5 ms·

Most of that money is wasted on keeping the military industrial complex fat and happy, it's not going into soldier's pockets. And I say this being pro-US and in

by elteto 2mo ago

Most of that money is wasted on keeping the military industrial complex fat and happy, it's not going into soldier's pockets. And I say this being pro-US and indeed seeing the world as a dangerous place. But let's not make some bullshit up about a million dollars wasted on some non-sense, when we have real problems with the DoW, which can't even audit itself, sucking up almost a trillion dollars.

ericmay 2mo ago
> Most of that money is wasted on keeping the military industrial complex fat and happy, it's not going into soldier's pockets. And I say this being pro-US and indeed seeing the world as a dangerous place. Hi former active duty soldier here - I'm all for generally increasing pay, but you're just making claims here without any basis for them. It cost a lot of money to maintain the industries capable of producing weapons. We can stop the spending, but then they go out of business and now that capability is lost. Look at Europe. Depends on the details. What specific waste are you talking about? Here's [1] an article that came out recently highlighting how much of our explosives and munitions manufacturing is reliant on just a few locations - cut the DoD budget, and then these are the kinds of things that happen. Secondly, you have no expertise or authority to make claims as to whether we're spending the right amount of money - whether that's too little or too much, without additional specific logic or factual claims. When you say the DoD is sucking up a trillion dollars you're implying that it's all waste - sorry don't think that's true. And when you look at the performance of equipment that other countries provide versus the US, you know our stuff actually works as advertised. Maybe the US is actually spending too little, and other countries are spending proportionally much less on vaporware? [1] https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/western-powers-race-to-bring-the-production-of-explosives-back-home-651ea8bb?st=cvGd9i&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/western-powers-race-to-brin...
- hvb2 2mo ago
  It's funny you go within a single paragraph from > you have no expertise or authority to make claims as to whether we're spending the right amount of money To > Maybe the US is actually spending too little, and other countries are spending proportionally much less on vaporware? But more on topic, the real question is if this is spending that is worth going into debt for. No family anywhere in the world can sustain a long period of overspending relative to income. You talk about weapons and stuff but just understand that you're handing over your bargaining power because the rest of the world controls your debt. And at these ratios thats significant leverage. By now you can win a war without a single shot being fired.
  - ericmay 2mo ago
    > It's funny you go within a single paragraph from You made a general, pedestrian claim about spending, I questioned your claim based on what you wrote. That's all. I wouldn't read in to it more than that. > But more on topic, the real question is if this is spending that is worth going into debt for. No family anywhere in the world can sustain a long period of overspending relative to income. Sure but then we can just cut in other areas that aren't the military, if that's what we decide to do. You're not making a serious claim that we're overspending. > You talk about weapons and stuff but just understand that you're handing over your bargaining power because the rest of the world controls your debt. And at these ratios thats significant leverage. Not really. Most US debt is owed to Americans, and in the circumstances in which we're worried about some other country amassing so much debt that they can leverage us, well, it's a good thing we bought all those ships, planes, and tanks and whatnot so we can fix the issue with kinetic force. > By now you can win a war without a single shot being fired. Yea true enough in some cases. I'm not sure I'd disband the US military, withdraw from NATO, relocate US personnel from overseas bases supporting allies in the Philippines, Japan, Korea, and elsewhere under the assumption that maybe we can win a war without any weapons. But I'm certainly interested in your view here.
    - hvb2 2mo ago
      > You made a general, pedestrian claim about spending I didn't do anything, that wasn't me. > You're not making a serious claim that we're overspending. This is the thread about debt to GDP ratio hitting 123%. I don't claim anything, but if this isn't overspending then I think we agree to disagree. > Not really. Most US debt is owed to Americans, and in the circumstances in which we're worried about some other country amassing so much debt that they can leverage us, well, it's a good thing we bought all those ships, planes, and tanks and whatnot so we can fix the issue with kinetic force. According to [1], 23.5% is owned by foreign investors. That's a minority of the total, but you don't need a majority to cause a big problem because trust is all that matters (see 2008). You want to solve that with weapons?? That'll only make everyone drop the dollar, as simple as that. > But I'm certainly interested in your view here. The US military is there in all of those countries for influence, more so than for actual defense. The US can defend every NATO country simply by reaffirming article 5, you don't have to be present. Not even Russia would attempt an attack, they've been in a war of attrition for years now with a non NATO country with no end in sight for limited gains in territory. They've done this for the past 70 years, starting from 1945. Whether this is something the US has benefitted from can be debated, I think they certainly have. The Russia vs Ukraine war and the Iran conflict show that super powers can try to use their military power but 'winning' is hard. No matter how superior you are based on the numbers. Iran isn't winning on the battlefield, their most potent weapon is economic, that has turned out to be more powerful than all their weapons combined. 1: https://www.us-debt-clock.com/blog/who-owns-us-debt-breakdown https://www.us-debt-clock.com/blog/who-owns-us-debt-breakdow...

by elteto 2mo ago

ericmay 2mo ago

> Most of that money is wasted on keeping the military industrial complex fat and happy, it's not going into soldier's pockets. And I say this being pro-US and indeed seeing the world as a dangerous place. Hi former active duty soldier here - I'm all for generally increasing pay, but you're just making claims here without any basis for them. It cost a lot of money to maintain the industries capable of producing weapons. We can stop the spending, but then they go out of business and now that capability is lost. Look at Europe. Depends on the details. What specific waste are you talking about? Here's [1] an article that came out recently highlighting how much of our explosives and munitions manufacturing is reliant on just a few locations - cut the DoD budget, and then these are the kinds of things that happen. Secondly, you have no expertise or authority to make claims as to whether we're spending the right amount of money - whether that's too little or too much, without additional specific logic or factual claims. When you say the DoD is sucking up a trillion dollars you're implying that it's all waste - sorry don't think that's true. And when you look at the performance of equipment that other countries provide versus the US, you know our stuff actually works as advertised. Maybe the US is actually spending too little, and other countries are spending proportionally much less on vaporware? [1] https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/western-powers-race-to-bring-the-production-of-explosives-back-home-651ea8bb?st=cvGd9i&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/western-powers-race-to-brin...

hvb2 2mo ago
It's funny you go within a single paragraph from > you have no expertise or authority to make claims as to whether we're spending the right amount of money To > Maybe the US is actually spending too little, and other countries are spending proportionally much less on vaporware? But more on topic, the real question is if this is spending that is worth going into debt for. No family anywhere in the world can sustain a long period of overspending relative to income. You talk about weapons and stuff but just understand that you're handing over your bargaining power because the rest of the world controls your debt. And at these ratios thats significant leverage. By now you can win a war without a single shot being fired.
- ericmay 2mo ago
  > It's funny you go within a single paragraph from You made a general, pedestrian claim about spending, I questioned your claim based on what you wrote. That's all. I wouldn't read in to it more than that. > But more on topic, the real question is if this is spending that is worth going into debt for. No family anywhere in the world can sustain a long period of overspending relative to income. Sure but then we can just cut in other areas that aren't the military, if that's what we decide to do. You're not making a serious claim that we're overspending. > You talk about weapons and stuff but just understand that you're handing over your bargaining power because the rest of the world controls your debt. And at these ratios thats significant leverage. Not really. Most US debt is owed to Americans, and in the circumstances in which we're worried about some other country amassing so much debt that they can leverage us, well, it's a good thing we bought all those ships, planes, and tanks and whatnot so we can fix the issue with kinetic force. > By now you can win a war without a single shot being fired. Yea true enough in some cases. I'm not sure I'd disband the US military, withdraw from NATO, relocate US personnel from overseas bases supporting allies in the Philippines, Japan, Korea, and elsewhere under the assumption that maybe we can win a war without any weapons. But I'm certainly interested in your view here.
  - hvb2 2mo ago
    > You made a general, pedestrian claim about spending I didn't do anything, that wasn't me. > You're not making a serious claim that we're overspending. This is the thread about debt to GDP ratio hitting 123%. I don't claim anything, but if this isn't overspending then I think we agree to disagree. > Not really. Most US debt is owed to Americans, and in the circumstances in which we're worried about some other country amassing so much debt that they can leverage us, well, it's a good thing we bought all those ships, planes, and tanks and whatnot so we can fix the issue with kinetic force. According to [1], 23.5% is owned by foreign investors. That's a minority of the total, but you don't need a majority to cause a big problem because trust is all that matters (see 2008). You want to solve that with weapons?? That'll only make everyone drop the dollar, as simple as that. > But I'm certainly interested in your view here. The US military is there in all of those countries for influence, more so than for actual defense. The US can defend every NATO country simply by reaffirming article 5, you don't have to be present. Not even Russia would attempt an attack, they've been in a war of attrition for years now with a non NATO country with no end in sight for limited gains in territory. They've done this for the past 70 years, starting from 1945. Whether this is something the US has benefitted from can be debated, I think they certainly have. The Russia vs Ukraine war and the Iran conflict show that super powers can try to use their military power but 'winning' is hard. No matter how superior you are based on the numbers. Iran isn't winning on the battlefield, their most potent weapon is economic, that has turned out to be more powerful than all their weapons combined. 1: https://www.us-debt-clock.com/blog/who-owns-us-debt-breakdown https://www.us-debt-clock.com/blog/who-owns-us-debt-breakdow...