8 ms·

U.S. Army: “How has serving impacted you?”

100 points by rahuldottech 7y ago

geofft 7y ago
The United States is perfectly willing to have a program that pays unskilled high school graduates with no family resources a good salary, houses them, sends them to college, and gives them physical and mental training—as long as there's an elevated chance of the youth in this program being killed or injured. My church recently had a young homeless guy come by and join the community for a bit before deciding that his only chance in life to get out of his situation was joining the army. I don't know if we'll see him again. We have the money for all sorts of "socialist" programs like free college and a safety net for youth. But how, politically, do we make the decision to decouple it from inflicting violence on those youth?
- aiyodev 7y ago
  The US makes living difficult for the poor so that they think joining the military is a good choice. If homes were affordable, if college was affordable, if healthcare was affordable, nobody would want to join. We force poor people to join so that we'll have a military. We have wars to justify having a large military. We have a large military so that we'll purchase a lot of military equipment. We purchase a lot of military equipment to fuel the economy in specific congressional districts. We prop up those districts so that the people there have jobs and will reelect their representatives. Even the politicians who seem to support the "socialist" programs have no intention of following through with their promises.
  - srean 7y ago
    Not just poor people there are those who are trying to obtain citizenship. Poverty draft and selective service is real
- eeZah7Ux 7y ago
  The opposite is true. Life is so difficult for poor people that they are willing to go get killed or go to prison rather than starve. Especially if they have medical needs. > We have the money for all sorts of "socialist" programs like free college Most "developed" countries have free healthcare. Many have free or almost-free college. The US is by far the less "socialist" society among wealthy countries.
croo 7y ago
I hope no new generation will grow up without realizing how horrible war is.
- geofft 7y ago
  Bent double, like old beggars under sacks, Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge, Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs And towards our distant rest began to trudge. Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind; Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind. Gas! Gas! Quick, boys!—An ecstasy of fumbling, Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time; But someone still was yelling out and stumbling And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime... Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light, As under a green sea, I saw him drowning. In all my dreams, before my helpless sight, He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning. If in some smothering dreams you too could pace Behind the wagon that we flung him in, And watch the white eyes writhing in his face, His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin; If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs, Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,— My friend, you would not tell with such high zest To children ardent for some desperate glory, The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori. - Wilfred Owen (1893-1918), published 1920
  - sys_64738 7y ago
    Wonderful. I had forgotten this from my childhood.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  I can’t tell if you’re calling for an end to war or for keeping it around so that we can show it to people as a reminder of how horrible it is.
- rayiner 7y ago
  You know what's more horrible than war? Not being able to wage war. I'm from a country (Bangladesh) that fought a war, in which about half a million people died, to free itself from Pakistan, which was treating us like second-class citizens. In doing so, we were able to separate ourselves and plot our own course. And lucky for us--as theocracy has overtaken Pakistan, Bangladesh went from being significantly poorer than Pakistan (40% lower GDP per capita) to catching up and on a path to overtake. Not to mention, being a (relatively) freer society. War is a fundamental tool in the exercise of self determination. Most people who talk about how "horrible war is" have never been in a context where killing or being killed is preferable to the status quo.
srean 7y ago
If violent conflict or the threat of such is one of the unspoken means of creating artificial demand that props up parts of ones economy this should not come as a surprise. 'Soldiers' are low level resources to be turned over into a different kind of wealth. Sooner the realization dawns the better for those who are left behind with the shorter end of the stick, with or without some shiny pieces of metal.
- Jedi72 7y ago
  I have similar thoughts but state them rather more bluntly, that the US military is 20%~ a program for national defence and 80%~ a socially acceptable public-jobs program in a society which is phobic of "socialism" but nevertheless needs wealth-redistribution in the economically productive forms of education and life-experience/connections for those involved in order to thrive on the macro level.
  - deogeo 7y ago
    It's wealth redistribution all right, but it distributes wealth to the top: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket
    - mat4magic 7y ago
      Yes selling weapons is profitable. But if your own country is at war with an equally strong opponent, then its not. Economy is in shambles for both players no matter who wins. Also tax rates during war time are really high. Wars and other catastrophes are equalizing wealth distribution and are not distributing wealth to the top. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/02/scheidel-great-leveler-inequality-violence/517164/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/02/scheide...
      - eeZah7Ux 7y ago
        History shows that many people made rich by war were able to buy their way into a neutral country and live safely. Borders do not apply to very rich people.
thomaswang 7y ago
Plenty of countries manage to conspript pretty much everyone at a certain age. Train them and let them home without having a special problem with them. Now what is the US army doing during training/stateside service?
- new4thaccount 7y ago
  I think it is two things. The first is that everyone goes into the military for four years or something like that (Ex: Israel), so it is a shared cultural experience that everyone understands. Second, while some of those soldiers see conflict, the scale is much less than something like Vietnam where entire graduating highschool classes of boys were wiped out and the war wasn't popular and it wasn't a defending our country in the normal sense, but a proactive war to help curb Soviet expansion. Afghanistan and Iraq have Veterans in a similar (if less extreme) circumstances. The war is a geopolitical policing act and extension of US foreign policy at this point more than an actual defend the nation type situation. I've never served, but to go through all that and then have issues and have to jump through hoops at the VA would be crushing.
  - austincheney 7y ago
    > four years or something like that (Ex: Israel) Israeli conscription is mandatory for adult citizens on or about their 18th birthday with a service obligation of 3 years for males and 2 years for females, but you can defer service until after completion of undergraduate education for 6 years as an officer.
    - new4thaccount 7y ago
      Thanks for clarifying! I knew I wasn't very far off.
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  Most of these Tweets seem to be about experiences from operations. Most countries never deploy on operations. Fewer deploy on expeditionary operations. Even fewer do so at the intensity of the US. You’re not comparing something equivalent.
austincheney 7y ago
That twitter thread is a complete disaster. The thread asks how has serving in the US Army impacted you, and instead they get a bunch of attention seeking people who have never served. This is a perfect example of why social media increases depression and isolation.
- diggan 7y ago
  I'm sure the original tweet didn't intend it, but effectively it did ask everyone how it impacted them, direct or indirect. > instead they get a bunch of attention seeking people who have never served That's a bit harsh. Seems many of the people writing in that thread have relatives that did serve, but now are unable to tell their own story, for one reason or another. I'm glad people are telling their stories about it, but you're probably right as well that social media might not be the best area to drum that up, as it's hard to have real conversations about whatever subject.
  - evrydayhustling 7y ago
    I think you are highlighting a more fundamental issue with social media: it's impossible to separate signal from noise. On one hand, OP is almost certainly right about attention seeking, and I'd go as far as to expect that many of the stories are outright fabricated. There is a well known (and growing) phenomena of military imposters that falsely claim service [1], and the secondhand stories here are even harder to verify and present a clear motivation for falsehood. On the other hand, there is also plenty of evidence that growing PTSD rates [2], and overall worse outcomes [3] for service members, is a real phenomenon. The true stories here that deserve analysis will have to compete with other stories that angle towards particular or personal ends. End result: every viewer sees plenty in this thread to confirm their own expectations. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/aug/21/usa.internationaleducationnews https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/aug/21/usa.internatio... [2] https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwij8dre_7biAhVnk-AKHcOBADsQzPwBegQIARAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk%2Fhome-news%2Fptsd-post-traumatic-stress-disorder-armed-forces-increases-study-research-a8573091.html https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwij... [3] https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwictpiBgLfiAhUSm-AKHVMjAK4QzPwBegQIARAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcnews.com%2Fbetter%2Fmoney%2Fsurvey-military-families-carry-more-debt-have-fewer-assets-civilians-n390046&psig=AOvVaw3UTAxX7ou5eRlDtjX08fPw&ust=1558884653047495 https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwic...
jasonhansel 7y ago
From Twitter's rules: "You also may not affiliate with organizations that — whether by their own statements or activity both on and off the platform — use or promote violence against civilians to further their causes."
- austincheney 7y ago
  Do you have evidence to qualify that somebody is promoting violence against civilians?
  - badrequest 7y ago
    You mean beyond the simple fact that the Army has killed millions of them?
    - austincheney 7y ago
      Yes, I was asking for actual evidence.
      - diggan 7y ago
        Here is a list of engagements: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_mili... Taking "2017 Shayrat missile strike" as a random example (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Shayrat_missile_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Shayrat_missile_strike) shows that specific mission had at least 9 civilian casualties. So even if not intended, the US army are in fact using violence against civilians (like probably most armies in the world)
      - alfiedotwtf 7y ago
        > use or promote violence against civilians to further their causes Last week's tl;dr: Iran should be wiped off the map -- President Trump I'm pretty sure genocide falls under violence to further his cause
      - 7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
pgrote 7y ago
Once I realized that the United States has to involve itself in armed conflicts on a regular basis, it was eye opening. The United States spends more money on the military than any other country. You have to take the military out to stretch its legs every decade or so. If not to prepare for war, but to keep feeding the military expenditure process. President Eisenhower's farewell address concerning the military industrial complex nailed the course for the United States since concerning conflicts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyBNmecVtdU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyBNmecVtdU
- rayiner 7y ago
  The U.S. also spends more money on education and healthcare than any other country. How is that at all surprising? The U.S. spends 3.1% of GDP on the military, more than the EU average, but less than Russia. Given the state of the world, where we've made an express commitment to protect the EU from Russia, that should not be surprising. Comparing military spending as one big lump $600 billion for the U.S. versus $225 billion for the EU versus $60 billion for Russia ignores several really important things. First, a dollar buys you much more in Russia than in the U.S.[1] Adjusted for purchasing power, Russia's defense budget is more equivalent to $180 billion: https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2019/05/03/russian-defense-spending-is-much-larger-and-more-sustainable-than-it-seems https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2019/05/03/ru.... (The same is actually true for Europe too. Europe's PPP GDP is 20% higher than its nominal GDP, making the EU 28 defense budget more like $270 billion U.S.) Second, it's not unreasonable for the U.S. to want to not merely achieve parity, but have a decisive advantage. Having a decisive technological edge costs you exponentially more money. The 747 cost about $7.5 billion (in today's money) to develop. The 787 cost $32 billion. The more advanced technology cost a lot more to develop even in inflation-adjusted dollars. The same is true for all sorts of high-tech industrial equipment. The cost of a new fab tripled from 1998 to 2010: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/418576/the-high-cost-of-upholding-moores-law https://www.technologyreview.com/s/418576/the-high-cost-of-u.... Third, going back to Eisenhower, the cost to society of having a military scales with population. We can afford to spend $600 billion on the military more than Russia can afford to spend $60 billion. That's why it makes sense to look at it as a percentage of GDP--how much of our economic output are we devoting to the military, versus other things? 3% of GDP is higher than Europe now, but about the same as what France was spending as recently as the early 1990s: https://tradingeconomics.com/france/military-expenditure-percent-of-gdp-wb-data.html https://tradingeconomics.com/france/military-expenditure-per.... Were we talking about how French military expenditures were a mark of crazy imperialism back then? [1] To give a concrete example, sources report that Russian subway lines cost 10-15 billion rubles per kilometer: https://www.metro-report.com/news/single-view/view/the-winners-and-losers-of-russian-metros.html https://www.metro-report.com/news/single-view/view/the-winne.... That’s $150-230 million by exchange rate. In the US, subway lines in SF and LA have ranged from $375-562 million per km. In New York, the Second Avenue subway was $1.6 billion per mile. You’d never compare New York’s or SF’s subway budget with Russia’s without accounting for that.
RickJWagner 7y ago
I served in the Air Force, not the Army. My service is what paid for college, and led to a satisfying life. I had a large family, and without the USAF I'm not sure I would've been able to afford school. It also gave me time to mature between high school and college. It worked very well for me.
Markoff 7y ago
not US, but EU country before military changed to fully professional (now it may be different): 1. I value my personal freedom much more than before serving being wheel in this whole mechanism 2. I became expert in faking/pretending to work 3. I had problem to say sentence without swear word, but this disappeared after few weeks/months when you need to be conscious about it 4. it took also few weeks to so picking up phone or even home telephone with Private XY receiving 5. and I lost any ideals about military, it's (was) bunch of drunks, every single office you came open bottle 6. I enjoyed using catch 22 logic as clerk when reasoning about some issues, that book really accurately describe military

100 points by rahuldottech 7y ago

The United States is perfectly willing to have a program that pays unskilled high school graduates with no family resources a good salary, houses them, sends them to college, and gives them physical and mental training—as long as there's an elevated chance of the youth in this program being killed or injured. My church recently had a young homeless guy come by and join the community for a bit before deciding that his only chance in life to get out of his situation was joining the army. I don't know if we'll see him again. We have the money for all sorts of "socialist" programs like free college and a safety net for youth. But how, politically, do we make the decision to decouple it from inflicting violence on those youth?

aiyodev 7y ago
The US makes living difficult for the poor so that they think joining the military is a good choice. If homes were affordable, if college was affordable, if healthcare was affordable, nobody would want to join. We force poor people to join so that we'll have a military. We have wars to justify having a large military. We have a large military so that we'll purchase a lot of military equipment. We purchase a lot of military equipment to fuel the economy in specific congressional districts. We prop up those districts so that the people there have jobs and will reelect their representatives. Even the politicians who seem to support the "socialist" programs have no intention of following through with their promises.
- srean 7y ago
  Not just poor people there are those who are trying to obtain citizenship. Poverty draft and selective service is real
eeZah7Ux 7y ago
The opposite is true. Life is so difficult for poor people that they are willing to go get killed or go to prison rather than starve. Especially if they have medical needs. > We have the money for all sorts of "socialist" programs like free college Most "developed" countries have free healthcare. Many have free or almost-free college. The US is by far the less "socialist" society among wealthy countries.

croo 7y ago

I hope no new generation will grow up without realizing how horrible war is.

geofft 7y ago
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks, Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge, Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs And towards our distant rest began to trudge. Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind; Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind. Gas! Gas! Quick, boys!—An ecstasy of fumbling, Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time; But someone still was yelling out and stumbling And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime... Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light, As under a green sea, I saw him drowning. In all my dreams, before my helpless sight, He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning. If in some smothering dreams you too could pace Behind the wagon that we flung him in, And watch the white eyes writhing in his face, His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin; If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs, Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,— My friend, you would not tell with such high zest To children ardent for some desperate glory, The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori. - Wilfred Owen (1893-1918), published 1920
- sys_64738 7y ago
  Wonderful. I had forgotten this from my childhood.
saagarjha 7y ago
I can’t tell if you’re calling for an end to war or for keeping it around so that we can show it to people as a reminder of how horrible it is.
rayiner 7y ago
You know what's more horrible than war? Not being able to wage war. I'm from a country (Bangladesh) that fought a war, in which about half a million people died, to free itself from Pakistan, which was treating us like second-class citizens. In doing so, we were able to separate ourselves and plot our own course. And lucky for us--as theocracy has overtaken Pakistan, Bangladesh went from being significantly poorer than Pakistan (40% lower GDP per capita) to catching up and on a path to overtake. Not to mention, being a (relatively) freer society. War is a fundamental tool in the exercise of self determination. Most people who talk about how "horrible war is" have never been in a context where killing or being killed is preferable to the status quo.

srean 7y ago

If violent conflict or the threat of such is one of the unspoken means of creating artificial demand that props up parts of ones economy this should not come as a surprise. 'Soldiers' are low level resources to be turned over into a different kind of wealth. Sooner the realization dawns the better for those who are left behind with the shorter end of the stick, with or without some shiny pieces of metal.

Jedi72 7y ago
I have similar thoughts but state them rather more bluntly, that the US military is 20%~ a program for national defence and 80%~ a socially acceptable public-jobs program in a society which is phobic of "socialism" but nevertheless needs wealth-redistribution in the economically productive forms of education and life-experience/connections for those involved in order to thrive on the macro level.
- deogeo 7y ago
  It's wealth redistribution all right, but it distributes wealth to the top: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket
  - mat4magic 7y ago
    Yes selling weapons is profitable. But if your own country is at war with an equally strong opponent, then its not. Economy is in shambles for both players no matter who wins. Also tax rates during war time are really high. Wars and other catastrophes are equalizing wealth distribution and are not distributing wealth to the top. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/02/scheidel-great-leveler-inequality-violence/517164/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/02/scheide...
    - eeZah7Ux 7y ago
      History shows that many people made rich by war were able to buy their way into a neutral country and live safely. Borders do not apply to very rich people.

thomaswang 7y ago

Plenty of countries manage to conspript pretty much everyone at a certain age. Train them and let them home without having a special problem with them. Now what is the US army doing during training/stateside service?

new4thaccount 7y ago
I think it is two things. The first is that everyone goes into the military for four years or something like that (Ex: Israel), so it is a shared cultural experience that everyone understands. Second, while some of those soldiers see conflict, the scale is much less than something like Vietnam where entire graduating highschool classes of boys were wiped out and the war wasn't popular and it wasn't a defending our country in the normal sense, but a proactive war to help curb Soviet expansion. Afghanistan and Iraq have Veterans in a similar (if less extreme) circumstances. The war is a geopolitical policing act and extension of US foreign policy at this point more than an actual defend the nation type situation. I've never served, but to go through all that and then have issues and have to jump through hoops at the VA would be crushing.
- austincheney 7y ago
  > four years or something like that (Ex: Israel) Israeli conscription is mandatory for adult citizens on or about their 18th birthday with a service obligation of 3 years for males and 2 years for females, but you can defer service until after completion of undergraduate education for 6 years as an officer.
  - new4thaccount 7y ago
    Thanks for clarifying! I knew I wasn't very far off.
chrisseaton 7y ago
Most of these Tweets seem to be about experiences from operations. Most countries never deploy on operations. Fewer deploy on expeditionary operations. Even fewer do so at the intensity of the US. You’re not comparing something equivalent.

austincheney 7y ago

That twitter thread is a complete disaster. The thread asks how has serving in the US Army impacted you, and instead they get a bunch of attention seeking people who have never served. This is a perfect example of why social media increases depression and isolation.

diggan 7y ago
I'm sure the original tweet didn't intend it, but effectively it did ask everyone how it impacted them, direct or indirect. > instead they get a bunch of attention seeking people who have never served That's a bit harsh. Seems many of the people writing in that thread have relatives that did serve, but now are unable to tell their own story, for one reason or another. I'm glad people are telling their stories about it, but you're probably right as well that social media might not be the best area to drum that up, as it's hard to have real conversations about whatever subject.
- evrydayhustling 7y ago
  I think you are highlighting a more fundamental issue with social media: it's impossible to separate signal from noise. On one hand, OP is almost certainly right about attention seeking, and I'd go as far as to expect that many of the stories are outright fabricated. There is a well known (and growing) phenomena of military imposters that falsely claim service [1], and the secondhand stories here are even harder to verify and present a clear motivation for falsehood. On the other hand, there is also plenty of evidence that growing PTSD rates [2], and overall worse outcomes [3] for service members, is a real phenomenon. The true stories here that deserve analysis will have to compete with other stories that angle towards particular or personal ends. End result: every viewer sees plenty in this thread to confirm their own expectations. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/aug/21/usa.internationaleducationnews https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/aug/21/usa.internatio... [2] https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwij8dre_7biAhVnk-AKHcOBADsQzPwBegQIARAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk%2Fhome-news%2Fptsd-post-traumatic-stress-disorder-armed-forces-increases-study-research-a8573091.html https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwij... [3] https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwictpiBgLfiAhUSm-AKHVMjAK4QzPwBegQIARAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcnews.com%2Fbetter%2Fmoney%2Fsurvey-military-families-carry-more-debt-have-fewer-assets-civilians-n390046&psig=AOvVaw3UTAxX7ou5eRlDtjX08fPw&ust=1558884653047495 https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwic...

jasonhansel 7y ago

From Twitter's rules: "You also may not affiliate with organizations that — whether by their own statements or activity both on and off the platform — use or promote violence against civilians to further their causes."

austincheney 7y ago
Do you have evidence to qualify that somebody is promoting violence against civilians?
- badrequest 7y ago
  You mean beyond the simple fact that the Army has killed millions of them?
  - austincheney 7y ago
    Yes, I was asking for actual evidence.
    - diggan 7y ago
      Here is a list of engagements: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_mili... Taking "2017 Shayrat missile strike" as a random example (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Shayrat_missile_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Shayrat_missile_strike) shows that specific mission had at least 9 civilian casualties. So even if not intended, the US army are in fact using violence against civilians (like probably most armies in the world)
    - alfiedotwtf 7y ago
      > use or promote violence against civilians to further their causes Last week's tl;dr: Iran should be wiped off the map -- President Trump I'm pretty sure genocide falls under violence to further his cause
    - 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

pgrote 7y ago

Once I realized that the United States has to involve itself in armed conflicts on a regular basis, it was eye opening. The United States spends more money on the military than any other country. You have to take the military out to stretch its legs every decade or so. If not to prepare for war, but to keep feeding the military expenditure process. President Eisenhower's farewell address concerning the military industrial complex nailed the course for the United States since concerning conflicts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyBNmecVtdU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyBNmecVtdU

rayiner 7y ago
The U.S. also spends more money on education and healthcare than any other country. How is that at all surprising? The U.S. spends 3.1% of GDP on the military, more than the EU average, but less than Russia. Given the state of the world, where we've made an express commitment to protect the EU from Russia, that should not be surprising. Comparing military spending as one big lump $600 billion for the U.S. versus $225 billion for the EU versus $60 billion for Russia ignores several really important things. First, a dollar buys you much more in Russia than in the U.S.[1] Adjusted for purchasing power, Russia's defense budget is more equivalent to $180 billion: https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2019/05/03/russian-defense-spending-is-much-larger-and-more-sustainable-than-it-seems https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2019/05/03/ru.... (The same is actually true for Europe too. Europe's PPP GDP is 20% higher than its nominal GDP, making the EU 28 defense budget more like $270 billion U.S.) Second, it's not unreasonable for the U.S. to want to not merely achieve parity, but have a decisive advantage. Having a decisive technological edge costs you exponentially more money. The 747 cost about $7.5 billion (in today's money) to develop. The 787 cost $32 billion. The more advanced technology cost a lot more to develop even in inflation-adjusted dollars. The same is true for all sorts of high-tech industrial equipment. The cost of a new fab tripled from 1998 to 2010: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/418576/the-high-cost-of-upholding-moores-law https://www.technologyreview.com/s/418576/the-high-cost-of-u.... Third, going back to Eisenhower, the cost to society of having a military scales with population. We can afford to spend $600 billion on the military more than Russia can afford to spend $60 billion. That's why it makes sense to look at it as a percentage of GDP--how much of our economic output are we devoting to the military, versus other things? 3% of GDP is higher than Europe now, but about the same as what France was spending as recently as the early 1990s: https://tradingeconomics.com/france/military-expenditure-percent-of-gdp-wb-data.html https://tradingeconomics.com/france/military-expenditure-per.... Were we talking about how French military expenditures were a mark of crazy imperialism back then? [1] To give a concrete example, sources report that Russian subway lines cost 10-15 billion rubles per kilometer: https://www.metro-report.com/news/single-view/view/the-winners-and-losers-of-russian-metros.html https://www.metro-report.com/news/single-view/view/the-winne.... That’s $150-230 million by exchange rate. In the US, subway lines in SF and LA have ranged from $375-562 million per km. In New York, the Second Avenue subway was $1.6 billion per mile. You’d never compare New York’s or SF’s subway budget with Russia’s without accounting for that.

RickJWagner 7y ago

I served in the Air Force, not the Army. My service is what paid for college, and led to a satisfying life. I had a large family, and without the USAF I'm not sure I would've been able to afford school. It also gave me time to mature between high school and college. It worked very well for me.

Markoff 7y ago

not US, but EU country before military changed to fully professional (now it may be different): 1. I value my personal freedom much more than before serving being wheel in this whole mechanism 2. I became expert in faking/pretending to work 3. I had problem to say sentence without swear word, but this disappeared after few weeks/months when you need to be conscious about it 4. it took also few weeks to so picking up phone or even home telephone with Private XY receiving 5. and I lost any ideals about military, it's (was) bunch of drunks, every single office you came open bottle 6. I enjoyed using catch 22 logic as clerk when reasoning about some issues, that book really accurately describe military