5 ms·
I’ve taken to look at these programs as a jobs programs, and as an empire tax paid to the US (eg. F35 project). Basically it’s three birds with one stone, you
by miketery 5y ago
I’ve taken to look at these programs as a jobs programs, and as an empire tax paid to the US (eg. F35 project).
Basically it’s three birds with one stone, you develop weapons and technology (necessary given international affairs), you provide jobs (important for senators and congressman to make their constituents happy), and funnel international money as a brother tax (we’re in this together).
Yes it’s inefficient, but it greases the wheels.
Similar can be said about the ~$3B/year given to each Israel and Egypt. Keeps the peace, supports strategic interests, and pays for defense (military tech, and jobs - since all funds are spent on US defense).
- DSingularity 5y agoThe 3 billion that goes to Israel is used to maintain its military edge over all of its neighbors. The 3 billion which goes to Egypt goes to the military-class to maintain its hold over the country.
- HWR_14 5y agoThe money to Egypt was promised by Carter to create a peace deal between Israel and Egypt. Frankly, there are like 15 countries in the Middle East. If we could just pay all of them 3 billion a year to bring peace there I would vote for that in a second.
- DSingularity 5y agoPaying dictators ruins the lives of millions of Arabs. Many are imprisoned and tortured by the security state. The majority are condemned to lives where they can barely afford to live and have very little hope of educating their children to improve their outcomes. But sure, keep pretending like the problems in the Middle East are just a few countries short of 3 billion.
- HWR_14 5y agoI'm not saying the Middle East's problems are fixable with 3 billion a year. I'm saying 3 billion/country/year is cheap to fix problems in the Middle East. And it fixed the series of wars between Egypt and Israel that had lasted, what, a generation? But yes, Syria is a mess and cannot be fixed by writing a check. Which is too bad, because it would be great if it could be. And the entire Arabian peninsula has too much money for a 3 billion/year bribe to change things. But if raising 3 billion a year could stop the suffering of millions of people in Syria, my guess is that it could be done very quickly.
- TheOtherHobbes 5y agoBut you're only getting two out of three. The US is falling behind in military tech designed to fight a Cold War. There doesn't seem to be widespread understanding that WWIII is an info/cyber-war, the primary ops are covert and subversive, and Russia and China already have dangerous levels of access to civilian, military, and political infrastructure. Even if that wasn't true, Russia and China have both been modernising their civil defense and weapons systems. The US has been packing pork into barrels with limited effect. There are some world-leading R&D projects, but not so much in the way of effective weapons systems. I am honestly concerned that there is unrealistic complacency about the state of readiness, and there's a non-negligible prospect of an attack on (say) Taiwan happening at the same time as some kind of cyber Pearl Harbor event at home.
- ethbr0 5y agoJust because Russia and China have no problem conducting industrial espionage with military cyber units, doesn't mean the rest of the world can't. It means they choose not to. So it's a pretty skewed view to say "These countries end up in the news for hacking, therefore their capabilities are greater than everyone else's."