Microsoft wins $21.9B contract with U.S. Army to supply AR headsets

I broadly agree that we should spend less on our military, but this is untrue on a couple major counts.

Firstly, the US doesn't outspend the rest of the world combined. This is a talking point that started going viral some time in the early 2010's (I think it was on some TV show?), but the statistic is misleading because it compares nominal dollar amounts rather than PPP adjusted dollars. When you do that adjustment, the next 2 countries combined outspend the US[1]. This is important because (1) the personnel in each country are paid in the wages commensurate the cost-of-living of the home country (e.g. the wage for a Chinese soldier is 1/10 the wage of an American soldier in nominal dollars), and (2) military goods aren't global commodities; the US can't procure its equipment from China like it does every other good, it has to procure them either domestically or from allies which are typically high purchasing power countries. A single nominal US dollar goes a lot further in China's or India's military than it does in the US's, and that needs to be accounted for in these comparisons. PPP adjustment isn't perfect in this context, but it's much less wrong and vulnerable to low hanging fruit criticism than simply using nominal amounts.

Secondly, I think the percentage of the Federal budget that's spent on the military is overstated. It's not even close to being the biggest line item; it accounts for 15% of the Federal budget[2], and much much lower than that (about 8%) when you look at military spending as a percentage of total government expenditure across all levels of government. The lion's share of spending today is already healthcare and welfare.

Thirdly, I think that the actual cost of healthcare et al are understated; in FY2019 the US government spent $676 billion on Defense, while the cost of healthcare every year by most estimates amounts to $3 trillion per year. Even if you were to divert the entire military budget to healthcare, you'd have to find $2T somewhere.

While I agree that we should spend less on fighting and war (because I dislike fighting and war), military spending is a convenient scapegoat for other problems, the solutions for which are not so simple.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/gijt81/oc_...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#/...

I used to be exactly like this. Republicans being bad faith actors and then asking democrats for unity is a key example to me of why war is inevitable and it's better to have all the power than no power. You cannot convince these people out of their delusions. We share real space, but have two mutually exclusive realities. We can't agree on masks, we can't agree on vaccinations. We can't agree that science is a higher authority than religious leaders. Half of America was almost "dominated" rather than compromised with. Our own cities were referred to as "battlespaces" and our own people were combatants. The democrats tried to make love (compromise) but failed to prepare for war.

Then on the macro scale, I look at situations like China. China has no problem abusing human rights or acting imperialistically. America built business in china. America thought China would democratize, educate their citizens, and improve human rights abuses as its prosperity went up. In reality power was ceded and now we have both less overall peace and an ambitious highly nationalistic enemy with a weak moral system. Unless China deals with Xi and its nationalism, war is likely inevitable.

How many conversations online have you run into where a person's stance is completely unalterable and a mutual understanding cannot be reached? Expand that idea to world politics. Pretend the issue isn't something trivial, but instead global warming or genocide. Who's side ends up being right? The one with more power.

When you live in a moral system that says "do unto others as you would have done to you," it's easy to fall into the idea of make love, not war... But there are many moral systems, competing on the global stage. "Might makes right" is a moral system, "my culture above all others" is a moral system, "I will do anything to feed myself" is a moral system, "everyone should be made 'equal'" is a moral system, "the most effective competitor should win everything" is a moral system, "what my pastor says is the truth" is a moral system, "the emperor is the incarnation of gods will" is a moral system.

You look at all the resources spent on military and ask "what's the opportunity cost." What's the opportunity cost of losing a war? What's the opportunity cost of ceding power? What's the opportunity cost of competing hegemonies?

The prisoners dilemma is a dilemma. Cooperate is not always the best answer, and if you always choose cooperate when your opponent is defecting, you will lose.

This improvement has seen us hitting the targets like ISIS fighters accurately, rather than flattening the whole city they happened to be in. I'm not in favour of war at all, but as it seems it isn't going away any time soon, more effective and accurate targeting seems to be the way to go.