• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Europe under extreme duress

Flash said:
Actually, helping ensure that the civil society in Ukraine keeps running during the war is in our national security interest, as it helps them to keep flighting off the Russian invasion of their country and prevents them from expanding the war to other countries.
Click to expand...
Maybe as a third or fourth order effect. If we are serious about them winning the war (whatever that objectively means) and not involving Russia in a never ending quagmire, then we should have given them more capability faster. We've rolled out HIMARS, ATACMS, Storm Shadow/SCALP cruise missiles, Bradleys, Abrams, and now Vipers as we blew past multiple "red lines".

On the other hand, ensuring that our domestic civil society keeps running directly impacts our national security interests and there are plenty of vulnerabilities that could be mitigated with that money here at home. Just one man's opinion.
 
Brett327 said:
Like poverty?
Click to expand...
I was thinking we could start with a couple tangible things like border security, critical infrastructure decay, industrial base revitalization (ships would be a good place to start), and cybersecurity. Once we have those licked, we can move on to the wicked problems like poverty, hunger, and parity in the NFL.

Edit: I've been on a DAU kick recently so apologies for the buzzword salad.
 
WhiskeySierra6 said:
On the other hand, ensuring that our domestic civil society keeps running directly impacts our national security interests and there are plenty of vulnerabilities that could be mitigated with that money here at home. Just one man's opinion.
Click to expand...

Sounds great, but knowing our government, if they had the opportunity to do that, they still wouldn't.
 
WhiskeySierra6 said:
On the other hand, ensuring that our domestic civil society keeps running directly impacts our national security interests and there are plenty of vulnerabilities that could be mitigated with that money here at home. Just one man's opinion.
Click to expand...
It's not zero-sum. The federal government has enough money to do both, it just may not have the political will to do both.
 
number9 said:
It's not zero-sum. The federal government has enough money to do both, it just may not have the political will to do both.
Click to expand...
Last time I checked, we have an incredible amount of debt that requires us to spend more on interest than defense, and absolute best case scenario is that it *only* doubles in the next decade. But sure, let's just keep thinking we have plenty of money for every wish list item and keep adding all kinds of new things to our budget without even discussing what we're going to cut.
 
Last edited:
number9 said:
It's not zero-sum. The federal government has enough money to do both, it just may not have the political will to do both.
Click to expand...
Not really. It has the ability to print more money. If you add in "stop printing more money" then it becomes zero sum.

sevenhelmet said:
Sounds great, but knowing our government, if they had the opportunity to do that, they still wouldn't.
Click to expand...
I wholeheartedly agree with you. I'm going to keep pointing it out when they have the opportunity and choose to do something else. Metaphorically speaking. I not naive enough to believe anyone that could move the needle is listening.
 
WhiskeySierra6 said:
I was thinking we could start with a couple tangible things like border security, critical infrastructure decay, industrial base revitalization (ships would be a good place to start), and cybersecurity. Once we have those licked, we can move on to the wicked problems like poverty, hunger, and parity in the NFL.

Edit: I've been on a DAU kick recently so apologies for the buzzword salad.
Click to expand...
What do you think of the proposition that the resources we've put into Ukraine's military brings high return on investment WRT the significant effect it has had on the military capacity of NATO's primary threat? In terms of costs imposed on Russia vs risk to US and NATO, the conventional wisdom is that it's money well spent. Thoughts?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top