Global disarming is a good thing until everybody participates without any exceptions. Unfortunatelly there is always someone ready to rebell against any rule.
Ask HN: What can we achieve with 1.6 trillion dollar?
11–20 of 23 posts
Re: Ask HN: What can we achieve with 1.6 trillion dollar?
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do we really achieve more security through excessive military spending though? Arguably, the world's less safe than it was 15 years ago in spite of massively increased defence and security spendings during that time. Now the usual counter-argument to that of course is that it'd be even a lot worse if we hadn't spent so much on defence. However, for instance both the war in Iraq and many of the new airport security me…
That is a totally valid point and one worthy of meaty discussion. It is also unrelated to dismissing military spending wholecloth as nothing but a waste of resources.
> It is also unrelated to dismissing military spending wholecloth as nothing but a waste of resources.
I'm not sure this was the OP's intention.
I see this more as thought experiment in terms of "Mankind doesn't actually lack financial resources.". Ideas and measures that'd improve the quality of life often are bluntly shot down with the argument that we don't have the financial resources for implementing them.
We do have those resources. We just need to use them purposefully.
Re: Ask HN: What can we achieve with 1.6 trillion dollar?
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand and agree with you that the personal price paid by veterans cannot be understated, but I think the OP's thought experiment was free of any slight against the military. He simply asked what such an amount would buy in pursuits not focused on the military.
No. The framing entirely dismisses the military as being of no positive value.
the framing is : what if we can get along, and instead of spending money on the military, spend it elsewhere.
Re: Ask HN: What can we achieve with 1.6 trillion dollar?
#14That military budget does go toward a lot of jobs. How many people work at Lockheed martin, boeing, bae, Raytheon, etc. That is why congressmen keep that spending up because it ends up going to their counties, districts, etc.
Re: Ask HN: What can we achieve with 1.6 trillion dollar?
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. The framing entirely dismisses the military as being of no positive value.
the framing is : what if we can get along, and instead of spending money on the military, spend it elsewhere.
I agree with Mz's reading. The wording "if such amount of money were put in a good use" implies that the current use is not a good use.
Re: Ask HN: What can we achieve with 1.6 trillion dollar?
#16That military budget does go toward a lot of jobs. How many people work at Lockheed martin, boeing, bae, Raytheon, etc. That is why congressmen keep that spending up because it ends up going to their counties, districts, etc.
Another way to look at this problem is, given we are funding an enormous amount of people to figure out to drop bomps more efficiently. What other problems could these people be figuring out, or what other devices could they be building that would have a more tangible effect on our day to day lives.
Re: Ask HN: What can we achieve with 1.6 trillion dollar?
#17Global disarming is a good thing until everybody participates without any exceptions. Unfortunatelly there is always someone ready to rebell against any rule.
It also falls apart if we make first contact and they aren't hippies and it also also falls apart in the face of large wild life not understanding that humans are sacrosanct and you aren't supposed to touch us (meanwhile, we are happy to destroy your habitat and/or kill and eat your kind).
Re: Ask HN: What can we achieve with 1.6 trillion dollar?
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is a totally valid point and one worthy of meaty discussion. It is also unrelated to dismissing military spending wholecloth as nothing but a waste of resources.
> It is also unrelated to dismissing military spending wholecloth as nothing but a waste of resources. I'm not sure this was the OP's intention. I see this more as thought experiment in terms of "Mankind doesn't actually lack financial resources.". Ideas and measures that'd improve the quality of life often are bluntly shot down with the argument that we don't have the financial resources for implementing them. We do…
It may not have been their conscious intent, but it is the implicit assumption behind the question. Otherwise, the question could have been framed differently, such as:
"I think that is excessive and we could readily cut it by 10%, leaving 16 billion (or whatever -- not checking my math here) to put towards other causes. What good could governments do with that amount?"
"We spend X amount on (presumed frivolous expense, such as gold jewelry, haute couture or backyard swimming pools). What might be a better use of those funds if we could convince people to spend it differently?"
Re: Ask HN: What can we achieve with 1.6 trillion dollar?
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. The framing entirely dismisses the military as being of no positive value.
the framing is : what if we can get along, and instead of spending money on the military, spend it elsewhere.
I see that you are the OP. You sound like English is not your first language. So, perhaps you just worded it poorly. But without knowing you well, the only thing I can respond to uis your actual words.
And here is the deeper problem: My remark that you owe veterans an apology has not been responded to by you. In fact, it was downvoted into the negatives and you are like the fifth person to come in here to essentially shoot me down and treat me like I am stupid and do not have a real point.
Meanwhile, you posit "if we could all just get along."
You do not even know how to communicate effectively or engage someone with skin in the game with genuine respect when the only thing at stake is words on a forum. That is your answer as to why military spending is not merely frivolous.
You have a long way to go before you, personally, are in any kind of position to advocate that we all just get along. Perhaps in your journey, you should note that Shaolin priests were fearsome warriors because they believed "A man of peace must be strong."
Re: Ask HN: What can we achieve with 1.6 trillion dollar?
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
the framing is : what if we can get along, and instead of spending money on the military, spend it elsewhere.
I agree with Mz's reading. The wording "if such amount of money were put in a good use" implies that the current use is not a good use.
Thank you. This discussion has been ironic and maddening with multiple people piling on to attack me while implying I am merely too stupid to see that the point is "we come in peace and desire to all just get along."