6 ms·

For those in this thread critical of military spending in general, please keep in mind that the following were/are directly or indirectly military projects 1.

For those in this thread critical of military spending in general, please keep in mind that the following were/are directly or indirectly military projects 1. Global trade as we know it is possible because since WWII the US Navy has, by policy, secured the ocean for all participants in the global economy. Merchant ships generally don't need to run armed or with escorts because of this. Now we did it to produce an economic engine/alliance to fight the Soviets, but the effects on uplifting entire nations out of poverty and increasing global economic development cannot be denied. 2. The US Interstate highway system was a Cold War measure so we could move troops from coast to coast quickly if needed. Eisenhower himself was on the first coast-to-coast US Army expedition in 1919, which took 56 days and laid bare America's lacking infrastructure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1919_Motor_Transport_Corps_convoy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1919_Motor_Transport_Corps_con... 3. European welfare states are indirectly subsidized by US security obligations and global trade (see point 1). If Europe had to secure their own shipping/take on Russia on their own, their military spending would have to increase an order of magnitude. 4. GPS 5. The moon landings 6. The early internet 7. Many early microprocessor designs 7. The Hubble space telescope was basically an inverted spy satellite 8. Satellite communications in general 9. Modern ship propulsion And the list goes on. Now granted there's TONS of wasted money in the military, and tons of corruption and death from needless wars, but let's just keep in mind that if the pacifists got their way we likely wouldn't have had any of the above. I know HN is pretty Silicon-Valley centric, and from everything I've heard about the valley people who work for defense contractors can still get called baby killers there in the right company, (what are we in 1973?). So I figured I'd put the alternate perspective out there: War is an ugly truth of human existence and will remain so as long as there is some combination of resource scarcity and assholes. Pacifism historically does not work long term unless the pacifists are defended by non-pacifists or have nothing of value worth taking. The world would be far less developed without modern military spending. In fact we wouldn't even be having this conversation without it. So let's take the pros with the cons.

goodpoint 5y ago
> if the pacifists got their way we likely wouldn't have had any of the above This is a huge logical fallacy. The US keeps playing a trick where socially useful R&D is budgeted under "military expenditure" because it's easier to justify and to privatize the benefits. Do you think in a more peaceful world people would be forced to dump research money into the ocean? If anything, the less money are spent for military projects the more can be spent on research.
- airstrike 5y ago
  > Do you think in a more peaceful world people would be forced to dump research money into the ocean? Why do you assume that decreasing military spend (US or non-US, even) would result in a "more peaceful world"?
  - goodpoint 5y ago
    Many books have been written on the topic by world-class geopolitical analysts but this is not the place to list them all. This is proof enough: https://brilliantmaps.com/threat-to-peace/ https://brilliantmaps.com/threat-to-peace/ You can browse a bookshop for more.
    - airstrike 5y ago
      > Many books have been written on the topic by world-class geopolitical analysts Appeal to authority > This is proof enough: https://brilliantmaps.com/threat-to-peace/ https://brilliantmaps.com/threat-to-peace/ From the link: > The map shows the results of a 2013 (pre-Trump) WIN/Gallup International survey asking people which country they felt was the greatest threat to world peace. The wisdom of the masses is hardly "proof enough". > You can browse a bookshop for more. That's a cheap answer and also a fallacy -- you're not providing any arguments, just saying "I know this to be true". And for what it's worth, I happen to have a degree in International Relations so don't need to really go to a bookshop for references...
      - goodpoint 5y ago
        >> Many books have been written on the topic by world-class geopolitical analysts > Appeal to authority We are discussing a subjective topic based on expert opinion. Authoritative opinion is exactly what we need. What did you expect, a theorem with proof? >> The map shows the results of a 2013 (pre-Trump) WIN/Gallup International survey asking people which country they felt was the greatest threat to world peace. > The wisdom of the masses is hardly "proof enough". On the contrary, we are measuring public opinion on a topic. A poll measures exactly that. > I happen to have a degree in International Relations so don't need to really go to a bookshop for references... Perhaps you should see the irony in talking about "Appeal to authority" fallacy" when you just brought up you degree. Anyhow, go ahead and prove me wrong with a method that is entirely objective and not based on any expert opinion.
baud147258 5y ago
> Global trade as we know it is possible because since WWII the US Navy has, by policy, secured the ocean for all participants in the global economy. Was international trade that hard before Pax Americana started ruling the waves after WW2 ? Did trade ships had to "run armed or with escorts" outside of time of war ?
- wollsmoth 5y ago
  I think piracy was a real problem for international shipping in the past. Now there are some areas with disputed territory where the US Navy does Freedom of Navigation Ops to keep trade running smoothly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_navigation#FONOPs_in_the_South_China_Sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_navigation#FONOPs_i...
- scottLobster 5y ago
  Piracy was one of the drivers of the European empires. Said empires had largely solved the issue by sheer sea power in the early 20th century, but after WWII those empires were shattered financially (the Brits) or physically (everyone else). The US took up the mantle after WWII and drastically upped the scale of the protection/globalization offered/mandated. On the economic side Pax Americana also forced alliance participants to open their economies to greater international trade in exchange for that protection. The various power blocks that preceded the modern global order were far more economically insular, a world we seem to be reverting to, for better or worse. Also wars were more common the further back you go. As we're discovering today global supply chains are way more vulnerable to conflict. In a globalized economy, if Iran goes to war with Saudi Arabia the first thing to get sunk is all the oil tankers in the Persian Gulf, and the primary global energy source goes out. So for a globalized economy to work those tankers have to be sacrosanct. That's one reason the US kept an Aircraft carrier parked in the Persian Gulf for decades and made nice with the Saudis, it secured the global energy supply and thus the anti-Soviet alliance. But with the US being de-facto energy independent thanks to shale and the Soviets long gone, we no longer have any reason to stick around. It'll be interesting to see if the French or British restore some neo-version of their old middle eastern or North African empires as a result in the coming decades.
cyberlurker 5y ago
Good list, and I also want to add that I meet and see a lot of people who have been educated by the military in cybersecurity and put on a path of personal success. They also bring tremendous value to the companies they work for.
wing-_-nuts 5y ago
I don't buy the premise that we wouldn't have these inventions were it not for military spending. Our current military budget is 700B / yr. That's a lot of cash to throw at basic research, space exploration, etc. I think we would have been much better served.

goodpoint 5y ago

> if the pacifists got their way we likely wouldn't have had any of the above This is a huge logical fallacy. The US keeps playing a trick where socially useful R&D is budgeted under "military expenditure" because it's easier to justify and to privatize the benefits. Do you think in a more peaceful world people would be forced to dump research money into the ocean? If anything, the less money are spent for military projects the more can be spent on research.

airstrike 5y ago
> Do you think in a more peaceful world people would be forced to dump research money into the ocean? Why do you assume that decreasing military spend (US or non-US, even) would result in a "more peaceful world"?
- goodpoint 5y ago
  Many books have been written on the topic by world-class geopolitical analysts but this is not the place to list them all. This is proof enough: https://brilliantmaps.com/threat-to-peace/ https://brilliantmaps.com/threat-to-peace/ You can browse a bookshop for more.
  - airstrike 5y ago
    > Many books have been written on the topic by world-class geopolitical analysts Appeal to authority > This is proof enough: https://brilliantmaps.com/threat-to-peace/ https://brilliantmaps.com/threat-to-peace/ From the link: > The map shows the results of a 2013 (pre-Trump) WIN/Gallup International survey asking people which country they felt was the greatest threat to world peace. The wisdom of the masses is hardly "proof enough". > You can browse a bookshop for more. That's a cheap answer and also a fallacy -- you're not providing any arguments, just saying "I know this to be true". And for what it's worth, I happen to have a degree in International Relations so don't need to really go to a bookshop for references...
    - goodpoint 5y ago
      >> Many books have been written on the topic by world-class geopolitical analysts > Appeal to authority We are discussing a subjective topic based on expert opinion. Authoritative opinion is exactly what we need. What did you expect, a theorem with proof? >> The map shows the results of a 2013 (pre-Trump) WIN/Gallup International survey asking people which country they felt was the greatest threat to world peace. > The wisdom of the masses is hardly "proof enough". On the contrary, we are measuring public opinion on a topic. A poll measures exactly that. > I happen to have a degree in International Relations so don't need to really go to a bookshop for references... Perhaps you should see the irony in talking about "Appeal to authority" fallacy" when you just brought up you degree. Anyhow, go ahead and prove me wrong with a method that is entirely objective and not based on any expert opinion.

baud147258 5y ago

> Global trade as we know it is possible because since WWII the US Navy has, by policy, secured the ocean for all participants in the global economy. Was international trade that hard before Pax Americana started ruling the waves after WW2 ? Did trade ships had to "run armed or with escorts" outside of time of war ?

wollsmoth 5y ago
I think piracy was a real problem for international shipping in the past. Now there are some areas with disputed territory where the US Navy does Freedom of Navigation Ops to keep trade running smoothly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_navigation#FONOPs_in_the_South_China_Sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_navigation#FONOPs_i...
scottLobster 5y ago
Piracy was one of the drivers of the European empires. Said empires had largely solved the issue by sheer sea power in the early 20th century, but after WWII those empires were shattered financially (the Brits) or physically (everyone else). The US took up the mantle after WWII and drastically upped the scale of the protection/globalization offered/mandated. On the economic side Pax Americana also forced alliance participants to open their economies to greater international trade in exchange for that protection. The various power blocks that preceded the modern global order were far more economically insular, a world we seem to be reverting to, for better or worse. Also wars were more common the further back you go. As we're discovering today global supply chains are way more vulnerable to conflict. In a globalized economy, if Iran goes to war with Saudi Arabia the first thing to get sunk is all the oil tankers in the Persian Gulf, and the primary global energy source goes out. So for a globalized economy to work those tankers have to be sacrosanct. That's one reason the US kept an Aircraft carrier parked in the Persian Gulf for decades and made nice with the Saudis, it secured the global energy supply and thus the anti-Soviet alliance. But with the US being de-facto energy independent thanks to shale and the Soviets long gone, we no longer have any reason to stick around. It'll be interesting to see if the French or British restore some neo-version of their old middle eastern or North African empires as a result in the coming decades.

cyberlurker 5y ago

Good list, and I also want to add that I meet and see a lot of people who have been educated by the military in cybersecurity and put on a path of personal success. They also bring tremendous value to the companies they work for.

wing-_-nuts 5y ago

I don't buy the premise that we wouldn't have these inventions were it not for military spending. Our current military budget is 700B / yr. That's a lot of cash to throw at basic research, space exploration, etc. I think we would have been much better served.