Hacker News Reader

Comment by 0xDEF | Hacker News Reader

Many of the expensive US military programs are flyover state job creation programs masquerading as weapons programs.

That's like 80% of military spending. It's literally just a massive jobs program that also keeps domestic American manufacturing (somewhat) relevant.

Not even doing a great job of that now that so many subcontractors quietly source from China.

An interesting byproduct of this "massive jobs program" is that it leaves in its wake the most powerful military force in history that can project power over the entire globe, 24/7. In fact the decades-old byproducts of this jobs program can be shipped across the planet and stand their own against the most cutting edge weapon systems that the US's "near-peer" adversaries are capable of fielding just 60 miles from their own border.

Crazy jobs program!

That the US has the most powerful Military force in history was mentioned on a radio program that just happened to be on in the car yesterday and it made me realize how far the US has fallen from its founding ideas of not having a standing army. But what can be done? If not the US, some other power will come in to fill the void.

This is an interesting topic. I don't think many Americans realize that the constitutional basis for the Regular Army (i.e. active duty troops) is pretty weak: Congress is given the power "To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;" From that perspective, it's kind of amazing that we've maintained it for almost 250 years and built it into the world's most capable land warfare service.

With that said, and I say all this as a career US Army officer, I think our advantage in land warfare is much more narrow than our advantages in sea and air power[1]. And the constitution does give Congress the power to simply "provide and maintain a navy;"

[1] For that matter, our Army's greatest advantages probably stem from our sea and air power. We can deploy anywhere in the world and be sustained by sea and air. The Army's own aviation branch is larger and more powerful than the air forces of most other nations, and we are very good at employing air fires.

Whats wrong with ppl downvoting you?

"America sucks... grrrrr" or "the military is bloated, therefore it's bad"

Two memes from people who don't think very hard about the situation.

The older I get the more I wonder if this "most powerful force" is simply to intimidate other nations to using dollars, because if they don't, our currency will lose value and we will implode under our $33T in national debt.

I mean I want to believe as much as the next person that it's to "ensure stability in $REGION" or to "provide aid to starving children" or whatever spin you see from time to time.

I also think that human suffering is a zero-sum game. It's trite to keep repeating it, but in the US, we spend trillions on the military but refuse to pay for our citizens medical needs (or homeless, or other $HUMANITARIAN_THING). It's impossible to measure, but I suspect that the slow, steady burn of our own citizens from this inequality could easily rival the suffering and death from having a skirmish or small war in $DISTANT_REGION.

Brazil and China are trying to transact without dollars. We'll see how that goes.

That would be plausible except that in my experience they are scrambling to hire people. There’s not nearly enough talent. Nobody wants to move to Nebraska or Utah. It would be kind of strange to create extra work in places where there’s already too much work.

> Nobody wants to move to Nebraska or Utah.

I wish nobody wanted to move to UT I could've stayed in the state, but that stupid California money with the stupid tech bros came in and now it's freaking packed.

Somehow I have a hard time picturing a senator, member of Congress, governor or other high-level official turning down a pork barrel project for their state due to some difficulty hitting hiring goals.

I'm don't disagree with you, but all the senator from Nebraska / Utah wants is to advertise the number of jobs he created in the state. Whether they get filled or not is mostly irrelevant.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com