3 ms·

So first, looking at recent decades' experience doesn't seem to support a "arms profiteering = victory" correlation. Second, historically... actively curbing p

by netcan 5y ago

So first, looking at recent decades' experience doesn't seem to support a "arms profiteering = victory" correlation. Second, historically... actively curbing private profiteering has generally been considered a crucial part of a successful wartime economy. Post WWII conflicts didn't really have a "war economy" but the principle, IMO, stands.

roenxi 5y ago
The US hasn't fought a serious war in recent decades. They've been bullying countries that practically couldn't fight back. A war against someone with an actual military (Russia, China, India) is different. There is a great argument that they shouldn't be bullying people. It is a disgrace that the people who benefit from the bullying are getting rich. The bullying doesn't make the US strong either, it probably rots the military in strange ways. But that doesn't change the basic dynamic that the people who support the US war machine need to be paid or the machine will rust and become ineffective. The old maxim "he who wants peace, prepares for war" is a good hint at what will happen if the US tries to curtail war by cutting off funding to their suppliers. Real wars will be started and the US military would lose them.