5 ms·

Ask HN: What can we achieve with 1.6 trillion dollar?

• Mz 10y ago
  (if it) were put in a good use Security is a good use. If you think America would be a better place by completely disarming, think again. In reality, it would cease to exist in short order as hostile nations took it over and parted it out. Same goes for any other nation. "A man of peace must be strong." The truth is that anti-military hippies only ever exist in secure nations that can count on their biggest worry being local crime. There probably aren't any hippies in Aleppo at the moment. They only sprout in secure, walled gardens that are created by the very military forces they decry as some kind of innate evil. Because they are clueless fools.
  • cm2012 10y ago
    I agree with the gist of what you're saying, but it sells better without the vitriol.
    • Mz 10y ago
      My father fought in two wars and was awarded a purple heart. Statements that suggest the huge personal price paid by soldiers and their loved ones are a waste of money are hugely insulting and disrespectful. I do not feel my remarks contain any vitriol. If anything, the OP owes the veterans of the world an apology.
      • partisan 10y ago
        I understand and agree with you that the personal price paid by veterans cannot be understated, but I think the OP's thought experiment was free of any slight against the military. He simply asked what such an amount would buy in pursuits not focused on the military.
        • Mz 10y ago
          No. The framing entirely dismisses the military as being of no positive value.
          • ayumu722 10y ago
            the framing is : what if we can get along, and instead of spending money on the military, spend it elsewhere.
            • AnimalMuppet 10y ago
              I agree with Mz's reading. The wording "if such amount of money were put in a good use" implies that the current use is not a good use.
              • Mz 10y ago
                Thank you. This discussion has been ironic and maddening with multiple people piling on to attack me while implying I am merely too stupid to see that the point is "we come in peace and desire to all just get along."
            • Mz 10y ago
              I see that you are the OP. You sound like English is not your first language. So, perhaps you just worded it poorly. But without knowing you well, the only thing I can respond to uis your actual words. And here is the deeper problem: My remark that you owe veterans an apology has not been responded to by you. In fact, it was downvoted into the negatives and you are like the fifth person to come in here to essentially shoot me down and treat me like I am stupid and do not have a real point. Meanwhile, you posit "if we could all just get along." You do not even know how to communicate effectively or engage someone with skin in the game with genuine respect when the only thing at stake is words on a forum. That is your answer as to why military spending is not merely frivolous. You have a long way to go before you, personally, are in any kind of position to advocate that we all just get along. Perhaps in your journey, you should note that Shaolin priests were fearsome warriors because they believed "A man of peace must be strong."
  • BjoernKW 10y ago
    Do we really achieve more security through excessive military spending though? Arguably, the world's less safe than it was 15 years ago in spite of massively increased defence and security spendings during that time. Now the usual counter-argument to that of course is that it'd be even a lot worse if we hadn't spent so much on defence. However, for instance both the war in Iraq and many of the new airport security measures in recent years were quite counterproductive in that they not only failed to make the world a safer place but achieved the exact opposite (the war in Iraq in particular, which gave us ISIS).
    • Mz 10y ago
      That is a totally valid point and one worthy of meaty discussion. It is also unrelated to dismissing military spending wholecloth as nothing but a waste of resources.
      • BjoernKW 10y ago
        > It is also unrelated to dismissing military spending wholecloth as nothing but a waste of resources. I'm not sure this was the OP's intention. I see this more as thought experiment in terms of "Mankind doesn't actually lack financial resources.". Ideas and measures that'd improve the quality of life often are bluntly shot down with the argument that we don't have the financial resources for implementing them. We do have those resources. We just need to use them purposefully.
        • Mz 10y ago
          It may not have been their conscious intent, but it is the implicit assumption behind the question. Otherwise, the question could have been framed differently, such as: "I think that is excessive and we could readily cut it by 10%, leaving 16 billion (or whatever -- not checking my math here) to put towards other causes. What good could governments do with that amount?" "We spend X amount on (presumed frivolous expense, such as gold jewelry, haute couture or backyard swimming pools). What might be a better use of those funds if we could convince people to spend it differently?"
• codeonfire 10y ago
  Its not as simple as money in, progress out. Nations have unlimited money because they can print as much as they want, inflation aside. If their workforce can't do something, no amount of money will make it happen. Further there are forms of government in place that will limit the ability of the world to achieve goals. This is because many governments around the world will likely just take whatever excess profits arise out of any extra effort and people will have no profit motive to change the status quo. Most research IS motivated by military applications so defunding that would probably kill a lot of progress in space travel, health care, etc.
• BjoernKW 10y ago
  Give that 1.6 trillion dollars to people as an annual basic income. As of now this would mean $230 per year for each individual, which would lift a lot of people from abject poverty. This in turn would help to eliminate a lot of the issues that require such huge military spending in the first place.
• NumberCruncher 10y ago
  Global disarming is a good thing until everybody participates without any exceptions. Unfortunatelly there is always someone ready to rebell against any rule.
  • Mz 10y ago
    It also falls apart if we make first contact and they aren't hippies and it also also falls apart in the face of large wild life not understanding that humans are sacrosanct and you aren't supposed to touch us (meanwhile, we are happy to destroy your habitat and/or kill and eat your kind).
    • NumberCruncher 10y ago
      Aliens and wild animals are also my biggest fear.
• samfisher83 10y ago
  That military budget does go toward a lot of jobs. How many people work at Lockheed martin, boeing, bae, Raytheon, etc. That is why congressmen keep that spending up because it ends up going to their counties, districts, etc.
  • JamesBarney 10y ago
    Another way to look at this problem is, given we are funding an enormous amount of people to figure out to drop bomps more efficiently. What other problems could these people be figuring out, or what other devices could they be building that would have a more tangible effect on our day to day lives.