3 ms·
> It's not comparable to a productive entreprise that needs to build things for people or perish. Well we had to build an Army to win against fascism in the Se
by chrisseaton 5y ago
> It's not comparable to a productive entreprise that needs to build things for people or perish.
Well we had to build an Army to win against fascism in the Second World War or we all would have perished.
And 'perished' means literally dead or subject to fascism, not just going out of business.
- confidantlake 5y agoWW2 was 70+ years ago. The USSR fell 30+ years ago. Military budgets are still incredibly high. The army as it is today does not need to be that efficient. And even during WW2 times the US did not face a credible threat of invasion. The last time the US faced an invasion on the mainland was during the war of 1812.
- chrisseaton 5y ago> The army as it is today does not need to be that efficient. You want the Army to be... less efficient? Spend more for less capability?
- confidantlake 5y agoNo I mean that for the US army today the downside to the army being inefficient is that money is wasted. Not great, but not a disaster. For a different country that could mean the country gets invaded or the government collapses (like Afghanistan).