5 ms·

The big war machine isn't what keeps us safe; that is a fetishization of the military that has always been around as a justification for outsized military budge

by Frondo 8y ago

The big war machine isn't what keeps us safe; that is a fetishization of the military that has always been around as a justification for outsized military budgets. Saying that we've gotten research via military funding also disregards how much more research we could get if it weren't redirected through the war bureaucracy. Funding research through the military is about as inefficient as you could get--better than doing so via the lottery, I guess, or by throwing bundles off cash off a bridge, but not by much.

nolok 8y ago
> The big war machine isn't what keeps us safe; that is a fetishization of the military that has always been around as a justification for outsized military budgets. It absolutely is, please understand that I'm not american, and I believe the US Mil. budget is way, way, WAY over the top. But the opposite, not having any of it, would be even stupider. You have the entirety of history to verify the claim, and giving exemples of countries who don't have it but are covered and defended by those who do does not really dispute it. > Saying that we've gotten research via military funding also disregards how much more research we could get if it weren't redirected through the war bureaucracy. Sure, if you're willing to forget the nature of what we are. The possibilities are not "war and war research" or "no war, no war research, all in scientific research". The human nature of what makes armed conflict happen has been there since before there even was a notion of anything close to "research budgets".
- aylmao 8y ago
  > budget is way, way, WAY over the top. But the opposite, not having any of it, would be even stupider. Who said anything about not having any of it? Also, I don't quite grasp what you mean by your second claim. You mean to say that not spending money in military research doesn't mean we would spend it in other research? I think a lot of what we have today would've been invented regardless of military conflict. Perhaps in a slower fashion, which would've perhaps also been better and more sustainable. Inventing to "save our lives" I think is a given, and assuming we didn't fear each other as much, perhaps we could focus more on our fear of disease, or climate catastrophe.
- CamperBob2 8y ago
  It absolutely is, please understand that I'm not american, and I believe the US Mil. budget is way, way, WAY over the top. But the opposite, not having any of it, All we need to feel safe and be safe is a few nuclear weapons and a couple of oceans, both of which we already have. Everything else is either not a threat, not our problem, or not a military problem.
  - matte_black 8y ago
    How can you feel safe knowing your country’s only response for an attack is a nuclear bomb?
    - CamperBob2 8y ago
      In case you haven't noticed, no hostile military forces will attack you if you have nukes. It only takes one to ruin the invader's whole day. You will still have to deal with the occasional 9/11-style harassment, of course, but it's not as if having the world's most powerful military will prevent that.
- wiz21c 8y ago
  >>> Sure, if you're willing to forget the nature of what we are. There's a difference between seeing our nature as "a fact" or seeing our nature as an "evolving one". History is full of wars, that's for sure. But remember things that makes us "better" like : laws, political structures, structural investment in research, etc. Now that I'm thinking about it, is there a minimum of military means that is necessary for our "nature" to evolve... (and are we at that minimum right now ?). I don't count nuclear stuff 'cos it doesn't make anybody safer (contrary to warplanes, ships, soldiers, etc.)
crowbahr 8y ago
I'm curious as to your thoughts on how big war machines do not provide safety, and why the thought that they do is only fetishism of the military?
- mikepurvis 8y ago
  Can't speak for big war machines in general, but aircraft carriers specifically are a relic of the cold war and have only maintained relevance in recent decades because the US has only ever been involved in massively asymmetrical conflicts. In a modern open battle between evenly matched opponents, the carriers would all be on the bottom of the ocean by the end of the second day. EDIT to add— found the article I was looking for, about the economics and battle realities of carriers: "Soviet Adm. Sergei Gorchakov reportedly held the view that the U.S. had made a strategic miscalculation by relying on large and increasingly vulnerable aircraft carriers. The influential U.S. Adm. Hyman Rickover shared this view. In a 1982 congressional hearing, legislators asked him how long American carriers would survive in an actual war. Rickover’s response? “Forty-eight hours,” he said." Source: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-u-s-navys-big-mistake-building-tons-of-supercarriers-571c8dad2f29 https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-u-s-navys-big-mistake-b...
  - cglace 8y ago
    If a country were to take out all of our carriers I'm pretty sure nukes would be flying. At that point does it matter?
    - Someone 8y ago
      I think it’s more likely that an enemy will take out one carrier, after which the other ones will be kept out of the danger zone, thus becoming useless. That’s what happened with the Tirpitz after the Bismarck was sunk. I think that situation is analogous because Bismarck’s demise was due to an attack with relatively cheap weapons (torpedo bombers) with a longer range than Bismarck’s guns, just as people predict modern air carriers don’t stand a chance against relatively cheap rockets because those rockets have a longer range than the airplanes on the carriers.

by Frondo 8y ago

nolok 8y ago

> The big war machine isn't what keeps us safe; that is a fetishization of the military that has always been around as a justification for outsized military budgets. It absolutely is, please understand that I'm not american, and I believe the US Mil. budget is way, way, WAY over the top. But the opposite, not having any of it, would be even stupider. You have the entirety of history to verify the claim, and giving exemples of countries who don't have it but are covered and defended by those who do does not really dispute it. > Saying that we've gotten research via military funding also disregards how much more research we could get if it weren't redirected through the war bureaucracy. Sure, if you're willing to forget the nature of what we are. The possibilities are not "war and war research" or "no war, no war research, all in scientific research". The human nature of what makes armed conflict happen has been there since before there even was a notion of anything close to "research budgets".

aylmao 8y ago
> budget is way, way, WAY over the top. But the opposite, not having any of it, would be even stupider. Who said anything about not having any of it? Also, I don't quite grasp what you mean by your second claim. You mean to say that not spending money in military research doesn't mean we would spend it in other research? I think a lot of what we have today would've been invented regardless of military conflict. Perhaps in a slower fashion, which would've perhaps also been better and more sustainable. Inventing to "save our lives" I think is a given, and assuming we didn't fear each other as much, perhaps we could focus more on our fear of disease, or climate catastrophe.
CamperBob2 8y ago
It absolutely is, please understand that I'm not american, and I believe the US Mil. budget is way, way, WAY over the top. But the opposite, not having any of it, All we need to feel safe and be safe is a few nuclear weapons and a couple of oceans, both of which we already have. Everything else is either not a threat, not our problem, or not a military problem.
- matte_black 8y ago
  How can you feel safe knowing your country’s only response for an attack is a nuclear bomb?
  - CamperBob2 8y ago
    In case you haven't noticed, no hostile military forces will attack you if you have nukes. It only takes one to ruin the invader's whole day. You will still have to deal with the occasional 9/11-style harassment, of course, but it's not as if having the world's most powerful military will prevent that.
wiz21c 8y ago
>>> Sure, if you're willing to forget the nature of what we are. There's a difference between seeing our nature as "a fact" or seeing our nature as an "evolving one". History is full of wars, that's for sure. But remember things that makes us "better" like : laws, political structures, structural investment in research, etc. Now that I'm thinking about it, is there a minimum of military means that is necessary for our "nature" to evolve... (and are we at that minimum right now ?). I don't count nuclear stuff 'cos it doesn't make anybody safer (contrary to warplanes, ships, soldiers, etc.)

crowbahr 8y ago

I'm curious as to your thoughts on how big war machines do not provide safety, and why the thought that they do is only fetishism of the military?

mikepurvis 8y ago
Can't speak for big war machines in general, but aircraft carriers specifically are a relic of the cold war and have only maintained relevance in recent decades because the US has only ever been involved in massively asymmetrical conflicts. In a modern open battle between evenly matched opponents, the carriers would all be on the bottom of the ocean by the end of the second day. EDIT to add— found the article I was looking for, about the economics and battle realities of carriers: "Soviet Adm. Sergei Gorchakov reportedly held the view that the U.S. had made a strategic miscalculation by relying on large and increasingly vulnerable aircraft carriers. The influential U.S. Adm. Hyman Rickover shared this view. In a 1982 congressional hearing, legislators asked him how long American carriers would survive in an actual war. Rickover’s response? “Forty-eight hours,” he said." Source: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-u-s-navys-big-mistake-building-tons-of-supercarriers-571c8dad2f29 https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-u-s-navys-big-mistake-b...
- cglace 8y ago
  If a country were to take out all of our carriers I'm pretty sure nukes would be flying. At that point does it matter?
  - Someone 8y ago
    I think it’s more likely that an enemy will take out one carrier, after which the other ones will be kept out of the danger zone, thus becoming useless. That’s what happened with the Tirpitz after the Bismarck was sunk. I think that situation is analogous because Bismarck’s demise was due to an attack with relatively cheap weapons (torpedo bombers) with a longer range than Bismarck’s guns, just as people predict modern air carriers don’t stand a chance against relatively cheap rockets because those rockets have a longer range than the airplanes on the carriers.