3 ms·
No, we have carriers because they are costly. The point of the military-industrial complex, like any cancer, is to consume vast quantities. They admit to spendi
by jessaustin 6y ago
No, we have carriers because they are costly. The point of the military-industrial complex, like any cancer, is to consume vast quantities. They admit to spending three times what China spends (the actual multiple is higher), and the last yearly increase was larger than Russia's total.
- seizethecheese 6y agoThere are several industrial complexes in the us. Healthcare, agriculture, military. They work because the public accepts and desires them.
- jessaustin 6y agoFor some idiosyncratic definition of "work", one supposes. (Some would argue that at least the "agriculture complex" puts something approaching food on the shelves.) I live in a blood-red state, and I'm kind of an asshole so I have political conversations with everyone. I haven't this year talked to a single person who thinks that any of the wars fought in my lifetime were good wars to fight, or who "desire" any more of them. (There are some dead-enders who still defend the idea of Vietnam; before my time.) The average citizen, however, may fall under your "accepts" criterion. It doesn't matter what nation I suggest, indeed I have made up nonexistent nations before, and most people will allow that, yes, given sufficient winding-up on the part of "news" organizations and politicians, they would accept bombing them to hell and back. In the long view of history, this will be why USA and Germany are discussed together in the same chapter. The public does not desire ruinous horrific ridiculous pointless endless war, but it does accept that, after enough gaslighting by MIC's paid employees in government and media. That's on us. I don't really like my team.