BF2S Forums Why are we involved in Libya?

Doesn't always progress technology. If it is like world war 1 or 2 where your opponent you can consider an equal or worthy then it is going to be productive in advancing. There isn't too much advancing in a war like Iraq or Afghanistan.

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

War is extremely productive.

If it was true that it is a complete disaster for everybody involved then we wouldnt be involved in multiple conflicts already. Yes I am aware that people die and know personally how that feels but that doesnt change the fact that wars progress technology at an otherwise unprecedented rate (no not the only benefit but the most difficult to dispute).

No, it's not. You might see an increase in productivity because of a war but it's at the expense of consumer spending and debt. This is why Keynes whole 'start a war to get out of a recession' logic is fundamentally flawed, at least in the way that it's interpreted by the general populace. This is also why war is always followed by recession. The debt finally comes due.

Now, as for technological advancement. There's no way to prove that those same technologies would not have come about regardless of war. Personally, I don't think the loss of millions of lives during WWII was a good tradeoff for speeding up rocketry and nuclear studies. Both of those technologies already existed prior to the war and were on their way forward with or without it.

Final point: Do you get a return on your investment when you drop a million dollar bomb? Perhaps if you are building an empire and that bomb brings about future tax revenue. Otherwise it has the same return that taking a million dollar bill and burning it would have.

If you are a member of the Military Industrial Complex you are a leech feeding off the taxpayer. You provide no net benefit to society. You create no jobs. You create no wealth. Just like any other arm of the government, you are simply redirecting wealth, not taking part in creation. The same holds true for anything being supported by tax dollars.

Shocking wrote:

Wars generally aren't waged because you want money, they don't make money either. Agree with Jay on that, calling them leeches though? Wouldn't go that far, but perhaps that view has to do with the insane military spending budget of the US.

A reasonable defense force does serve a purpose. Common defense happens to be one of the two foundational structures of government (the other being a system of justice).

Leech is a rather fitting word for government spending. It may seem harsh, but it's true. Basically, any job 'created' by government comes at the expense of at least one job in the private sector. This includes the pay of a soldier, or an artist, or a military contractor. It doesn't really matter what the job 'created' is. Why? Because the government does not generate any wealth of its own (printing money does not create wealth) so it must tax the private sector to 'create' these jobs. Point is, no matter how justified the spending is on the part of the government, it comes at the expense of the taxpayer and private sector jobs. So, the bigger your public-non-wealth-generating-sector, the smaller your wealth generating sector. Make sense?

Jay wrote:

The same holds true for anything being supported by tax dollars.

even public education?

Turquoise wrote:

Jay wrote:

The same holds true for anything being supported by tax dollars.

even public education?

You mean publicly funded daycare? I think the return on that investment is much lower than most people imagine. Think of how many adults you know that can barely multiply or divide. What skills did they learn in school that they use in their daily lives? Aside from the social ones, not very much. This is, of course, not universal, but when the number of people that tune into American Idol on a given night outnumbers the number of people that purchase books on an annual basis do you really feel that the money spent on education is worthwhile on the whole?

And no, I'm not advocating abolishing public education. It just needs to be thought of without the luster of idealism.

Ilocano wrote:

Jay wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

even public education?

You mean publicly funded daycare? I think the return on that investment is much lower than most people imagine. Think of how many adults you know that can barely multiply or divide. What skills did they learn in school that they use in their daily lives? Aside from the social ones, not very much. This is, of course, not universal, but when the number of people that tune into American Idol on a given night outnumbers the number of people that purchase books on an annual basis do you really feel that the money spent on education is worthwhile on the whole?

And no, I'm not advocating abolishing public education. It just needs to be thought of without the luster of idealism.

Ahem.  Asians.

Despite my engineering background, my wife's medical background, and my eldest son most likely being valedictorian, we watch American Idol and Dancing with the Stars.

You poor bastard.

Ilocano wrote:

Jay wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

even public education?

You mean publicly funded daycare? I think the return on that investment is much lower than most people imagine. Think of how many adults you know that can barely multiply or divide. What skills did they learn in school that they use in their daily lives? Aside from the social ones, not very much. This is, of course, not universal, but when the number of people that tune into American Idol on a given night outnumbers the number of people that purchase books on an annual basis do you really feel that the money spent on education is worthwhile on the whole?

And no, I'm not advocating abolishing public education. It just needs to be thought of without the luster of idealism.

Ahem.  Asians.

Despite my engineering background, my wife's medical background, and my eldest son most likely being valedictorian, we watch American Idol and Dancing with the Stars.

And oh, bought 5 physical books and 10 e-books in the last 30 days.

Maybe I listen to too much liberal radio, but I remember since back before foriegn reporters were even let in, people were saying that the UN should intervene. Now that we have a coalition doing something to stop the full scale war that's blown up everyone is getting scared. What did people think was going to happen if we waited as long as we did to see what would happen? Gadaffi should have been assassinated months ago.

Turquoise wrote:

Jay wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

even public education?

You mean publicly funded daycare? I think the return on that investment is much lower than most people imagine. Think of how many adults you know that can barely multiply or divide. What skills did they learn in school that they use in their daily lives? Aside from the social ones, not very much. This is, of course, not universal, but when the number of people that tune into American Idol on a given night outnumbers the number of people that purchase books on an annual basis do you really feel that the money spent on education is worthwhile on the whole?

And no, I'm not advocating abolishing public education. It just needs to be thought of without the luster of idealism.

Well, the American design of public education might be flawed, but the concept itself works quite well for a lot of countries.  Finland is a good example.

you do know there are Finns on this forum, right? take finray for example . . .

Turquoise wrote:

Jay wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

even public education?

You mean publicly funded daycare? I think the return on that investment is much lower than most people imagine. Think of how many adults you know that can barely multiply or divide. What skills did they learn in school that they use in their daily lives? Aside from the social ones, not very much. This is, of course, not universal, but when the number of people that tune into American Idol on a given night outnumbers the number of people that purchase books on an annual basis do you really feel that the money spent on education is worthwhile on the whole?

And no, I'm not advocating abolishing public education. It just needs to be thought of without the luster of idealism.

Well, the American design of public education might be flawed, but the concept itself works quite well for a lot of countries.  Finland is a good example.

Does the fact that the UN has rated them the highest educated group of people on the planet changed their standing? No. Does what they learned in school matter to the average Finn on a daily basis? No. Does a line worker in a Nokia factory have to understand trigonometry?

Education is mostly a waste of time and effort but how else are you going to wile away the 8 hours a day spent babysitting other peoples kids for them?

Last edited by Jay (2011-03-23 14:08:49)

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

It's called SEAD: suppression of enemy air defenses. C2 nodes, radars, and air defense sites are common and understood targets when executing that type of mission, which is a subset of DCA: defensive counter-air (ie, NFZ operations).

I don't care how many acronyms you come up with, the basic doctrine is bullshit.

So, to get back to your illogical argument: If Russia were operating a NFZ over the US, then yes, they would need to execute SEAD on our C2 nodes, radars, and air defense sites to proper execute the NFZ.

Never mind no-fly zones, Russia is currently under threat from US nukes, under your theory of pre-emptive self-defense they have the right to suppress your 'defense' network - missile sites, command and control centres, communications networks etc.

Again, you are making illogical leaps. You only apply SEAD in association with other missions, not simply because another country has air defenses. Your lack of understanding of basic military doctrine/concepts is stunning for someone who plays military-themed games.

The doctrine isn't bullshit. It's essential to mission success. Not using SEAD = US in early Vietnam air war.

Your Russia analogy is so remarkably flawed, it's almost impossible to address.

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

Jay wrote:

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

War is extremely productive.

If it was true that it is a complete disaster for everybody involved then we wouldnt be involved in multiple conflicts already. Yes I am aware that people die and know personally how that feels but that doesnt change the fact that wars progress technology at an otherwise unprecedented rate (no not the only benefit but the most difficult to dispute).

No, it's not. You might see an increase in productivity because of a war but it's at the expense of consumer spending and debt. This is why Keynes whole 'start a war to get out of a recession' logic is fundamentally flawed, at least in the way that it's interpreted by the general populace. This is also why war is always followed by recession. The debt finally comes due.

Now, as for technological advancement. There's no way to prove that those same technologies would not have come about regardless of war. Personally, I don't think the loss of millions of lives during WWII was a good tradeoff for speeding up rocketry and nuclear studies. Both of those technologies already existed prior to the war and were on their way forward with or without it.

Final point: Do you get a return on your investment when you drop a million dollar bomb? Perhaps if you are building an empire and that bomb brings about future tax revenue. Otherwise it has the same return that taking a million dollar bill and burning it would have.

If you are a member of the Military Industrial Complex you are a leech feeding off the taxpayer. You provide no net benefit to society. You create no jobs. You create no wealth. Just like any other arm of the government, you are simply redirecting wealth, not taking part in creation. The same holds true for anything being supported by tax dollars.

I agree with you on productivity however you would improve efficiency that you otherwise would not. This would apply to an "even" war rather than a crusading army affair though.

While you cannot prove the technology directly you can see the stark improvements over the course of a sustained conflict. Medicine being a huge example especially in WW1. This rapid technological improvement is not unique to war but always features. Another situation where this applied was during the space race and the resulting technologies that are now in everyday life.

Necessity is the mother of invention

Do you get a return on your investment when you drop a million dollar bomb? No. Do you get a return from all of the research and development involved in creating the bomb and the associate technologies that are spawned from it? I would say so. You also create a highly skilled jobs market to manufacture your million dollar bomb. Neither of which would result from simply burning your money.

That 'highly skilled jobs market' is simply an illusion. They generate no wealth, they simply redistribute wealth from the private sector. If that wealth were redeployed in the private sector it would land in wealth generating industries. The country as a whole would be better off. Why? Because of the nature of government inefficiency, every job generated in a bomb factory would generate 1.5-3 jobs in the private sector. The defense industry is largely nothing more than a parasite.