5 ms·

the reason is that the a large portion of policy makers still believe that the american economy runs on a military industrial complex. The military industrial

the reason is that the a large portion of policy makers still believe that the american economy runs on a military industrial complex. The military industrial complex works great when there is an enemy to fight that requires the production of military equipment. examples of this enemy, in the past, were the Axis powers and the USSR during WWII and the cold war. It doesn't work so well when there is no enemy to fight. after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the early 90s, there was an "enemy vacuum": who would be the next enemy that the US could use to drive the military industrial complex? Russia wasn't worth fighting indirectly any more because they were too weak, and there really wasn't a competitor that was strong enough or threatening enough for the US to parade around as the enemy. enter terrorism: it provides a target that fulfills a number of very crucial aspects: 1) non state actors: the US can go to war with terrorists without going to war against the officially recognized government. This is key to global security because conducting war within a nation's borders no longer constitutes an assault on that nation. This prevents WWI type wars that start as a series of cascading mutual protection treaties or similar. 2) difficult to define the enemy: who are terrorists? whoever the ruling party deems terrorists. everyone else is a freedom fighter. This makes it convenient to come up with a new enemy group of terrorists when the current batch has been "defeated" or the american public becomes war weary. 3)easy for the government to drum up support for new military action by creating and appealing to a sense of fear within the populace and a desire for "safety". 4) oil: the majority of terrorist groups that are in the focus of the american public's attention are primarily located within countries that have large oil interests. Other terrorist groups located in other areas, such as the philippines or south america, are largely ignored. 5) percieved threat of terrorists: it is easy to believe that terrorists are a significant threat to US citizens precisely because of their ability to strike on american soil. This greatly adds to their value as a enemy for the military industrial compelex because the general us population sees the threat as legitimate. (a converse example of this would be if the new enemy would have been, say, brazil: they're not really a threat to the US because they wouldn't really be able to directly threaten the american mainland.) there are other reasons, i'm sure.

danbruc 11y ago
The whole thing still doesn't make sense to me. You keep the people in the military industrial complex in labor but you are not generating any wealth for the nation. You collect taxes from people producing real wealth for the country to feed weapons producers and an army only to then throw those expensive bombs into some random dessert village at the other end of the world. Why not use all that money and manpower to build things useful to the nation? So what am I missing? How is war an economical effective way of using those resources? Some would probably say it is the access to oil and other resources but whenever I looked at that it seemed to me that no exceptionally profitable deals or other outcomes were reached.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  You don't profit from assets, but from hegemony and all the networks and paths that come as a result.
- emodendroket 11y ago
  Well, two things -- a big factory shuttering in someone's home district tends to lead to discontent and possibly being voted out of office, even if something better may be around the corner, and existing relationships tend to be pretty influential to people's thinking (not just in terms of outright cronyism, which is alleged often enough, but also in terms of whose arguments you find persuasive)
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- ryanx435 11y ago
  the problem is that you are only looking at the surface level, and thats why it doesn't make sense to you. bombing a shitty dessert country doesn't provide any single large benefit, but it does provide many smaller benefits that add up to be worth it (if viewed in a certain light): the government pays the soldiers/airmen/marines/sailors a wage for their services. Those service members and their families then use that money to purchase other services. This helps bolster the overall american economy. the government pays contractors to provide all the food/water/clothing/bullets/office equipment/communication equipment/whatever needed to conduct war. This creates jobs, which helps the american economy. the government contracts flights from airlines to transport troops to and from warzones. this creates more jobs and helps bolster the airline industry. the government purchased those bombs from a manufacturer using tax dollars: also could be phrased as the government creating jobs in the bomb manufacturing industry. Those people working in the bomb manufacturing industry then go and spend their wages on other things, like food, clothing, apps, computers, etc. That is useful to the nation. another benefit: intimidating other countries. Don't go to war with america, we'll bomb the shit out of you and you will die. to use a common phrase, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." this is beneficial to the nation. another benefit: the military gains experience in war, which will be a large benefit if the US ends up going to war against a real country. veteran armies historically have a large advantage against rookie armies. another benefit: the threat of force (or protection against other forces) can be used to enter into treaties with other states that are not directly involved. Look at NATO: literally a treaty between nations in order to gain protection from America against the Soviets. NATO has provided a large benefit to the nation. Pax Americana is a real thing. another benefit: technological development. DARPA is a government program that is designed to fund new technologies. Its overall goal is to keep the US military at the technological forefront, but its side effects are greatly beneficial to the populace at large: GPS (a single example among many) is a direct result of DARPA. this provides a huge benefit to the american (and the world's) people. so yes, you are right that the purchase of that single bomb at whatever cost probably wasn't worth it. but the overall system of purchasing and using bombs and the logistics of delivering those bombs to a warzone and the entire network of individuals that are needed to invent, manufacture, deliver, load, use, and whatever else is needed, is what really benefits the american people.

danbruc 11y ago

The whole thing still doesn't make sense to me. You keep the people in the military industrial complex in labor but you are not generating any wealth for the nation. You collect taxes from people producing real wealth for the country to feed weapons producers and an army only to then throw those expensive bombs into some random dessert village at the other end of the world. Why not use all that money and manpower to build things useful to the nation? So what am I missing? How is war an economical effective way of using those resources? Some would probably say it is the access to oil and other resources but whenever I looked at that it seemed to me that no exceptionally profitable deals or other outcomes were reached.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
You don't profit from assets, but from hegemony and all the networks and paths that come as a result.
emodendroket 11y ago
Well, two things -- a big factory shuttering in someone's home district tends to lead to discontent and possibly being voted out of office, even if something better may be around the corner, and existing relationships tend to be pretty influential to people's thinking (not just in terms of outright cronyism, which is alleged often enough, but also in terms of whose arguments you find persuasive)
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
ryanx435 11y ago
the problem is that you are only looking at the surface level, and thats why it doesn't make sense to you. bombing a shitty dessert country doesn't provide any single large benefit, but it does provide many smaller benefits that add up to be worth it (if viewed in a certain light): the government pays the soldiers/airmen/marines/sailors a wage for their services. Those service members and their families then use that money to purchase other services. This helps bolster the overall american economy. the government pays contractors to provide all the food/water/clothing/bullets/office equipment/communication equipment/whatever needed to conduct war. This creates jobs, which helps the american economy. the government contracts flights from airlines to transport troops to and from warzones. this creates more jobs and helps bolster the airline industry. the government purchased those bombs from a manufacturer using tax dollars: also could be phrased as the government creating jobs in the bomb manufacturing industry. Those people working in the bomb manufacturing industry then go and spend their wages on other things, like food, clothing, apps, computers, etc. That is useful to the nation. another benefit: intimidating other countries. Don't go to war with america, we'll bomb the shit out of you and you will die. to use a common phrase, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." this is beneficial to the nation. another benefit: the military gains experience in war, which will be a large benefit if the US ends up going to war against a real country. veteran armies historically have a large advantage against rookie armies. another benefit: the threat of force (or protection against other forces) can be used to enter into treaties with other states that are not directly involved. Look at NATO: literally a treaty between nations in order to gain protection from America against the Soviets. NATO has provided a large benefit to the nation. Pax Americana is a real thing. another benefit: technological development. DARPA is a government program that is designed to fund new technologies. Its overall goal is to keep the US military at the technological forefront, but its side effects are greatly beneficial to the populace at large: GPS (a single example among many) is a direct result of DARPA. this provides a huge benefit to the american (and the world's) people. so yes, you are right that the purchase of that single bomb at whatever cost probably wasn't worth it. but the overall system of purchasing and using bombs and the logistics of delivering those bombs to a warzone and the entire network of individuals that are needed to invent, manufacture, deliver, load, use, and whatever else is needed, is what really benefits the american people.