Pentagon bloat, etc. thread

[O Really]

The nuclear stuff in the article was just one part of the issue of old tech - and probably included as much for shock value as anything else. But take the nukes out of the issue. Do you think they're using old tech because they don't want to upgrade or because upgrades were poorly funded by the budgetary meat-axe approach out of Congress. Just because "military expenditures" didn't go down in total doesn't mean every military function got what they needed.

[Vrede too]

Upgrades don't send enough pork to congressional districts and don't give the status to generals like shiny new toys that aren't needed do.

There's a crossover here with our discussion of manufacturing. We're still really good at making the tools of death. Some are exported for cash, but the lion's share do nothing to improve the lot of average Americans. Rather, they're a drain on our wallets. We'd be doing much better if more of that productive capacity was making stuff that people actually want and need. A dollar invested in almost anything - construction, education, infrastructure, healthcare, etc. - creates lots more jobs than a dollar invested in the military.

[O Really]

Except when military spending is on contracts for construction, training, base infrastructure, food, parts and supplies, programming/hardware consultants, free-spending sailors, yada.

[billy.pilgrim]

Except when military spending is on contracts for construction, training, base infrastructure, food, parts and supplies, programming/hardware consultants, free-spending sailors, yada.

No so, as those items are walked away from way too easily.

[O Really]

Except when military spending is on contracts for construction, training, base infrastructure, food, parts and supplies, programming/hardware consultants, free-spending sailors, yada.

No so, as those items are walked away from way too easily.

What does that mean?

[Vrede too]

Except when military spending is on contracts for construction, training, base infrastructure, food, parts and supplies, programming/hardware consultants, free-spending sailors, yada.

You can't separate things out like that. They don't happen in a vacuum. The studies on military vs. civilian sector spending have been done.

[O Really]

Except when military spending is on contracts for construction, training, base infrastructure, food, parts and supplies, programming/hardware consultants, free-spending sailors, yada.

You can't separate things out like that. They don't happen in a vacuum. The studies on military vs. civilian sector spending have been done.

What's separate? If I'm a construction contractor, I don't care whether the customer is a corporation or the government. And if it's the government, I don't care if it's the DOD or the GAO. I'm still constructing buildings, hiring people, buying materials, and getting paid. And my employees are buying/renting homes, cars, clothing, whatever. Ask some place like Dothan or Ozark, AL how Ft. Rucker affects their economy, and whether it could be readily replaced with something else - or what that something else would be.

I'm not arguing for more/bigger military presence or more weaponry or whatever. I'm just saying that just because the military spends it doesn't make it wasteful when looking at the economy as a whole.

So what do those military vs. civilian sector studies say?

[Vrede too]

You can't separate out construction, for example, from who and what the construction is for and the added spending that goes along with it. If you're constructing an air base, it's inextricably linked to the aircraft (and their costs) that it will serve.

Yes, our pork barrel military spending has benefited some places. That was often the intent, one removed from actual national need. Those places will lose out absent similar "welfare" spending. However, if they got that welfare spending on civilian projects they would do even better. If not, the national "economy as a whole" still does better.

Fewer Jobs, Slower Growth:
Military Spending Drains the Economy

The U.S. Employment Effects of Military and Domestic Spending Priorities: 2011 Update

Military Spending and Jobs: A Quiz

Study: Federal Spending on Defense Doesn’t Create As Many Jobs As Education Spending

Defense Spending Is the Most Expensive Way to Create Jobs
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter costs as much as $8 million for every job created.

Not necessarily the best sources, just the ones on the first page of many when I googled "military vs. civilian spending jobs created".

One can argue that the cost of military spending is worth it, but not that it's good for jobs and the economy.

[O Really]

One can argue that the cost of military spending is worth it, but not that it's good for jobs and the economy.

I didn't get that from the articles. What I got was your original point - that military spending is not as effective as other alternatives and/or that each job is more expensive, and/or that if other spending is cut to provide more for the military that the overall effect will be negative. Nothing I saw, though, supported that military spending in the absolute wasn't good for jobs or the economies where all the spending is. Those studies all seem (upon cursory review) to base their arguments on job-creation alternatives. Taking the approach, "if we didn't spend on the military, we could do X Y and Z and create more jobs." That may very well be true, but it begs the question as to whether money cut from the military really would be used for "education, health care, and clean energy." I would suggest it would not.

I've got no problem accepting the argument that if the first objective is to create jobs and have a positive impact on the economy, then military spending would not be the best choice. I don't accept an argument that says it doesn't create any jobs or doesn't positively affect local economies. Taking a macro look, sure - not so great if the US as a whole is spending more on swords at the expense of the plowshares.

[O Really]

This probably ought to be in the Tree Hugger thread or maybe "When 10,000 Barrels of Oil..." but it seems appropriate in the line of spending, development, jobs, and the total impact on an economic and physical environment. One of my favorites...Zachary Richard.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKxm9q3sKfw

[billy.pilgrim]

Except when military spending is on contracts for construction, training, base infrastructure, food, parts and supplies, programming/hardware consultants, free-spending sailors, yada.

No so, as those items are walked away from way too easily.

What does that mean?

Our domestic infrastructure lasts

Not so with green zones, humvees and other military equipment

[Vrede too]

One can argue that the cost of military spending is worth it, but not that it's good for jobs and the economy *compared to alternatives*. I didn't think I needed to restate it. Of course any spending always creates some jobs.

Other than tax cuts for the rich, maybe, almost any alternative will create more jobs. Either the government would spend the money on other things or the poor and middle class would spend their tax cuts on construction, education, healthcare, consumer goods, etc. that all create more jobs than the military money does.

[O Really]

I'm not sure where you got the idea that we haven't been talking about relative spending benefits all along.

Well at least half of us have been. The other half is trying to talk about a specific issue originally categorized as "waste" by the article's author related to old tech. I still suspect the "waste" of old tech is due to poor funding, not necessarily poor performance of those in charge of IT. Classifying the entire military budget as "waste" may be accurate from a philosophical standpoint, but it's not going away.

[Vrede too]

While you were posting I edited my post and eliminated that sentence.

I said my piece on the article:

If one believes that cats are a waste of fur, the question of whether it's more or less economical to buy brand name litter is as superfluous as rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

You and Wneglia are free to debate the floppy kitty litter disc issue, though.

[Wneglia]

While you were posting I edited my post and eliminated that sentence.

I said my piece on the article:

If one believes that cats are a waste of fur, the question of whether it's more or less economical to buy brand name litter is as superfluous as rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

You and Wneglia are free to debate the floppy kitty litter disc issue, though.

[Vrede too]

Ut-oh, Wneglia's been searching the internet for pics of shaved pussies.

[O Really]

I think that thing must be one of Schrödinger's cats.

[Vrede too]

A third option - alive, dead . . . or most of its hair fell out and wishing it was dead.

I just learned that Schrödinger in the 1930s was attempting to mock what he saw as the absurdity or Quantum Theory. Funny that his scenario has become the gold standard for starting to explain it, which is a little like his cat - until people observed his words they were either attack or defense.

[Vrede too]

U.S. Navy's new $13B aircraft carrier can't fight

The $13-billion USS Gerald R. Ford is already two years behind schedule, and the U.S. Navy's newest aircraft carrier is facing more delays after the Pentagon's top weapons tester concluded the ship is still not ready for combat despite expectations it would be delivered to the fleet this September.

According to a June 28 memo obtained by CNN, Michael Gilmore, the Defense Department's director of operational test and evaluation, said the most expensive warship in history continues to struggle launching and recovering aircraft, moving onboard munitions, conducting air traffic control and with ship self-defense....

Fixing these problems would likely require redesigning the carrier's aircraft launch and recovery systems, according to Gilmore, a process that could result in another delay for a ship that was expected to join the fleet in September 2014....

The report comes just days after the Navy announced the Ford will not be delivered before November 2016 due to unspecified testing issues, walking back testimony from April in which Stackley told Congress the Ford would be ready by September....

Sen. John McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, slammed the latest delay as "unacceptable" and "entirely avoidable" in a statement earlier this month.

"The Ford-class program is a case study in why our acquisition system must be reformed -- unrealistic business cases, poor cost estimates, new systems rushed to production, concurrent design and construction, and problems testing systems to demonstrate promised capability," McCain said.

The USS Gerald Ford is the first of three Ford-class carriers ordered by the Navy with combined cost expected close to $42 billion.
"After more than $2.3 billion in cost overruns have increased its cost to nearly $13 billion, the taxpayers deserve to know when CVN-78 will actually be delivered, how much developmental risk remains in the program, if cost overruns will continue, and who is being held accountable," he added....

Also, its attempts to play golf resulted in unacceptably high numbers of civilian casualties.

On the bright side, its officers' quarters and galley are nice. Maybe the cost overruns could be mitigated by having it double as a hotel.

[O Really]

Lowest bidders...