3 ms·

The ship this wood is harvested for is older than the DoD and most states. It had to come from somewhere. The DoD isn't even mentioned in this NAVY article. Not

The ship this wood is harvested for is older than the DoD and most states. It had to come from somewhere. The DoD isn't even mentioned in this NAVY article. Not everything is a conspiracy.

zenithd 5y ago
> The ship this wood is harvested for is older than the DoD. The DoD isn't even mentioned in this NAVY article. Huh? DoN is part of DoD... > Not everything is a conspiracy. In what sense am I accusing anyone of conspiring? Massive social programs are palatable if you tie them directly to defense. Otherwise they're not palatable. That's not a description of a conspiracy. It's a kind of weird state of affairs, granted, but no conspiring is going on.
- rascul 5y ago
  > > The ship this wood is harvested for is older than the DoD. The DoD isn't even mentioned in this NAVY article. > Huh? DoN is part of DoD... The US Navy was founded in 1794 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy The USS Constitution was launched in 1797 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Constitution The US Department of Defense was formed in 1947 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_De...
  - Talanes 5y ago
    Government departments aren't organized chronologically, however.
  - zenithd 5y ago
    The DoN is part of DoD. I promise. Even your last link mentions DoN is a child agency of DoD and the DoN wiki page states "The United States Department of the Navy (DoN) is one of the three military departments within the Department of Defense of the United States of America" [1]. -- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_the_Navy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_th...
- IncRnd 5y ago
  If a group within the DoD has plans for a project other than the stated goals, that is a conspiracy. A conspiracy only requires conspiring. It doesn't need to include conspiring for harmful activity.
  - zenithd 5y ago
    > If a group within the DoD has plans for a project other than the stated goals, that is a conspiracy. But that's not what my comment is claiming, at all. There's no conspiracy. Everyone is acting on sincerely held beliefs. "We need a large standing military for defense." Or "We need R&D for defense." Or "We need a huge number of bases spread out across the country for defense." Or "We need this base anyways and the Constitution is symbolically important to our mission/history/culture so we need an oak grove." Etc. The result is a sort of sprawling socialist state operating in parallel to the rest of the USA, administered by and benefiting people who don't call the cow a cow, but there's nothing conspiratorial going on. Everything operates on sincerely held beliefs. Or more often jaded disinterest in bending the status quo. But not conspiracy, per se. If you just asked for an oak grove it'd be a fight. Say it's for defense ans there's much less of a fight. Ditto for literally anything else. That's all I'm saying.
- enkid 5y ago
  Most of the US weapon systems have production in many different states as jobs programs for the senators of those states. You are absolutely correct that the DoD has a lot of political reasons to exist outside of fighting wars.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
>Not everything is a conspiracy. It has nothing to do with it being a conspiracy and everything to do with an opportunity to take a cheap jab at the US for doing it wrong (as if literally every country ever doesn't shoehorn hard to justify niceties into more palatable to fund projects).
- zenithd 5y ago
  > an opportunity to take a cheap jab at the US for doing it wrong I don't have any issues with the DoD. There's nothing wrong with tax-funded social programs for rural communities. Collectively being more honest about the dual purpose of most DoD spending would be great, but whatever.

The ship this wood is harvested for is older than the DoD and most states. It had to come from somewhere. The DoD isn't even mentioned in this NAVY article. Not everything is a conspiracy.

zenithd 5y ago

> The ship this wood is harvested for is older than the DoD. The DoD isn't even mentioned in this NAVY article. Huh? DoN is part of DoD... > Not everything is a conspiracy. In what sense am I accusing anyone of conspiring? Massive social programs are palatable if you tie them directly to defense. Otherwise they're not palatable. That's not a description of a conspiracy. It's a kind of weird state of affairs, granted, but no conspiring is going on.

rascul 5y ago
> > The ship this wood is harvested for is older than the DoD. The DoD isn't even mentioned in this NAVY article. > Huh? DoN is part of DoD... The US Navy was founded in 1794 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy The USS Constitution was launched in 1797 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Constitution The US Department of Defense was formed in 1947 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_De...
- Talanes 5y ago
  Government departments aren't organized chronologically, however.
- zenithd 5y ago
  The DoN is part of DoD. I promise. Even your last link mentions DoN is a child agency of DoD and the DoN wiki page states "The United States Department of the Navy (DoN) is one of the three military departments within the Department of Defense of the United States of America" [1]. -- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_the_Navy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_th...
IncRnd 5y ago
If a group within the DoD has plans for a project other than the stated goals, that is a conspiracy. A conspiracy only requires conspiring. It doesn't need to include conspiring for harmful activity.
- zenithd 5y ago
  > If a group within the DoD has plans for a project other than the stated goals, that is a conspiracy. But that's not what my comment is claiming, at all. There's no conspiracy. Everyone is acting on sincerely held beliefs. "We need a large standing military for defense." Or "We need R&D for defense." Or "We need a huge number of bases spread out across the country for defense." Or "We need this base anyways and the Constitution is symbolically important to our mission/history/culture so we need an oak grove." Etc. The result is a sort of sprawling socialist state operating in parallel to the rest of the USA, administered by and benefiting people who don't call the cow a cow, but there's nothing conspiratorial going on. Everything operates on sincerely held beliefs. Or more often jaded disinterest in bending the status quo. But not conspiracy, per se. If you just asked for an oak grove it'd be a fight. Say it's for defense ans there's much less of a fight. Ditto for literally anything else. That's all I'm saying.
enkid 5y ago
Most of the US weapon systems have production in many different states as jobs programs for the senators of those states. You are absolutely correct that the DoD has a lot of political reasons to exist outside of fighting wars.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

>Not everything is a conspiracy. It has nothing to do with it being a conspiracy and everything to do with an opportunity to take a cheap jab at the US for doing it wrong (as if literally every country ever doesn't shoehorn hard to justify niceties into more palatable to fund projects).

zenithd 5y ago
> an opportunity to take a cheap jab at the US for doing it wrong I don't have any issues with the DoD. There's nothing wrong with tax-funded social programs for rural communities. Collectively being more honest about the dual purpose of most DoD spending would be great, but whatever.