This is why I don't buy any of the 'we can't afford it' arguments regarding social programs. War is basically the worst investment we could make, and we've been sinking insane amounts of money...
This is why I don't buy any of the 'we can't afford it' arguments regarding social programs. War is basically the worst investment we could make, and we've been sinking insane amounts of money into it for almost two decades. It's also why I low-key support China's rise as the next global hegemon. Their internal politics are pretty bad for dissidents, but their Belt and Road Initiative is a much, much smarter way of growing their influence.
I'd prefer China not become the next global anything until they stop treating their citizens like anything but human beings. For the sake of being on topic, though: $32 million is a pretty...
I'd prefer China not become the next global anything until they stop treating their citizens like anything but human beings.
For the sake of being on topic, though: $32 million is a pretty shocking number, though without a frame of reference for other time periods (with equivalent purchasing power adjustments) it doesn't provide much in the way of realization other than "war costs a lot", which is pretty common knowledge.
That being said, as a propaganda piece the article works very well. I can get behind most anything that advocates less money for "defense" spending, as long as it doesn't involve hurting MORE people.
I read a bit on the website that did the study that the posted article referenced, and they are including all of the U.S.'s post-2001 fighting of terrorism. I'd really like to see how that...
I read a bit on the website that did the study that the posted article referenced, and they are including all of the U.S.'s post-2001 fighting of terrorism. I'd really like to see how that compares to Cold War-era spending, World War II, etc.
i would imagine that this is actually something of a "low" for military spending since world war 2 and the cold war were basically existential conflicts for us and we were using it for all sorts...
i would imagine that this is actually something of a "low" for military spending since world war 2 and the cold war were basically existential conflicts for us and we were using it for all sorts of covert and crazy bullshit behind the scenes, but relative to what we're using it for, the amount is still obscene and you could probably cut it comfortably by half (and pump that into literally anything else) and still do most of what we're doing right now.
When I think of our presence in Afghanistan, I also get this sense of 1984 ideas in which the 3 large nation-states have a perpetual war in the Middle-East that serves primarily to destroy excess...
When I think of our presence in Afghanistan, I also get this sense of 1984 ideas in which the 3 large nation-states have a perpetual war in the Middle-East that serves primarily to destroy excess goods produced by each nation state. The reality here is clearly more complicated due to the strategic location of the country and the fact that Russia and China would like to get a hold there. Its sad how much Afghanistan has gotten fucked over during the last several decades
A similar opinion I have is that we maintain a small war somewhere in the world to send some of the people who want to fight. Perhaps we keep a war going so that inherently (well, inherently as a result of upbringing, most likely) aggressive people kill those who don't matter to this country. The US is generally an aggressive and warlike country; you can see this in how much we praise the military and violent films. It's absurd to me how many people support the military just because its "badass" and we should have the best one.
I hate that we are still in Afghanistan. Calling our presence there essential to the defense of our country is fucking silly. We are defending out interests and nothing else. Relating this back to the article, I find it ridiculous how unwilling the tax-cutting and budget-reducing party is to downsize the military. So many ways to spend money, and we use so much of it just to launch a massive war the geopolitical landscape effectively ensuring it won't happen short of nuclear war.
This is why I don't buy any of the 'we can't afford it' arguments regarding social programs. War is basically the worst investment we could make, and we've been sinking insane amounts of money into it for almost two decades. It's also why I low-key support China's rise as the next global hegemon. Their internal politics are pretty bad for dissidents, but their Belt and Road Initiative is a much, much smarter way of growing their influence.
I'd prefer China not become the next global anything until they stop treating their citizens like anything but human beings.
For the sake of being on topic, though: $32 million is a pretty shocking number, though without a frame of reference for other time periods (with equivalent purchasing power adjustments) it doesn't provide much in the way of realization other than "war costs a lot", which is pretty common knowledge.
That being said, as a propaganda piece the article works very well. I can get behind most anything that advocates less money for "defense" spending, as long as it doesn't involve hurting MORE people.
I read a bit on the website that did the study that the posted article referenced, and they are including all of the U.S.'s post-2001 fighting of terrorism. I'd really like to see how that compares to Cold War-era spending, World War II, etc.
i would imagine that this is actually something of a "low" for military spending since world war 2 and the cold war were basically existential conflicts for us and we were using it for all sorts of covert and crazy bullshit behind the scenes, but relative to what we're using it for, the amount is still obscene and you could probably cut it comfortably by half (and pump that into literally anything else) and still do most of what we're doing right now.
When I think of our presence in Afghanistan, I also get this sense of 1984 ideas in which the 3 large nation-states have a perpetual war in the Middle-East that serves primarily to destroy excess goods produced by each nation state. The reality here is clearly more complicated due to the strategic location of the country and the fact that Russia and China would like to get a hold there. Its sad how much Afghanistan has gotten fucked over during the last several decades
A similar opinion I have is that we maintain a small war somewhere in the world to send some of the people who want to fight. Perhaps we keep a war going so that inherently (well, inherently as a result of upbringing, most likely) aggressive people kill those who don't matter to this country. The US is generally an aggressive and warlike country; you can see this in how much we praise the military and violent films. It's absurd to me how many people support the military just because its "badass" and we should have the best one.
I hate that we are still in Afghanistan. Calling our presence there essential to the defense of our country is fucking silly. We are defending out interests and nothing else. Relating this back to the article, I find it ridiculous how unwilling the tax-cutting and budget-reducing party is to downsize the military. So many ways to spend money, and we use so much of it just to launch a massive war the geopolitical landscape effectively ensuring it won't happen short of nuclear war.