3 ms·
"Defense" spending (the US is currently involved in "defense" by its involvement in bombing Yemen, Gaza, Russia and other countries) is considered very narrowly
by feedforward 2y ago
"Defense" spending (the US is currently involved in "defense" by its involvement in bombing Yemen, Gaza, Russia and other countries) is considered very narrowly - you don't count veteran's benefits as military spending. You don't count interest on the debt for past military spending as military spending. You don't consider international affairs spending, very wrapped up in military spending, as military spending. You don't count NASA's military work as military spending.
- kube-system 2y agoEverything is military spending if you consider anything two or three degrees removed as military spending.
- whatnotests2 2y agoTHIS.
- kurthr 2y agoWell, technically those might be negative spending to the extent that they are arms sales not offset by any subsidy or aid. Certainly, the cost of disposal for many of the older shells would have been higher than sending them off to Ukraine has been. Even the M4/M16 5.56 (223 cal) is now being replaced with the XM7 using 6.68mm ammo so that will all also have to be disposed of too (likely with the weapons). I don't want them on the streets here, and I'm not sure some wouldn't come back wherever in the world they're sent. Arguing whether sending weapons to a government and if it is justified is a reasonable conversation, but trying to claim they are particularly expensive (when they aren't) dilutes that point. Further, NASA's military work is paid for from the defense (or black) budgets not the publicly available ones so I'm not sure that's a great argument either.