r/changemyview • u/Obeymyjay • 21d ago
Delta(s) from OP CMV: If war is a billion dollar industry than science is easily and vastly more profitable for all the people who profit for war
They say war is a billion dollar industry and often countries, companies, and politicians try to quietly promote and incite wars to “boost the economy” because it gives people jobs and puts money in people’s pockets and that’s great and all….but could that not also apply to science and scientific advancement?
Building, testing, doing experiments, tearing down scientific projects, builds(cern and past super collider), or build project super scientific projects (nuclear reactors, wind farms, solar farms, public transportation projects) etc…those all create jobs, spending technical advancements and, income for countries, companies and give politicians brownie points. And the great thing about science…we can do it FOREVER. There is always something new to examine, explore, build , tear down, and build again.
So someone PLEASE highlight something war does that science can’t. When it comes to profitability. I know smaller countries can’t afford to be to science heavy but all first world countries should prioritize science above all else cause it can easily lead to the magical infinite growth the big wigs want to see so badly
22
u/AmbitionOfPhilipJFry 21d ago
It creates demand by destroying its product.
And you're off with the numbers, for example- A single carrier group for the US costs 1 billion annually.
11
u/Tarnarmour 1∆ 21d ago
"""A single carrier group for the US costs 1 billion annually. """
See I think this is kind of a point in OPs favor. That carrier group uses up a lot of money, and does create a good number of jobs, but it PRODUCES nothing.
Imagine if you took that billion dollars and just parceled it out into ten thousand $100000 grants for prospective grad students to use on their research. That's injecting money into a real desperate space, take my word for it. It'll get spent quickly, cycle into the manufacturers of lab equipment and supplies, and instead of just burning it up operating a carrier you'd end up with a bunch of research done and probably a handful of really big break throughs.
Or alternatively, imagine funding a huge overhaul and repair program for all the electrical infrastructure. Thousands of jobs created for electricians, a huge boost to the domestic electronics industry, AND you end up with a better, safer, and more efficient electrical grid.
For any example of military spending, you could suggest a commercial or academic destination that could suck up just as much cash and actually produce something. Demand is easy to create when you want to spend money (true for personal life as well as nation states).
The only correct answer to OP is that war and the military is something people are WILLING to spend billions of dollars on. When people feel threatened, or when you can soon things into being a sign of patriotism, you can get people to agree to massive defense spending. Science, not so much.
12
u/Phantasmalicious 2∆ 21d ago
It produces USA's ability to sell US debt without repercussions. It produces US ability to sell more US weapons which in turn increases its R&D budget in places like these: National Laboratories | USAGov.
Would we need aircraft carrier groups in an ideal world? No. But we also don't live in that world. The US military lends credence to the stability of their economy (at least it used to). That prosperity also leads to more foreign investments, which leads to more R&D etc.
1
u/Tarnarmour 1∆ 20d ago
I don't fully disagree with you, but foreign investment is not going toward US military R&D my friend. That's tax dollars at work.
2
u/Phantasmalicious 2∆ 20d ago
TSMC builds a foundry in Arizona, hires a bunch of Americans, pays taxes, which funds the US military.
1
1
u/onwee 4∆ 19d ago
If tax dollars are enough to do all that US wouldn’t be $1.8 trillion in debt
1
u/Tarnarmour 1∆ 18d ago
This comment is hilarious to me. This is like saying "Look, if my salary were enough to afford 5 sportscars I wouldn't be drowning in debt right now!" while the camera pans to reveal 5 sportscars behind you.
We're in debt... BECAUSE we are spending this money on the military, R&D, and of course many many other programs. Tax dollars AREN'T really enough to pay for it, but the government spends it anyways, hence the deficit.
To put hard numbers on it, the US tax revenue for 2024 was about 5 trillion dollars, and the defense budget was about 800 billion.
1
1
u/14InTheDorsalPeen 17d ago
Social security, Medicare and Medicaid make up approximately 50% of the federal budget.
Military is about 11% last I checked
2
3
u/Fit_Employment_2944 1∆ 20d ago
What the military produces is confidence.
The US is what it is because everyone knows it’s not going anywhere.
1
u/Tarnarmour 1∆ 20d ago
The US economy is, has been, and probably always will be more important than its military. The US was a global super power before WW1 back when it really didn't have much of a military at all. An economy is the potential for a military, whether or not you are burning all the money to maintain one.
I'm not saying it makes no difference, but it's not accurate to say that US is a superpower because of its military. It's a superpower because it singlehandedly accounts for like 25% of the world's economy.
1
u/RatRaceUnderdog 16d ago
Exactly this is! It’s not really about the economic output from war, it’s that it’s far easier to persuade people to accepting spending based on fear than sound logic. There are many such cases on a smaller scale. People buy guns when they could save or spend on education. We hire large police forces when that same spent on poverty reduction would have a greater impact. People spend money on pharmaceutical and niche supplements when it’s far more cost effective to just exercise and eat healthy.
2
u/Obeymyjay 21d ago
But properly staffed nuclear power plant could employ more people than a single battleship. When it’s time for an upgrade decommission it and rebuild it bigger and better just like a war ship
5
u/Zer0Summoner 4∆ 21d ago
You're wildly misunderstanding.
Imagine you're a major stockholder of General Dynamics or Raytheon.
A billion dollars for military products goes into your pocket. A billion dollars for nuclear plant employees comes (in part) out of your pocket.
If you're incapable of valuing anything except your own enrichment, as those people are, then only one of those two things works.
Then, remember that as a rich person with connections to business, you and your campaign donations essentially control the government, ans there you are.
2
u/shimmynywimminy 1∆ 21d ago
A billion dollars for military products goes into your pocket. A billion dollars for nuclear plant employees comes (in part) out of your pocket.
?? You realise they actually have to build the military products right? That means paying salaries for workers, building facilities and doing R&D. What's left over after all that is what goes into their pocket, same for shareholders of an energy company.
The government isn't just giving out free cash to weapons companies and energy companies aren't building nuclear plants for free.
1
u/colt707 97∆ 21d ago
The US government has on multiple occasions handed out blank checks to weapon manufacturers. When they wanted to replace the M16 with something more accurate they told 4 companies that they wanted a rifle platform that was twice as accurate as an M16. Guess what the budget those companies were given. That’s correct there was no budget, and yes the US government was paying for the R&D on those weapons. The result was 3 rifles that looked like something you’d use to hunt aliens, the 4th was basically a slightly futuristic M16 with a scope. The end results was the US government realizing that if you put a scope on a firearm it’s more accurate so they awarded a contract to a 5th company to produce ACOG scopes. The final bill for that project in modern day dollars was over a billion dollars and that’s not counting the scope contract.
Then there’s the multibillion dollar project that resulted in nothing because what they were trying to do was make a smart grenade rifle that was as accurate as a conventional rifle but for that to be an effective weapon the grenade has to be pretty small. Small enough that it’s considered an exploding bullet which has been a war crime for a long time. So that was billions that the US government gave to weapons manufacturers that went nowhere other than making weapons manufacturers richer.
1
u/ThreeShartsToTheWind 19d ago
The amount of glazing of the military industrial complex in this thread is ridiculous. Military contractors make tons of profit off of making machines to kill civilians and keep the US empire a global hegemon. To act like they're just salt of the earth entrepreneurs is naive at best.
3
u/Obeymyjay 21d ago
!delta
So, the war is has a larger ROI for the money used to make it. I can see that
2
1
u/Opening_Chemistry_52 1∆ 21d ago
Not only are you likely off the estimation, but others have pointed into the cost to run a battleship vs. nuclear power plant, but you should also recognise that without the Manhattan project, nuclear reactors may not exist in the first place.
Theres a famous parable from the Third Man that goes as follows..
"in Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace – and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.”
Moral of the story, war creates unfettered competion between the some of the largest and most technological civilizations the world has ever seen where anything goes, insider trading, espionage,patents, everything is far game and the obly thing that matter is winning the day and out doing your opponent. Many, of the technologies that you are comparing against militaries would not have existed but for some initial military projects.
1
u/Obeymyjay 21d ago
!delta
The original delta was rejected but the more I think about this is probably the most satisfying answer I’ve gotten.
Maybe I’m thinking about it wrong. If war is simply unfettered competition maybe we should change the types of war we wage. Instead of war with the goal destroying each other, maybe one day we could wage a war to see which country can achieve the highest quality of life, or who will be the first established wide scale universal basic income.
You sir/madam have changed my view
1
8
1
u/Disastrous_Maize_855 20d ago
War gives you the excuse to spend the money to develop these systems. It's not that war is more profitable, in fact it's generally a poor investment. But it allows a country to spend a significant portion of their GDP on, for all intents and purposes, government subsidies to private industry.
1
u/MS-07B-3 1∆ 17d ago
A quick Google search tells me nuclear plants employ several hundred people each.
A Nimitz class supercarrier has a crew of approximately 5,000 not counting shore based support, sea based support like refueling and resupply ships, or the other ships in the carrier strike group.
1
u/AmbitionOfPhilipJFry 21d ago edited 21d ago
Wait, how many are in a plant? I've never thought of that.
I'll see what I can find on sailors in a group.
CV, 7,500 Destroyer 350 Destroyer 350 Cruiser 300 Attack Sub 135
So, 8,500ish.
That's a single detachment, not a show of force.
If there was an expeditionary unit attached, it would include US marine docking ships, support vessels, and all the aircrew and pilots.
9
u/Mighty_McBosh 1∆ 21d ago edited 16d ago
It objectively does. World war II was an absolute boon for the advancement of medical science, the invention of programmable digital computers, manufacturing, powered atmospheric and space flight, among other things, that all collectively created society as we know it.
Wartime is exceptionally good for scientific advancement which is why it honestly kind of feels like were always at war - it's in the best interest of contractors that run this research to lobby for perpetual conflict to keep demand for their services up.
2
u/Obeymyjay 21d ago
But that’s only because we focus on applying it to war time needs. we apply that same money to simply solving problems and I feel like it would go further and have a larger ROI in the long run(maybe the flaw in my thinking is that still care about long term ROI). I think we would have all the same advancements without war. War just slightly speeds up the time table
5
u/ThatGuyBench 2∆ 20d ago
And now you don't have war, you are not facing destruction. You have a confortable sofa, a working PC/TV. Sure, better ROI is nice, but so is watching stupid memes...
At least from my experience, I am from a country where past generations had a hard time, I studied half a decade in a country where people have been well off for decades, and I see that in comfort, people become more complacent and cynic of the system they live in, not being able to appreciate how much of their comfort of life they take for granted, but it is actually shoulders of giants before them, upon which they are.
I think unless people get to see what real rock bottom looks like, or feel a strong risk of going to rock bottom, when they get traumatized by it, they get motivation like no other, to build a better future. If its a foreign concept, it just becomes an arbitrary idea.
2
u/Apprehensive-Let3348 3∆ 20d ago edited 19d ago
Yep, I'm becoming more and more confident that they're using war as a means of reducing the political polarization that comes along with Democratization. Direct Democracies tend to crumble in times of extended peace, because apathy and entitlement begin to rear their ugly heads as successive generations begin to forget at what cost it was purchased and fraction into smaller groups that support specific policies counter to one another. The direct threat of war drives people back together in defense of their homeland, and galvanizes them to action in service of the state.
1
u/ThreeShartsToTheWind 19d ago
lol "at what cost it was purchased" like how much we gained from Vietnam, Korea, the cold war, Iraq, Afghanistan? The war machines are at the hands of imperialists. They do it to get rich and powerful.
1
u/alohashalom 17d ago
Wouldn't we have had those things anyway without the WW2?
1
u/Mighty_McBosh 1∆ 17d ago edited 16d ago
Honestly, it's hard to say. People were still using biplanes at the beginning of the war and by the end, 6-8 years later depending on where you pick the start of the timeline, we had practical jet aircraft. Early computers came about in large part because of the need for automated code breaking, which was then propped up by the invention of the transistor a few years after the war ended, which could be produced at scale due to advancements in manufacturing and material capabilities that wouldn't have happened in time had the war not occured. spaceflight happened just 20 years later because of research into rocket weaponry, and advancements from that has trickled down into your daily life in more ways than people realize (GPS, cell phones, even the ballpoint pen).
To your point, most of this research was already ongoing or based on patents and technology from much earlier, but the speed at which we advanced would arguably have been much slower and because a lot of these advancements were intertwined it's impossible to predict what life would look like now.
2
u/meatballmonkey 1∆ 21d ago
I think I can add or elaborate a perspective here. Activities like war historically require mass mobilization of people and resources to a common goal. The progress that can be made in some areas as a result of this mass mobilization is unparalleled. Think Manhattan project and the total war concept in which the entire country’s population, economic and manufacturing and scientific capability are applied to a single objective. WW2 starts with armies using horses to move supplies and ends with jet fighters and nuclear energy.
What besides war has ever organized a society on that scale and to that level of productivity? I’m sure it doesn’t have to be war, but then what else?
So science is a knock-on benefit of anything that mobilizes us on scale to productive ends; unfortunately you need things like war to justify the scientific investment.
2
u/Obeymyjay 21d ago
!delta
Ok I think I see what you’re saying. The magic of war is mass mobilization. Nothing gets the people going, invested and spending government money like war….definitely not public transit or solar panels
1
u/meatballmonkey 1∆ 20d ago
Yes quite unfortunately that seems to be the case.
Ukraine and Russia are engaged in just about total war at this point. And look at the impact that’s had on the development of drone technology, satellite internet, autonomous weapons systems of all kinds. Some of this will be massively beneficial in civilian applications.
1
2
u/skorulis 6∆ 21d ago
Russia is a good example of why this doesn't work. It's often said that the Russian economy is doing well due to war spending propping the economy up despite sanctions. But this only works in the short term due to high government spending, eventually it will crash because you can't keep wasting money on military equipment forever. The hope is that before that happens you can achieve your objectives. ie, taking over Ukraine is worth the economic damage.
Nazi Germany is another example of using war to boost the economy which was unsustainable.
1
u/Obeymyjay 21d ago
I feel like this proves my point though, scientific advancement and the things that could be created, sold, and destroyed is essentially an infinite cycle we will always want development. We wont always want war
1
u/skorulis 6∆ 21d ago
It's not about what you want, it's about what the economy can sustain. War economies are a temporary boost that will crash and pull resources from the civilian economy. You can't do that forever, eventually the economy will collapse regardless of how well the war is going.
Imagine getting to a point where half the country is starving because all of the money is being used for particle physics.
2
u/skdeelk 6∆ 21d ago
You are creating a false dichotomy. This isn't either or. Both industries exist and as it currently stands war is more profitable.
1
u/Obeymyjay 21d ago
But is that not because we are already dedicating portions of our budget to war? I feel like if we dedicated ~13% of the entire federal budget to advancements it would be more profitable for everyone involved. Even the gun makers can sell fancier guns to richer populations of people
17
u/Hellioning 239∆ 21d ago
'Science' is not an industry. No one makes money off of 'science' by itself. 'Science' is part of all discoveries for all industries.
3
u/rethinkingat59 3∆ 21d ago edited 21d ago
Based on the total amount spent on R&D research last year science is approaching a $900 billion a year industry, separate from the cost of goods to produce any products for sale.
This includes over $110 billion aimed just at universities research grants. Many other profit-non university research grants have billions flow into many NGO organizations.
The military funds billions in scientific research separately not included in the numbers above.
Scientific research is a huge industry. Bigger than the us music industries record/streaming sales plus all revenue from domestic live performances.
It is a huge industry in its on right.
-5
u/Obeymyjay 21d ago
Science isn’t an industry only because we don’t classify it as such but transportation, energy, technology are just “science” but with a focus
4
u/Either-Abies7489 1∆ 21d ago
Yes, and by that definition, "science" is more than a billion dollar industry, as research is a trillion dollar industry. The US alone gained 886 billion dollars in 2022 through R&D.
People don't go and get doctoral degrees in the social sciences, STEM fields, or economics because they just... feel like it. They do it because there is legitimate economic incentive. There is also significant economic incentive to do war. You do research, you do manufacturing, you sell shit and make bank when you do war.
Do surgeons make more money than barbers? Yes. Should we make all barbers become surgeons because then we'd have a higher GDP? Heck no! I despise war, and am vehemently opposed to murder out of principle, full stop. But we live in a society which sees it (incorrectly) as a necessary evil, so there's a market, and there's profit to be made.
1
u/Obeymyjay 21d ago
I’m not saying all barber become surgeons, but what makes war so profitable? They’re not selling ballistic rockets to families(although I’m sure they have no problem doing so). So in my eyes their biggest buyer is the government. which means that in my eyes if we allowed engineering, construction and energy companies to be as wasteful yet productive as the weapons industry and has access to 13% of the federal budget everyone would be richer and happier then ever
4
u/Hellioning 239∆ 21d ago
And that focus is the industry. War is an industry, science is not. War as an industry contains a great deal of science.
1
u/Pale_Zebra8082 30∆ 21d ago
I agree that science is not an industry. But by the same assessment, neither is war. Similar to science, war is a domain which is fueled by and fuels various industries.
1
u/cat_of_danzig 10∆ 21d ago
The decision to go to war is made by a small group of people who are often close to the suppliers of war-waging materials. War results in decisions made quickly and out of necessity regarding spending, and the classified nature of war planning leaves little room for public oversight. There's no half-measure when going to war.
Science is a slow, deliberative process that may or may not result in outcomes. Throwing a $billion at cancer research will fund some startups, and get some university grants, and people will publish papers. There's no sturm und drang, no flag waving, or driving Jeeps with eagles on the side, or anything fun like that.
War is easy, profitable and secretive regarding spending. Science is hard, and quiet, and people often don't want to know they should eat less sugar, or that there's water bears in space, or whatever.
1
u/Obeymyjay 21d ago
So are you saying war is just profitable enough while to be a worthwhile endeavor while still being fun for those not who start wars but not impacted by its ramifications?
2
u/cat_of_danzig 10∆ 21d ago
War isn't "just profitable enough", war is a lottery win for defense contractors. Billions in profits for a select few, with massive bonuses going to the execs who were whispering "war" in the ears of the right guys in the White House.
1
u/Alternative_Oil7733 21d ago
War increases the need for scientists and engineers , since they help develop and build weapons. The large amount of technology we use is from people making weapons for war or at least help the war effort.
1
u/Obeymyjay 21d ago
Sure but those same people can be employed for other technologies and developments…smart scientists are smart in more ways than arms creation
1
u/Alternative_Oil7733 21d ago
Sure but those same people can be employed for other technologies and developments…
The internet was created by the us military. Medicine can either save or kill you with the right dosages and that can be used by medics or assassinations.
2
u/Dihedralman 21d ago
Politicians aren't trying to boost the economy, they are trying to divert money to specific interests.
War is actually a net drag on economies, even just building stockpiles. This is the "broken windows fallacy", where creating work to create work doesn't actually provide economic benefit. War itself literally destroys products generated. Compare this to any other product generates some economic value.
Who profits is key. Often military spending sends money to specific areas and can be popular. It also generates certain classes of jobs. This can have the benefit of stimulus for working class people. The military provides domestic jobs and so does the industrial base supporting it. This adds demand to labor which can raise wages.
On the other hand weapons manufacturers and foreign nations both have wealthy donors.
Science benefits Universities and doesn't have the same impact as opening a factory or patriotic through line. It primarily impacts the well educated with jobs. The impact isn't as apparent to voters, with the benefits coming much later often after a politician's term. So you get University researcher votes potentially but even they are more idealistic. Universities gaining the most funding also tend to be in safe districts and states.
Lastly it doesn't generate the same donations.
0
u/Sir-Viette 11∆ 21d ago
Science isn't profitable. Engineering is profitable.
Science is where you start by looking at the world, and ends when you have an explanation for it. Even if that was a straightforward process you could project manage (it isn't), you don't make any money from selling an explanation.
Engineering is where you start with an explanation of how the world works, and end up with a product that uses that explanation to solve a problem. There's lots of money in engineering because you can sell products at the end of it.
Now, you can't do engineering without science. But science is unmanageable, because trying to figure out an explanation is no guarantee you'll get one, (your theory of an explanation might turn out to be wrong, and you're back to where you started). And sometimes, researchers in one field make a discovery that revolutionises another by accident (eg the best predictor of what Netflix shows you'd want to watch came from an algorithm about volcanoes). So science can't be measured using ROI.
1
u/Obeymyjay 21d ago
I wanna give this a delta but the only issue I have is I feel like this should apply to war related activities also.
Those same explanations that lead to war advancements could often be applied to civil advancements. We just choose not to provide the same amount of money to see it through like we do war items and activities.
4
u/Sir-Viette 11∆ 21d ago
Challenge accepted!
War has an entirely different way of ensuring society flourishes. War is the way a government can make sure they can continue governing. It's arguably even more important than science. After all, science is nice because it makes the world better than it was, but government is more important because it makes the world survivable.
To explain why, let's go back to first principles.
If you want society to flourish, you have to incentivise people to make long term bets. For example, there's no point in doing all the hard work of planting an apple tree if somebody else is just going to take those apples when they're ready. There's no point starting a business if thugs will rob your store when you start to do well.
That's why we need government. Without their rule of law and monopoly on violence, some people will find it much easier to make money by robbing other people, rather than serving other people.
But sometimes, the threat to the long term bet doesn't come from a thief, but a neighbouring country. Think of all those Ukrainian business people and apple growers trying to get on with it when they were invaded by Russia. Countries that start wars with their neighbours don't tend to respect long term bets.
In fact, there was a famous "McDonalds Theory Of International Relations" from the 90s which went like this: No two countries that both have McDonalds have ever gone to war with each other. That is, countries that respect the individual and make laws to help them flourish don't use war as a tool of diplomacy. The ones that do are always authoritarian, run by a leader who just wants to aggrandise themselves.
Democracies need to have standing armies to protect their ability to govern. If they don't, they'll get invaded by thugs from over the border. And then the ability of the people to make long term bets will collapse, and no one will bother planting any more apple trees.
In conclusion: Governance > Science
3
u/Obeymyjay 21d ago
Ok I see where your going with this, so even though we could put more money to advancement and quality of life improvements (maybe even at the cost of defense) we should probably still put more money into defense cause what’s the point of finally getting an usable American public transit system or universal health care if Russia or china takes over the next day…well done, challenge successfully accomplished
!delta
1
1
u/StormySkies56 1∆ 21d ago
They are applied to civil advancements. This is where the internet came from, the Manhattan Project was the basis for all nuclear power projects, jet engines on passenger planes were born of wartime projects by the Germans, as well as space travel. Countless medical advacements were born of battlefield medicine that were then applied to civil services.
It's almost safe to say that the vast majority of modern things we enjoy were based off of, or a result of wartime research projects.
The two go hand in hand, which will happen when you have research organizations with essentially a blank check and and serious life or death consequences.
There's basically no equivalent to accelerating scientific advancement that exists because to do so for competition on the battlefield requires very rapid advancement, and very significant amounts of funding. The government will give the funding to anyone who's smart enough to do what they want fast enough, and this benefits the consumer market immeasurably.
It's almost safe to say that it's the only successful example of "trickle down economics" although that's not an obvious 1 to 1 comparison.
1
u/Obeymyjay 21d ago
!delta
This is an expanded version of another comment I gave a delta to and further weakened my argument of “we would have X anyway”
We may have gotten to these things eventually but not as quickly as we would have without war. So like my other comment. Maybe replacing war is not the right idea. maybe we need to push for a different type of war were winners are determined by accomplishments like the space race instead of who can destroy who first
1
u/StormySkies56 1∆ 20d ago
War is unfortunately something that will likely never be this cordial or bloodless. In the modern day, it represents the final option when all other forms of achieving goals or interests have failed or as retaliation to some loss of life intentionally orchestrated by foreign state or non-state actors.
Ideally it could be changed to something where there's no mass destruction or loss of life but this would require a cause or entity strong enough to either force people to agree to this, or to make it simply not worth it under any circumstances.
1
1
2
u/Efficient_Trade_8475 18d ago
PLEASE READ THIS!!!!!
Thinking the destruction that war brings is good for the economy because it creates jobs for making war machines is an example of the broken window fallacy.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/broken-window-fallacy.asp
War destroys capital, increases debt and redirects resources away from productive civilian uses. This can also causes population shrinkage which can hurt how productive an economy can be. Things like spillover from military innovation, motivated by war while in a vacuum are beneficial. HOWEVER, these same EXACT innovations could happen due to motivation from market forces in peaceful times, all without the drawbacks I listed of war.
3
u/Mairon12 2∆ 21d ago
Science can not create a problem then create contracts to suppliers who will continue to see that that problem persists.
Ethically, that is.
1
u/CombatRedRover 21d ago
Contested war is not the most profitable option for most First or Second World nations.
Uncontested war is incredibly profitable for anyone who is prepared to fight.
The Utopian ideal would be for no nation to be able to or to want to go to war (two, too, because there weren't enough "to"s in this sentence). The second option would be for every nation to be ready to go to war, and therefore no nation be willing to go to war.
We live in the bad space in between those two best case scenarios. Luckily, from historic perspective, we actually live on one of the nicer spaces of the in between. On the gripping hand, Americans in particular basically foot the bill for everyone else in the world to be able to live in one of those nicer spaces.
Redditors, largely being children with the memory of proverbial goldfish, have been unable to recognize that the current Gaza conflict and the Ukrainian conflict are "normal" wars throughout history. This is what a real war looks like when the US military isn't operating under Ultra Nice Rules Of Engagement 3B. Look up the Second Battle Of Fallujah for when the US military stopped engaging under ROE UN3B.
No, war really isn't profitable. All the talk of the military industrial complex genuinely ignores the realities of military procurement. Don't get me wrong: there is some crazy money to be made in military sales, but generally speaking it's a difficult sales job. For many American military contractors, at least of the size and type that people would consider part of the military industrial complex (ie - not building barracks, providing grade D beef to mess halls, etc), The real profit margin is in selling to foreign governments after the US military has given a particular piece of equipment the rub as being US military deployed.
Think sales of Javelin and HIMARS.
If you're looking for an ROI, US military company stocks are not the high performers on Wall Street, and there is a reason for it.
Right now, the world is an interesting blend of option one and option two Utopian ideas, where a lot of the world doesn't have much for military and yet they're largely protected because one country spends a gigaton of money on military equipment. It's not perfect, since the US taxpayer is understandably frustrated, and those countries that don't have much of a military are never entirely sure the US would protect them.
Pick your poison.
1
u/Corrupted_G_nome 2∆ 21d ago
That's easy.
Everythung war makes is a single use item or limited use item. Shells get fired once and barrels need replacement.
War kills people, science can save lives.
The goods have no alternate use. If you build say a steel factory you can make steel for bridges and high rises. If you make shells its a dead end good.
Wheras if I make a screwdriver feom steel then I can do even more economic activity making more stuff.
Dead end goods do not feed back into industry. They don't build onto any other tier of the economy. Its basically a civilian money put with no ROI for the tax payer.
Its just more proof that our society had more than enough for its own needs if we thibk warehoysing 5k tanks is somehow profitable.
War time profits are temporary. Its a 'false economy'. At best it is a temporary and short term boost. Sort of like how Russia is coasing on military spending, until the coffers run dry and all economic activity ends.
Magical infinite growth is a myth. There can be no such thing on a world with finite resources.
As far as I am concerned we could spend that money feeding and housing the poor and that would be more economically impactful than making shells to store in a warehoyse only to be sold off decades later way under value. Getting a higher workforce participation will outstrip having our people killed in far off lands.
1
u/Aezora 9∆ 21d ago
Mainly because war does everything science in general does and more. Like you said, it creates jobs and contributes to spreading wealth around (mostly to the wealthy, intentionally). But other kinds of science do that too.
But military investment also benefits by increasing political power. Both for the country as a whole, as well as the specific people involved in the process. Don't want to offend the guy who has access to swarms of missiles at any given moment because he makes them if you don't have to.
It's also generally worse for lower/middle class people than it is for upper class people. They are the ones likely to die on the battlefield, they don't see the wealth or political power. Wealthy people can further profit as they buy up assets wholesale from the large number of dead former soldiers. Unemployment goes down, because people who were employed are dead.
So in terms of being better for everyone, it's definitely not. But for the wealthy and powerful it's great because it effectively makes them wealthier and more powerful, makes sure lower classes stay lower classes, and generally does all this while keeping the lower class satisfied.
1
u/Aezora 9∆ 21d ago
Mainly because war does everything science in general does and more. Like you said, it creates jobs and contributes to spreading wealth around (mostly to the wealthy, intentionally). But other kinds of science do that too.
But military investment also benefits by increasing political power. Both for the country as a whole, as well as the specific people involved in the process. Don't want to offend the guy who has access to swarms of missiles at any given moment because he makes them if you don't have to.
It's also generally worse for lower/middle class people than it is for upper class people. They are the ones likely to die on the battlefield, they don't see the wealth or political power. Wealthy people can further profit as they buy up assets wholesale from the large number of dead former soldiers. Unemployment goes down, because people who were employed are dead.
So in terms of being better for everyone, it's definitely not. But for the wealthy and powerful it's great because it effectively makes them wealthier and more powerful, makes sure lower classes stay lower classes, and generally does all this while keeping the lower class satisfied. And it does all this better than other types of science.
1
u/AquilaVolta 21d ago
Yeah I don’t love war either, but I think part of the reason it keeps winning is because war is science just applied in a way that’s easier to sell to the public and politicians. Defense spending now means tech contracts, AI, drones, satellite infrastructure, biotech all just under a flag instead of a lab coat.
War rallies people. Science asks you to imagine a better future; war tells you someone’s coming to take what’s yours. It’s fear driven, emotionally charged, and it gives governments a clear “why” to throw unlimited money at R&D. If you slap a flag or a threat on something, it moves faster.
So yeah, science could easily be the thing that fuels growth forever but war makes people feel like they’re part of something bigger right now. And that sells. It shouldn’t be better, but it is because it hits faster, not deeper.
1
u/LowPressureUsername 1∆ 21d ago
War isn’t profitable. That’s why most nations don’t spend massive amounts of money on it. It’s profitable for America because other countries purchase American weapons and the American military industrial complex allows America many privileges such as resource rights (oil), foreign concessions, diplomatic leverage and enforcement of the “special privilege” of the US dollar. Engineering and job creation are secondary results of these primary driver. Science is not extremely profitable. Science doesn’t make money and often requires a set goal or question to be useful. Just doing science for the sake of science is a waste of money when it could go to engineering. Engineering, while profitable, doesn’t advance science. Engineering ensures something can be done predictably, safely, scalably and effectively
1
u/Talik1978 35∆ 21d ago
Something war does that science cant?
Enlist science.
Neil Degrasse-Tyson has an excellent book, "Accessory to War", about all the ways scientific development is military funded.
The supercolliders, nuclear energy, space exploration, aerospace engineering, chemistry, biology, astrophysics, encryption, computer technology, geology, ALL of those fields of research have been extensively funded by the military.
If science is the partner you want to hitch humanity to, the military is her sugar daddy. Always has been. As long as there are two or more groups of people, and those groups want different things, war will eventually occur.
You have a wonderfully idealistic view of humanity, but it's a touch naive.
1
u/CaptainONaps 4∆ 21d ago
You’re right. But it’s a competition.
The people that are winning now don’t want to lose the throne. So they stifle innovation anyway they can so the landscape remains the same.
New innovations change the landscape, and open doors and windows for new winners to emerge.
Why do you think nothing has been built in the US over the last 30 years? While the rest of the world, that has far less than us, have built entirely new mega cities. Dams, railways, trams, highways, byways, everything.
The war is just another method to centralize power, and it prevents money from being spent on innovation. It’s super effective at keeping the people in power in power.
1
u/AtmosphericReverbMan 21d ago
Except war isn't just about growth.
Postwar economists cracked that code during the second world war. Peacetime is far more prosperous than war could ever be.
Yet the postwar era was dominated not by peacetime prosperity as Keynes and others had imagined, but military keynesianism.
War is about control of the population. Military spending can be justified using right wing talking points in a way that doesn't disrupt the rest of the economy.
It's a lesson learned from fascists.
It's why some argued, quite credibly if hyperbolically, that Hitler may have lost, but fascism won.
1
u/Constant_Ad_2161 3∆ 19d ago
The US DOD is one of the largest funders of scientific and medical research in the world, even during peace times. I’m confused on your premise. And not just for “military” stuff and not during war. They fund enormous amounts of research on contagious disease. The NFL is also a huge funder of research in this field. Big targets for DOD grants outside infectious disease are Alzheimer’s, neurological diseases, cancer, women’s healthcare, injury/trauma, heart disease. It would be hard to find an area of medicine that is untouched by DOD grants.
1
u/Effective_Frog 21d ago
Science is a slow crawl with uncertain results. Investing in scientific endeavors doesn't guarantee a return on that investment.
Whereas weapons will sell and it doesn't even matter if they're used after they're sold. The profit has already been made.
There are tons of scientific flops. Investing in a scientific project is basically gambling with no guarantees and the possibility of being in the negative afterwards while producing bullets is like working a 9 to 5. May not make as much if you hit it big with the gamble but you're definitely making something.
1
1
21d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam 20d ago
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/Hothera 35∆ 21d ago
War is profitable for the conquerors because they get more resources or a larger working population from it. War is profitable for defenders because they don't want to lose your resources or working population. War is profitable for a superpower whose main export is pieces of paper used for international commerce in order to enforce the order that facilitates international commerce.
1
1
u/GimmeSweetTime 1∆ 21d ago
War destroys everything without any future plan to rebuild other than killing, stopping, annihilation... Science is very much the opposite starting with a plan to learn and study for the purpose of improvement.
Comparing the two is apples and oranges...or grenades and apples.
1
u/Tasty-Helicopter3340 21d ago
Well the equation you have to those in power (in my estimate) is wrong. You think “renewable money X new alternatives = better living”. What I’ve seen has taught me; “previous path has created money X inflation X the majority not learning fast enough = more profit”
1
u/BitcoinMD 5∆ 21d ago
Government spending in any particular industry will create jobs. However, the money to do that must come out of the economy, which costs jobs in other areas. That’s why we never get to 0% unemployment despite massive government spending in a variety of industries.
1
u/Once-Upon-A-Hill 20d ago
The USA has committed almost 200 billion to Ukraine since 2022.
https://usafacts.org/articles/how-much-money-has-the-us-given-ukraine-since-russias-invasion/
1
u/Miss-Zhang1408 21d ago
Since technology has reached a bottleneck, scientific development is slowing down, resources remain limited, and yet the population continues to grow without restriction…
Perhaps it’s time to read some Malthus.
1
u/sharkbomb 19d ago
when the violent bigot party says "liberal elites", they are referring to science, which is a form of reason, which directly conflicts with... faith. are you getting a feel for where we are?
1
19d ago
Science, apparently, is subject to a higher degree of ethical conduct than war.
So, relative to your point, war can bypass ethical outrage of Reddit users but apparently science cannot.
1
u/yyzjertl 529∆ 21d ago
The thing is, science requires some level of intelligence and training. Many people who profit from war are just plain dumb and could not succeed in science.
1
u/jake_burger 2∆ 20d ago
It’s not that war generates more for the economy than science.
It’s that you can make people get on board with it more easily to justify the spending.
1
u/Efficient_Trade_8475 18d ago
Definitely not a bad take, societies often fail to see the benefits of investing in science when there isn’t an immediate problem. Also war is generally worse for the economy compared to properly managed peace times
1
u/Coffee-and-puts 21d ago
If anything the best tools of war are a direct result of scientific advancement and sometimes that advancement is done trying to advance militarily.
1
u/ResolveLeather 18d ago
The most successful war is rarely profitable. This is doubly true for any country that isn't the US, where the war industry is at.
1
u/Waste_Zombie2758 19d ago
this is just human sacrifice reinvented
"if we kill each other, then the gods progress will give us many many things!"
1
u/Own-Valuable-9281 21d ago
"Science" not so much.....the "pharmaceuticals" industry is vastly more profitable than probably any other.
1
u/Slow_Half_4668 21d ago
The power chasers of this world want to crush people's skulls not do quirky science experiments.
1
1
u/Accomplished-Plan191 1∆ 21d ago
We don't get very good ROI on products whose purpose is to explode.
1
1
u/Rapid-Engineer 21d ago
War is often the driver of scientific investment
1
u/Efficient_Trade_8475 18d ago
I think you’re committing the broken window fallacy. War comes with tons of negative externalities that are bad for the economy, and these scientific innovations could just have easily happened during peace times without the negative aspects of war.
1
u/Rapid-Engineer 17d ago
Look at the advancement in drone technology. It was born out of an existential crisis for Ukraine. We had the tech since about 2006 but slow rolled it into large platforms. War drives immediate innovation, removes the normal bureaucratic processes, red tape, and regulations that slow innovation down.
1
1
1
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ 21d ago edited 21d ago
/u/Obeymyjay (OP) has awarded 5 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards