this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
514 points (95.2% liked)
World News
32378 readers
492 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Is this actual money in this case or is this more designated monetary amounts of goods, ie the worth of the guns and tanks and other things we've been giving them that were just collecting dust over here?
Because that's what most of the past monetary support was. No actual money was involved and so didn't really cost us anything.
Use of reserves motivates replacement. Just because you're giving them weapons that were produced in the past, and therefore whose (production) cost has already been incurred, doesn't mean that occurs in a vacuum. With stock running low, contemporary money goes in to replenishing that stock. In effect, there's no difference whether you send old or new equipment, because both incur costs in the present.
It cost you exactly the amount it cost to produce them. Just because it was produced in the past, doesn't mean it was free. You paid for it X years ago, and are only now seeing it used. You paid for it. Moreover, you're now going to pay to replace it.
Except a bunch is old stock or overstock. The US was sitting on stockpiles of 203mm artillery rounds from the m110 that they would've had to pay someone to decommission, but it turns out that there's a soviet arty piece that can use them, and guess what? Ukraine has em. Not to mention they chronically overproduced M1A1 Abrams to the point that generals were begging for it to stop, simply because it would be more expensive to shut down and restart production than simply keep making tanks nobody wanted or needed. Plus, a significant portion of the old inventory was DESIGNED to blow up russian equipment. So the US is clearing out old shit, crippling the Russian military, and aiding a new democracy. The only downside is the fresh money that is probably going to be dumped into the MIC to fill those clean shelves, but (and this is basically NCDposting but here we go) the fact that the US can almost singlehandedly provide Ukraine the resources to hold out against fucking Russia for over a year and that equioment still being only a tiny fraction of their total might? Holy shit. Grab the money shovels boys.
Plus it helps clear out shelf space for new shiny shit, why have massive stocks of old obsolute junk sitting in the Sierra army Depot when you can empty it out and fill it with shiny new junk!
Also its interesting how the Ukrainians have used some of the equipment which gives new data for R&D.
Who are we kidding. You think they wouldn’t just create excess anyways?
Who are you kidding thinking they don't want to have a constant state of excess? It will be replaced, it has to be bought.
Idk I guess if the military budget increases significantly more in budget to back fill I’ll believe this. But im pretty sure we’re just giving away old shit that is already being replaced with newer models
your answer to your question
Yea we just have billions of dollars of military equipment that popped out of thin air and of course will not be replenished in the next trillion dollar military budget.
You have trillions of dollars worth of military equipment from the cold war mothballed or in storage.
Most of it will never see use because it's outdated technology. There are thousands of planes, tanks and miscellaneous vehicles just sitting out in the desert waiting to be scrapped or reactivated.
We have billions of dollars of military equipment that was made 10+ years ago and has been sitting around since then because we have no reason to use any of it.
To the point where military commanders are begging Congress to not make the military budget so big because it's being wasted on building more assets that aren't seeing any use.
Also what amounts are going where? Could be 39 billion to the border and 1 billion to Ukraine.
They intentionally lump these sums together so that they can distribute it as they desire. There is no reason to do this other then to hide funding.
I mean you could have just read the article.
13B for defense support and 8B in Humanitarian aid for Ukraine. 12B for federal disaster funding. ~7B for border funding, Fentanyl seizure Ops, and other stuff. So the 7B is vague, but it's a budget. You could probably just go to the house or senate page once it's released to get the details.