The truth is chief....
The money was already wasted from the start.
Missiles and rockets being super expensive cannot be returned. Hence why you see drones and planes use them. Missiles and bombs expire
Like buying food and not using it. It's there, its stored, it was expensive, so make something with it. However food doesn't cost thousands. So might as well use them on places where our armies needs them for support.
Missiles have a price, but a human life doesn't, so send a missile to do the job.
That saying is also hypocritical, because they don't always hit their target. Innocent lives are taken. Some are misused. At the end of the day it is someone's fault and day many countries won't care who died as long as the main threat is gone.
As to why we do these purchases is because we are standing toe to toe with China and Russia. China being great in numbers and russia with firepower. We don't have an ally on our side of the world, and Europe is on their own.
If we want to talk about COST, not morality but COST- it’s pretty simple. You send a missile once and never have to worry about sending anything for those folks again. It’s called “long term fiscal responsibility.” If you amortize the cost of a drone and it’s mission expenses- and use the “save the children” figure of $.063 a day for cost of care for a person- you could either care for each death for a couple decades- or never worry about them needing anything again for the same price. In fact- of drone operations were increased and even less care was put into collateral damage prevention- as the kill count increases- it becomes even cheaper. If we spend more than 63 cents a day per person- the gap becomes even greater.
Of course- you generally don’t need a degree or lots of math to determine that the monetary costs of killing a person will generally be lower than helping a person. The costs of rebuilding structures and infrastructure in Baghdad or New Orleans are far less than the monetary costs of say- a tactical nuclear weapon and forgetting about the whole thing. Of course- MORALLY we could certainly argue such actions are wrong- but this isn’t a good debate to have on cost.
Not speaking on morality of drone strikes. That’s a big topic. Logically this assessment is highly flawed. Flip it around- UAV’s exist to PROTECT the lives of a countries service people. Any job a UAV does is a job a human being would have to be put in harms way for. Is it better for a $23 million drone to get shot down and a pilot to live- or to lose an $85 million F35 with a dead human pilot that cost $10 million to train? On risk to ones own countrymen’s lives the drone is cheaper and safer- so the very premise behind the drones existence is that it costs a lot but is meant to save lives. Not the lives of those it kills- but of those not in harms way to do the killing. Morally we can argue not killing is better. Like I said- I’m not talking morality just on paper facts.
Now- as to the idea no one asks about costs? No one does? So... the fact the Air-force is WAY under budget on drone programs and has had to scale back missions because the budget for them wasn’t appropriated... that would indicate that perhaps at least someone at one of the many appropriations committees for military spending does actually pay attention to costs.
But lastly- what a dumb argument. Raise your hand if you work on a computer? Do you drive a truck for work? Use some sort of special equipment? Do you sit thinking all day: “man.. for the cost of this 18 wheeler and 1,000’s of gallons of fuel you could help a lot of people instead of delivering Harry Potter coasters to Target...” Hell-look at how most people’s pay checks get spent and you’ll see most people don’t even think that way with their own money.
Soldiers have a job. They are given tools to do the job. I can promise you that cost is a consideration but it isn’t THE consideration. Very tile a doctor orders a CT scan or a corporation runs a process on a multi million dollar server they are aware that there is a substantial cost to that. When the trucking company sends out a rig it knows there is a cost. That’s why they usually don’t play with the tools like toys- they try to use them when they need them to do their job- but they do have a job. Someone somewhere in the world probably needs that diesel more than you need a monsters inc body pillow- but delivering the pillow is someone’s job- they do it then go home. The military knows how much money it costs to fly combat missions. If they could do their job safely without them they wouldn’t use them. Generally they aren’t going to not use a tool to safety and successfully do their job just because it is expensive.
Just imagine how much Google spends every day in the severs and networks and power to do their job. All so you can have an emoji keyboard and not have to learn/deal with how to search webpages manually. How many people could that help? How many people would be helped if we donated the money we spend on gaming, cosplay, sports? Hmmm. Yes. The logic doesn’t hold up.
For once I think you may have missed the point of the post. I’ve been waiting years for that. What this is saying is as a society we don’t really consider the costs of putting soldiers in harms way in the same manner as providing aid. The missiles and drones are an example but the overall point is we should have the same reticence for committing to a money pit of killing as we do a money pit of helping. I don’t really hold an opinion on that, we seem to send aid just as willy-nilly as bullets; that’s just an interpretation of the content.
I am sorry to disappoint but it wasn’t lost on me. I make a brief reference to that intent- but was very specific that I’m not discussing morality issues but the technical merits of using this logic. In other words- their intended point isn’t inline with the logic they used, and the logic they used doesn’t hold up internally.
If we never go to war- drones, soldiers, planes, bombs- whatever- we’d save a TON of money and lives. But- an old saying in business is “you can’t expense yourself into profit.” That means- wether talking lives or money- being actively prudent not to WASTE them is wise practice- but if you could make $100 a month more on profit by spending $20 more a month then that is a false savings. As applied here- trading 20 lives for 100 is an ethical dilemma but a logical practice. If each of those lives has a dollar value we want to give it- then so long as the total saved is less than spent, you’re “green” in logical a pragmatic terms.
Since as a society we value lives differently based on who’s life it is- the “golden ratio” is subjective. “Bring home our troops” is a perfect example. Take Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan. Many say we had no place in these countries and their internal or regional conflicts. Many say we had no place in the European theater of WW1 and 2. Why do we want our troops home? Either/or or some combination of: 1. American lives and money are being used in place of foreign lives, money, and suffering- or we are causing collateral damage to the people and infrastructures of these places.
The abstract is the gain. I mean- there’s a reason the US pays less for gas than most of the world. So there is some point where everyone is OK with someone dying so that they can enjoy a Costco membership or be able to have a robot vacuum and 3 cars in a house with 2 adults and a boat that only goes out a few tikes a year and.... etc.
And yet- as stated- there is much discourse on the subject. That’s like saying “everyone talks about the costs of life and freedom with guns- but what about abortion?” Like... where.. do you spend your time if there is a lack of discourse on those subjects? Military spending, military ethics.. legitimacy of a military industrial
Complex... these have been HUGE topics for over half a century. There are plenty of folks (you’ll find no less than 3 memes on this very site to the topic in recent cadence.) The irony is that the posts calls for a form of self awareness- in a society which lacks the self awareness (or chooses not to exercise it) to realize the lack of self awareness- all the while itself being non self aware.
The reason you may not see more conversations on the costs of maintaining a military vs. the costs of providing aid to the poor is that one does not directly impact the other- somewhat like the cost of getting your haircut or bathing to keep social graces can’t directly be related to your expenses. A regular person spending $4,000 on photos a month we could certainly say they could better allocate budget- but a celebrity who those photos support their existence and lifestyle... it’s abstract.
But the two DO relate directly- aid for those in need and military spending. Somalia being a prime example. Famine on a biblical scale- aid for the starving not making it to the starving but instead feeding the war machine of a dictator- and military force breaking the embargo. Then a government and a nation deciding that a handful of their own lives were worth more than millions of Somalian lives before leaving.
All over Africa, Eastern Europe, parts of Asia, the Americas- similar situations with perhaps less book worthy narratives. If you provide aid for people in need, where that need can be traced to the use of force by others to cause said issues; you may as well just deliver the help straight to the guys causing the problem. Like the meme about the guy who cats keep getting eaten by Coyotes- you’re just feeding Coyotes if you cannot apply force to keep the coyotes away. You also have to be in a position to help if you want to help- unless you want to live without- which people don’t- because as said- for our Starbucks and video games etc. we could all pitch in and provide the aid people need. That is what a military industrial nation is- take the military part out and the belt gets tighter.
So I’m not sure what discourse people aren’t having? Military spending and philosophy is discussed. Taking military budget to fund civil works is a common sentiment, the military needing more funds is also common, civilian and armchair and government military spending oversight is widely discussed, and how we can easily fix problems without having to do anything ourselves if we also choose not to consider the complexities of a situation is quite a common discussion when it comes to all topics.
Governments know how to fight wars, due to centuries of experience, and can do it quite well. Unfortunately there is a very large graveyard of sometimes spectacularly failed plans to help the poor.
The money was already wasted from the start.
Missiles and rockets being super expensive cannot be returned. Hence why you see drones and planes use them. Missiles and bombs expire
Like buying food and not using it. It's there, its stored, it was expensive, so make something with it. However food doesn't cost thousands. So might as well use them on places where our armies needs them for support.
Missiles have a price, but a human life doesn't, so send a missile to do the job.
That saying is also hypocritical, because they don't always hit their target. Innocent lives are taken. Some are misused. At the end of the day it is someone's fault and day many countries won't care who died as long as the main threat is gone.
As to why we do these purchases is because we are standing toe to toe with China and Russia. China being great in numbers and russia with firepower. We don't have an ally on our side of the world, and Europe is on their own.
Complex... these have been HUGE topics for over half a century. There are plenty of folks (you’ll find no less than 3 memes on this very site to the topic in recent cadence.) The irony is that the posts calls for a form of self awareness- in a society which lacks the self awareness (or chooses not to exercise it) to realize the lack of self awareness- all the while itself being non self aware.