3 ms·
Yes, but the winners of your lottery won't get missiles and tanks. I hope not, at least. The US want a strong army, a debatable policy, but that's how it is. A
by GuB-42 3y ago
Yes, but the winners of your lottery won't get missiles and tanks. I hope not, at least.
The US want a strong army, a debatable policy, but that's how it is. A strong army needs to be maintained, otherwise, well, look at Russia. And this is done by keeping people active, both soldiers and suppliers. If instead of building weapons, they decided to give random Americans what they want, like cars, computers, houses, whatever, sure, there will be some happier Americans, but also a weaker army, that may not be fit for the what they may be needed for in the future.
- hyperpape 3y agoIf you want to argue "this costs the US money, but it's worth the cost, because it has a benefit to our preparedness", that's one thing. But from the article: > This makes it “a misnomer” to call the $68 billion he calculates we have spent to arm Ukraine “aid.” I really think the article, and people commenting in this thread, are blurring the lines between idea "this might be good for US military preparedness" (arguably true) with "this is a free lunch because it's paying american workers" (just false). To summarize my position as unambiguously as possible: there may be second-order benefits, but aid to Ukraine is an economic cost to the US, not a free lunch. If you want to argue for non-economic benefits, I'm not saying anything in this thread that contradicts you.