Meanwhile in Iraq & Syria

[Okeefenokee]

Designing bombs, building bombs, exploding bombs, repeat, is the best stimulus plan out there.

But actually fighting wars, is bad for that business, because operations are exponentially more expensive, without actually buying any product, so what happens is, the capital budget gets cut to pay for the troops, which is not stimulus, production is a profit center, but actual operations are a liability, the MIC wants production, but then don't ever use the kit, just train with it, and then replace it every decade or so, that's why the Cold War frontline in Europe was the greatest thing to ever happen to the MIC, the most military spending in the history of the world, more than WWI and WWII combined, but no actual war, the entire war was fought by industrial production, without ever firing a shot.

The biggest military cost, by far, is personnel, when you go to war, personnel costs go through the roof, and in order to pay for that, you cut R&D and production, the days of industrial wars are over, it's a "come as you are war" now, and that means that war no longer equals production, so Semi-War as Bacevich would say, a military confrontation, where you never actually fight, but just replace the hardware on scheduled interval as it is rendered "obselete", that's really where the money is, furiously preparing to fight, without ever actually fighting, as actually fighting, simply diverts costs to software and away from hardware, and human software, is not a profit center.

Which is the lesson lost on people who fall for the lie that wars are profitable. Wars are profitable to those selling arms but not taking part. That's the bread and butter where past American leaders knew what was going on.

[Okeefenokee]

Designing bombs, building bombs, exploding bombs, repeat, is the best stimulus plan out there.

But actually fighting wars, is bad for that business, because operations are exponentially more expensive, without actually buying any product, so what happens is, the capital budget gets cut to pay for the troops, which is not stimulus, production is a profit center, but actual operations are a liability, the MIC wants production, but then don't ever use the kit, just train with it, and then replace it every decade or so, that's why the Cold War frontline in Europe was the greatest thing to ever happen to the MIC, the most military spending in the history of the world, more than WWI and WWII combined, but no actual war, the entire war was fought by industrial production, without ever firing a shot.

The biggest military cost, by far, is personnel, when you go to war, personnel costs go through the roof, and in order to pay for that, you cut R&D and production, the days of industrial wars are over, it's a "come as you are war" now, and that means that war no longer equals production, so Semi-War as Bacevich would say, a military confrontation, where you never actually fight, but just replace the hardware on scheduled interval as it is rendered "obselete", that's really where the money is, furiously preparing to fight, without ever actually fighting, as actually fighting, simply diverts costs to software and away from hardware, and human software, is not a profit center.

Has the professor weighed in on any of this in the past year?

[Okeefenokee]

Serious question. If shuffling money around is good for the country, why does it matter where the money goes? Why does it matter if the money goes to the troops or the tanks? If a ton of stimulus for R&D is good why isn't a (a ton of stimulus)^2 for the troops even better?

It doesn't matter, if you work for Lockheed. However it does, if you think that society serves more of a purpose than perpetual war. We could use that shit for new infrastructure etc.

Developments in small bridge technology are not a lucrative field. That shit was figured out a century ago. Intercepting super sonic missiles continues to be a thriving market as rocket technology advances.

[Okeefenokee]

Serious question. If shuffling money around is good for the country, why does it matter where the money goes? Why does it matter if the money goes to the troops or the tanks? If a ton of stimulus for R&D is good why isn't a (a ton of stimulus)^2 for the troops even better?

There are models where countries would be better off spending money on troops, and those countries have massive armies, it's basically a direct jobs program, you just give people a military job, but the US economy is all about tech and industry, and 99% of Americans do not want to serve, so the jobs/stimulus program is tailored to the American paradigm, more tech, less troops, more tech jobs, less troop jobs, tech stimulus, not troop stimulus.

That's why we haven't had a draft for the past half century of military adventurism.

[Okeefenokee]

They don't call me MC MIC for nothin', honey.

No one calls you that Mr Trump.

[Smitty-48]

Wars are profitable to those selling arms but not taking part.

It's a big myth that military sales are "hugely profitable", the margin on weapon sales is nothing to write home about, 10-12% on average, people conflate revenue with profit, but it ain't the same thing.

Military weapons are hugely expensive public sector boondoggles, but you wont make it from rags to riches on the margin.

Observe...

Operating profit margin;

Lockheed Martin; 12%

Disney Corporation; 35%

Coca-Cola; 40%

Dunkin Donuts; 50%

To wit, you'd make a hell of a lot more profits off of American fat people than you would off of American warfighters, make no mistake.

[Okeefenokee]

Wars are profitable to those selling arms but not taking part.

It's a big myth that military sales are "hugely profitable", the margin on weapon sales is nothing to write home about, 10-12% on average, people conflate revenue with profit, but it ain't the same thing.

Military weapons are hugely expensive public sector boondoggles, but you wont make it from rags to riches on the margin.

Observe...

Operating profit margin;

Lockheed Martin; 12%

Disney Corporation; 35%

Coca-Cola; 40%

Dunkin Donuts; 50%

To wit, you'd make a hell of a lot more profits off of American fat people than you would off of American warfighters, make no mistake.

You know the answer. Why doesn't everyone then go into the selling donuts business then?

[Smitty-48]

You know the answer. Why doesn't everyone then go into the selling donuts business then?

Who says they don't? I own Lockheed, Disney, Coke, and Dunkin Donuts.

[Montegriffo]

Do you think it seems plausible that after Assad leveled Allepo and has all but defeated ISIS and the rebels, that he would then resort to a chemical attack to kill about a hundred people and draw the ire of the rest of the world? Because it doesn't seem plausible to me.

He's walking into the endzone with not much opposition left on the field. Why break out gas at the end of the fight when conventional munitions have been doing the job the whole time?

Chemical weapons work not because they kill the most people but because they spread the most terror.
Has no one considered the fact that Assad felt emboldened to use chemical weapons as a result of being supported by the only major power in the field whilst having an American president who stated he was not going to get involved in the ME any more.
I think Trump's military advisers managed to convince him that unless he made a stand his isolationist stance could lead to a lot more of this happening and in fact a red line needed to be drawn.

[Smitty-48]

I think Trump's military advisers managed to convince him that unless he made a stand his isolationist stance could lead to a lot more of this happening and in fact a red line needed to be drawn.

I seriously doubt that, because there's nothing military about it, a purely political stunt, this is Trump & Co saying they need a Monica Lewinski distraction drill, and then the military having to salute, plan and execute it for them on orders.

The military adviser doesn't try to "convince" the President to do anything anyways, the President says he wants to do something, then it is the role of the military adviser to lay out options by which the military would be able to fulfill the Commander-in-Chief's intent.

Trump is an opportunist who operates on emotion and instinct, the impetus to "do soemthing!" here came straight from the horses mouth, this was Trump saying he wants to "do something!", and the miltiary trying to translate his knee jerk desire into something operationally viable in the field.

I'd bet that Trump said "I want to launch a strike here, we can't be seen to be wussing out like Obama, but I don't want to get dug into an actual war", to which the military advisers said "well, Mr. President, we could launch cruise missiles as a firepower demonstration, but rig it so that nobody actually gets killed by targeting them peripherally, and warning the Russians that it was going to happen beforehand..."

If the military was in a position to try to convince, they would say "do, or do not, either we should strike for operational reasons, and strike hard, or we shouldn't strike at all", but since it is not their job to convince, they would just give the President options based on what he said he wanted to do, and the only real option for a political phony war stunt, is firepower demonstration.