30 ms·

I wouldn’t characterize defense spending as waste. China is a significant threat, for example, and maintaining superiority over them is of national importance I

I wouldn’t characterize defense spending as waste. China is a significant threat, for example, and maintaining superiority over them is of national importance IMO.

bawolff 6y ago
I guess we are in cold war 2.0!
Retric 6y ago
Some defense spending is reasonable, but we could get a lot while limiting things to say 200 - 300 Billion per year. That’s 4-6 times what the UK spends for example and they have 2 aircraft carriers etc.
- aroch 6y ago
  Calling the British navy a battle ready fleet would be rather a positive attitude. Their submarine and surface ship captains don't know how to navigate, running aground and into other boats. And their aircraft carriers don't even have enough crew/planes and will deploy US Marine Corp units to meet their full complement. It will likely take the UK 15-20 years for the two new Carriers to be at full operating capability (2009-TBD, probably 2024 at the earliest). That being said, the US could stand to spend less on military funding.
  - saberience 6y ago
    What are you saying about UK ships not knowing how to navigate? The US navy is far, far worse in that respect, the British navy hasn't had anything near as bad as this happen anytime recently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Fitzgerald_and_MV_ACX_Crystal_collision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Fitzgerald_and_MV_ACX_Crys...
    - aroch 6y ago
      Over the last few years there have been several (4-5) instances of British subs nearly striking surface ships in their home waters. Also running aground right outside their home port in 2010. Not exactly reassuring. The US Navy is much bigger and has global operations. They're just as guilty of being careless but they also have proven war fighting capabilities. No one is asking the British to sail by as a show of power and solidarity.
      - Retric 6y ago
        Near misses are fairly common in all large navies, that says little about the British capacity for warfare. For example both the USS Fitzgerald and USS John McCain actually had significant collisions yet the US Navy is generally considered by far the strongest in the world. Similarly, military aircraft crash vastly more often than their civilian counterparts, but consider extreme safety simply isn't what militaires optimize for. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_military_aircraft_(2010–2019) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incident...
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        > For example both the USS Fitzgerald and USS John McCain actually had significant collisions yet the US Navy is generally considered by far the strongest in the world. The series of four accidents including those two in a short period in the US 7th Fleet was considered a sign of very significant problems. It is not at all typical of large, capable navies.
        Retric 6y ago
        I agree that these incidents where a sign of significant issues. My point what they said little about the US Nacy’s overall capacity for warfare. Rates of accidents that are completely unacceptable in peacetime are a rounding errors in a significant war.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
  - onion2k 6y ago
    Their submarine and surface ship captains don't know how to navigate, running aground and into other boats. The USS Fitzgerald and USS John McCain are US Navy ships that have both had serious collisions recently that lead to loss of life. Ships having accidents is not a particularly good measure of battle readiness.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
sneak 6y ago
This view presupposes that nations themselves are important, and that preserving the existence and concept of nations, and their superiority over other nations, isn't wasteful. I doubt very much that the children born on Mars will share your view about the value of Earth nations.
- mlyle 6y ago
  It would be nice if we could get away from nations, but I'm not really ready to cede the game and entrust China with supremacy or even parity and hope that it all works out OK.
- octopoc 6y ago
  Do you think nations are a bad thing? What's your alternative? City states? Planet-wide government?
  - sneak 6y ago
    I left it intentionally ambiguous about my own opinions on the topic, as I am not interested in a nationalistic debate about my own views, as they aren't relevant here. (If you'd like to take an easy guess at them and discuss further, my email's in my profile.) I just wanted to draw attention to the fact that whether something is wasteful or not is a value judgement in a lot of ways, and that there aren't usually one size fits all answers for all members of a society when it comes to value judgments, especially for a potentially multiplanetary society.
  - dkdk8283 6y ago
    Nations are great. Not everyone agrees on all policies. My personal opinion is that I do not want to live in a censored or communist country (Such as China). Having borders and different countries allows multiple ideas to exist and folks can choose where to live.
    - sneak 6y ago
      > folks can choose where to live. This is absolutely not true in practice, even for rich people fortunate/lucky enough to be born in a place where they receive a passport with lots of options. For the 99% of the other humans, it's even worse.
rurp 6y ago
I can't think of a single scenario where having more tanks or fighter jets would be decisive in a full scale conflict between nuclear powers. Suppose the US and China get into a direct conflict. How does the US having a 10x advantage in the number of traditional arms vs only, say, 2x stop China from threatening to obliterate humanity with nukes the minute their leadership is facing an existential crisis?
- dQw4w9WgXcQ 6y ago
  Nukes have pretty much ensured via MAD that there is no future "full scale direct conflict" between major powers. No matter how narcissistic some despot might be, their overwhelming self-interest still realizes there's not much power held over an empty parking lot or when vaporized into the side of a building. It's proxy wars from here on out. Given that, you can't think of a single scenario where having multiple floating runways would possibly benefit wartime?
- unexpected 6y ago
  Does something like Starlink prevent direct conflict, though? Imagine a world where anyone can get unfettered internet access. Instead of the great Firewall of China, citizens can just access a starlink satellite. How does that help with spreading democractic ideals? How does protesting and information dissemination look different? What if citizens in Iran, Middle East, Myanmar, etc. could all do the same thing? I hope Starlink is thinking about these Big questions.
  - CrazyStat 6y ago
    Accessing a starlink satellite requires a bulky and expensive piece of equipment that emits electromagnetic waves and so can be tracked and confiscated and the operator fined, imprisoned, or killed. It doesn't seem like a very promising route for bypassing authoritarian government restrictions on the Internet.
- slim 6y ago
  it's for waging proxy wars. for example US could deploy it's army in Nigeria to protect freedom and democracy
2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago
The government seems to pay $100 for $1 of work. I work in defense.
- dkdk8283 6y ago
  You want defense contractors well paid. It’s a industry rife for corruption and bribery. I want my defense workers well paid so they won’t even think about trying to profit by selling information.

I wouldn’t characterize defense spending as waste. China is a significant threat, for example, and maintaining superiority over them is of national importance IMO.

bawolff 6y ago

I guess we are in cold war 2.0!

Retric 6y ago

Some defense spending is reasonable, but we could get a lot while limiting things to say 200 - 300 Billion per year. That’s 4-6 times what the UK spends for example and they have 2 aircraft carriers etc.

aroch 6y ago
Calling the British navy a battle ready fleet would be rather a positive attitude. Their submarine and surface ship captains don't know how to navigate, running aground and into other boats. And their aircraft carriers don't even have enough crew/planes and will deploy US Marine Corp units to meet their full complement. It will likely take the UK 15-20 years for the two new Carriers to be at full operating capability (2009-TBD, probably 2024 at the earliest). That being said, the US could stand to spend less on military funding.
- saberience 6y ago
  What are you saying about UK ships not knowing how to navigate? The US navy is far, far worse in that respect, the British navy hasn't had anything near as bad as this happen anytime recently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Fitzgerald_and_MV_ACX_Crystal_collision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Fitzgerald_and_MV_ACX_Crys...
  - aroch 6y ago
    Over the last few years there have been several (4-5) instances of British subs nearly striking surface ships in their home waters. Also running aground right outside their home port in 2010. Not exactly reassuring. The US Navy is much bigger and has global operations. They're just as guilty of being careless but they also have proven war fighting capabilities. No one is asking the British to sail by as a show of power and solidarity.
    - Retric 6y ago
      Near misses are fairly common in all large navies, that says little about the British capacity for warfare. For example both the USS Fitzgerald and USS John McCain actually had significant collisions yet the US Navy is generally considered by far the strongest in the world. Similarly, military aircraft crash vastly more often than their civilian counterparts, but consider extreme safety simply isn't what militaires optimize for. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_military_aircraft_(2010–2019) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incident...
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > For example both the USS Fitzgerald and USS John McCain actually had significant collisions yet the US Navy is generally considered by far the strongest in the world. The series of four accidents including those two in a short period in the US 7th Fleet was considered a sign of very significant problems. It is not at all typical of large, capable navies.
        Retric 6y ago
        I agree that these incidents where a sign of significant issues. My point what they said little about the US Nacy’s overall capacity for warfare. Rates of accidents that are completely unacceptable in peacetime are a rounding errors in a significant war.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
- onion2k 6y ago
  Their submarine and surface ship captains don't know how to navigate, running aground and into other boats. The USS Fitzgerald and USS John McCain are US Navy ships that have both had serious collisions recently that lead to loss of life. Ships having accidents is not a particularly good measure of battle readiness.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

sneak 6y ago

This view presupposes that nations themselves are important, and that preserving the existence and concept of nations, and their superiority over other nations, isn't wasteful. I doubt very much that the children born on Mars will share your view about the value of Earth nations.

mlyle 6y ago
It would be nice if we could get away from nations, but I'm not really ready to cede the game and entrust China with supremacy or even parity and hope that it all works out OK.
octopoc 6y ago
Do you think nations are a bad thing? What's your alternative? City states? Planet-wide government?
- sneak 6y ago
  I left it intentionally ambiguous about my own opinions on the topic, as I am not interested in a nationalistic debate about my own views, as they aren't relevant here. (If you'd like to take an easy guess at them and discuss further, my email's in my profile.) I just wanted to draw attention to the fact that whether something is wasteful or not is a value judgement in a lot of ways, and that there aren't usually one size fits all answers for all members of a society when it comes to value judgments, especially for a potentially multiplanetary society.
- dkdk8283 6y ago
  Nations are great. Not everyone agrees on all policies. My personal opinion is that I do not want to live in a censored or communist country (Such as China). Having borders and different countries allows multiple ideas to exist and folks can choose where to live.
  - sneak 6y ago
    > folks can choose where to live. This is absolutely not true in practice, even for rich people fortunate/lucky enough to be born in a place where they receive a passport with lots of options. For the 99% of the other humans, it's even worse.

rurp 6y ago

I can't think of a single scenario where having more tanks or fighter jets would be decisive in a full scale conflict between nuclear powers. Suppose the US and China get into a direct conflict. How does the US having a 10x advantage in the number of traditional arms vs only, say, 2x stop China from threatening to obliterate humanity with nukes the minute their leadership is facing an existential crisis?

dQw4w9WgXcQ 6y ago
Nukes have pretty much ensured via MAD that there is no future "full scale direct conflict" between major powers. No matter how narcissistic some despot might be, their overwhelming self-interest still realizes there's not much power held over an empty parking lot or when vaporized into the side of a building. It's proxy wars from here on out. Given that, you can't think of a single scenario where having multiple floating runways would possibly benefit wartime?
unexpected 6y ago
Does something like Starlink prevent direct conflict, though? Imagine a world where anyone can get unfettered internet access. Instead of the great Firewall of China, citizens can just access a starlink satellite. How does that help with spreading democractic ideals? How does protesting and information dissemination look different? What if citizens in Iran, Middle East, Myanmar, etc. could all do the same thing? I hope Starlink is thinking about these Big questions.
- CrazyStat 6y ago
  Accessing a starlink satellite requires a bulky and expensive piece of equipment that emits electromagnetic waves and so can be tracked and confiscated and the operator fined, imprisoned, or killed. It doesn't seem like a very promising route for bypassing authoritarian government restrictions on the Internet.
slim 6y ago
it's for waging proxy wars. for example US could deploy it's army in Nigeria to protect freedom and democracy

2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago

The government seems to pay $100 for $1 of work. I work in defense.

dkdk8283 6y ago
You want defense contractors well paid. It’s a industry rife for corruption and bribery. I want my defense workers well paid so they won’t even think about trying to profit by selling information.