Disbandment of Armed Forces and Defense Spending?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]


wow

[TomCollins]

[ 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.


[/ QUOTE ]
Right, worth about $25k.

[ QUOTE ]

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.


[/ QUOTE ]
In terms of GDP, sure. But if you don't break my window, of course we both are better off. That's why its called a broken window fallacy!

[ QUOTE ]

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.


[/ QUOTE ]
Right, in one economic measure no worse off, but of course we are worse off when we break windows than when we don't

[ QUOTE ]

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.


[/ QUOTE ]
Again, another useless measure. Who cares.

[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, that's where your basic understanding of economics breaks down. All those external things that happen (the butcher paying the candlestick maker, etc...), will STILL HAPPEN when that $25k goes to something useful.

This has been refuted many times. But people you still believe if we spent 100% of our income into dropping bombs into the ocean, there would be "no loss". If you count starvation of every person in the US as no loss, I'll agree with you.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]


wow

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice of you to finally admit defeat. Or could you just not find a podcast on the subject?

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
what was the net loss to our little global economy? Zero.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your time is lost, my time bargaining for the price is lost and the materials that make up the new window are lost. Our net economic gain is negative as we had to exert time and energy to get back to the same economic arrangement that we had before the breaking of the window. Since we as humans have limited lifespans losing time is a factor that cannot be ignored in economic transactions.

[pvn]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. The loss is one window.

And when you spend $25k to build a bomb that gets stored in a warehouse forever or gets sunk in the middle of the ocean, what gets lost is not the $25k directly, but the labor, the materials, the time that went into the production. That will add up to be around (you guessed it) $25k worth of stuff in one form or another.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Say that again. You can't possibly believe the second part if you believe the first part.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

So it's good if the window doesn't get broken, but it's not bad if it does?

Are we being leveled?

[Skidoo]

Sure, a $25k bomb might blow up into nothing, but the return by way of compliance by a defeated enemy can make the investment worthwhile.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure, a $25k bomb might blow up into nothing, but the return by way of compliance by a defeated enemy can make the investment worthwhile.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one has doubted this. Why do you constantly bring up red herrings?

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
No, that's where your basic understanding of economics breaks down. All those external things that happen (the butcher paying the candlestick maker, etc...), will STILL HAPPEN when that $25k goes to something useful.

This has been refuted many times. But people you still believe if we spent 100% of our income into dropping bombs into the ocean, there would be "no loss". If you count starvation of every person in the US as no loss, I'll agree with you.

[/ QUOTE ]


I understand what you're saying, but I think you and a few others are missing my point about potential loss. In my earlier story about the hamburger stand, there's only two options for how I employ my time and energy:
A) I can break the window, make a new one and replace it.
B) I can make glass cookware.

Once I break the window, the potential for "B" to occur is zero. So you can't compare the potential gain to the real loss any longer - the event either happened or it didn't. We lost an asset, which was then replaced at the cost of my time and energy. The net effect on the net worth of our economy was zero. What we lost was the potential for me to add to our asset base.

I could keep breaking your windows every day, and as long as you kept doing what you were doing, cooking hamburgers, our economy would remain exactly the same. What we lose in this scenario is the "potential" for gain, or to increase our asset base.

And what I meant by the broken window analogy breaking down in this situation, is that there is no potential gain in breaking a window that we can weigh against the potential for gain that we're losing. However, that doesn't hold true with the military, where our potential gain, i.e. national security, can be weighed against the potential loss in productive employment of that same time and energy.

Here's another example. I pay a certain amount in local taxes, which goes to local law enforcement. I could've used that money in some productive sense, like planting apple trees that would add value to the overall economy, but I didn't. Now the bulk of that money goes into payroll, and simply gets circulated back into the economy, so there's really no net loss. But a portion of it goes into things like electricity to power the police station and gas that's used in the patrol cars, and even though the bulk of that capital is circulated into the utility and oil company's payroll, let's just say that a percentage of it is lost.

So then I can weigh that loss of potential against the potential gain, and ask - is civil order of more value than a few apple bushels?

And I think the same analogy holds true with the military. Per capita expenditure for local law enforcement works out to about $500 a year; for the military it's about $1500 per year. I guess some people don't feel it's needed or a waste, but for the benefits, I think it's a pretty good deal. I really don't know if we need it all, but it's nice having it there. We don't have too much to worry about. And I think a lot of people throughout the world would give up an average of a month's salary to have the same security.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sure, a $25k bomb might blow up into nothing, but the return by way of compliance by a defeated enemy can make the investment worthwhile.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one has doubted this. Why do you constantly bring up red herrings?

[/ QUOTE ]

What leads you to the conclusion that no one doubted it? Where was it discussed and settled along the lines I mentioned?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, that's where your basic understanding of economics breaks down. All those external things that happen (the butcher paying the candlestick maker, etc...), will STILL HAPPEN when that $25k goes to something useful.

This has been refuted many times. But people you still believe if we spent 100% of our income into dropping bombs into the ocean, there would be "no loss". If you count starvation of every person in the US as no loss, I'll agree with you.

[/ QUOTE ]


I understand what you're saying, but I think you and a few others are missing my point about potential loss. In my earlier story about the hamburger stand, there's only two options for how I employ my time and energy:
A) I can break the window, make a new one and replace it.
B) I can make glass cookware.

Once I break the window, the potential for "B" to occur is zero. So you can't compare the potential gain to the real loss any longer - the event either happened or it didn't. We lost an asset, which was then replaced at the cost of my time and energy. The net effect on the net worth of our economy was zero. What we lost was the potential for me to add to our asset base.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the same "logic" that says that an increase in spending by less than the projected amount is a "spending cut".

[ QUOTE ]
Per capita expenditure for local law enforcement works out to about $500 a year; for the military it's about $1500 per year. I guess some people don't feel it's needed or a waste, but for the benefits, I think it's a pretty good deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Imagine how much cheaper it would be if you didn't have to pay for wars on (some) drugs, overseas boondoggles, &c.