4 ms·

Do you think worldwide military uav research will stop if the US chooses to cease its own particular efforts? This is in no way intended as snark. It's a serio

Do you think worldwide military uav research will stop if the US chooses to cease its own particular efforts? This is in no way intended as snark. It's a serious question. Where do we, as a society, put the dividing line between adequate, not enough, and too much military spending? I certainly agree that many of America's recent military actions have likely not been a net contributor to world stability. But I also think that the commonly presented idea that if we just stopped, somehow there wouldn't be anyone left that wants to cause damage to the states is naive. The United States is one of the most developed countries in the world, and to be near the top is to have a target on your back, one way or another.

jhbadger 8y ago
At most a reasonable amount of military spending would be on par with US rivals. In 2017 the US spent $610 billion. China, $228 billion. Russia, $66 billion. And let's be honest, neither Russia nor China are going to invade the US, because they know that would start a nuclear war.
- Baeocystin 8y ago
  Are you sure that your first sentence is a reasonable assumption? Is it not better to be clearly stronger, so as to be able to negotiate from a position of strength? And again, to be clear, these are good-faith questions. What is it that we lose, as a society, by spending as we do on our military? What is it that we gain? There are solid points in both columns. How does China's spend of ~228 billion compare in purchasing power to the US's 610? How does Russia's? What can we do to de-escalate the otherwise runaway cost of defense, while still maintaining a position of strength? I think Eisenhower's Military-Industrial Complex speech* from 1961 was exceptionally prescient, and we've done a poor job heeding the warnings. I also think that the general disdain I see on HN for most anything defense-related is an outlook only possible when one hasn't experienced living in actual conflict zones. We need to be able to talk about defense needs with clear, rational heads. * http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/eisenhower001.asp http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/eisenhower001.asp

jhbadger 8y ago

At most a reasonable amount of military spending would be on par with US rivals. In 2017 the US spent $610 billion. China, $228 billion. Russia, $66 billion. And let's be honest, neither Russia nor China are going to invade the US, because they know that would start a nuclear war.

Baeocystin 8y ago
Are you sure that your first sentence is a reasonable assumption? Is it not better to be clearly stronger, so as to be able to negotiate from a position of strength? And again, to be clear, these are good-faith questions. What is it that we lose, as a society, by spending as we do on our military? What is it that we gain? There are solid points in both columns. How does China's spend of ~228 billion compare in purchasing power to the US's 610? How does Russia's? What can we do to de-escalate the otherwise runaway cost of defense, while still maintaining a position of strength? I think Eisenhower's Military-Industrial Complex speech* from 1961 was exceptionally prescient, and we've done a poor job heeding the warnings. I also think that the general disdain I see on HN for most anything defense-related is an outlook only possible when one hasn't experienced living in actual conflict zones. We need to be able to talk about defense needs with clear, rational heads. * http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/eisenhower001.asp http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/eisenhower001.asp