4 ms·

The exhaustive number of articles, blog posts, twitter rants, instagram memes and comments which take <arbitrary military expenditure item> and then suggests th

by bloqs 6y ago

The exhaustive number of articles, blog posts, twitter rants, instagram memes and comments which take <arbitrary military expenditure item> and then suggests that it is instead spent on <socially progressive item of choice> misses the fundamental issue here. Geopolitical facing military spending is often a facade. Particularly with such unprecedented success of western-hostile nations in either misinformation, or propaganda relating to the pandemic, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the US has a hard mathematical spending allocation not unlike Britain pre WWII - having a navy that must be AT LEAST twice the strength of the next nations. That allocation was probably established before the cold war. This is critical for the projection of power. MAD is a shaky concept that isnt oft guaranteed.

noir_lord 6y ago
> US has a hard mathematical spending allocation not unlike Britain pre WWII IIRC it was a two major war policy for a while not sure what it is now. https://www.britannica.com/topic/two-theatre-war https://www.britannica.com/topic/two-theatre-war
tpetry 6y ago
Yes, these comparisons are kind of senseless. But spending so much money on atomic weapons is kind of bullshit! These are weapons, if ever used again will probably take-out humanity because if some of those are flying to you, you will answer with everything you have. In my opinion military spending should be reduced greatly. But if they want to invest so much invest them in technologies which may have more impact on other areas. Like the laser concept on navy ships.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > In my opinion military spending should be reduced greatly. But if the US does this unilaterally, its nuclear warheads are the last thing spending should be reduced on. It would be great if all countries mutually agreed to do this, but I won't hold my breath waiting for it to happen.
  - codyb 6y ago
    This is akin to the idea that Bitcoin's energy use is fine because of the fact there's no military to defend it, however... I don't think the world adopting BTC and crypto currencies would cause armed forces to disappear so the point seems a bit moot to me?
    - pdonis 6y ago
      > This is akin to the idea that Bitcoin's energy use is fine because of the fact there's no military to defend it I don't see the connection here.
BitwiseFool 6y ago
I don't remember where this observation actually comes from but it's been said that the Military Industrial Complex always prepares "for the last war". So it makes perfect sense that we are spending so much on established doctrine and neglecting the modern information/disinformation conflict.
kube-system 6y ago
> The exhaustive number of articles, blog posts, twitter rants, instagram memes and comments which take <arbitrary military expenditure item> and then suggests that it is instead spent on <socially progressive item of choice> misses the fundamental issue here. Not to mention, it's a false dilemma. The US is rich enough to spend $100 billion on a missile and $100 billion on whatever else it should be spent on. The CARES act was $2,200 billion. The PPP was $484 billion. The last appropriations bill added another $900 billion for COVID relief. The house is getting ready to vote on another $1,900 billion bill here by the end of the month. This missile is less than 2% of what I've just listed. We clearly have the money for dealing with problems when we choose to.
- giantg2 6y ago
  You mean clearly have the ability to borrow money to deal with problems.
  - nicoburns 6y ago
    Governments borrowing money effectively just redistributes wealth as far as I can see.
    - samatman 6y ago
      Indeed, and given the nature of the dollar as reserve currency, it's the only mechanism the US has to tax other countries.
    - phkahler 6y ago
      No, it's got long term consequences that have not fully come around yet. Government spending redistributes money and in some cases that's probably a good thing. In others not so much. But borrowing to do it is bad long term.
  - codyb 6y ago
    My understanding is a bit of inflation would actually be a good thing for the US at this point. A weaker dollar means exports are more competitive and imports are less desirable which would boost American exports. It's also a huge boon for the rest of the world which deals with dollars extensively. Finally, most economists seem to have come around to the fact that our national debt is sustainable and the economic activity is more valuable than the interest payments on it.
pram 6y ago
Yes, the 'strategic' portions of our defense are basically the rock that keeps tigers away. They're more about credibility than anything else. It's easy to understand why they're perceived as a giant waste of GDP, considering that optimally they'd never get used.

by bloqs 6y ago

noir_lord 6y ago

> US has a hard mathematical spending allocation not unlike Britain pre WWII IIRC it was a two major war policy for a while not sure what it is now. https://www.britannica.com/topic/two-theatre-war https://www.britannica.com/topic/two-theatre-war

tpetry 6y ago

Yes, these comparisons are kind of senseless. But spending so much money on atomic weapons is kind of bullshit! These are weapons, if ever used again will probably take-out humanity because if some of those are flying to you, you will answer with everything you have. In my opinion military spending should be reduced greatly. But if they want to invest so much invest them in technologies which may have more impact on other areas. Like the laser concept on navy ships.

pdonis 6y ago
> In my opinion military spending should be reduced greatly. But if the US does this unilaterally, its nuclear warheads are the last thing spending should be reduced on. It would be great if all countries mutually agreed to do this, but I won't hold my breath waiting for it to happen.
- codyb 6y ago
  This is akin to the idea that Bitcoin's energy use is fine because of the fact there's no military to defend it, however... I don't think the world adopting BTC and crypto currencies would cause armed forces to disappear so the point seems a bit moot to me?
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > This is akin to the idea that Bitcoin's energy use is fine because of the fact there's no military to defend it I don't see the connection here.

BitwiseFool 6y ago

I don't remember where this observation actually comes from but it's been said that the Military Industrial Complex always prepares "for the last war". So it makes perfect sense that we are spending so much on established doctrine and neglecting the modern information/disinformation conflict.

kube-system 6y ago

> The exhaustive number of articles, blog posts, twitter rants, instagram memes and comments which take <arbitrary military expenditure item> and then suggests that it is instead spent on <socially progressive item of choice> misses the fundamental issue here. Not to mention, it's a false dilemma. The US is rich enough to spend $100 billion on a missile and $100 billion on whatever else it should be spent on. The CARES act was $2,200 billion. The PPP was $484 billion. The last appropriations bill added another $900 billion for COVID relief. The house is getting ready to vote on another $1,900 billion bill here by the end of the month. This missile is less than 2% of what I've just listed. We clearly have the money for dealing with problems when we choose to.

giantg2 6y ago
You mean clearly have the ability to borrow money to deal with problems.
- nicoburns 6y ago
  Governments borrowing money effectively just redistributes wealth as far as I can see.
  - samatman 6y ago
    Indeed, and given the nature of the dollar as reserve currency, it's the only mechanism the US has to tax other countries.
  - phkahler 6y ago
    No, it's got long term consequences that have not fully come around yet. Government spending redistributes money and in some cases that's probably a good thing. In others not so much. But borrowing to do it is bad long term.
- codyb 6y ago
  My understanding is a bit of inflation would actually be a good thing for the US at this point. A weaker dollar means exports are more competitive and imports are less desirable which would boost American exports. It's also a huge boon for the rest of the world which deals with dollars extensively. Finally, most economists seem to have come around to the fact that our national debt is sustainable and the economic activity is more valuable than the interest payments on it.

pram 6y ago

Yes, the 'strategic' portions of our defense are basically the rock that keeps tigers away. They're more about credibility than anything else. It's easy to understand why they're perceived as a giant waste of GDP, considering that optimally they'd never get used.