No, you don't seem to understand. Having used the F-22 in "combat", the program is used up. Now we'll need to play another card to deal with another threat. The balloon was just to tank our defenses. That's why you always build small disposable defenses as well as expensive ones. Our radars were all tapped tracking a balloon! How can we withstand even a bomber run now?
Shooting down one balloon demonstrated all the capabilities of the F-22? Doubt it. the F-15 has seen combat for almost 50 years and we’re still flying it, quite successfully too. I’m sure there are classified planes with greater capabilities than the F-22, and that money has already been spent, so China has to try harder to get the US to deploy its classified weaponry.
> No, you don't seem to understand. Having used the F-22 in "combat", the program is used up.
The US could have strategically used that $1 trillion on its human resources, on things like school and healthcare for all, that way they wouldn't have had a 25% deficit in recruiting personnel (last I've checked). But, hey, building an airplane that can shoot down balloons for the same amount of money I guess also works.
Yeah, I know about the opportunity costs of dissuasion ("nobody is going to attack us if we've got a $1 trillion airplane"), but, again, in the great and long-term strategic scheme of things looks like that was the wrong choice for the US.
Somewhere on the internet, Twitter I think, I now see that the official sources give lower figures. Also, most probably according to those figures the war in Afghanistan also didn't cost more than a few hundred million.
What "other problems"? I hate it when people do that, i.e. saying stuff like "you're generally wrong, but I won't say exactly what, because you're so very wrong". Just say what you specifically say you see as wrong or don't say it at all (to be clear, this is not directed particularly at you).
- Whether intentional or not, you imply the entire budget for the F22 program was dedicated to shooting down a single weather balloon.
- Your source for the budget comes from Twitter, and you state without evidence that your sources are probably more accurate than official ones.
- Your posts mock military spending without engaging in the difficult political science questions of what may happen if your suggestions had been implemented. Something as large as defunding air force development has a scope far beyond the question of one weather balloon, and your discussions appears to lack awareness of that scope and complexity.
In short, many of the problems center around twitter-sized sound bytes being played in a venue that prefers well-constructed arguments and well-rounded discussion.
> you're generally wrong, but I won't say exactly what, because you're so very wrong
It's normally actually "there are a number of things wrong here but I don't have the time/energy/motivation to go into them".
That information can still be useful and isn't always just consensus building (which is admittedly a widespread problem).
On an unrelated note, you might want to recheck this: Also, most probably according to those figures the war in Afghanistan also didn't cost more than a few hundred million.
I also suspect the majority of commentators consider your epistemology to be completely broken and fixing that is a time investment far beyond what they can commit to. On the remote chance you'd actually interested in fixing it, the Less Wrong one (Sequences) might be very flawed, but HN will agree its better than what you've currently got.
Twitter is just wrong. The total for the entire program, including 40 years of maintance, is estimated to be around $133 billion (in constant dollars from a few years ago). The amount spent so far is under $100 billion.
