3 ms·

Eisenhower put it well. "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and ar

Eisenhower put it well. "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.... This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chance_for_Peace_speech#The_speech https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chance_for_Peace_speech#The_...

karp773 3y ago
With all due respect to Eisenhower, this is an example of incredible political myopia. A country does not exist in a political vacuum and has to be able to protect its freedom and the very right to exist. So freedom is not free but comes at a price. How high the price is depends on the situation. Sometimes it's very high, unfortunately. Complaining about this fact is as productive as complainig about gravity: if only we could float around effortlessly, imagine how much we would save on bridges and roads and fuel!
- geysersam 3y ago
  It's not a fact that the US needs to spend 50% of the global military budget. If anything is myopic, that is. It can still be argued that it's worth the expenditure. But the cost should be weighted against the alternatives. Neither Russia or China can be said to threaten the US with their military, except with nuclear weapons, but no defence budget protects against those.
  - oblio 3y ago
    It's also myopic to think that having a large conventional army that deters rivals from attacking smaller trade partners is not beneficial. Also, the US Navy protects vital global sea lanes that benefit US trade. Also: > Neither Russia or China can be said to threaten the US with their military China is arming up at a huge pace, even outside of nukes.
    - geysersam 3y ago
      > It's also myopic to think that having a large conventional army that deters rivals from attacking smaller trade partners is not beneficial. No one suggested that it isn't beneficial. What I said is that the benefit has to be weighted against the alternative benefits. > China is arming up at a huge pace, even outside of nukes. I'd argue that one large reason they're doing so is the threat they perceive themselves to be under from the large US military.
      - oblio 3y ago
        That's not a valid reason since the US has had a large military since 80 years ago. Don't fall into that trap.
        geysersam 3y ago
        Are you saying that China doesn't have a valid reason for having a large military, but the US does? That sounds like a difficult position to maintain...
        tekknik 3y ago
        China threatening to invade Taiwan, what’s your opinion now? What exactly are they building up for? Are you from China?
        oblio 3y ago
        I'm saying that China was extremely prosperous and growing from 1980 to the present day, without increasing the size of its army 10x-20x-or-however-much-they're-increasing-it right now. They don't have a real need for a bigger army, they could for sure defend themselves against any neighbor, even India and Russia, with "just" the military from 20 years ago.
- pastage 3y ago
  Tools created will be used, the cost of the US and Russian war arsenal is far greater than just the monetary cost to build them. One could argue that a weapons destructive force should be counted against it. To strive for peace is not near sighted, it is the only way forward.
  - codyb 3y ago
    The world’s more peaceful during the era of American Hegemony than it’s ever been. Odd how having a gigantic military with hundreds of millions of people under it’s umbrella seems to have stemmed regional conflicts from erupting. You can’t prove that regional conflicts would erupt should the US become more isolationist but any history book should quickly show you human’s propensity for war. It also turns out that human’s tend not to outright attack foes that will immediately decimate them. The USAF is the greatest stabilizer this world has as far as I can tell, missteps and outright awful moves like Iraq taken into account in this calculation.
    - pastage 3y ago
      It really does not matter, because my point is that weapons cost is a lot more than the fiscal cost of the weapon, it does not matter who bought the guns. Both the US and Russia have used their weapons to decimate other economies. It is very hard for us to prove or disprove your point.
- HPsquared 3y ago
  Some budget is needed but it comes at a cost. It's a balancing act, like all economic decisions.
- pphysch 3y ago
  This is true, but it is also true that USA is perhaps the most geopolitically-secure state in world history and should be spending among the least on national security (per capita). Americans don't even know what genuine "national defense" feels like. Instead, we have a world-class propaganda complex dedicated to rationalizing our unnecessary overseas military adventures and proxy wars. The idea that blowing up a government or tribe in Africa or Asia to open up resource extraction (natural or financial) for a Western MNC will benefit the "freedom" of the average American is totally absurd.
  - xp84 3y ago
    > USA is perhaps the most geopolitically-secure state in world history and should be spending among the least on national security (per capita). I think it glosses over too much complexity to simply state that, because part (not all! Geography is the other part) of the reason why we are so secure is that people know that we have that strong military. If the US were known as a soft target, who had neither the will nor the means to defend itself, we would probably see other actors much more willing to do things to us, such as piracy, etc.
    - geysersam 3y ago
      What developed countries are victims of piracy nowadays? There's an in-between the US and Somalia when it comes to control of territory.
- inpdx 3y ago
  The way to look at it is these are the tradeoffs, so we understand the ramifications. Do we need defense? Sure. But every $ we spend on it should be spent wisely, understanding that tradeoff. We spend far more than we need to, and Eisenhower is 100% correct in the things we are giving up when we overspend on military.
- dctoedt 3y ago
  > With all due respect to Eisenhower, this is an example of incredible political myopia. I'm curious what you know about Eisenhower and his career — it's hard to imagine anyone in the past century whose background and experience made him less myopic than he.
- oska 3y ago
  > A country does not exist in a political vacuum and has to be able to protect its freedom and the very right to exist Do you think that Eisenhower, a professional soldier and 5 star general, doesn't understand that? You're not understanding / misrepresenting what he is saying in that quote. It's about the cost of a military and how it has to be balanced against the productive and social needs of a country. A country that is grossly over-spending on the military, as Eisenhower perceived it already back then, and particularly in the case of the US, when that military is used for force and power projection, not defence, is strangling the society that it pretends to protect. This has been the history of the US over at least the last 50 years (when Eisenhower made this fore-warning speech).
  - karp773 3y ago
    One can be a good general but a bad politician and vice versa. I don't see any contradiction here.
FooBarBizBazz 3y ago
(Aside: I have mixed feelings about this antiwar line of argument in 2023, because while it seems generally good to be antiwar, it also seems like these arguments come mostly from Russian-aligned forces. To whom my answer would have to be something like -- "yes, let us be anti-war. You first." But that, while possibly more important than what I'm about to say, is not what I really did want to say. Which is --) Eisenhower uses a phrase of considerable rhetorical power here -- > those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. -- because he is essentially quoting the Beatitudes, and anyone who is familiar with them will fill in the rest. Slightly less powerful to me (because it seems to equally reference William Jennings Bryan), but still very strong is > humanity hanging from a cross of iron. which is again extremely Christian imagery. I'm not sure these phrases resonate so strongly with people today, but in those days they went straight to the heart of the question: What is it that is good? I also really like the sentence, > This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. because it focuses on the dichotomy of life vs. death, which again I think is very important. One could go in very positive green directions also from here. Some adjacent words would be: flourishing, abundant, fertile, growing. Frankly pagan things. And, things that our economic metrics again tend to discount.

karp773 3y ago

With all due respect to Eisenhower, this is an example of incredible political myopia. A country does not exist in a political vacuum and has to be able to protect its freedom and the very right to exist. So freedom is not free but comes at a price. How high the price is depends on the situation. Sometimes it's very high, unfortunately. Complaining about this fact is as productive as complainig about gravity: if only we could float around effortlessly, imagine how much we would save on bridges and roads and fuel!

geysersam 3y ago
It's not a fact that the US needs to spend 50% of the global military budget. If anything is myopic, that is. It can still be argued that it's worth the expenditure. But the cost should be weighted against the alternatives. Neither Russia or China can be said to threaten the US with their military, except with nuclear weapons, but no defence budget protects against those.
- oblio 3y ago
  It's also myopic to think that having a large conventional army that deters rivals from attacking smaller trade partners is not beneficial. Also, the US Navy protects vital global sea lanes that benefit US trade. Also: > Neither Russia or China can be said to threaten the US with their military China is arming up at a huge pace, even outside of nukes.
  - geysersam 3y ago
    > It's also myopic to think that having a large conventional army that deters rivals from attacking smaller trade partners is not beneficial. No one suggested that it isn't beneficial. What I said is that the benefit has to be weighted against the alternative benefits. > China is arming up at a huge pace, even outside of nukes. I'd argue that one large reason they're doing so is the threat they perceive themselves to be under from the large US military.
    - oblio 3y ago
      That's not a valid reason since the US has had a large military since 80 years ago. Don't fall into that trap.
      - geysersam 3y ago
        Are you saying that China doesn't have a valid reason for having a large military, but the US does? That sounds like a difficult position to maintain...
        tekknik 3y ago
        China threatening to invade Taiwan, what’s your opinion now? What exactly are they building up for? Are you from China?
        oblio 3y ago
        I'm saying that China was extremely prosperous and growing from 1980 to the present day, without increasing the size of its army 10x-20x-or-however-much-they're-increasing-it right now. They don't have a real need for a bigger army, they could for sure defend themselves against any neighbor, even India and Russia, with "just" the military from 20 years ago.
pastage 3y ago
Tools created will be used, the cost of the US and Russian war arsenal is far greater than just the monetary cost to build them. One could argue that a weapons destructive force should be counted against it. To strive for peace is not near sighted, it is the only way forward.
- codyb 3y ago
  The world’s more peaceful during the era of American Hegemony than it’s ever been. Odd how having a gigantic military with hundreds of millions of people under it’s umbrella seems to have stemmed regional conflicts from erupting. You can’t prove that regional conflicts would erupt should the US become more isolationist but any history book should quickly show you human’s propensity for war. It also turns out that human’s tend not to outright attack foes that will immediately decimate them. The USAF is the greatest stabilizer this world has as far as I can tell, missteps and outright awful moves like Iraq taken into account in this calculation.
  - pastage 3y ago
    It really does not matter, because my point is that weapons cost is a lot more than the fiscal cost of the weapon, it does not matter who bought the guns. Both the US and Russia have used their weapons to decimate other economies. It is very hard for us to prove or disprove your point.
HPsquared 3y ago
Some budget is needed but it comes at a cost. It's a balancing act, like all economic decisions.
pphysch 3y ago
This is true, but it is also true that USA is perhaps the most geopolitically-secure state in world history and should be spending among the least on national security (per capita). Americans don't even know what genuine "national defense" feels like. Instead, we have a world-class propaganda complex dedicated to rationalizing our unnecessary overseas military adventures and proxy wars. The idea that blowing up a government or tribe in Africa or Asia to open up resource extraction (natural or financial) for a Western MNC will benefit the "freedom" of the average American is totally absurd.
- xp84 3y ago
  > USA is perhaps the most geopolitically-secure state in world history and should be spending among the least on national security (per capita). I think it glosses over too much complexity to simply state that, because part (not all! Geography is the other part) of the reason why we are so secure is that people know that we have that strong military. If the US were known as a soft target, who had neither the will nor the means to defend itself, we would probably see other actors much more willing to do things to us, such as piracy, etc.
  - geysersam 3y ago
    What developed countries are victims of piracy nowadays? There's an in-between the US and Somalia when it comes to control of territory.
inpdx 3y ago
The way to look at it is these are the tradeoffs, so we understand the ramifications. Do we need defense? Sure. But every $ we spend on it should be spent wisely, understanding that tradeoff. We spend far more than we need to, and Eisenhower is 100% correct in the things we are giving up when we overspend on military.
dctoedt 3y ago
> With all due respect to Eisenhower, this is an example of incredible political myopia. I'm curious what you know about Eisenhower and his career — it's hard to imagine anyone in the past century whose background and experience made him less myopic than he.
oska 3y ago
> A country does not exist in a political vacuum and has to be able to protect its freedom and the very right to exist Do you think that Eisenhower, a professional soldier and 5 star general, doesn't understand that? You're not understanding / misrepresenting what he is saying in that quote. It's about the cost of a military and how it has to be balanced against the productive and social needs of a country. A country that is grossly over-spending on the military, as Eisenhower perceived it already back then, and particularly in the case of the US, when that military is used for force and power projection, not defence, is strangling the society that it pretends to protect. This has been the history of the US over at least the last 50 years (when Eisenhower made this fore-warning speech).
- karp773 3y ago
  One can be a good general but a bad politician and vice versa. I don't see any contradiction here.

FooBarBizBazz 3y ago

(Aside: I have mixed feelings about this antiwar line of argument in 2023, because while it seems generally good to be antiwar, it also seems like these arguments come mostly from Russian-aligned forces. To whom my answer would have to be something like -- "yes, let us be anti-war. You first." But that, while possibly more important than what I'm about to say, is not what I really did want to say. Which is --) Eisenhower uses a phrase of considerable rhetorical power here -- > those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. -- because he is essentially quoting the Beatitudes, and anyone who is familiar with them will fill in the rest. Slightly less powerful to me (because it seems to equally reference William Jennings Bryan), but still very strong is > humanity hanging from a cross of iron. which is again extremely Christian imagery. I'm not sure these phrases resonate so strongly with people today, but in those days they went straight to the heart of the question: What is it that is good? I also really like the sentence, > This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. because it focuses on the dichotomy of life vs. death, which again I think is very important. One could go in very positive green directions also from here. Some adjacent words would be: flourishing, abundant, fertile, growing. Frankly pagan things. And, things that our economic metrics again tend to discount.