4 ms·
>I guess its because, without that spending, America would be a third-world country by now. Care to explain how this is true?
by prolikewh0a 8y ago
>I guess its because, without that spending, America would be a third-world country by now.
Care to explain how this is true?
- mmjaa 8y agoAmerican (military-industrial workers) need to eat too, yo. Its poor uneducated thug classes, currently serving in the military, need something worthwhile to justify their existence and continued participation in what can, in all fairness, be described as a Death Cult.
- sremani 8y agoThe leeches are not the poor uneducated thug classes. Its the over-educated test-taking class that has no real world skills other than paper pushing and mistaking maps for real location, while occupying positions of high authority in DC.
- qaq 8y agoWell the effects are hard to calculate but hard to argue that having worlds top military gives one a lot of negotiation leverage.
- vibrio 8y agoDoes it? Can that leverage be disentangled from being the largest economy? Economics is a much more effective tool.
- qaq 8y agoYes it can imagine there is no US mil and Saddam Hussein actually took over Quatar Kuweit and UAE and Saudi Arabia and than made a deal with Russia. Whant to calculate effects on US ecomony?
- vibrio 8y agoWe did prevent that scenario. The discussion did shift from "having the worlds top military" to "imagine there is no US military". I don't advocate US military disarmament or blind pacifism, but there is some room for enhancing efficiency and still maintaining the world's top military (and economy).
- qaq 8y agoI think I worded the example poorly but my understanding is that there is a mil. doctrine of what kind of resources US mil. needs to be able to have X silm. engagements it's hard to say how much you can scale back and keep the same capability. I would imagine that it includes handling Russia and China at the same time for example.