranoid Dot Calm | Jan 18th, 2005
15
Cost of war for Americans.
by Andem | May 27th, 2004