2 ms·

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 Czec

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).

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).