5 ms·

Cheap balloon vs expensive missile, seems a good way to bankrupt us by sending continuous balloons.

0xbadcafebee 4y ago
A government that spends more money on their military than the rest of the world combined isn't at risk of bankruptcy from firing a couple missiles. We're at risk of bankruptcy because our debt is 31 trillion dollars and in June we won't even be able to issue securities to continue bullshitting ourselves out of cutting spending. Welcome to America, we're broke because we spent all our money on guns rather than infrastructure, healthcare and education.
- pixl97 4y ago
  We spend more on Healthcare and education per capital than almost any other country. Don't let people bullshit you on the amount spent. Now results on dollars spent is a different question with a different answer.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - it_citizen 4y ago
    Interesting, didn't know that. I imagine it includes private/public spending as well?
    - yamtaddle 4y ago
      We spend more per capita just in public money than some peer states do to provide universal healthcare, while ours isn't universal. It makes more sense when you consider how many programs we have—a pretty high percentage of our population is covered by public spending, and—crucially—the ones who are are in some cases among the most expensive to care for. 1) Medicare (old or disabled) 2) Medicaid (poor) 3) Tricare or whatever they call it now, since I think the name changed (active and IIRC retired-with-full-benefits military and their spouses and kids, at least for the active-duty ones, can't recall if that part carries over in retirement) 4) VA (military veterans, including those with short terms of service) 5) Federal employees 6) State employees 7) County employees 8) City employees 9) Cops and firefighters and such, if not covered under any of the above. 10) School district employees (there are lots of these) Not all of these are cases in which all the spending is covered by public money, but some of them are, and in other cases a great deal of it is. Also I've probably missed some programs. [EDIT] Oh and that's not counting public money that goes to private companies but ends up paying for healthcare for those companies' employees and families, who are employed expressly to work on those publicly-funded projects—I can see arguments either way for counting that, depends on what you're trying to understand.
- ajross 4y ago
  Standard reply to debt rhetoric: US debt service costs measured against the economy are not particularly high historically: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYOIGDA188S https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYOIGDA188S The 80's were much, much worse. If we were ever going to go bankrupt, it was in the early Clinton administration due to the Reagan/Bush spending boom. We got through just fine. Those bonds were all paid off decades ago. Be very very very cautious any time someone comes at you with this kind of hyperbole about federal debt. They're selling you something.
- avalys 4y ago
  > Welcome to America, we're broke because we spent all our money on guns rather than infrastructure, healthcare and education. This sentiment is completely untrue. Defense is approximately 12% of US government spending, healthcare approximately 24%, education approximately 15%, and social security roughly 20%. Infrastructure is harder to categorize, but the truth is that the US government spends at least 4x more on healthcare, education and welfare (combined) than defense. https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2023USrn_24rs2n#usgs302 https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2023USrn_... The fact that this 12% of government spending amounts to the largest military on earth is in large part a consequence of the fact that the US is really, enormously wealthy compared to most of the rest of the world, has a fairly large population, and still has a larger GDP per capita than any other large or even medium-sized country.
  - cpursley 4y ago
    > the US government spends at least 4x more on healthcare, education and welfare And we’re terrible at all three vs nations that spend fractions less…
    - avalys 4y ago
      Yes, and that's why we should oppose more tax increases and more government spending, and focus instead on how to make government more efficient and get more value for the money we do spend.
      - kennyloginz 4y ago
        Be careful. Cutting education will decrease our future efficiency.
  - hot_gril 4y ago
    Yep. Basically welfare far exceeds all other costs.
ronsor 4y ago
We already spent the money on the missiles, may as well use them.
markdown 4y ago
The US Department of Attack budget for 2023 is $1.9 trillion dollars. A couple of missiles is petty cash.
- bombcar 4y ago
  China will need to send nine million five hundred thousand balloons and then the budget will be all used up.
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
> Cheap balloon I'm surprised this seems to be such a common point. Why is it believed that it was cheap?
- V99 4y ago
  There's only so much you can spend on a bag of helium; anything is cheap compared to satellites or stealth long range recon aircraft.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
    The bag of helium isn’t the expensive part I consider. I’m wondering how much computer hardware “the size of multiple buses” costs. I’m sure much of that is casing but much of it also is not. How much effort went into designing these things? There’s probably a significant price tag on these bags of helium all things considered.
    - LarryMullins 4y ago
      Jurassic Park taught me that heavy things are expensive. It stands to reason that light things must be cheap.
- kylehotchkiss 4y ago
  Yeah, these balloons that can hold small car to school bus sized payloads are not like a commercially available thing. It seems like they'd require truckloads of helium, which is a hard gas to store and not always available in massive quantities (seems like it should be prioritized for keeping MRI scanners cool instead of balloons). The balloons are probably really hard to produce, not made in great numbers, and require specialized equipment and processes to launch without puncturing. Not quite an airplane's cost but this isn't the send-a-gopro-to-100,000ft type of trick that relied entirely on products available to consumers. It's also possible whomever is running this operation doesn't care about their staff at all and they just use hydrogen.
hot_gril 4y ago
They shot down a couple of balloons using whatever they had. If balloons were a common target, they'd design something more suitable. Maybe a monkey throwing darts.
- BbzzbB 4y ago
  What about a monkey in a superman suit shooting lasers?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
tobyjsullivan 4y ago
I think I’ve played this game.
14u2c 4y ago
It's sad to see comments that are so obviously bait on HN.
jacobsenscott 4y ago
The USAF pops off live missiles while training from time to time, so these could just come from that supply, and not really cost anything. Shooting down balloons is a good enough training exercise.

A government that spends more money on their military than the rest of the world combined isn't at risk of bankruptcy from firing a couple missiles. We're at risk of bankruptcy because our debt is 31 trillion dollars and in June we won't even be able to issue securities to continue bullshitting ourselves out of cutting spending. Welcome to America, we're broke because we spent all our money on guns rather than infrastructure, healthcare and education.

pixl97 4y ago
We spend more on Healthcare and education per capital than almost any other country. Don't let people bullshit you on the amount spent. Now results on dollars spent is a different question with a different answer.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- it_citizen 4y ago
  Interesting, didn't know that. I imagine it includes private/public spending as well?
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    We spend more per capita just in public money than some peer states do to provide universal healthcare, while ours isn't universal. It makes more sense when you consider how many programs we have—a pretty high percentage of our population is covered by public spending, and—crucially—the ones who are are in some cases among the most expensive to care for. 1) Medicare (old or disabled) 2) Medicaid (poor) 3) Tricare or whatever they call it now, since I think the name changed (active and IIRC retired-with-full-benefits military and their spouses and kids, at least for the active-duty ones, can't recall if that part carries over in retirement) 4) VA (military veterans, including those with short terms of service) 5) Federal employees 6) State employees 7) County employees 8) City employees 9) Cops and firefighters and such, if not covered under any of the above. 10) School district employees (there are lots of these) Not all of these are cases in which all the spending is covered by public money, but some of them are, and in other cases a great deal of it is. Also I've probably missed some programs. [EDIT] Oh and that's not counting public money that goes to private companies but ends up paying for healthcare for those companies' employees and families, who are employed expressly to work on those publicly-funded projects—I can see arguments either way for counting that, depends on what you're trying to understand.
ajross 4y ago
Standard reply to debt rhetoric: US debt service costs measured against the economy are not particularly high historically: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYOIGDA188S https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYOIGDA188S The 80's were much, much worse. If we were ever going to go bankrupt, it was in the early Clinton administration due to the Reagan/Bush spending boom. We got through just fine. Those bonds were all paid off decades ago. Be very very very cautious any time someone comes at you with this kind of hyperbole about federal debt. They're selling you something.
avalys 4y ago
> Welcome to America, we're broke because we spent all our money on guns rather than infrastructure, healthcare and education. This sentiment is completely untrue. Defense is approximately 12% of US government spending, healthcare approximately 24%, education approximately 15%, and social security roughly 20%. Infrastructure is harder to categorize, but the truth is that the US government spends at least 4x more on healthcare, education and welfare (combined) than defense. https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2023USrn_24rs2n#usgs302 https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2023USrn_... The fact that this 12% of government spending amounts to the largest military on earth is in large part a consequence of the fact that the US is really, enormously wealthy compared to most of the rest of the world, has a fairly large population, and still has a larger GDP per capita than any other large or even medium-sized country.
- cpursley 4y ago
  > the US government spends at least 4x more on healthcare, education and welfare And we’re terrible at all three vs nations that spend fractions less…
  - avalys 4y ago
    Yes, and that's why we should oppose more tax increases and more government spending, and focus instead on how to make government more efficient and get more value for the money we do spend.
    - kennyloginz 4y ago
      Be careful. Cutting education will decrease our future efficiency.
- hot_gril 4y ago
  Yep. Basically welfare far exceeds all other costs.

ronsor 4y ago

We already spent the money on the missiles, may as well use them.

markdown 4y ago

The US Department of Attack budget for 2023 is $1.9 trillion dollars. A couple of missiles is petty cash.

bombcar 4y ago
China will need to send nine million five hundred thousand balloons and then the budget will be all used up.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago

> Cheap balloon I'm surprised this seems to be such a common point. Why is it believed that it was cheap?

V99 4y ago
There's only so much you can spend on a bag of helium; anything is cheap compared to satellites or stealth long range recon aircraft.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
  The bag of helium isn’t the expensive part I consider. I’m wondering how much computer hardware “the size of multiple buses” costs. I’m sure much of that is casing but much of it also is not. How much effort went into designing these things? There’s probably a significant price tag on these bags of helium all things considered.
  - LarryMullins 4y ago
    Jurassic Park taught me that heavy things are expensive. It stands to reason that light things must be cheap.
kylehotchkiss 4y ago
Yeah, these balloons that can hold small car to school bus sized payloads are not like a commercially available thing. It seems like they'd require truckloads of helium, which is a hard gas to store and not always available in massive quantities (seems like it should be prioritized for keeping MRI scanners cool instead of balloons). The balloons are probably really hard to produce, not made in great numbers, and require specialized equipment and processes to launch without puncturing. Not quite an airplane's cost but this isn't the send-a-gopro-to-100,000ft type of trick that relied entirely on products available to consumers. It's also possible whomever is running this operation doesn't care about their staff at all and they just use hydrogen.

hot_gril 4y ago

They shot down a couple of balloons using whatever they had. If balloons were a common target, they'd design something more suitable. Maybe a monkey throwing darts.

BbzzbB 4y ago
What about a monkey in a superman suit shooting lasers?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

tobyjsullivan 4y ago

I think I’ve played this game.

14u2c 4y ago

It's sad to see comments that are so obviously bait on HN.

jacobsenscott 4y ago

The USAF pops off live missiles while training from time to time, so these could just come from that supply, and not really cost anything. Shooting down balloons is a good enough training exercise.