4 ms·

#1: US military war spending concerns are largely overblown. It's expending what it already has. The spending is mostly on its own internal industry i.e. the US

#1: US military war spending concerns are largely overblown. It's expending what it already has. The spending is mostly on its own internal industry i.e. the US economy (with due respect to broken window fallacy). It arguably makes it all back from the increase in oil prices. It's a very different thing to fire a $5m missile that you imported vs one that you made domestically with all-domestic components and labor.

wat10000 7mo ago
Why is it different? If it’s foreign made then you need to export $5 million of stuff to pay for it, so the economic effect should be similar. Expending what it already has is true but doesn’t really help. It’s not like we’re going to sit here with a reduced stockpile forever. Those munitions will be replaced. The fact that the spending comes after using them rather than before doesn’t change the equation much.
- roncesvalles 7mo ago
  They will be replaced, but most likely with something better. Which we would have done for modernization purposes eventually anyway, while disposing of the old stock. Our wars are pre-paid for. America spends $900B/year on the military. Use it or lose it.
  - wat10000 7mo ago
    I don't think they expire that quickly. It's true they would have been replaced eventually, but this is accelerating that schedule for some munitions by a decade or two. That $900B/year figure is for peacetime (or what passes for peacetime in an empire constantly involved in small conflicts around the world) and peacetime rates of equipment/munitions replacement. This is the most intense air war the US has been in since at least Desert Storm, maybe Vietnam. That level of expenditure is not already paid for.
BadBadJellyBean 7mo ago
I'd say firing a missile into another country is technically firing finite or hard to acquire resources into another country. All the resources for the new rockets have to be sourced from somewhere and it's not really important where they came from. They are a real cost not some circular funding. It's more or less blowing up big piles of cash that can not easily be replaced.

wat10000 7mo ago

Why is it different? If it’s foreign made then you need to export $5 million of stuff to pay for it, so the economic effect should be similar. Expending what it already has is true but doesn’t really help. It’s not like we’re going to sit here with a reduced stockpile forever. Those munitions will be replaced. The fact that the spending comes after using them rather than before doesn’t change the equation much.

roncesvalles 7mo ago
They will be replaced, but most likely with something better. Which we would have done for modernization purposes eventually anyway, while disposing of the old stock. Our wars are pre-paid for. America spends $900B/year on the military. Use it or lose it.
- wat10000 7mo ago
  I don't think they expire that quickly. It's true they would have been replaced eventually, but this is accelerating that schedule for some munitions by a decade or two. That $900B/year figure is for peacetime (or what passes for peacetime in an empire constantly involved in small conflicts around the world) and peacetime rates of equipment/munitions replacement. This is the most intense air war the US has been in since at least Desert Storm, maybe Vietnam. That level of expenditure is not already paid for.

BadBadJellyBean 7mo ago

I'd say firing a missile into another country is technically firing finite or hard to acquire resources into another country. All the resources for the new rockets have to be sourced from somewhere and it's not really important where they came from. They are a real cost not some circular funding. It's more or less blowing up big piles of cash that can not easily be replaced.