3 ms·

Does inflation matter? We are largely talking about bombs and bullets here. Yes, smarter and smarter bombs but bombs nonetheless. I feel like the proper compa

Does inflation matter? We are largely talking about bombs and bullets here. Yes, smarter and smarter bombs but bombs nonetheless. I feel like the proper comparison point is tons of explosives. And remember: every proximity fuse antiair bullet has a vacuum tube and mini-radar in it to run the proximity fuse logic (if close to enemy, then explode). Modern weapons are smarter than that, but WW2 era weapons were still quite smart.

kube-system 5y ago
Warfare is much more than explosives. It’s people, equipment, information, transportation, logistics, and a lot more.
- dragontamer 5y ago
  Sure, but military spending isn't necessarily war-making. Case in point: the biggest expenditure of the US Military is... Healthcare, the Veteran's Affair's department. The next biggest expenditures are Research and Development (which includes DARPA-funded projects. Technically defense, but I don't think anyone would call the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Network_Challenge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Network_Challenge Darpa Network Challenge a "wargame") By just looking at military spending per department, you over-estimate the amount of money spent on warmaking. ------ So defense-spending is one metric (too much money allocated), and maybe "tons of explosives" is too little. USA didn't really have that many casualties in Iraq or Afghanistan (it wasn't like Vietnam or Korea where huge amounts of injured soldiers existed). As such, the VA-department is largely handling things like COVID19, diabetes, and other "typical" ailments. While technically "department of defense" funds, I don't think it really counts as "military expenditure", not in the way the article is discussing anyway.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - kube-system 5y ago
    That’s kind of where I was going with “people”, but certainly there are many other larger costs than explosives. Labor is the largest expense for most organizations and the DoD is no exception. They are, after all, the worlds largest employer.
    - dragontamer 5y ago
      2700000 million Americans served in Vietnam though. There's really no comparison between back then and today with regards to labor costs and/or military manpower. The expectations for health care just rose in the last 60 years. That's where I was going with "number of explosives", because I'd expect that the "number of explosives per soldier" to be relatively constant. (Sure, weapons can get more sophisticated, but soldiers have a hard limit to what they can efficiently carry into battle). For example: a modern AT4 (anti-tank munition) is roughly the same weight as the WW2 Bazooka. This is because the weight-limits per soldier are set. I'd expect that Roman Legionnaires, Medieval Knights, and modern soldiers to have all carried roughly the same equipment weight. The AT4 is more accurate, more sophisticated and more damaging than a bazooka, but the general form factor and use is the same.
      - kube-system 5y ago
        > 2700000 million Americans served in Vietnam though. I presume you meant 2.7 million. But the DoD currently has 2.91 million employees on payroll. And yes, the cost of employing someone has gone up significantly since then.
dna_polymerase 5y ago
Yes, adjusting for inflation does matter if your base is devaluing at roughly 10% per year now. Comparing tons of explosives doesn't make sense since information advantages and other factors have large effects on effectiveness of weapons (e.g. two rockets sinking Russia's black sea flagship). Not that dollars make necessarily more sense here, but at least people understand dollar values.
tootie 5y ago
Well, there's two ways to look at the data. One is how much we as a civilization are prioritizing military spending as compared to everything else. I think that if we charted military spending per GDP, you'd see the number on a pretty steady downward projection and possibly near 100-year lows. So, great, we're not building war machines at the direct expense of healthcare or infrastructure or education. But, as the title says, spending in absolute amounts is higher than ever and it's the likely the amount of stockpiled "killing power" is an all-time high. Nuclear weapons are the big outlier, but the nominal amount of vehicles, munitions and soldiers and their respective increases in efficiency probably mean we are more deadly than ever.

kube-system 5y ago

Warfare is much more than explosives. It’s people, equipment, information, transportation, logistics, and a lot more.

dragontamer 5y ago
Sure, but military spending isn't necessarily war-making. Case in point: the biggest expenditure of the US Military is... Healthcare, the Veteran's Affair's department. The next biggest expenditures are Research and Development (which includes DARPA-funded projects. Technically defense, but I don't think anyone would call the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Network_Challenge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Network_Challenge Darpa Network Challenge a "wargame") By just looking at military spending per department, you over-estimate the amount of money spent on warmaking. ------ So defense-spending is one metric (too much money allocated), and maybe "tons of explosives" is too little. USA didn't really have that many casualties in Iraq or Afghanistan (it wasn't like Vietnam or Korea where huge amounts of injured soldiers existed). As such, the VA-department is largely handling things like COVID19, diabetes, and other "typical" ailments. While technically "department of defense" funds, I don't think it really counts as "military expenditure", not in the way the article is discussing anyway.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- kube-system 5y ago
  That’s kind of where I was going with “people”, but certainly there are many other larger costs than explosives. Labor is the largest expense for most organizations and the DoD is no exception. They are, after all, the worlds largest employer.
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    2700000 million Americans served in Vietnam though. There's really no comparison between back then and today with regards to labor costs and/or military manpower. The expectations for health care just rose in the last 60 years. That's where I was going with "number of explosives", because I'd expect that the "number of explosives per soldier" to be relatively constant. (Sure, weapons can get more sophisticated, but soldiers have a hard limit to what they can efficiently carry into battle). For example: a modern AT4 (anti-tank munition) is roughly the same weight as the WW2 Bazooka. This is because the weight-limits per soldier are set. I'd expect that Roman Legionnaires, Medieval Knights, and modern soldiers to have all carried roughly the same equipment weight. The AT4 is more accurate, more sophisticated and more damaging than a bazooka, but the general form factor and use is the same.
    - kube-system 5y ago
      > 2700000 million Americans served in Vietnam though. I presume you meant 2.7 million. But the DoD currently has 2.91 million employees on payroll. And yes, the cost of employing someone has gone up significantly since then.

dna_polymerase 5y ago

Yes, adjusting for inflation does matter if your base is devaluing at roughly 10% per year now. Comparing tons of explosives doesn't make sense since information advantages and other factors have large effects on effectiveness of weapons (e.g. two rockets sinking Russia's black sea flagship). Not that dollars make necessarily more sense here, but at least people understand dollar values.

tootie 5y ago

Well, there's two ways to look at the data. One is how much we as a civilization are prioritizing military spending as compared to everything else. I think that if we charted military spending per GDP, you'd see the number on a pretty steady downward projection and possibly near 100-year lows. So, great, we're not building war machines at the direct expense of healthcare or infrastructure or education. But, as the title says, spending in absolute amounts is higher than ever and it's the likely the amount of stockpiled "killing power" is an all-time high. Nuclear weapons are the big outlier, but the nominal amount of vehicles, munitions and soldiers and their respective increases in efficiency probably mean we are more deadly than ever.