Military spending vs societal benefits

[Bomb#20]

Right on. I do get it.

It is rather fascinating - and quite revealing, - given how "intelligent" we think we are that the way we settle differences is to hurl nuclear bombs at one another. You would think we could rise above such primitive behavior. I guess the zillion dollar question is how exactly it comes about that we don't rise above such primitive behavior, given our self reputation. If it weren't so sad it would be comical.

But we have never settled differences by hurling nuclear bombs at one another. We who had them settled differences by hurling them at them who didn't. As soon as enough people developed them to be able to hurl them at one another, we all quite sensibly stopped hurling them. Seems pretty intelligent to me.

 

[bilby]

Right on. I do get it.

It is rather fascinating - and quite revealing, - given how "intelligent" we think we are that the way we settle differences is to hurl nuclear bombs at one another. You would think we could rise above such primitive behavior. I guess the zillion dollar question is how exactly it comes about that we don't rise above such primitive behavior, given our self reputation. If it weren't so sad it would be comical.

But we have never settled differences by hurling nuclear bombs at one another. We who had them settled differences by hurling them at them who didn't. As soon as enough people developed them to be able to hurl them at one another, we all quite sensibly stopped hurling them. Seems pretty intelligent to me.

So far.

It's only been 79 years.

Watch this space...

 

[robnisch]

Right on. I do get it.

It is rather fascinating - and quite revealing, - given how "intelligent" we think we are that the way we settle differences is to hurl nuclear bombs at one another. You would think we could rise above such primitive behavior. I guess the zillion dollar question is how exactly it comes about that we don't rise above such primitive behavior, given our self reputation. If it weren't so sad it would be comical.

But we have never settled differences by hurling nuclear bombs at one another. We who had them settled differences by hurling them at them who didn't. As soon as enough people developed them to be able to hurl them at one another, we all quite sensibly stopped hurling them. Seems pretty intelligent to me.

So far.

It's only been 79 years.

Watch this space...

Good thing I'm too old to get under my desk or out from under my desk actually.

 

[Elixir]

Right on. I do get it.

It is rather fascinating - and quite revealing, - given how "intelligent" we think we are that the way we settle differences is to hurl nuclear bombs at one another. You would think we could rise above such primitive behavior. I guess the zillion dollar question is how exactly it comes about that we don't rise above such primitive behavior, given our self reputation. If it weren't so sad it would be comical.

But we have never settled differences by hurling nuclear bombs at one another. We who had them settled differences by hurling them at them who didn't. As soon as enough people developed them to be able to hurl them at one another, we all quite sensibly stopped hurling them. Seems pretty intelligent to me.

So far.

It's only been 79 years.

Watch this space...

Good thing I'm too old to get under my desk or out from under my desk actually.

You need a bigger desk.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Right on. I do get it.

It is rather fascinating - and quite revealing, - given how "intelligent" we think we are that the way we settle differences is to hurl nuclear bombs at one another. You would think we could rise above such primitive behavior. I guess the zillion dollar question is how exactly it comes about that we don't rise above such primitive behavior, given our self reputation. If it weren't so sad it would be comical.

But we have never settled differences by hurling nuclear bombs at one another. We who had them settled differences by hurling them at them who didn't. As soon as enough people developed them to be able to hurl them at one another, we all quite sensibly stopped hurling them. Seems pretty intelligent to me.

Can't argue with that but I was being hyperbolic. So your answer is to continue this intraspecies arms race until we somehow become capable of settling our differences more peacefully? Is that a solution or does that constitute a failure to find a solution?

I don't think any sane, rational person would argue that we would get more mileage out of our resources if we didn't spend those resources on armaments. What's preventing "aggressors," or "them" from coming to the same realization? There is no doubt that mutually verifiable disarmament is a good thing so why don't we do it as a rule. It could be that armaments are perceived to level the competitive playing field. Is it that simple? Just looking for discussion and ideas because the OP poses a great dilemma.

 

[bilby]

I don't think any sane, rational person would argue that we would get more mileage out of our resources if we didn't spend those resources on armaments.

I think any sane, rational speaker of British or Commonwealth variants of English would do exactly that.

Why Anericans feel the need to use a grammar that exactly reverses their meaning, I have no idea.

Perhaps every American is not guilty of this...

 

[bilby]

To the OP, isn't this the Prisoner's dilemma, restated?

The best outcome is for nobody to buy weapons; But if A buys weapons and B doesn't, A gets all if B's stuff; So the consequence of being the only nation not to buy weapons is disaster.

Buying weapons is just like ratting out your cellmate for a lighter sentence.

 

[Bomb#20]

To the OP, isn't this the Prisoner's dilemma, restated?

The best outcome is for nobody to buy weapons; But if A buys weapons and B doesn't, A gets all if B's stuff; So the consequence of being the only nation not to buy weapons is disaster.

Buying weapons is just like ratting out your cellmate for a lighter sentence.

You mean, you’ll put down your rock and I’ll put down my sword, and we’ll try and kill each other like civilized people?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The best outcome is for nobody to buy weapons; But if A buys weapons and B doesn't, A gets all if B's stuff; So the consequence of being the only nation not to buy weapons is disaster.

If there is no C and if A and B mutually decide to not buy weapons are they better off?

 

[Bomb#20]

But we have never settled differences by hurling nuclear bombs at one another. We who had them settled differences by hurling them at them who didn't. As soon as enough people developed them to be able to hurl them at one another, we all quite sensibly stopped hurling them. Seems pretty intelligent to me.

Can't argue with that but I was being hyperbolic. So your answer is to continue this intraspecies arms race until we somehow become capable of settling our differences more peacefully? Is that a solution or does that constitute a failure to find a solution?

What Bilby said.

'Therefore, the strategy “build nuclear weapons” is said to “dominate” the strategy “do not build” in the prisoners’ dilemma.'​

https://www.baselpeaceoffice.org/sites/default/files/imce/articles/News/nuclear_prisoners_dillemma.pdf

We don't do arms races because we're stupid but because we find ourselves in a situation where the math pushes us that way. I'm all for settling our differences more peacefully, but somehow becoming capable of that isn't a matter of growing our intelligence or maturity or peacefulness or willingness to unilaterally disarm; it's a hard technical challenge to think up a way to stop "build" from being the mathematically dominant strategy. For all his faults, Nixon was good at this and got us the SALT and ABM treaties and set us and the USSR on a path to something better than continuing this intraspecies arms race.

There is no doubt that mutually verifiable disarmament is a good thing so why don't we do it as a rule.

I think it's because a multiway Prisoners' Dilemma is vastly more complicated and difficult to find a way out of than our old two-way game with the Soviets. If we and Russia disarm too much that just makes China more powerful.

It could be that armaments are perceived to level the competitive playing field. Is it that simple? Just looking for discussion and ideas because the OP poses a great dilemma.

There's some of that, sure -- that's why Israel got the bomb. But it's also about prestige and national pride. A lot of cultures perceive international relations to be a two-tier system with the non-nuclear nations as second-class citizens, and that wounds their sensibilities even if they don't have a rational basis for thinking having the bomb makes them better off. I think that's the main reason India and Pakistan got the bomb.

This isn't just about nuclear weapons. After WWI the Allies set up an arms control system among themselves that was supposed to help prevent future wars. But it treated Japan unequally, and the Japanese resented it, and that helped drive them to switch sides when the next war rolled around.

 

[Emily Lake]

Lumping Medicare and Social Security in with the "budget" is dishonest.

It's government spending, ain't it?
I know there are differences between these programs and the regular budget. At the same time, I wanted to point out that defense spending is not that big a slice of the pie compared with social spending US is already doing.

No it isn't really government spending because social security is funded from FICA receipts and NOT US federal income tax. Social security is labor delayed spending on itself with the government serving only as the pass through administrator. Social Security and medicare should not even be part of the federal budget. The honest way to show a balance sheet is not to mix unrelated income streams with expenses! What you have done is the equivalence of showing Disney income being used to pay for Exxon Oil's expenses even though income from a Disney movie had nothing at all to do with the construction of an Exxon oil well.

If you want to argue that FICA tax receipts don't really go to social security I might listen to that. Otherwise show some honest accounting.

I get where you're coming from, but there's a bit of a misunderstanding here. FICA is a tax. And neither SS nor Medicare are funded - this isn't a case where the FICA taken out for those programs in your youth is held in reserve for when you (and your generation) retire. The money taken out now is spent now... and if there is any leftover, it rolls into a fund for future expenditures.

So unless you want to get hung up on technicalities... for all intents SS and Medicare are both funded by annual government revenues taken out of income - they're just taken out on your employer's side on your behalf most of the time.

 

[Emily Lake]

However, for ages Congress looted the surplus that SS/Medicare was supposed to be building up for the boomers.

No, they did not. SS & Medicare funds are held separately. People are simply living longer, and the funds collected are insufficient to meet the current payout level, thus the funds are being depleted.

 

[Emily Lake]

When America withdrew with our tail between our legs the Afghan army evaporated because the troops all knew they had no hope of keeping it going, because all our contractors pulled out.

We didn't withdraw with our tail between our legs; we were forcibly withdrawn via a political decision that didn't give a fuck about our military efficacy.

 

[Emily Lake]

Considering our "strong military" roundly loses every war it starts, or at best brings them to a lengthy and expensive stalemate from which we must eventually withdraw with our tail between our legs once again, isn't that throwing good money after bad?

E.g. Afghanistan wasn't lost because of our military, but because of politicians. No clear objective, overly restrictive rules of engagement.

Afghanistan was lost because it was an inherently unwinnable war. You can't win a war against an insurgent force with an untouchable source of backing.

You can... it's just not pretty. And a sizable portion of both our political machine and our citizenry have an aversion to the means necessary to win. Not saying they're wrong in that view, just saying that it wasn't "inherently unwinnable". It was unwinnable when we handcuff our wrist to our ankles so that we're being humane and compassionate toward an enemy who does not show us that same respect.

 

[Emily Lake]

Military and police force were necessary. But was it necessary to permit, even encourage, widespread collateral civilian casualties?

The US neither permitted nor encouraged such casualties. The majority of civilian casualties were caused by the terrorist organizations we were fighting.

 

[Emily Lake]

Fair enough. I've seen enough evidence to refute my idea, at least for the time being

Your "idea" has not been refuted. The money spent on armaments, if it were instead spent on productive purposes, would certainly benefit the human species and likely all other species on the planet to far greater effect. Humans are a very irrational and competitive species that simply like killing each other. Thus military spending.

Note to mod: I returned this post to his thread because I think it is relevant. I hope that is okay.

We are not killing each other, we are killing them. That’s the important moral distinction that must be made in order to justify the righteousness of the killing.

Right on. I do get it.

It is rather fascinating - and quite revealing, - given how "intelligent" we think we are that the way we settle differences is to hurl nuclear bombs at one another. You would think we could rise above such primitive behavior. I guess the zillion dollar question is how exactly it comes about that we don't rise above such primitive behavior, given our self reputation. If it weren't so sad it would be comical.

If you think we're bad, wait until you learn about chimpanzees and meerkats!

 

[Emily Lake]

Anyway, to the OP's question... We shouldn't reduce military spending because 1) it's not actually that much compared to all the other things we spend our money on and 2) Pax Americana

Y'all may not much like it, but US military might is the single largest reason that there has been as little global armed conflict as there has been in the last 70+ years. The US hasn't been imperialistic since the late 19th century, we've only annexed territories that wanted to be annexed, and for the last century, we've been pretty damned happy to just hold our own - and support our allies. And while it might chafe some of you... pretty much all of Europe and our fellow English-speaking countries are dependent on US military firepower to maintain their own borders. Hell, there are a fair number of Asian countries that benefit from our presence throughout the globe. If it weren't for active military patrols and bases throughout the world, both China and Russia would be much much bigger than they are now.

It sucks, but pretty much if the US materially cuts military spending, China and Russia will start gobbling up their neighbors, NK will start shit with their southern neighbor, and the middle east and the indian subcontinent are going to be a mess.

 

[Elixir]

1) it's not actually that much compared to all the other things we spend our money on

 

[Emily Lake]

Source? The US treasury department seems to disagree with your random image with no context...

Fiscal Data Explains Federal Spending

Check out @FiscalService Fiscal Data’s new federal spending page! #FederalSpending

fiscaldata.treasury.gov

15% on defense.

 

[Toni]

I don't think any sane, rational person would argue that we would get more mileage out of our resources if we didn't spend those resources on armaments.

I think any sane, rational speaker of British or Commonwealth variants of English would do exactly that.

Why Anericans feel the need to use a grammar that exactly reverses their meaning, I have no idea.

Perhaps every American is not guilty of this...

I’m sorry for whatever it is that compels you to insult any American who makes an error in language or grammar or simply a typo.

I hope you feel better soon.