A comment of mine from on Lemmygrad for another thread, but I think it’s worth the discussion.

"The problem is this: at some point throwing money at something makes no difference.

You pay $1 for a blanket and you have a regular blanket. Congratulations.

You pay $100 for the same blanket and it’s still the same regular blanket; you did not automatically make it better.

I think this is partly what’s happening with the United States military.

Thoughts?"

So… did I hit on something or what?

Heck
mod
admin
724d

There’s two big things to know about the military-industrial complex, from someone who almost worked for the MIC, and in my profession, knows a lotta people who do work for or have worked for the MIC.

Firstly, the Department of Defence (I’ll annotate as DoDf) is more than willing to pay whatever it takes for the biggest and best high tech stuff. And, manufacturers like Lockheed Martin know this, so they add multiple zeros to the costs of everything they sell to the government.

The second thing, US military command will often outfit troops with high-cost gear and send them on missions specifically so the gear needs to be replaced, the US Army was caught doing this in Afganistan a few years back, with special forces groups and night vision goggles.

Now, why is this important, and how are they related? Simply put, members of the DoDf and the US MilCom are investors and business partners with defence contractors and the companies that supply the US military. So, if those business interests are doing well, the wallets of those government suits are also doing well. The US budget is bloated not because things have costs and politicians want the biggest military on the planet, but because politicians get rich from that budget and they want to protect that free income. It’s also a big reason we’ve stayed in conflicts like those in the middle east, they give an endless opportunity to use up high-cost military gear, and are thus valuable to those who profit off them.

So it doesn’t matter if an M16 costs in the range of $3000, what matters is contractors get paid to replace them, and directly following that politicians get paid too.

Heck
mod
admin
425d

Every time the president orders the aerial bombing of a school, politicians get a fat check. It’s disgusting.

Muad'Dibber
admin
324d

Very well said, and of course at some point that bubble will burst. Since the US’s primary role is being the military enforcement arm of capital, IE every other priority is further down than the military budget, everything else will be mortgaged to death to keep that bubble filled, and when it pops, the US pops with it.

@Makan
creator
324d

Bravo! Well-put!

@ksynwa
admin
525d

Are you talking about the bloated military budget?

@Makan
creator
525d

Yes. I’m saying that paying $100 for a gun versus paying $1,000 for one makes no difference.

It’s basically the same with the military budget in the USA: something more expensive isn’t automatically better.

@ksynwa
admin
525d

There is definitely a possibility that the US is overpaying for the military acquisitions because of the oligarchic nature where the taxpayer’s money is just funneled into defense corporations. But I feel regardless of that they still have the most powerful arsenal. There is also the factor of diminishing returns. Someone who knows about military would be able to answer better cuz I know nothing.

@Makan
creator
525d

I definitely agree on the diminishing returns.

In truth, I also know nothing about this area.

Red Army Forever
!military

    for posting on military topics