33 ms·

I'm pretty sure the military funds schools (University research funding, DARPA) and bridges (maybe in Afghanistan and Iraq). Cancer research is probably not a

I'm pretty sure the military funds schools (University research funding, DARPA) and bridges (maybe in Afghanistan and Iraq). Cancer research is probably not a high priority, but traumatic brain injury treatment research and hearing loss mitigation are. So in between various clumsy bombings with 75% noncombatant casualties, the military occasionally spends money on things universally good for society & humanity.

orik 9y ago
The U.S. Military is universally good for society & humanity. (Unless you're ISIS)
- pstuart 9y ago
  Indeed! They've brought peace and stability to Iraq and Afghanistan, for example. /s
  - linkregister 9y ago
    To be fair, the responsibility overwhelmingly lies with the civilian leaders of the military.
    - jessaustin 9y ago
      If the tool never works how its users expect, it might be appropriate to blame the tool.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - nickik 9y ago
        It might, but I think the US military is a great tool and does its actual job fantastically well. The only thing you can really blame them for is that they did not give a broad enough set of strategic options to civilians. That said the civilian government usually gives them nonsensical task that they simply can not do.
        pstuart 9y ago
        Sometimes the military does a great job on hiding their inefficiencies too: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/pentagon-buries-evidence-of-125-billion-in-bureaucratic-waste/2016/12/05/e0668c76-9af6-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html?utm_term=.62c3bef1247e https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/pentagon-burie...
        nickik 9y ago
        Oh for sure. But relatively to other military they are quite good and even while they waste a lot they can mostly to their jobs. Other military are very expensive and very ineffective.
        jessaustin 9y ago
        It's just that USA military never seem to win any wars... or honorably escape from any conflict... or actually accomplish anything they ever claimed to have set out to do. Even if we're generous and put Korea in the win column, that was a really long time ago.
        nickik 9y ago
        Again, the win the traditional military conflict and that is their primary responsibility. They are not equipped to do Nation building and they don't have the political support to do it. That's why they never exit a conflict very well, but they always crush in the beginning. Korea was the last time they had a real problem winning the traditional military conflict.
        jessaustin 9y ago
        "In the beginning" is when there are no reporters or other observers on the ground, so we have to just take the military's word on everything. If we just asked the Cleveland Browns how they did last season, they might tell us they played pretty well. Besides, is it supposed to be hard to use billion-dollar stealth weapons to kill a few malnourished soldiers equipped with 1960s-era Soviet surplus? The worst part about the upcoming war with Russia that we're determined to have might be that we're going to get our asses kicked, from the beginning. Expect to see more airports completely operational within hours of multi-million-dollar missile attacks.
- linkregister 9y ago
  The tactical blunders resulting in the loss of noncombatant life are only so widespread because of the civilian leadership's priorities. It's rarely the fault of any one servicemember.
jimbert 9y ago
The military has some funding for roads and bridges in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, but the heavy lifting is done by the Department of State. Most of the budget is on personnel and equipment.

orik 9y ago

The U.S. Military is universally good for society & humanity. (Unless you're ISIS)

pstuart 9y ago
Indeed! They've brought peace and stability to Iraq and Afghanistan, for example. /s
- linkregister 9y ago
  To be fair, the responsibility overwhelmingly lies with the civilian leaders of the military.
  - jessaustin 9y ago
    If the tool never works how its users expect, it might be appropriate to blame the tool.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - nickik 9y ago
      It might, but I think the US military is a great tool and does its actual job fantastically well. The only thing you can really blame them for is that they did not give a broad enough set of strategic options to civilians. That said the civilian government usually gives them nonsensical task that they simply can not do.
      - pstuart 9y ago
        Sometimes the military does a great job on hiding their inefficiencies too: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/pentagon-buries-evidence-of-125-billion-in-bureaucratic-waste/2016/12/05/e0668c76-9af6-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html?utm_term=.62c3bef1247e https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/pentagon-burie...
        nickik 9y ago
        Oh for sure. But relatively to other military they are quite good and even while they waste a lot they can mostly to their jobs. Other military are very expensive and very ineffective.
        jessaustin 9y ago
        It's just that USA military never seem to win any wars... or honorably escape from any conflict... or actually accomplish anything they ever claimed to have set out to do. Even if we're generous and put Korea in the win column, that was a really long time ago.
        nickik 9y ago
        Again, the win the traditional military conflict and that is their primary responsibility. They are not equipped to do Nation building and they don't have the political support to do it. That's why they never exit a conflict very well, but they always crush in the beginning. Korea was the last time they had a real problem winning the traditional military conflict.
        jessaustin 9y ago
        "In the beginning" is when there are no reporters or other observers on the ground, so we have to just take the military's word on everything. If we just asked the Cleveland Browns how they did last season, they might tell us they played pretty well. Besides, is it supposed to be hard to use billion-dollar stealth weapons to kill a few malnourished soldiers equipped with 1960s-era Soviet surplus? The worst part about the upcoming war with Russia that we're determined to have might be that we're going to get our asses kicked, from the beginning. Expect to see more airports completely operational within hours of multi-million-dollar missile attacks.
linkregister 9y ago
The tactical blunders resulting in the loss of noncombatant life are only so widespread because of the civilian leadership's priorities. It's rarely the fault of any one servicemember.

jimbert 9y ago

The military has some funding for roads and bridges in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, but the heavy lifting is done by the Department of State. Most of the budget is on personnel and equipment.