Disbandment of Armed Forces and Defense Spending?

[Skidoo]

In a perfect world, the military would not be necessary. Therefore, disband the military and my dreams will come true.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, we are getting off topic. Can someone discuss whether or not we actually need a large military, or even one at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do we need a local police force or the FBI? I think so.
How powerful? I'd say more powerful than any other conventional (non-nuke) force. I guess that would be like the Secret Service. If you want to take a shot at the guy, you pretty much know up front it will be a suicide mission. Quite a bit of over-kill.

[natedogg]

The strength of the US military is in its conventional weaponry.

Nukes are basically useless if
1. the enemy is on your own soil
2. you are at all concerned about innocent civilians

Note that we haven't nuked or even carpet-bombed an enemy in decades. This is partly due to an increased concern over the enemy civilian populations. Yes, we have killed civilians with bombs but the *are* precision bombs. The carpet-bombing tactics of WWII and even Viet Nam have long been abandoned.

Also, you have it backward re: nukes. If we were to eliminate all military assets except for nukes we become essentially powerless except to terrorize enemies with threat of civilian massacres. (These kinds of threats rarely work against leaders since they are safe from such tactics)

If we could somehow eliminate all nukes the USA's military power would become even more lopsided. This is because any other nations with nukes is essentially terrorizing us into diplomacy. There is no nation that can defeat the USA in any kind of military engagement but it doesn't mean they can't nuke us out of spite.

The "nuke for spite" card is a powerful one and keeps the US from bullying them too badly.

Without the existence of nukes the US military dominance would be absolute. Our conventional forces are so superior to any other nation that initiating conflict with us would be little more than suicide for the regime.

Understand the power of aircraft carrier groups and high tech. The fact is that once the US gets on the ground it is essentially a cleanup operation against a depleted, blinded, silenced and disorganized enemy.

And the very idea of eliminating our own military advantage is insane. The world is full of very bad people. If we had no defenses we would be attacked. Period. You'd be in a camp before the end of the month.

natedogg

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
Our defense spending isn't in the billions, but is in the trillions.

[/ QUOTE ]

That money isn't just flushed down the toilet or hidden under someone's bed, it's ultimately recycled through the economy.

Take the case of your $25k bomb. Ninety-percent of that cost comes from employee salaries at one stage or another in the process. Whether it's the people building it, the scientists designing it, or the people procuring the raw materials. What do they do with that money? They spend it. They go out to dinner and give the money to the cook, they buy a car and give the money to an autoworker, etc…

Even in the case of the corrupt politician, what does he do with the kickback? He spends it. He has his mansion remodeled and gives the money to a local contractor; who gives some of that money to Home Depot.

Then what does the defense contractor do with it's profit? It pays out dividends to the shareholders who then go on to spend that money.

Would it be more beneficial if that money was channeled into productive assets rather than a rapidly depreciating asset like a bomb? Sure. Or would we be better off if that money was left to circulate on it's own? Of course.

The bottom line is when that money circulates through the defense industry, or any other government channel, it's not actually lost. What we lose, is the potential for it to be used in a more productive capacity on that one particular cycle. It's like you took that $25K and put it under your bed for a year - what you lost was the opportunity to gain interest on it - but the money is still there, and you can always stick it in the bank next year.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Our defense spending isn't in the billions, but is in the trillions.

[/ QUOTE ]

That money isn't just flushed down the toilet or hidden under someone's bed, it's ultimately recycled through the economy.

Take the case of your $25k bomb. Ninety-percent of that cost comes from employee salaries at one stage or another in the process. Whether it's the people building it, the scientists designing it, or the people procuring the raw materials. What do they do with that money? They spend it. They go out to dinner and give the money to the cook, they buy a car and give the money to an autoworker, etc…

Even in the case of the corrupt politician, what does he do with the kickback? He spends it. He has his mansion remodeled and gives the money to a local contractor; who gives some of that money to Home Depot.

Then what does the defense contractor do with it's profit? It pays out dividends to the shareholders who then go on to spend that money.

Would it be more beneficial if that money was channeled into productive assets rather than a rapidly depreciating asset like a bomb? Sure. Or would we be better off if that money was left to circulate on it's own? Of course.

The bottom line is when that money circulates through the defense industry, or any other government channel, it's not actually lost. What we lose, is the potential for it to be used in a more productive capacity on that one particular cycle. It's like you took that $25K and put it under your bed for a year - what you lost was the opportunity to gain interest on it - but the money is still there, and you can always stick it in the bank next year.

[/ QUOTE ]

You win the broken window fallacy award!! Hooray!

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Our defense spending isn't in the billions, but is in the trillions.

[/ QUOTE ]

That money isn't just flushed down the toilet or hidden under someone's bed, it's ultimately recycled through the economy.

[/ QUOTE ]


You win the broken window fallacy award!! Hooray!

[/ QUOTE ]

That became apparent after his first sentence. What should I do with this trillion dollars? Let's buy bombs and blow them the [censored] up! It'll help the economy...

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Our defense spending isn't in the billions, but is in the trillions.

[/ QUOTE ]

That money isn't just flushed down the toilet or hidden under someone's bed, it's ultimately recycled through the economy.

[/ QUOTE ]


You win the broken window fallacy award!! Hooray!

[/ QUOTE ]

That became apparent after his first sentence. What should I do with this trillion dollars? Let's buy bombs and blow them the [censored] up! It'll help the economy...

[/ QUOTE ]

I never claimed it helped the economy. My claim was that "all" the value wasn't lost and the actual losses are nominal.


If you would have read past the first sentence before getting so excited, you would have noticed when I said it would be better if the money was channeled into productive avenues and better yet if it was left to circulate on it's own

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Our defense spending isn't in the billions, but is in the trillions.

[/ QUOTE ]

That money isn't just flushed down the toilet or hidden under someone's bed, it's ultimately recycled through the economy.

[/ QUOTE ]


You win the broken window fallacy award!! Hooray!

[/ QUOTE ]

That became apparent after his first sentence. What should I do with this trillion dollars? Let's buy bombs and blow them the [censored] up! It'll help the economy...

[/ QUOTE ]

I never claimed it helped the economy. My claim was that "all" the value wasn't lost and the actual losses are nominal.


If you would have read past the first sentence before getting so excited, you would have noticed when I said it would be better if the money was channeled into productive avenues and better yet if it was left to circulate on it's own


[/ QUOTE ]

So basically $25k is lost. All the "money" that is put back into the economy would be there just as well if it were spent for other purposes, so you ARE losing the entire $25k. Unless there is some actual benefit of using the $25k itself (using a $25k bomb to kill someone who is going to do $50k of damage is clearly +EV).

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

I never claimed it helped the economy. My claim was that "all" the value wasn't lost and the actual losses are nominal.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Take the case of your $25k bomb. Ninety-percent of that cost comes from employee salaries at one stage or another in the process. Whether it's the people building it, the scientists designing it, or the people procuring the raw materials. What do they do with that money? They spend it.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a second part to your fallacy. Money isn't whats important it freakin grows on trees (or flax plants now I believe right?), the money isn't what is valuable, its used to represent something that is valuable. The productivity of the guy who bolts the bomb together is just as wasted as the metal and chemicals used to build the bombs, as are the years of research to develop it by the scientist. If you agree that the bomb was a waste of resources then all that production is a waste as well. All the downstream stuff of people having money to spend is irrelevant because there is less stuff to spend it on.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I never claimed it helped the economy. My claim was that "all" the value wasn't lost and the actual losses are nominal.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Take the case of your $25k bomb. Ninety-percent of that cost comes from employee salaries at one stage or another in the process. Whether it's the people building it, the scientists designing it, or the people procuring the raw materials. What do they do with that money? They spend it.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a second part to your fallacy. Money isn't whats important it freakin grows on trees (or flax plants now I believe right?), the money isn't what is valuable, its used to represent something that is valuable. The productivity of the guy who bolts the bomb together is just as wasted as the metal and chemicals used to build the bombs, as are the years of research to develop it by the scientist. If you agree that the bomb was a waste of resources then all that production is a waste as well. All the downstream stuff of people having money to spend is irrelevant because there is less stuff to spend it on.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you and TomCollins are missing here is that it's not wasted. What's lost is an opportunity to better employ that capital in that one cycle.

Suppose only you and I make up the global economy. Let's say I make and install windows and you make and sell hamburgers, and I happen to break the window on your hamburger stand. And then suppose you pay me to fix the window - what was the net loss to our little global economy? Zero.

What we lost was an opportunity to do something more productive in that time period and particular economic cycle, but there was no net loss in our overall economy. Would it have been better if instead of breaking your window, I used my time and energy to make some glass cookware to sell to you? Yes. The overall economy would then be increased.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying war is productive. Just that we pay for it by lost potential through that one particular economic cycle and time period. You can say that missed potential is a theoretical net loss, but you have to weigh that loss against any potential gain, and that's where the broken window analogy breaks down.