Military spending vs societal benefits

[Derec]

Aye, she ran as a "war president",

Is "war president" anything like "War Doctor"?

and that's what we would have gotten with her.

It is an interesting "alternate history" kind of thing to ponder how things would have worked out had she been president. We'd probably still be in Afghanistan and would have a bigger footprint in Syria for sure. What about Gaza and the Houthis?
Paging Harry Turtledove ...

 

[Derec]

The halfwit narcissist only wants a huge physical edifice with his name on it.

Maybe, maybe not.

Walls are probably the stupidest possible way to attempt to mitigate illegal entry. They are an ecological disaster and they don’t work, except in cities.

What does it mean to "work"? A wall and other physical barriers like fences will deter some and slow down others. Of course, they do not work by themselves.

Electronic surveillance backed up by a massive human enforcement presence would be more effective, less expensive and far less destructive approach in most areas.

I think all those are necessary parts of a system that also employs a physical barrier.
The most important part is to change the laws. Even the most awesome electronic surveillance and massive presence of border patrol personell are useless if they have to release anyone they catch because the illegals are instructed to claim asylum when they are caught. The millions of people streaming through our southern border (as well as millions of others invading Europe) are not legitimate asylum seekers, and should not be treated as such.
But a physical barrier is an important part of the system. Look at Israel proper and West Bank. The wall was very effective in greatly reducing the frequency of suicide attacks that were very commonplace before the edifice was erected.

But that would deprive a narcissist like trump of a chance to pump up his already overinflated ego by erecting a BIGLY monument to his stupidity.

This is your trademark TDS in action. You are constitutionally incapable of not doing this shit anytime you think of Trump, whether he is a subject of a thread or not.
I do not support Trump. Have not voted for him either time. But I acknowledge there were some good things he did and proposed. You are not capable of doing so.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

According to an Afghan general's article I read, Afghanistan was lost because our military taught the Afghan army to fight a modern high-tech war that depended critically on a support staff of civilian contractors. 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. But if we'd taught them to fight with WWII-level technology the Afghans would have kept the Taliban at bay as long as our factories kept churning out ammunition.

 

[Derec]

(1) "Ilk" is NOT an ad hominem. It isn't an insult.

It certainly is as you use it, as you admit below.

(2) Do I refer to Derec's "Ilk" because it seems to infuriate Derec? You betcha!

So you admit to deliberately goading a fellow member? Interesting.
But I am not "infuriated". More like bemused at your repetitive reference to "the Ilk" (capitalized and with a definite article). It makes it sound like some shadowy cabal, like the Stonecutters.
Who keeps the Assault Weapons Ban down? Who controls the Danish Crown? We do, we do!

I am holding up a mirror in the (vain?) hope that I can break through his self-made stupor and help him see how insulting he is.

What a load of self-indulgent tripe! And perhaps even caul. Physician, heal thyself!

You complain when I write "Ilk." What do you think of Derec referring to Harris as a "heels-up" politician?

Politicians are fair game for criticism and ridicule. Do you ever complain when right-wing or other Republican politicians are made fun of? Why should Kamala be off-limits?

What do you think of Derec ignoring AOC's relatively impressive resume

LMAO! Tell me, which of her professional activities do you find so impressive?

(she had an asteroid named after her long before she got involved in politics, for heaven's sake)

What does that have to do with her resume?

and disparaging her with "bar maid" more than a dozen times?

Again - mirror, stupor, heal thyself. You keep bringing up her bartending career far more than I ever did. Last time you tried to "prove" I did talk excessively about her bartending career you posted random search results, most of which had nothing do do with bartending and several that had nothing to do with AOC. I went back to the AOC thread. It seems the first time I made a reference to her job was in response to lpetrich quoting somebody who referred to it approvingly. So I did not even bring it up, I responded to someone else.

If I'm harsh on Derec, he should take that as a compliment. He seems intelligent and I think he may not be beyond salvation. I certainly wouldn't waste the keystrokes on most message board posters ... of that ilk.

Right back at ya.

 

[Derec]

According to an Afghan general's article I read, Afghanistan was lost because our military taught the Afghan army to fight a modern high-tech war that depended critically on a support staff of civilian contractors. 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. But if we'd taught them to fight with WWII-level technology the Afghans would have kept the Taliban at bay as long as our factories kept churning out ammunition.

Interesting point. Ukraine war for example seems like a throwback to WWII style warfare rather than post-Desert Storm modern one.
Do you happen to have a link to that article?

I still think that muddled political objectives played a major role in how Afghanistan went though.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

 

[Bomb#20]

According to an Afghan general's article I read... But if we'd taught them to fight with WWII-level technology the Afghans would have kept the Taliban at bay as long as our factories kept churning out ammunition.

Interesting point. Ukraine war for example seems like a throwback to WWII style warfare rather than post-Desert Storm modern one.
Do you happen to have a link to that article?

I still think that muddled political objectives played a major role in how Afghanistan went though.

Sorry, no link, this was back in 2021. But you're quite right about the muddled political objectives. We had twenty years to get them ready for a Ukraine-like defense if we'd been thinking strategically.

 

[Politesse]

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.

Delusion is not a very good guide to either military or political strategy.

 

[Swammerdami]

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.

What "untouchable source of backing" do you refer to? The Taliban was largely self-financing due to opium production and its military strength.

The U.S. spent at least 2.5 Trillion dollars on its adventures in Afghanistan. That's 500 times larger than the country's GDP in 2001, and works out to $60,000 for every Afghan man, woman and child. If those numbers aren't astounding, there is an innumeracy problem!

Turning that country into a stable democracy was always going to be a difficult task, but not necessarily impossible. In simple fact, however, the USA didn't even try, at least in any remotely intelligent way.

HUGE sums of money were spent on infrastructure projects. Should Afghan people and Afghan companies have been given the major role? Nah, how could "we" pass up the chance to enrich American companies and our friends, the hyper-billionaires of Saudi and Kuwait?

America provided many thousands of non-military workers and contractors to help Afghanistan recover and develop. Do you think it might have been good to send experts, perhaps even some fluent in local languages? Nah, it was more important to send young Republican ideologues so the Afghans would develop "politically correct" (according to Bush and Cheney) values.

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

Success would have been difficult even if the U.S. had rational adult leadership during 2001-2008. But it was especially difficult when the Idiot-in-Chief decided to ignore the country and start another multi-trillion-dollar adventure against Iraq, the country which was already "in a box" and helpless.


So no, "Afghanistan was lost because it was an inherently unwinnable war" is a poor summary. Afghanistan was lost because every single part of the U.S. response was mismanaged.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

What "untouchable source of backing" do you refer to? The Taliban was largely self-financing due to opium production and its military strength.

Pakistan. They avoided us by going across the border where we couldn't follow.

 

[Derec]

Really? Better not google “John McCain sings about bombing Iran”.

You gotta admit, he has a point. Especially in light of recent events.

 

[ZiprHead]

Locking for clean up of the space travel discussion.

Thread unlocked.

Space travel discussion moved to here.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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.

 

[Shadowy Man]

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.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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.

 

[Harry Bosch]

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.

Armaments have directly saved the lives of millions in Eastern Europe. Abundant arms are most likely stopping wars in Korea, and the countries around China. It's sad, but very true that the only way to stop aggressive invaders is with a strong defense.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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.

Armaments have directly saved the lives of millions in Eastern Europe. Abundant arms are most likely stopping wars in Korea, and the countries around China. It's sad, but very true that the only way to stop aggressive invaders is with a strong defense.

I'm certainly not arguing against that. Do you have a larger point to make?

 

[Harry Bosch]

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.

Armaments have directly saved the lives of millions in Eastern Europe. Abundant arms are most likely stopping wars in Korea, and the countries around China. It's sad, but very true that the only way to stop aggressive invaders is with a strong defense.

I'm certainly not arguing against that. Do you have a larger point to make?

Yes! I did favor the Clinton days "peace dividend". Those were calmer days, more peaceful. It made sense then to start deleveraging our military spending (although it didn't go very far to be honest). IMO, today is the most dangerous time for the world in a generation. We need more arms to stop the current war and prevent future wars from breaking out. Perhaps if the smaller countries facing off against bullies can sufficiently ally up; and can be armed sufficiently; we can stop imperialism today and have a future with a true peace dividend. But we have to stop the wars first...

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

Yes, it's okay. I should have left it where it was. Sorry.

 

[bilby]

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.

You would, but Americans really do seem incapable of it.

Though to be fair, they've only done it twice.