6 ms·

Guns and bombs are cheap. Everyone has plenty of them. The power of our military is in force prjoection; that is, the ability to use those guns and bombs anywhe

Guns and bombs are cheap. Everyone has plenty of them. The power of our military is in force prjoection; that is, the ability to use those guns and bombs anywhere at any time. That requires massive, sustained logistics spending. To the point it may seem absurd and wasteful. But the alternative is fighting a fair fight on equal footing. I’d rather not do that.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
vkou 8y ago
Who does the US intend to fight, and over what? This logistic spending is certainly not for national defense - it has two oceans, a navy, and two thousand nuclear warheads for that purpose.
GW150914 8y ago
Guns and bombs are cheap. The Zumwalt, F-35, B-2, and more are not cheap. I would point out that “smart” bombs and cruise missiles are not cheap, and the cost really starts to add up. Nuclear weapons research, production, and maintenance isn’t cheap. So really it’s fair to say that guns and bombs aren’t cheap, but they are also a distraction from the delivery systems, which are catastrophically expensive. the point it may seem absurd and wasteful. But the alternative is fighting a fair fight on equal footing. I’d rather not do that. Yeah? Are you sure the alternative isn’t to spend 3 or 4 or 5 times as much as any other nation instead of 7 times as much? Maybe the alternative is to avoid boondoggles, and focus on proven tech. Of course the real alternative is that doing so would get in the way of the real business of arms dealing.
- aphextron 8y ago
  >The Zumwalt, F-35, B-2, and more are not cheap. You're right, they sure aren't. But as a result no other military force on earth besides NATO has the capability to launch air superiority fighters from amphibious assault ships, and perform multi-ton circumglobal bombing sorties. That kind of capability doesn't come cheap, and shouldn't be dismissed. Take away the B2 and we are fighting to-to-toe with Russian/Chinese long range bombers Without the F-35 we are on equal footing with Chinese/Russian carrier based aircraft Without Zumwalt class ships, we are going head on against Chinese missile destroyers and subs of equal capability. The whole point is that you don't want an even remotely fair fight. "Keeping up" with others's spending, even within an order of magnitude, is a really bad idea if you can help it.
  - vkou 8y ago
    If the US military is, in any serious way, going toe-to-toe with Russian/Chinese bombers, I hope you've got your fallout shelter stocked, because as likely as not, both sides in the conflict will cease to exist ~20 minutes after that point in time.
    - v_lisivka 8y ago
      Ukraine is still alive after 4 years of war with Russia. Relax.
      - GW150914 8y ago
        They’re at war with Russia because they gave up their nuclear weapons. No one is invading a nuclear power, which I think is the point the post you’re responding to was making.
        v_lisivka 8y ago
        How you know that Ukraine still doesn't have nuclear weapons?
        vkou 8y ago
        Because I assume that the Russians, when they armed it (In Soviet times), and then disarmed it (In post-Soviet times), could count up to, and back down from twenty. If they still have weapons, they sure as hell haven't been using their existence as a deterrent. The whole point of having nukes is letting potential aggressors know that you have them, and that, if attacked, you may be crazy enough to use them.
        v_lisivka 8y ago
        > The whole point of having nukes is letting potential aggressors know that you have them, and that, if attacked, you may be crazy enough to use them. You must know that Ukraine was attacked 4 years ago. So the "whole point" is not applicable in this case.
- mlaretallack 8y ago
  I think you have a point about the Nuclear weapons research, production, and maintenance, however the parent post was saying that the "bomb" was cheap, its getting it to the location its needed was expensive. Airplane and smart bombs are logistics.
- killjoywashere 8y ago
  > avoid boondoggles The DoD budget, as usually reported, generally doesn't include funding allocated for specific operations (e.g. the Afghan or Iraq conflicts). > focus on proven tech The average soldier has always wanted proven tech. But what they really need (and what the officers ask for) is training. More HUMVEEs and Arleigh Burke destroyers, fewer wheel 4.0s and Zumwalts. We are at the top of a power curve with regard to total dollars spent, but we actually about 4th in terms of defense spending as a percent GDP, (I think we're around 5th). Soft power remains our major advantage. Not that bad when you consider our outsize role in world military affairs. https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2015/06/25/the-biggest-military-budgets-as-a-percentage-of-gdp-infographic-2/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2015/06/25/the-bi...
  - mehrdadn 8y ago
    > We are at the top of a power curve with regard to total dollars spent, but we actually about 4th in terms of defense spending as a percent GDP Any reason why percent GDP is the right metric? If we're normalizing I would've expected per capita instead.
    - pasabagi 8y ago
      Then the Vatican would be topping the charts.
      - mehrdadn 8y ago
        You sure about this? Any citations? I saw somewhere that it'd be Saudi Arabia.
  - riku_iki 8y ago
    > , (I think we're around 5th). Soft power remains our major advantage. Not that bad when you consider our outsize role in world military affairs. > https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2015/06/25/the-bi.. https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2015/06/25/the-bi.... Your link says US is 4th in list of selected countries, not in the world. On this page US not in the top: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditure_share_of_GDP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...
rolandog 8y ago
But doesn't that mean that it would be cheaper for an adversary to just wait until the excessive military spending makes the US implode, figuratively, in debt? This same concern worried former president Eisenhower back in his days[0]. A similar argument is usually touted regarding the economic strain that the 'Space Race' caused the U.S.S.R.[1]. [0] "The Cold War: An International History", p. 42-43 https://books.google.com/books?id=Yv2FAgAAQBAJ&lpg=PA43&pg=PA43#v=onepage https://books.google.com/books?id=Yv2FAgAAQBAJ&lpg=PA43&pg=P... [1] "Comparison of US and Estimated Soviet Expenditures for Space Programs", p. 3-4, https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000316255.pdf https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000316255....
- aphextron 8y ago
  The Space Race bankrupted an already failing command economy in the USSR. However it was a massive economic boon for US capitalists, as evidenced by our aerospace and defense industries today. The great thing about defense spending is that it is almost entirely domestic. We're not running up some huge trade deficit with a foreign power. It creates millions of jobs from Florida to California.
  - Koshkin 8y ago
    On the other hand, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window.
    - garmaine 8y ago
      How does that apply here?
      - lostlogin 8y ago
        I believe the question is “does the spending result in a net benefit to society?” I’d add in a consideration of the opportunity cost.
Fomite 8y ago
On the other hand, every time we fire a cruise missile, we're shooting off the equivalent of an NIH R01-scale research grant.
- mokus 8y ago
  Serious question: how much of that cost is because we don’t have to fire them more?
  - techdragon 8y ago
    WW2 is the only real example to answer this kind of question. For all the global skirmishes and regular war games and other exercises, since WW2 there really hasn’t been sufficient conflict to prevent manufacturing an ahead of time stockpile of desired weaponry at the prices set by companies in the military industrial complex. Price did come down in WW2 but it can be hard to attribute it specifically to “we used everything we built and wanted more delivered yesterday” when so many other factors are involved. Wartime rationing, production regulations, patriotic decision making affecting prices people charged the government, and the simplicity of the things being manufactured compared to the complexity of modern munitions. At the end of the day I’ve personally settled on “yes but probably not as much as you might think”.
    - jonhendry18 8y ago
      Multiple sourcing probably played a big role. Lots of companies were making Sherman tanks, for instance. IBM was making rifles along with many other companies. There is no second source for the F-35.
  - Fomite 8y ago
    The U.S. Navy has apparently bought 8,000 Tomahawk missiles overall and we've shot 2193 of them - but I genuinely don't know when Raytheon's volume discounts kick in.
  - mdeg 8y ago
    What number would you place on the threat that Iraq posed to the United States? Would it be more or less than $1.1t?
garmaine 8y ago
> Guns and bombs are cheap. No, they are not. Go look up how much the military spends on such things. It is a lot. (Per unit and in aggregate.)
jonhendry18 8y ago
Apparently a military logistics expert system saved the US enough money during the Gulf War period that the savings essentially paid for all the Pentagon spending on AI research to that point. (And probably more than was spent on AI.)

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

vkou 8y ago

Who does the US intend to fight, and over what? This logistic spending is certainly not for national defense - it has two oceans, a navy, and two thousand nuclear warheads for that purpose.

GW150914 8y ago

Guns and bombs are cheap. The Zumwalt, F-35, B-2, and more are not cheap. I would point out that “smart” bombs and cruise missiles are not cheap, and the cost really starts to add up. Nuclear weapons research, production, and maintenance isn’t cheap. So really it’s fair to say that guns and bombs aren’t cheap, but they are also a distraction from the delivery systems, which are catastrophically expensive. the point it may seem absurd and wasteful. But the alternative is fighting a fair fight on equal footing. I’d rather not do that. Yeah? Are you sure the alternative isn’t to spend 3 or 4 or 5 times as much as any other nation instead of 7 times as much? Maybe the alternative is to avoid boondoggles, and focus on proven tech. Of course the real alternative is that doing so would get in the way of the real business of arms dealing.

aphextron 8y ago
>The Zumwalt, F-35, B-2, and more are not cheap. You're right, they sure aren't. But as a result no other military force on earth besides NATO has the capability to launch air superiority fighters from amphibious assault ships, and perform multi-ton circumglobal bombing sorties. That kind of capability doesn't come cheap, and shouldn't be dismissed. Take away the B2 and we are fighting to-to-toe with Russian/Chinese long range bombers Without the F-35 we are on equal footing with Chinese/Russian carrier based aircraft Without Zumwalt class ships, we are going head on against Chinese missile destroyers and subs of equal capability. The whole point is that you don't want an even remotely fair fight. "Keeping up" with others's spending, even within an order of magnitude, is a really bad idea if you can help it.
- vkou 8y ago
  If the US military is, in any serious way, going toe-to-toe with Russian/Chinese bombers, I hope you've got your fallout shelter stocked, because as likely as not, both sides in the conflict will cease to exist ~20 minutes after that point in time.
  - v_lisivka 8y ago
    Ukraine is still alive after 4 years of war with Russia. Relax.
    - GW150914 8y ago
      They’re at war with Russia because they gave up their nuclear weapons. No one is invading a nuclear power, which I think is the point the post you’re responding to was making.
      - v_lisivka 8y ago
        How you know that Ukraine still doesn't have nuclear weapons?
        vkou 8y ago
        Because I assume that the Russians, when they armed it (In Soviet times), and then disarmed it (In post-Soviet times), could count up to, and back down from twenty. If they still have weapons, they sure as hell haven't been using their existence as a deterrent. The whole point of having nukes is letting potential aggressors know that you have them, and that, if attacked, you may be crazy enough to use them.
        v_lisivka 8y ago
        > The whole point of having nukes is letting potential aggressors know that you have them, and that, if attacked, you may be crazy enough to use them. You must know that Ukraine was attacked 4 years ago. So the "whole point" is not applicable in this case.
mlaretallack 8y ago
I think you have a point about the Nuclear weapons research, production, and maintenance, however the parent post was saying that the "bomb" was cheap, its getting it to the location its needed was expensive. Airplane and smart bombs are logistics.
killjoywashere 8y ago
> avoid boondoggles The DoD budget, as usually reported, generally doesn't include funding allocated for specific operations (e.g. the Afghan or Iraq conflicts). > focus on proven tech The average soldier has always wanted proven tech. But what they really need (and what the officers ask for) is training. More HUMVEEs and Arleigh Burke destroyers, fewer wheel 4.0s and Zumwalts. We are at the top of a power curve with regard to total dollars spent, but we actually about 4th in terms of defense spending as a percent GDP, (I think we're around 5th). Soft power remains our major advantage. Not that bad when you consider our outsize role in world military affairs. https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2015/06/25/the-biggest-military-budgets-as-a-percentage-of-gdp-infographic-2/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2015/06/25/the-bi...
- mehrdadn 8y ago
  > We are at the top of a power curve with regard to total dollars spent, but we actually about 4th in terms of defense spending as a percent GDP Any reason why percent GDP is the right metric? If we're normalizing I would've expected per capita instead.
  - pasabagi 8y ago
    Then the Vatican would be topping the charts.
    - mehrdadn 8y ago
      You sure about this? Any citations? I saw somewhere that it'd be Saudi Arabia.
- riku_iki 8y ago
  > , (I think we're around 5th). Soft power remains our major advantage. Not that bad when you consider our outsize role in world military affairs. > https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2015/06/25/the-bi.. https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2015/06/25/the-bi.... Your link says US is 4th in list of selected countries, not in the world. On this page US not in the top: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditure_share_of_GDP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...

rolandog 8y ago

But doesn't that mean that it would be cheaper for an adversary to just wait until the excessive military spending makes the US implode, figuratively, in debt? This same concern worried former president Eisenhower back in his days[0]. A similar argument is usually touted regarding the economic strain that the 'Space Race' caused the U.S.S.R.[1]. [0] "The Cold War: An International History", p. 42-43 https://books.google.com/books?id=Yv2FAgAAQBAJ&lpg=PA43&pg=PA43#v=onepage https://books.google.com/books?id=Yv2FAgAAQBAJ&lpg=PA43&pg=P... [1] "Comparison of US and Estimated Soviet Expenditures for Space Programs", p. 3-4, https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000316255.pdf https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000316255....

aphextron 8y ago
The Space Race bankrupted an already failing command economy in the USSR. However it was a massive economic boon for US capitalists, as evidenced by our aerospace and defense industries today. The great thing about defense spending is that it is almost entirely domestic. We're not running up some huge trade deficit with a foreign power. It creates millions of jobs from Florida to California.
- Koshkin 8y ago
  On the other hand, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window.
  - garmaine 8y ago
    How does that apply here?
    - lostlogin 8y ago
      I believe the question is “does the spending result in a net benefit to society?” I’d add in a consideration of the opportunity cost.

Fomite 8y ago

On the other hand, every time we fire a cruise missile, we're shooting off the equivalent of an NIH R01-scale research grant.

mokus 8y ago
Serious question: how much of that cost is because we don’t have to fire them more?
- techdragon 8y ago
  WW2 is the only real example to answer this kind of question. For all the global skirmishes and regular war games and other exercises, since WW2 there really hasn’t been sufficient conflict to prevent manufacturing an ahead of time stockpile of desired weaponry at the prices set by companies in the military industrial complex. Price did come down in WW2 but it can be hard to attribute it specifically to “we used everything we built and wanted more delivered yesterday” when so many other factors are involved. Wartime rationing, production regulations, patriotic decision making affecting prices people charged the government, and the simplicity of the things being manufactured compared to the complexity of modern munitions. At the end of the day I’ve personally settled on “yes but probably not as much as you might think”.
  - jonhendry18 8y ago
    Multiple sourcing probably played a big role. Lots of companies were making Sherman tanks, for instance. IBM was making rifles along with many other companies. There is no second source for the F-35.
- Fomite 8y ago
  The U.S. Navy has apparently bought 8,000 Tomahawk missiles overall and we've shot 2193 of them - but I genuinely don't know when Raytheon's volume discounts kick in.
- mdeg 8y ago
  What number would you place on the threat that Iraq posed to the United States? Would it be more or less than $1.1t?

garmaine 8y ago

> Guns and bombs are cheap. No, they are not. Go look up how much the military spends on such things. It is a lot. (Per unit and in aggregate.)

jonhendry18 8y ago

Apparently a military logistics expert system saved the US enough money during the Gulf War period that the savings essentially paid for all the Pentagon spending on AI research to that point. (And probably more than was spent on AI.)