4 ms·

Most of the reason money is spent on defense is deterrent. Some people gain more value out of that than others. Hopefully it never gets used, although if you n

Most of the reason money is spent on defense is deterrent. Some people gain more value out of that than others. Hopefully it never gets used, although if you need it eventually, it's much harder to build a warship and train a crew to use it than it is to find an empty building somewhere (or just build it). Yeah, difference of values is fairly spot on. I don't know anybody who values an empty building, though. Or didn't, until now?

Loughla 13y ago
It's not that I value the empty building, I value the potential for an empty building a heck of a lot more than I value the potential for large weapons. I understand where you're argument is - at least we get some use out of the big boat. I just don't like it, and would prefer to see the buildings be paid for overtop of weapons. Man, that makes me sound like a giant hippy now that I've written it out.
- cobrausn 13y ago
  A bit, but I was just quoting Jim Morrison to a friend, so there's that. :-D At the risk of pushing this thread well past the point of usefulness and too far into the abstract, you know the building could be used to quarter troops, store weapons, etc, so long as it is owned by the government, even not in time of war? Personally, I value the government owning large weapons more than I value them owning millions of small weapons. The large weapons are more likely to be used under the correct circumstances. I think that's part of why we overuse (IMHO) drones - it made it cheap to wage asymmetric warfare.
  - Loughla 13y ago
    I'm aware that the could use it for storing troops and weapons, etc. But, these buildings are not expressly designed for warfare, and therefore could have other uses. In fact, it seems that we have this issue because there are steps in place to make sure these buildings get used for something else. It's a matter of design versus function. The buildings could be re-purposed for war, but they weren't expressly designed for it.

Loughla 13y ago

It's not that I value the empty building, I value the potential for an empty building a heck of a lot more than I value the potential for large weapons. I understand where you're argument is - at least we get some use out of the big boat. I just don't like it, and would prefer to see the buildings be paid for overtop of weapons. Man, that makes me sound like a giant hippy now that I've written it out.

cobrausn 13y ago
A bit, but I was just quoting Jim Morrison to a friend, so there's that. :-D At the risk of pushing this thread well past the point of usefulness and too far into the abstract, you know the building could be used to quarter troops, store weapons, etc, so long as it is owned by the government, even not in time of war? Personally, I value the government owning large weapons more than I value them owning millions of small weapons. The large weapons are more likely to be used under the correct circumstances. I think that's part of why we overuse (IMHO) drones - it made it cheap to wage asymmetric warfare.
- Loughla 13y ago
  I'm aware that the could use it for storing troops and weapons, etc. But, these buildings are not expressly designed for warfare, and therefore could have other uses. In fact, it seems that we have this issue because there are steps in place to make sure these buildings get used for something else. It's a matter of design versus function. The buildings could be re-purposed for war, but they weren't expressly designed for it.