I was thinking about that point that people bring up about military spending with the US and Im getting suspicious that the actual money spent on the US military is a mirage suggesting a capability that far far surpasses the capabilities of the next 10 near peers of the USA.

Something just doesnt add up.

The US has spent trillions on its military yet NATO and the US is having a tough time making the fight against Russia trivial.

If the money spent is any indication of capability; then it follows that besting Russia in Ukraine should be trivial. But that is not the case.

You see… I can understand designing weapons in order to kill and win wars which Im sure that is the principles of Russian and Chinese philosophy in warfare.

But what if the US is doing that… But also allowing the profit motive to have a say? Im starting to think that the USA is blowing money on overvalued systems that are AT BEST, MAYBE a tiny bit more effective than the oppositions’ weapons.

It aint like Ukraine was short of capable fighters with covert NATO training and backing.

For all the trillions spent on NATO; Ukraine should have settled this conflict months ago. Ukraine should have defeated the Donbas rebellion before it could even find its footing.

For real though. What the fuck? Is the west genuinely a paper tiger in the most real sense?

Consider also colonial projects like Isntreal. With all their backing from the US; they havent managed to just bulldoze Palestine into the phantom realm. They STILL have to put in effort.

It’s just very strange… The realities don’t match up with the money or the talk.

The only way it makes sense is if the west develops weapons for profit first and foremost, which doesnt always mean the highest quality.

  • redtea
    23·
    2 years ago

    Something to tease out from the other comments and the OP, and to make explicit…

    There is an assumption that militaries are designed to ‘win’ and that wars are fought to ‘be won’.

    A lot of war stories, especially those about medieval wars and those concerning WWI and WWII give this impression.

    But what does it mean to ‘win’ a modern war? What would that look like in Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Palestine, Vietnam, Korea, Ukraine, etc?

    In medieval England, things might seem a bit clearer. Like, Alfred the Great defeating the Danes. Or Ceaser conquering gaul. Or Alexander the Great slaughtering everyone between Greece and India. Or the Greeks burning Troy. These are relatively clear cut – at least in the popular way that we learn about these wars.

    But in modern times? When the reasons for war are so murky and the people conducting them hide behind logos and smokescreens? When the people conducting the wars lie about or simply never admit to being involved?

    The destruction is the point. The longer the war, the more weapons sold. Or, rather, the more opportunities to sell weapons that don’t even need to make it to the front lines. The more destructive the war, the more contracts available afterwards to rebuild what was destroyed.

    And beyond these obvious financial benefits that come from just blowing shit up, the simple fact of an ongoing war comes with a lot of other types of moneymaking:

    • selling war movies, series, games, and books
    • making journalistic careers
    • selling papers
    • having a sensational narrative to keep the news cycle interesting
    • justification for hiking the price of gas
    • justification for hiking other prices
    • distraction from the domestic problems in other countries (sorry, we can’t fix this or that problem, don’t you know there’s a war on?)
    • making people thankful for a large military budget
    • etc

    It seems to me that even if the US spent $1tr on its military at cost, it would still not try to finish it’s wars quickly. There’s too much money to be made in the process.