5 ms·
Former submariner: The military is about as far from zero-sum as you can get. Gear is manufactured, used, worn out and discarded, at surprisingly high cost ov
by zentiggr 8y ago
Former submariner:
The military is about as far from zero-sum as you can get.
Gear is manufactured, used, worn out and discarded, at surprisingly high cost overall.
Soldiers are recruited, trained, serve, and leave. Training funds, time, and gear are necessary but never recouped.
Every military operation of any scale uses food/fuel/every other supply imaginable - all used and lost from other productive use.
Every 'build a civilization' game ever assigns expenses to military units created, never any production value.
(Ok, military R&D is sometimes practical and useful outside of the military... a small sop in an other wise large sinkhole.)
- luk32 8y agoWell you buy the effect of discouraging the potential enemy. It's like the nukes. You rarely buy power to really exert it, more often it's just for the possibility.
- IdiocyInAction 8y agoI think he means it in a sense that you have to have one as a nation and the more powerful yours is, the less other countries can project power. Though nukes change this IMHO.
- Abekkus 8y agonukes only threatened to change this, drones will change this.
- nucleardog 8y agoI read it more that in the grand scheme of things, the only reason that those things exist to balance themselves--they don't create any value on their own. If the other guy has no military, we need no military. If the other guy builds a bigger military, we build a bigger military. If the other guy doesn't spend on marketing, we don't need to spend on marketing. If the other guy invests heavily in marketing, we need a bigger marketing push. There's only ever a gain in the system if there's an imbalance. Looking at it simplistically, if everyone collectively decided to stop at once, there'd be no need for those things anymore.