points by t-3 1 day ago | 0 comments
Successful military spending always appears to be "wasted" if you think the point is to use weapons. War means that your defense strategy has failed, peace means that it has succeeded. Never having to use what was stored in those bunkers means that they served their purpose.
[–] dripdry45 1 day ago
[–] bell-cot 1 day ago
Might you have heard the old saw "Any idiot can build a bridge that stands, but it takes an engineer to build a bridge that barely stands"?
Military spending is similar - you want security at the minimum cost.
Unfortunately, military conflicts (real and potential) have vastly more complexity and uncertainty than the gravity, wind, traffic loads, etc. that a bridge has to withstand. And even a nation's best experts (generally its senior military officers) generally have motives at odds with minimum-cost security for their nation.
[–] shilgapira 1 day ago
No snark intended, but if you see his point then you do seem to buy his argument
It’s the same insanity gun owners use justifying bringing weapons everywhere they go.
I simply don’t buy the argument, though I do see your point about deterrence