3 ms·

If you are going to create an expensive, outdated when first created machine in an effort to create jobs... why not create jobs and solve an actual need / probl

If you are going to create an expensive, outdated when first created machine in an effort to create jobs... why not create jobs and solve an actual need / problem at the same time.

pvarangot 5y ago
Because otherwise some of the stealth fighter engineers go to China and there's a chance you get stealth-fightered. Or that's what I think the argument usually is.
colordrops 5y ago
Because then the money wouldn't get pumped into the coffers of the military industrial barons.
systemvoltage 5y ago
This is a tired argument, and slightly hypocritical. Usually, the same people are proponents of not-so-useful but indirectly beneficial science projects and space exploration. But when it comes to military, the same reasoning gets thrown out of the window. Defense is a necessary evil and history has shown that things go from peaceful to high-tension heated global theater in no time. The inertia of training people to defend the nation or a group of nations is too large. Posture avoids conflict, the whole point of doing these military exercises. I think all aspects of doing things that private enterprises or free market economy cannot simply afford should be maintained. From how nuclear weapons work to sending probes to Venus to smashing protons. The brain power needs to be fed with regular annual maintenance. It shouldn't be a partisan circus. This is an actual need / problem. Sure, the feeding frenzy can get the MIC to show the dark side of capitalism, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. Also Defense is a diplomacy business: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_pact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_pact trading it for soft power, coercion, economic benefit, regional peace, etc.
- dendrite9 5y ago
  This is a valuable point. I know you're right but I still find myself bristling at some of the defense projects that don't seem necessary to me. But there is value in maintaining the expertise and processes.
  - CraigJPerry 5y ago
    It’s not an either-or proposition. It’s possible to have a reasonable offensive (& defensive) capability while not spending so eye wateringly much on the MIC.
- nosianu 5y ago
  Your argument overlooks the many examples of utterly wasteful military spending that happens even against wishes of the military itself because the spending itself really is the focus over the actual military effect. So we could easily compromise between our PoVs and let you have all the military might you want - even if US might already peaks over the next few countries together (and looking at Afghanistan, Iraq, how is it even used?) - but you could still cut a lot of the pork. I think things might get a bit crazy in the next century with climate change creating a lot of additional pressure, so I don't mind living in a well-armed Western Bloc, but that does not mean I have to ignore the incredible waste. I remember a Youtube summary/satire about the Bradley vehicle development, as an example for how it works (although it really shouldn't): https://youtu.be/aXQ2lO3ieBA https://youtu.be/aXQ2lO3ieBA --- and that is before senators get involved who are concerned about getting and keeping spending for their state.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dirtyid 5y ago
US is absurdly ahead in fighter development that countries need to pool together to develop alternative or be wholey dependant for foreseeable future. There's also political / tehcnical strings to using US fighters, which are dominating market and pushing out other manufacturers while US is historically also extremely stingy on tech transfer for joint developments. UK/JP/IT running F35. Sweden/UK/JP all have industrial knowledge. US also focusing on NGAD system which might be too finicky for export. There's a vaccuum and market for alternative. These are also countries who can't procure from PRC / Russia.

If you are going to create an expensive, outdated when first created machine in an effort to create jobs... why not create jobs and solve an actual need / problem at the same time.

pvarangot 5y ago

Because otherwise some of the stealth fighter engineers go to China and there's a chance you get stealth-fightered. Or that's what I think the argument usually is.

colordrops 5y ago

Because then the money wouldn't get pumped into the coffers of the military industrial barons.

systemvoltage 5y ago

This is a tired argument, and slightly hypocritical. Usually, the same people are proponents of not-so-useful but indirectly beneficial science projects and space exploration. But when it comes to military, the same reasoning gets thrown out of the window. Defense is a necessary evil and history has shown that things go from peaceful to high-tension heated global theater in no time. The inertia of training people to defend the nation or a group of nations is too large. Posture avoids conflict, the whole point of doing these military exercises. I think all aspects of doing things that private enterprises or free market economy cannot simply afford should be maintained. From how nuclear weapons work to sending probes to Venus to smashing protons. The brain power needs to be fed with regular annual maintenance. It shouldn't be a partisan circus. This is an actual need / problem. Sure, the feeding frenzy can get the MIC to show the dark side of capitalism, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. Also Defense is a diplomacy business: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_pact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_pact trading it for soft power, coercion, economic benefit, regional peace, etc.

dendrite9 5y ago
This is a valuable point. I know you're right but I still find myself bristling at some of the defense projects that don't seem necessary to me. But there is value in maintaining the expertise and processes.
- CraigJPerry 5y ago
  It’s not an either-or proposition. It’s possible to have a reasonable offensive (& defensive) capability while not spending so eye wateringly much on the MIC.
nosianu 5y ago
Your argument overlooks the many examples of utterly wasteful military spending that happens even against wishes of the military itself because the spending itself really is the focus over the actual military effect. So we could easily compromise between our PoVs and let you have all the military might you want - even if US might already peaks over the next few countries together (and looking at Afghanistan, Iraq, how is it even used?) - but you could still cut a lot of the pork. I think things might get a bit crazy in the next century with climate change creating a lot of additional pressure, so I don't mind living in a well-armed Western Bloc, but that does not mean I have to ignore the incredible waste. I remember a Youtube summary/satire about the Bradley vehicle development, as an example for how it works (although it really shouldn't): https://youtu.be/aXQ2lO3ieBA https://youtu.be/aXQ2lO3ieBA --- and that is before senators get involved who are concerned about getting and keeping spending for their state.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

dirtyid 5y ago

US is absurdly ahead in fighter development that countries need to pool together to develop alternative or be wholey dependant for foreseeable future. There's also political / tehcnical strings to using US fighters, which are dominating market and pushing out other manufacturers while US is historically also extremely stingy on tech transfer for joint developments. UK/JP/IT running F35. Sweden/UK/JP all have industrial knowledge. US also focusing on NGAD system which might be too finicky for export. There's a vaccuum and market for alternative. These are also countries who can't procure from PRC / Russia.