4 ms·

Agreed, completely. This is all upside for us. We get rid of our outdated weapons, refresh our defense production base, support an ally, defend Europe, and stic

by D13Fd 3y ago

Agreed, completely. This is all upside for us. We get rid of our outdated weapons, refresh our defense production base, support an ally, defend Europe, and stick a finger in the eye of a rival who tried to mess with our elections. We come out of this stronger and more popular with the countries that matter. Because Ukraine has greatly exceeded expectations, China also gets a lesson about how we back our allies.

crazygringo 3y ago
You're confusing totally separate things. Is this great to support allies, defend Europe, send a message to China? Of course. These are all great things. But the point is, it costs the amount of money we're spending. The article is arguing that the money somehow comes back to America. It doesn't. It's not free. All of that production capacity is going to arms manufacture, instead of the economically productive things it would have gone to otherwise. It's not "all upside". It costs something.
- dralley 3y ago
  Doing nothing also costs something, which you have repeatedly neglected. If I had a time machine, I'd tell the British, French and Americans to assist the Czechoslovaks against the Germans instead of strongarming them into capitulation. It would have saved millions of lives and trillions of dollars. Many historials believe that without the boost from absorbing the Czechoslovak military, it would not have been possible to blitzkreig across France and the rest of Europe.
  - deadbolt 3y ago
    Get back to be when you perfect your crystal ball and can let us know what the actual cost of doing nothing is, instead of just arguing about some theoretical savings.
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    How are you missing me saying that I support this...? I've said it twice already. But it costs money. That's the point here. The same as assisting the Czechoslovaks, in your example, would have cost money. The article is trying to make it sound like the money comes back to us, and therefore it's free or something like that. It's not. I'm certainly hoping it's a good long-term geopolitical investment, but it's not free money.
    - defrost 3y ago
      The US defence industry costs money to maintain. The history of the US defense stockpile post WWII is relevant here .. if new things aren't regularly built the skills pipeline withers, knowledge is lost, old weapons 'rot' as explosives become unstable and the last person that built those particular FPGA target aquisition and guidance cards retires. For better or worse the US defence industry operates by pushing tanks and shells out of it's back end while building fresh goods to stack on the shelves, all the while employing a good number of US citizens and indirectly pumping money into early tech education. The question here is if not Ukraine (for the "old stuff") then where? A much bigger question goes to whether such a bemonth of a weapons R&D | production industry that occupies such a large percentage of the US economy should be scaled back by a factor of five (and still be larger than any other countries).
db48x 3y ago
Those things have some value, but in the long run war is almost entirely waste. The value you gain is greatly outweighed by the value of what you have lost. We are not losing many lives, but we are losing the opportunity to build things that would profit us (or the Ukrainians!) more. Every tank could have been a locomotive, or turbine in a power plant, or a couple of semis, or hundreds of washing machines. Why do you think the Russian soldiers were so happy to steal washing machines from bombed-out Ukranian cities? Even necessary wars are a waste.
- D13Fd 3y ago
  Agreed. But the choice right now is not “war” vs. “no war.” Standing with our ally and funding Ukraine is the choice that deters more war. Running away and letting Russia’s baseless aggression continue unchecked will lead to more war in the long run, both from Russia and China.
  - db48x 3y ago
    That’s true, but in no way contradicts what I said. Even a necessary war is a waste. To think that the spending on war material boosts the economy in any way is purely to repeat the broken window fallacy. Yes, once the glazier’s son starts breaking windows you will be forced to put a stop to it, and that may require violence. The cost of arresting the glazier’s son, holding a trial, and imprisoning him is rather smaller than the cost of a war, but it is a cost all the same. You only willingly pay that cost when the alternative is to have another window broken every night for the rest of your life. Likewise, we believe that the cost of the war in Ukraine will be less than the cost of Russia’s future aggression should they win in Ukraine, so we willingly pay the cost of the war. Because Russia started the war, we are now faced with paying the cost of winning it or of paying the cost of losing it. We choose to pay the one that we think will be less, _but it is still a cost we were forced to pay by someone else_. It is a net harm to us either way! (Not to mention the harm to Ukraine!) We shouldn’t be glad that we gave Ukraine money and they are spending it with defense companies based in the US. Even if we take some solace in that fact, all it does is shift the money around; it doesn’t grow our economy. Just because it could be worse does not mean it is a net benefit.

by D13Fd 3y ago

crazygringo 3y ago

You're confusing totally separate things. Is this great to support allies, defend Europe, send a message to China? Of course. These are all great things. But the point is, it costs the amount of money we're spending. The article is arguing that the money somehow comes back to America. It doesn't. It's not free. All of that production capacity is going to arms manufacture, instead of the economically productive things it would have gone to otherwise. It's not "all upside". It costs something.

dralley 3y ago
Doing nothing also costs something, which you have repeatedly neglected. If I had a time machine, I'd tell the British, French and Americans to assist the Czechoslovaks against the Germans instead of strongarming them into capitulation. It would have saved millions of lives and trillions of dollars. Many historials believe that without the boost from absorbing the Czechoslovak military, it would not have been possible to blitzkreig across France and the rest of Europe.
- deadbolt 3y ago
  Get back to be when you perfect your crystal ball and can let us know what the actual cost of doing nothing is, instead of just arguing about some theoretical savings.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  How are you missing me saying that I support this...? I've said it twice already. But it costs money. That's the point here. The same as assisting the Czechoslovaks, in your example, would have cost money. The article is trying to make it sound like the money comes back to us, and therefore it's free or something like that. It's not. I'm certainly hoping it's a good long-term geopolitical investment, but it's not free money.
  - defrost 3y ago
    The US defence industry costs money to maintain. The history of the US defense stockpile post WWII is relevant here .. if new things aren't regularly built the skills pipeline withers, knowledge is lost, old weapons 'rot' as explosives become unstable and the last person that built those particular FPGA target aquisition and guidance cards retires. For better or worse the US defence industry operates by pushing tanks and shells out of it's back end while building fresh goods to stack on the shelves, all the while employing a good number of US citizens and indirectly pumping money into early tech education. The question here is if not Ukraine (for the "old stuff") then where? A much bigger question goes to whether such a bemonth of a weapons R&D | production industry that occupies such a large percentage of the US economy should be scaled back by a factor of five (and still be larger than any other countries).

db48x 3y ago

Those things have some value, but in the long run war is almost entirely waste. The value you gain is greatly outweighed by the value of what you have lost. We are not losing many lives, but we are losing the opportunity to build things that would profit us (or the Ukrainians!) more. Every tank could have been a locomotive, or turbine in a power plant, or a couple of semis, or hundreds of washing machines. Why do you think the Russian soldiers were so happy to steal washing machines from bombed-out Ukranian cities? Even necessary wars are a waste.

D13Fd 3y ago
Agreed. But the choice right now is not “war” vs. “no war.” Standing with our ally and funding Ukraine is the choice that deters more war. Running away and letting Russia’s baseless aggression continue unchecked will lead to more war in the long run, both from Russia and China.
- db48x 3y ago
  That’s true, but in no way contradicts what I said. Even a necessary war is a waste. To think that the spending on war material boosts the economy in any way is purely to repeat the broken window fallacy. Yes, once the glazier’s son starts breaking windows you will be forced to put a stop to it, and that may require violence. The cost of arresting the glazier’s son, holding a trial, and imprisoning him is rather smaller than the cost of a war, but it is a cost all the same. You only willingly pay that cost when the alternative is to have another window broken every night for the rest of your life. Likewise, we believe that the cost of the war in Ukraine will be less than the cost of Russia’s future aggression should they win in Ukraine, so we willingly pay the cost of the war. Because Russia started the war, we are now faced with paying the cost of winning it or of paying the cost of losing it. We choose to pay the one that we think will be less, _but it is still a cost we were forced to pay by someone else_. It is a net harm to us either way! (Not to mention the harm to Ukraine!) We shouldn’t be glad that we gave Ukraine money and they are spending it with defense companies based in the US. Even if we take some solace in that fact, all it does is shift the money around; it doesn’t grow our economy. Just because it could be worse does not mean it is a net benefit.