• @0110010001100010@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      75
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      So you want Russia to become more powerful by conquering Ukraine?

      This is a US wet dream, we shut down Putin without a single US causality. Not to mention we get field-testing of weapons that have never been deployed on a battlefield.

      This is a win, win, win for the US to keep funding Ukraine even outside the fact that we are helping a country fight-back against a maniac dictator.

    • @remotelove@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      52
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      You really don’t know how our military industrial complex works, do you?

      We are sending very little cash to Ukraine. Most of the money goes to our workers, in our country, to replenish our stockpiles. It would cost magnitudes more to refurbish our own rapidly aging stockpiles, if that can even be done at all. Explosive compounds degrade, and our missiles are even only rated for a certain number of flight hours before they have to be replaced.

      Our stockpiles across Europe are a prime example of this. We have warehouses filled with different vehicles that are just sitting around collecting dust. Rubber seals and hoses are degrading and metal is rusting. It needs to get used for what it was built and stored for in the first place: A war with Russia.

      Ukraine has a vast supply of resources. Not only do they supply a huge portion of the world with grain, they are sitting on massive natural gas reserves. If you think for a second that we won’t benefit from that after this conflict is over, you are very much mistaken. Did you notice how simple instant ramen prices have been increasing lately? That is one tiny window into some of the much more major implications of letting Russia have their way.

      Stop screaming that ignorant rhetoric. It’s not a good look. It’s almost like you were told to parrot that line from a politician or something.

      While I am 100% behind US support for Ukraine, I have mixed feelings about Israel. The only thing that country is good for is a strategic position for us in the event of another war in the middle east, which seems to always boil down to oil anyway. I don’t want to get into the political bullshit about that conflict, but I am just pointing out it’s strategic benefit here.

      • @HerrBeter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        37 months ago

        It would be as easy to support Israel too if they didn’t do the indiscriminate bombings and the like

      • @Wahots
        link
        English
        07 months ago

        Israel has a number of high-tech products, cyberweapons, some cutting edge stuff such as anti-missile DE (Direct Energy/laser weapons). Cyber security firms, too, some of the best outside of the new axis countries. Those also protect businesses worldwide. They also have nukes, which we (the world) really really don’t want hamas or Islamic jihad getting their hands on for obvious reasons.

        If you want anti-nuke missile shields, outside of the US, Israel is probably the best candidate. Since their neighbors are always shooting rockets and artillery at their cities, they have a near perfect success rate. Iron Eye is their latest DE project, which was rushed out after hamas attacked. Although I hesitate to call new weapons “good”, DE is great because it only uses electricity and doesn’t leave unexploded AA/anti-munition warheads lying around if one fails to detonate. It also doesn’t mean we are wasting $20k+ per AA missile.

        We have DE ship guns in testing, as well as a DE Stryker, but either we are pretty quiet on the details, or we just don’t have general missile shield tech yet. Definitely want them as allies as climate change and stupid decisions like the one child policy will further destabilize authoritarian countries. China is below replacement rate for population, severely skewed towards young men with few young women, and anti-immigrant with an aging population. People are going get desperate as droughts make more areas unlivable or not farmable. And as we saw with Russia, war distracts the population when your country is going to shit and the dictator wants to keep power. I hope that people follow logic and prioritize science, but so far, common sense seems scarce.

    • @MrFappy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      397 months ago

      If our money doesn’t go there now, our troops’ lives will continue the fight in the future.

      • @Wahots
        link
        English
        97 months ago

        Not to mention many European countries and countless civilian lives. Russia doesn’t give a shit about even the thin veneer of conventions.

    • Silverseren
      link
      fedilink
      267 months ago

      Any war with Russia is our war, as they’ve been actively trying to harm democracy across the world, including buying off our major politicians in this country.

      • Hyperreality
        link
        fedilink
        10
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Not questioning your intentions, but that’s a false dilemna. Common logical fallacy, often used rhetorical device.

        Reality: the US doesn’t have to choose between healthcare and military spending. The US spends more on healthcare per capita than any other high income country.

        That means the US could spend less on healthcare, spend significantly more on defense, still have better healthcare than you do now AND save money doing so.

        It’s a bit like brexit. UK politicians found it useful to blame foreign governments and the EU, as it helped distract from domestic corruption and profiteering.

        In fact Boris Johnson promised the UK £350 million a week for the healthcare system in the run-up to the brexit referendum, pushing a similar false dilemna. UK voters were told that they had to choose between EU membership or funding their healthcare system. Of couse, after brexit voters ended up with neither. It was a lie.

        Surprisingly common rhetoric device. Eg. quite common when discussing the green transition and the economy/jobs. People are told by fossil fuel interest groups that they have to choose between saving the environment or saving the economy/jobs. In reality, the World Economic Forum suggest that the green transition would create millions of jobs, not cost jobs.

    • BarqsHasBite
      link
      fedilink
      English
      37 months ago

      But please continue buying our weapons since we are the biggest weapons exporter on the planet.