3 ms·

Because most weapons programs are also jobs programs. The money spend on Stinger will stay in the USA.

• m3047 3y ago
  > jobs programs I believe that is the point, notiwthstanding that all jobs programs are not the same. Time for some baseball (my favorite analogy). If you want to preserve your ability to "play ball" "against the day": it's not enough to keep a stock of balls, gloves and bats. You have to be able to make gloves, balls and bats. You need suitable "dual use" fields, or a plan (and force) for rapidly converting fields for baseball use. But that's just the infrastructure. You need to preserve your ability to play ball. You can't just hire some people and put them on retainer. (And creating NFTs of baseball players doesn't work either.) The players need to practice as a team in realistic conditions; some of them could get hurt during practice (and equipment could get destroyed). You can't just hire H1Bs for this (although a nod to the French Foreign Legion, at least historically), you need people who are actually good at it and passionate for the game: you're going to have to have continuing tryouts and a farm system for identifying potential top players, and you'll need to cycle talent through over time because people don't stay at the top of their game forever. Finally, that passion is required of players if you expect them to stay at the top of their game over time in the face of a world which doesn't care.
  • woobar 3y ago
    I agree with you. But I believe there are two ways to sell a weapons program to the public. One is covered by your baseball analogy. Yes, you want to be self-reliant and be able to manufacture critical defense systems in case of a hypothetical all-out war. But job programs have some immediate benefits for both politicians and their constituents.