3 ms·

It's kind of sad that you need to jump through a lot of hoops for research funding but when talking about things like military funding everyone is ready to find

by rdedev 3y ago

It's kind of sad that you need to jump through a lot of hoops for research funding but when talking about things like military funding everyone is ready to find it more than required and not ask too many questions

golergka 3y ago
Because it actually is? I don’t understand how one can compare abstract research into category theory and investment into millions of people not getting killed and conquered and get sad that the latter comes up on top.
- whatshisface 3y ago
  We're not talking about Saddam's military budget, we're talking about the one they used to kill and conquer him.
  - nickff 3y ago
    Saddam Hussein started the Iran-Iraq war, in which Iraq achieved no significant gain, at the cost of between one and two million lives. This war took place in the middle of his 40-year tenure as a president who killed hundreds of thousands of his own people with the same military equipment.
    - whatshisface 3y ago
      How is that an argument in favor of military spending?
    - hindsightbias 3y ago
      It would almost sound like a noble motivation for all that shock-and-awe spending, except that wasn't the motivation. Nobody cared when he was actually killing Iranians or domestics. Back then, kids of exiled Shah-regimers were protesting US gov't support for Iraq (widely reported overseas, widely ignored in the US) at colleges in CA, Michigan and Texas and getting beat up for their trouble. Plus we were rolling in all that $15/b oil with the flooded oil market so domestic win-win. Except for all those oilmen in TX who went bust. Well, they voted for Ron, so I guess they got what they wanted.
    - cycomanic 3y ago
      Yes and who was supplying the weapons and other support during that time? Arguably defence spending in the US and western Europe directly contributed to the deaths.
- rurp 3y ago
  There is a lot of defense spending that does nothing to support that mission, or does so in a terribly inefficient way. Given the scale of spending we're talking about, many billions of dollars get wasted every year, but folks who get worked up over a few million wasted on research are often unconcerned with 1000 times more wasteful projects as long as they have the military labeled slapped on them.
  - golergka 3y ago
    From where I’m standing, American defense spending is inadequately low for the current situation. US is struggling to increase artillery shell production from 15 to 30k per year, when only Ukraine conflict should consume hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Same with many other items — American and NATO stockpiles are low, and production capabilities almost non-existent compared to adversaries.
- jampekka 3y ago
  You mean getting killed and conquered?

by rdedev 3y ago

golergka 3y ago

Because it actually is? I don’t understand how one can compare abstract research into category theory and investment into millions of people not getting killed and conquered and get sad that the latter comes up on top.

whatshisface 3y ago
We're not talking about Saddam's military budget, we're talking about the one they used to kill and conquer him.
- nickff 3y ago
  Saddam Hussein started the Iran-Iraq war, in which Iraq achieved no significant gain, at the cost of between one and two million lives. This war took place in the middle of his 40-year tenure as a president who killed hundreds of thousands of his own people with the same military equipment.
  - whatshisface 3y ago
    How is that an argument in favor of military spending?
  - hindsightbias 3y ago
    It would almost sound like a noble motivation for all that shock-and-awe spending, except that wasn't the motivation. Nobody cared when he was actually killing Iranians or domestics. Back then, kids of exiled Shah-regimers were protesting US gov't support for Iraq (widely reported overseas, widely ignored in the US) at colleges in CA, Michigan and Texas and getting beat up for their trouble. Plus we were rolling in all that $15/b oil with the flooded oil market so domestic win-win. Except for all those oilmen in TX who went bust. Well, they voted for Ron, so I guess they got what they wanted.
  - cycomanic 3y ago
    Yes and who was supplying the weapons and other support during that time? Arguably defence spending in the US and western Europe directly contributed to the deaths.
rurp 3y ago
There is a lot of defense spending that does nothing to support that mission, or does so in a terribly inefficient way. Given the scale of spending we're talking about, many billions of dollars get wasted every year, but folks who get worked up over a few million wasted on research are often unconcerned with 1000 times more wasteful projects as long as they have the military labeled slapped on them.
- golergka 3y ago
  From where I’m standing, American defense spending is inadequately low for the current situation. US is struggling to increase artillery shell production from 15 to 30k per year, when only Ukraine conflict should consume hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Same with many other items — American and NATO stockpiles are low, and production capabilities almost non-existent compared to adversaries.
jampekka 3y ago
You mean getting killed and conquered?