What's really wild is $2M is around the cost of a single Tomahawk cruise missile, Patriot missiles can cost almost double that. The Excalibur GPS guided round costs roughly as much as a nice Mercedes and during a conflict hundreds or thousands can be fired.
I came to this realization when learning about someone driving a car into a building to do damage and thinking "wow, that's an expensive round", then looking it up and realizing, it's not actually that expensive compared to how much military projectiles really do cost.
I've found it somewhat interesting that we'll be shocked at a fire truck, which gets a life time of 15-25 years and works in the service exclusively of saving lives, costs around $2 million, but not be shocked that we effectively use something as expensive as a fire truck as a single round in a gigantic gun.
Not to say that fire trucks don't potentially cost too much, nor that military weapons aren't worth it. More that I don't think most people are really aware of the obscene costs of military conflicts.
$24 billion in American taxpayer money went to Israel in 2024, or about $65M/day. That's 32 equivalent of those. Each and every day. And this is what enables burying/killing a wide ranging, unknowable number (60k-200k?) of humans, half of whom were children, by systematic aerial bombardment using 2000 lbs. unguided Mk. 84's into urban areas and terrestrial structural demolitions, forced concentration/ethnic cleansing, and engineered famine by siege. Not all Israelis and Americans are okay with this, but protesting so far hasn't made much difference.
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people... This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."
"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives."
-- Smedley Butler, a United States Marine Corps Major General and, at the time of his death, the most decorated Marine in U.S. history.
But then, if you were in Gaza right now and consider how many buildings/lives might have been saved by the existence of a whole bunch of air-to-air or ground-to-air missiles to trash bombers with, you start to wonder if having these things for the moment you need them might not make a lot of sense. Similar story for Ukraine.
The only thing the missile has to do is be cheaper than the bomber it’ll destroy. To be cheaper than the infrastructure that can’t be bombed into dust because the bomber was destroyed by the missile. Taken in that light they suddenly seem pretty cheap.
It’s not all the numbers that are unknown, but so many are still buried beneath rubble that the scope of death isn’t clear. The numbers that are known are depressing enough.
That's a misconception about military aid. That money is flowing straight back to US defense companies. It's not actually costing the US; it's profiting from this. And it's not actually tax payer money but freshly minted dollars that are created through debt. Nobody is getting taxed "extra" to pay for all this.
If you strip away all the moralism and suffering, the conflicts (plural) in the middle east and increasingly Ukraine are all about keeping the defense industry and the economy going. Same with Ukraine. Same with just about any other conflict where countries like the US supply the weapons.
This is the US devoting resources to do one thing, build things go bang abroad, instead of doing other things like building/renewing infrastructure or providing services to citizens. So, that is a cost. The question is what are the benefits. In Ukraine I can see that, in Israel it’s got a lot more messy.
Do you think the labor and resources that went into creating that materiel would vanish if it wasn't created? Like a missile is magic and conjures engineers and metal into existence just to fulfil its creation?
Oh and in fact leaves a little left over, the "profit", because thankyou for giving it some schools to obliterate?
What would we do if we weren't blowing people to bits huh, building theme parks or something instead - oh the waste! Think of the ~slaughter~... ahem, I mean the "economy"!
the profit was made by defense contractors when it was built. and flows as wages to the workers in GA / VA / wherever building it.
what happens after it's made is a function of utility. lotta waste, but if a 2 million missile can trash 4 million in buildings, cars, and humans, then it is still a win, even if there is no profit.
Nonsense. If the US instead just ordered $24B of military equipment and gave it to Israel would you still be calling it 'not a donation'? The two are equivalent.
Doesn't change the end result, but it paints a moral dimension on those who actively profit from the deaths of imprisoned civilians. The money goes into the pockets of the owners of mostly American defense contractors' owners, arms leave for conflict zones, and mostly civilians where Gaza is concerned get made homeless, injured, or flee for tent cities, only to be pushed around again.
Conflating Ukraine with Gaza is genocide-denial gaslighting.
Regardless of "truth" or whatever your opinion or my opinion is, in terms of PR Israel seems not to be able to influence the outcome in their favour. I want to be totally impartial and neutral - if that were only possible - and think about why that is so.
It is not a matter of opinion, it is widely documented that Israel is blocking any external aid or journalists in Gaza.
And yes, at least it gives some hope that there is still widespread outcry against the atrocities they are committing. Maybe we still have a sliver of humanity left in us amongst all the individualism and profiteering.
(except Germany of course, where protests against the war crimes committed by Israel are routinely dismantled. Two wrongs don't make a right Germany.)
Good fences make good neighbors. Maybe they should try to have our state more distanced from theirs. People might be more friendly if they feel they have some say in the situation.
The federal government alone spends $1.9 trillion annually on healthcare. That's enough to buy almost a million Tomahawk missiles every year. The total production will be around 9,000 missiles over 46 years, or less than 200 per year. We do not meaningfully choose between paying for healthcare domestically and blowing up foreigners. Even overthrowing Iraq's government and trying to make it a democracy only cost about $2.4 trillion over 10 years.
We don't, our healthcare outcomes are consistently worse.
If that's in contradiction to us buying more healthcare, then we must admit that some of that healthcare isn't productive, it's rent seeking. IMO, this is what I actually see in the US, so it all adds up.
There certainly is rent seeking, but you also have a wealthy market where people are free to pay for treatments that have low returns.
As an example, rich people getting lots of testing done increases spending, but it's driven by their wealth as much as it is by doctors enthusiastic to increase revenues. And if they are healthy, it isn't going to provide them much value.
Couple this with the attempts to centrally plan capacity and you get a cost spiral.
It’s not “rent seeking” necessarily. That’s just one kind of inefficiency. There’s also overly defensive medical practice. For example, my five year old boy had a run-in with a table and got a black eye. Our pediatrician physically inspected him, decided nothing was wrong, but sent him to get an X-ray and CAT scan anyway. It took just an hour and a half because the U.S. has expensive medical equipment just lying around.
In a sanely administered system, you wouldn’t send every five year old that ran into some furniture to get a CAT scan. You’d just accept the infinitesimal risk of some hidden injury that couldn’t be caught with physical contact examination but could be caught with a CAT scan.
In another example, my wife’s grandmother had a stroke at 87. They medevacced her out of her house in rural Oregon to Portland. Then the doctors wanted to do a bunch of expensive procedures until she passed away a few days later. She was a lovely lady, but no European country would’ve greenlit these procedures on an 87 year old woman who had a quarter of her long missing due to lung cancer in her 60s.
The more you drill down into health indicators to distinguish the effect of medical care from other factors, the less it seems like US outcomes are worse. US overall indicators, like life expectancy, are worse. But those factor in many things that have nothing to do with the health system, such as homicide, car accidents, demographic, obesity, etc.
For example, Americans eat a truly disgusting amount of food compared to europeans. I’m a relatively low resource consumption asian, and even I was always hungry when we visited Paris because the portion sizes were so small.
> Our pediatrician physically inspected him, decided nothing was wrong, but sent him to get an X-ray and CAT scan anyway. It took just an hour and a half because the U.S. has expensive medical equipment just lying around.
Because it has the X-ray equipment, they have make a return on investment on it, and that's why they end up doing useless tests. Those are even harmful by the way, as X-rays are ionizing reaction, and useless CT scans are actually responsible for a non-negligible fraction of cancer in the US.
The reason why european countries don't run more CT scans isn't that they lack equipment, it's because the risk/benefit isn't good for cases like your son.
> In another example, my wife’s grandmother had a stroke at 87. They medevacced her out of her house in rural Oregon to Portland. Then the doctors wanted to do a bunch of expensive procedures until she passed away a few days later. She was a lovely lady, but no European country would’ve greenlit these procedures on an 87 year old woman who had a quarter of her long missing due to lung cancer in her 60s.
This is wrong. If we're sharing anecdotes let me tell you about my 97yo grand dad who's been admitted thrice in ER this year in France, and received what would have amounted to almost $100k of medical bills in the US. (He's OK now, but at this age you never fully recover to your previous state, so every trip to the hospital is a step down).
> The more you drill down into health indicators to distinguish the effect of medical care from other factors, the less it seems like US outcomes are worse. US overall indicators, like life expectancy, are worse. But those factor in many things that have nothing to do with the health system, such as homicide, car accidents, demographic, obesity, etc.
This is true, it explains a good fraction of the life expectancy difference, but it's irrelevant to the fact that the US pays twice are much for similar healthcare.
> The reason why european countries don't run more CT scans isn't that they lack equipment, it's because the risk/benefit isn't good for cases like your
But because the risk/benefit isn’t as good, they don’t have as much of this expensive equipment. The U.S. has about 40 MRI machines per million people, versus 10 for Canada or Denmark or 20 for Spain.
Yes it is, because if you know they're different then you're literally moving the goalpost: We were talking about CT scans but the difference in CT scans both sides of the Atlantic has nothing to do with the availability of CT scan machines so you switch to another equipment in the middle of the discussion.
Also, your numbers are cherry-picked: Japan has more MRI machines per capita for instance, and Germany or even Greece aren't far behind the US.
> Yes it is, because if you know they're different then you're literally moving the goalpost: We were talking about CT scans but the difference in CT scans both sides of the Atlantic has nothing to do with the availability of CT scan machines so you switch to another equipment in the middle of the discussion.
I used Canada as a data point because it’s common to compare the U.S.’s healthcare system to Canada, because the countries are otherwise pretty similar. Japan and Greece have very different populations.
That’s the story anyway. They’ll be paid either as Cost Plus or on a Firm Fixed Price. Neither of which incentivize the supplier to give the USG a better deal.
Which in practice likely means that the C-suite and top people will be 4% richer, there will be 5% more unnecessary administrators, there will be 2% more line workers and the experience will be 1% better at the same or worse price point for all of us.
I'm not defending spending the $$ on bombing brown people, but it's hard to overstate how divorced spending is from outcomes in US healthcare. It's as bad or worse than colleges.
they spend 1.9T on healthcare because the largest F500 companies in the US are healthcare companies and they have utter regulatory and legislative control, and will never, ever drop prices.
European countries pay far less and have as good or better overall outcomes.
The U.S. didn't even get the oil! The Chinese got the oil. The whole thing was because George W. Bush's heart was bigger than his brain: he thought the U.S. could create a functioning democracy from the Iraqi population.
Iraq's current government is still siginficantly better than Saddam's regime, depsite being currupt and somewhat dysfunctional (and things have improved over the years in case you dig up an article from a decade ago about ISIS).
It's a parliamentary democracy with free elections and independent media. It's also chaotic, corrupt, and violent. It's much worse than Sweden or Switzerland but better than many other Arab countries.
As i mentioned in another post, if you measure success as creating a strong, prosperous, independent, viable democracy - then Iraq was an utter failure and so was Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Jordan, Egypt and Iran. Which begs the question why does the US pursue the same failed policies over and over again. It turns out we were asking the wrong questions in 2005. If you measure success from the purview of the Yinon plan to establish Israeli hegemony over the entire middle-east then everything aforementioned - including all the death, terrorism, suffering, sectarian and religious strife, massacres and genocides, refugees crises, the rise of ISIS, the recent Al Qaeeda takeover of Syria - everything, was a resounding success.
The social cultural analysis people really left us hanging when it came to finding out what is it with middle eastern culture that makes it unable to build working states and socities. Anti imperialist and anti colonial babblepprotecting the status quo of a patriarchaical, imperialist and colonisl culture that just gets constantly defeated because its handicapped by itself. Like a doctor declaring your disease a lovely character trait instead of helping. The o so solidaric allies are the worst enemies you can get. Chances are when your ideology is bad at managing economies, it's even worser at managing societies .
Its a special kind of evil to deny billions of people hope and participation in the worlds society so one can get high on ones own ideological supply. Bush at least tried . In this he and whatever the Israelis do to prevent the region blowing itself up is the lesser evil.
> The social cultural analysis people really left us hanging when it came to finding out what is it with middle eastern culture that makes it unable to build working states and socities
Nobody said that. Iraq under Saddam and Syria under Assad were working states and societies. The trouble is with bottom up democracy, and that’s a shortcoming of virtually every non-european society. Singapore for example is wealthy, but is already having trouble after its benevolent quasi-authoritarian ruler died.
> Its a special kind of evil to deny billions of people hope and participation in the worlds society so one can get high on ones own ideological supply
To the contrary, it’s cruel to push democracy on societies that aren’t capable of sustaining them.
Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act in '98. Bush took over and then launched a ridiculously false campaign about WMDs stockpiled in Iraq. We never found a single one. It's extraordinarily naive and ignorant of basic facts to think Bush invaded Iraq out of the kindness of his heart and to support a true democracy, especially given Bush signed the extremely undemocratic, unconstitutional Patriot Act domestically right after 911 (a bill Biden claims to have originally written... noticing a pattern?)
Let's back up even further. We were "liberating" Iraq from Saddam's government, right? After we tried teaching him a lesson in the Gulf War?
Except declassified circumstantial evidence suggests that Saddam rose to power after a collaborative period between US and Egyptian intelligence agencies including a failed assassination of Qasim, and that he maintained alleged continued contact with US agencies through the 60's. But at some point the US decided it did not like Hussein's objectives and turned on him just like we'd intervened in Qasim's Iraqi government.
This is literally just US military interventionism and you should not proscribe good intent when history shows us otherwise.
edit : I forgot to mention that as of 2024, the US still controlled all oil revenue transactions in Iraq.
- thecradle.co/articles-id/27007
>George W. Bush's heart was bigger than his brain: he thought the U.S. could create a functioning democracy from the Iraqi population.
George Bush probably knew what he was doing in Iraq because his VP, Dick Cheney could have told him way back in 1994[1] what would happen if we overthrew Saddam :
> "Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein’s government, then what are you going to put in its place? That’s a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it — eastern Iraq — the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you’ve got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey.
> It’s a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.
> The other thing was casualties [...] was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth? Our judgment was, not very many, and I think we got it right."
"Spreading freedom and democracy" was just another propaganda spin like the "WMDs". The question still remains, why did America spend thousands of lives (tens of thousands, if one counts contracters, veteran suicides, chronic conditions, etc. ) and 2 trillion dollars and counting to overthrow Saddam. Why did they continue to make the same "mistake" in Syria, Libya, Yemen , Sudan, Somalia and Iran[2] causing millions of deaths, millions of refugees, spreading death and destruction across the entire region. By 2025 the picture has become a lot clearer as only theory continues to stand the test of time - that America invaded and intervened to overthrow and destabilize the entire region to clear a path for Israel to invade and expand into "Greater Israel"[3] and become the regional hegemon. How any of this actually serves America's strategic interest is an untenable case to make at which point one will have to consider the notion that when it comes to Israeli-American relations, the tail wags the dog.
One of the justifications for 9/11 was that US troops were in Saudi Arabia. US troops were put in Saudi Arabia after Iraq went into Kuwait. Part of the reason for going into Iraq was to be able to remove these troops.
The US, by all evidence, spends more on its non-universal, gap-prone, healthcare system than any reasonable (single-payer, government-provided, or mostly private insurance with universal guarantee) universal healthcare system would cost; the US spends ludicrously more than any other country per capita, and much more than most universal systems on a per GDP basis (heck, the government side of the US system alone costs a greater share of GDP than some universal systems, and more per capita than basically any of them, even without counting the larger private side.)
The US doesn't deny local citizens healthcare so that some people far away can be blown up. If anything, it limits its ability to blow people up far away with all the extra money it is spending locally to prevent people from getting healthcare.
But the US has lots of money, so it still finds quite a bit for blowing people up far away.
The US has a critical case of NIH syndrome. Nothing any other country in the world does can possibly work here regardless of how much evidence because the US is a special snowflake of a country that has black people and rural areas and no other country in the world could possibly comprehend our struggles.
There's apparently at one least cruise missile variant that basically mounts a sword on the warhead with a thin fairing. It's apparently used for killing a single target
You're thinking of the AGM-114R-9X "Flying Ginsu", which is a variant of the short-range AGM-114 Hellfire anti-tank missile. It's not a cruise missile.
With the amount of money printing going on, it is really insincere for them to create that false dichotomy anyway. It was never about which one out of the two we could afford.
The federal bank performed quantitative easing between 2008 and 2014 as well, during the last economic crisis, but no one complained about "money printing" then. Inflation over the last few years has been a largely global phenomenon, which most economists attribute to supply chain disruptions, increased demand, and rising energy costs.
The "supply chain disruptions" explanation was always complete garbage. When there's a supply chain disruption, the price goes up and then comes back down when the disruption ends. It's very easy to see that the money supply barely increased from 2008-2014 and jumped massively during covid. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WM2NS
Those QE periods were minuscule in how much they printed compared to this last phase we have entered. The rise in M2 money supply is out of this world.
It can't happen as long as the US dollar is the world reserve currency - every other country will inflate almost as much as the US, keeping the demand in US dollars.
And the USA will never lose that status as long as it keeps importing things from so many other countries. Oops!
I now think that we've been lied to big time: One thing Covid was good for was to provide a cover story for massive inflation that was likely coming no matter what. I'm not saying it was released for that reason (and yes, I do think it was deliberately released) but governments worldwide certainly took full advantage of the chaos and uncertainty to pull off all kinds of devious projects that they had on the back burner. Look at how effective Covid was at ending the democracy movement in Hong Kong, for example. Massive overhang of inflation? No problem!
“ Each Javelin round costs $80,000, and the idea that it's fired by a guy who doesn't make that in a year at a guy who doesn't make that in a lifetime is somehow so outrageous it almost makes the war seem winnable.”
Unfortunately, terror finds it's ways regardless of what the attacked country does or doesn't do.
Can you explain for example why the Yemenis are closing the shipping passage near Yemen?
Isn’t this answer easily findable? It’s a clear response to the aggressive US/IL foreign policy in the area. Here’s an excerpt from an article in late ‘23 -
“The Houthis […] say they are targeting Israel-based ships or vessels headed to Israel. They are attacking ships as they cross the strait of Bab el-Mandeb, connecting the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden.
The Red Sea hostilities are part of a pattern of Middle East attacks from Iranian-backed groups against the U.S. and Israel in response to the Israel-Hamas war.”
It's in part because the military doesn't buy stuff from China.
The companies that make the parts for those missiles (not just the mega corp whose badge is on it) are likely only in business because they make the parts for it, and employ 20-200 people with decent pay and full benefits in Corn County, Midwest to do it.
On the surface it looks like enormous waste, it still might be, but understand that the defense budget is primarily a jobs program and basically only thing propping up Americans manufacturing.
This is why it never gets cut, but anyone red or blue. It employs way to many people and in way to many places without much good work. Republicans especially hate welfare, but if you can get people to show up and turn screws, they'll happily "waste" money on them.
I live 500yd from one of those companies in the one of the richest and bluest states in the nation. They make buttons and knobs and switches for .mil stuff.
It isn't solely a "welfare for hicks" program like HN likes to portray though I'm sure the dollars go farther in other states.
I mean, there is also the strategic benefit of not having your capacity to wage war in the stranglehold of a potential adversary. Not to say that politicians won't vote for graft that helps their districts, but there is a legitimate argument for employing only Americans in wartime industries.
But yes, that's a big source of the expense. Even on the IT side of things, the government (especially the military) pays sometimes up to 50% more for FedRAMP versions of SaaS products that have their servers based in the US and which are only administered by US citizens.
> Republicans especially hate welfare, but if you can get people to show up and turn screws, they'll happily "waste" money on them.
but only if it's for their doners or major corporate constituents. they're not proposing WPA public works or getting the average man out working on solar panels
“primarily a jobs program and basically only thing propping up Americans manufacturing”
Not just a jobs program, but it is strategically important to national security to retain the ability to manufacture military hardware (or at least along with allies)
It’s unfortunate that means to maximize taxpayer value we have to actually use or sell all those weapons, potentially by initiating or participating in conflicts we otherwise might not have.
I mean it definitely has to be monumental waste. Look at the cost of launching rockets prior to SpaceX versus the cost now which is really a pittance by comparison.
They also arbitrarily reduce numbers and raise unit costs by regulations because weapons bad, though they are dropped asymmetrically on living people anyway. The US isn't incentivizing weapons correctly for them to improve in cost performance.
We're shocked they cost $2 million dollars because until recently they didn't, and it's not because of inflation, it's because private equity has bought up most of the industry, consolidated it, and jacked up prices.
If you are going to blow something up, using these GPS guided smart missiles is actually much cheaper than previous generations of explosive ordinances.
1. You can only use one missile to hit a target. In pre-gps era we would would dozens or hundreds of rounds to ensure one of them destroys the target.
2. You can fire from a safe distance. Using artillery or dropping bombs from an airplane involves physically getting closer to the target. This introduces much more complexity that adds to the overall cost.
3. There is significantly less collateral damage when using a single missile for a target compared to bombing the general direction of the target.
4. We take significantly less risk of casualties when using these missiles.
GPS guidance isn't effective against adversaries with even the most basic electronic warfare capability. Ukraine mostly stopped using those systems years ago due to Russian jamming / spoofing. But other precision guidance mechanisms remain at least somewhat effective.
Modern and historic cruise missiles mostly use dead reckoning navigational tactics and check these against terrain maps in software.
This is why they famously flew them over Iran when they bombed Iran in '91. The software wasn't yet good enough to be sufficiently assured there wouldn't be some error/drift over the fairly featureless desert resulting in some small fraction of the missiles getting confused and landing in the middle of nowhere Saudi Arabia or something.
Except that because of all those things, the government is more likely to use it so the "it's cheaper!" argument doesn't hold water.
The comparison is not between "do it without smart bombs and drones" vs "do it with smart bombs and drones" and the former costing more.
The comparison is between "if we didn't have the smart bombs and drones, we wouldn't have done anything because whatever it was wouldn't have been worth the cost in money and American lives" versus "we spent a million dollars blowing up some stuff because we could do it on the cheap and with no risk."
On a broader scale the US's involvemnt in the foreign affairs of other nations skyrocketed when we went from having volunteer armed forces to a "professional" armed forces. Ike predicted as much in his rant about the military-industrial complex.
Except WW1, WW2, Korea and Vietnam were all very costly and direct engagements. US involvement in foreign affairs skyrocketed because WW1/WW2 destroyed Europe and created a power vacuum that we were eager to fill. If we didn't have these smart bombs we would just be involved in fewer but more bloody global conflicts.
> I've found it somewhat interesting that we'll be shocked at a fire truck, which gets a life time of 15-25 years and works in the service exclusively of saving lives, costs around $2 million, but not be shocked that we effectively use something as expensive as a fire truck as a single round in a gigantic gun.
Isn't military spending and the corruption of the government military industrial complex one of the oldest gripes in the American public forum? People sure are outraged about it, or were[1] -- has that become passe now?
[1] "The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement." -- Eisenhower 1953
It didn't really take off until WW2--Eisenhower warned us of the military-industrial complex in his last days in office, but chickened out of of military-industrial-congressional complex at the last minute apparently.
There was no real standing Army until WW2 since it's against the Constitution. That's why the Marines (part of the Navy) were all over the place supporting US business interests, but not draining the public purse too heavily (look up Smedly Butler for a good read)
> There was no real standing Army until WW2 since it's against the Constitution.
This isn’t true. Firstly it isn’t against the Constitution to maintain a standing Army. What the Constitution says in Article I, Section 8, Clause 12 is “The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years...”
The people drafting the Constitution knew that a standing army could be abused by a tyrant, but having served in the Continental Army also knew how vital a standing Army was to maintain peace. That’s why they designed it so Congress controls the purse strings and authorises military spending only for 2 years at a time. The executive may give the orders, but there’s a time limit on the Army he can give orders to.
And the second part - the US has had a standing Army since 1796. You remember Robert E Lee resigning from the Army to join the Confederacy? If there was no standing Army, what did he resign from?
But even leaving aside these two historical facts, think about it logically. Throughout history military advantage has always been with the better trained, more experienced troops. Even if you rely on conscripts in a war, they need to be trained and led by professionals. Saying a standing army shouldn’t exist is like firing all your firefighters and saying you’ll start hiring when someone reports a fire.
I think if Ike was shown that the military industrial complex had prevented the occurrence of WWIII for nearly 80 years while maintaining economic growth and quality of life for US citizens, he would have withdrawn his reservations. He, above all, knew the alternatives.
I don't think so. He was not against military or peace through force, quite the opposite. The warning was about corruption and undue influence that corporations have on matters of weapons and wars.
> Not to say that fire trucks don't potentially cost too much
The only place in the entire world where fire trucks cost that much is North America, and it’s not because there’s anything inherently special about trucks made there.
> I don't think most people are really aware of the obscene costs of military conflicts.
Would those costs still be obscene if you were in a conflict where you’d want to use a significant number of them? Right now they’re expensive because they’re essentially just sitting around.
Speaking of Javelin missiles, mentioned upthread. In 2022, when the war in Ukraine erupted, the small stock of Javelins which the NATO countries were able to provide was spent in like first several months. After that, $300 drones carrying a $1000 armor-piercing round started to dominate the battlefield, leading to terrible losses in Russian armor, especially the newest and most expensive tanks. Similarly, having lost a number of advanced and expensive aircraft, and watching advanced and expensive cruise missiles mostly shot down during airstrikes, Russian forces turned to expendable drones imported from Iran (!) and expendable rockets imported from North Korea (!!).
In other terms, Protoss-type technology works well when you have a large advantage and need to deal a decisive blow; an example would be B-2s bombing the Iran nuclear facilities. But when you're in a protracted conflict against a capable adversary, Zerg-type technology, cheap, flimsy, and truly massively produced, seems to be indispensable.
It’s interesting to see both kinds of drones in Ukraine as well. Ukrainian drones are built for €300 or so and they’re staggeringly effective. “Western” drones as made by Helsing and other companies cost several thousand. While they may have more features, it’s not clear that they’re doing 10x more damage than the Ukrainian ones.
Ukraine plans to buy 4.5 drones in 2025. They’re definitely going with volume over software features. Further they’re allowing frontline drone regiments to earn “points” based on kills and using the points to buy their own drones instead of allocating them top down. The regiments appear to be favouring the cheap drones over expensive ones like the Helsing HF-1.
What’s interesting is that European governments are probably going to end up buying tens of thousands of the expensive drones because the laundry list of features, rather than investing in true mass production like the Ukrainians have. Going the Protoss way, rather than Zerg.
€300 drones are anti-personal ones. They unable to penetrate tank armor except when tank is abandoned and sits open. Drones in current generation are 10x more expensive even when produced in Ukraine.
This is largely incorrect. The USA has supplied Javelins steadily throughout the war, including 2022. Eg, the 1000 announced at the start of June that year [1]. Moreover they were far from Ukraine's only ATGMs in 2022. You're ignoring NLAWs and Stugna-P which certainly weren't 'spent in the first several months'. BGM-71 TOWs were supplied from the middle of the year.
The war in 2022 was primarily an artillery war. Drones were in use, but the dominance you describe came later.
No economy of scale. The cost to build one car is ~$100 million. The cost to build the second one is ~$20K. The only reason you can buy a car for $40K is because they build millions of them to spread the initial investment. The military buys missiles in units of 100s and there are no other buyers, so the cost per missile is massive.
Those contracts are put out for competitive bids. Profit margins for defense contractors aren't very high. The prices are driven by a combination of strict requirements, lack of economies of scale, and legal compliance with government mandated processes.
Consolidation of defense prime contractors was inevitable due to budgetary realities and the escalating complexity of major programs. It's unlikely that keeping a bunch of small, weak companies around would have produced better results for the military or taxpayers.
If the defense contractors figured they could get away with those costs, at higher volume? Hell, yes.
If the U.S. still had it's own (gov't-owned, gov't-operated) production facilities - as, historically, every A List nation has had - to provide honest competition? Hell, no.
Unlikely. The complexity of major defense programs has increased by orders of magnitude since WWII. Running a small-arms ammunition factory is one thing, but the notion of the government acting as it's own prime contactor for something like the Tomahawk program is just absurd and totally impractical.
> ... notion of the government acting as it's own prime contactor for something like the Tomahawk program is just absurd and totally impractical.
The small-arms ammo was just their MVP for 1777. By the late 1950's, the government was building stuff like this in it's own (gov't-owned, gov't-operated) shipyard:
I'm thinking that a Tomahawk has rather fewer parts, from fewer subcontractors, than a >60,000-ton aircraft carrier. And doesn't take multiple years of continuous work to build, either.
Nah. The complete Tomahawk weapons system is far more complex than a WWII era aircraft carrier. Beyond the missile itself there's an "iceberg" under the surface. The software alone is huge and requires major ongoing work from several defense contractors covering multiple embedded systems, mission planning, telemetry, launch platform integration (multiple different classes of surface ships and submarines, plus now ground launchers again), testing, etc. Plus customized builds for each of the export customers. You probably have no idea what actually goes into making this all work with an extremely high level of reliability.
Axiom: While, in the past, gov't organizations were quite capable of performing the largest, most complex, and most critical technological tasks that society faced, things are somehow Different Now - and only non-gov't organizations (very preferably for-profit corporations) are now capable of such things.
But what is actually Different Now is this: Our ruling classes de facto decided to reduce the gov't's core competency in a part of national security - because outsourcing those capabilities to for-profit org's was far more lucrative for them, and the nation seemed secure enough that they didn't much care about the downsides.
Humans are very responsive to their social environments, and its structure and unwritten rules. Setting the "Non-corporate" bit on the org that a human works for does not magically reduce what they are capable of. Linus Torvalds actually is the creator and BDFL of Linux. Even though he is an individual human - not a corporation, nor a secret front for one. The mathematicians who completed the classification of finite simple groups ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_finite_simpl... ) over decades and centuries completed that massive task while generally working individually or in small groups, for wide array of colleges and universities.
Well that's your opinion. But so far we haven't seen any evidence that governments are able to build complex software as well as private industry. So I think we'll stick with the current approach.
Amusingly, a decent part of the cost is to produce parts in different congressional districts as bribes for the votes. It's not that the parts are really needed for national defense (because we'd want them built in the best place) but that they're needed for national defense funding approval.
Ruzzians launched 10000+ missiles. Some estimate they are spending roughly $900m per day on the war. 1250+ days. Can only imagine how they could enhance their old underdeveloped infrastructure with all that money. But instead they are terrorizing their neighbors.
Length of time from end of WWI (the war to end all wars, remember) to start of WWII (the next war) was 20 years and 9 months. To quote the late Tom Lehrer, “we taught them a lesson in 1918 and they’ve hardly bothered us since then”.
Length of time from the end of WWII (ending with two ideological opponents, victors who saw the fruits of victory, a ramped up industrial base focused on armaments and a devastated landscape of Europe and Asia to fight on) to WWIII is 79 years, 10 months and counting. No one reading this site has experienced a World War (and if you did, I’d like to shake your hand). Whatever keeps that counter ticking over have been, and are, dollars well-spent.
A bit like keeping your hand raised to keep elephants away from your US house (well, it’s worked so far). But the alternative is just…unacceptable.
another perspective is that WW1 hasn't ended, and ww2 was actually WW1. Even now, if you look at the Ukrainian conflict from an economic perspective, it's a continuation of the same conflicts of ww1
Not quite. WW1, and its continuation WW2, was a fight between Germanic states on one side vs. Britain and France on the other side. The fight ended (it really ended!!!) when two powerful outsiders (US and USSR) invaded and split the European continent.
What is happening now in the Ukraine is a result of a gross miscalculation without any grounding in reality (no, NATO was not going to attack Russia). The war in the Ukraine is not a leftover from WW2.
I found it surprising that regular, dumb 155mm artillery rounds cost 4-5k apiece. Imagine the kind of drones you can build for that much in Ukraine. No wonder drone warfare is taking off so fast.
Tomahawk missiles have a ton of tech and software inside, can fly for 1000 miles, and are also basically a jobs program for Americans in many different states.
I came to this realization when learning about someone driving a car into a building to do damage and thinking "wow, that's an expensive round", then looking it up and realizing, it's not actually that expensive compared to how much military projectiles really do cost.
I've found it somewhat interesting that we'll be shocked at a fire truck, which gets a life time of 15-25 years and works in the service exclusively of saving lives, costs around $2 million, but not be shocked that we effectively use something as expensive as a fire truck as a single round in a gigantic gun.
Not to say that fire trucks don't potentially cost too much, nor that military weapons aren't worth it. More that I don't think most people are really aware of the obscene costs of military conflicts.