"how does the US spend $800 billion on the military, and have equipment that breaks down so much". They have something like 750 forward bases in 80 countries that all need to be funded. Also, the MIC doesn't make enough money from weapons that are rugged, effective, simple and cheap. No. You make money from building insanely complex "pla…
"how does the US spend $800 billion on the military, and have equipment that breaks down so much". They have something like 750 forward bases in 80 countries that all need to be funded. Also, the MIC doesn't make enough money from weapons that are rugged, effective, simple and cheap. No. You make money from building insanely complex "platforms" that require an overhaul if anyone so much as sneezes on them. The primary objective for US military hardware is that it cost umpty-squillions of dollars to develop and maintain. Who cares if they work?
No one in the Beltway cares but potential buyers from the Gulf to Latin America do. A lot of the narrative management over Ukraine is about the reputation of Brand America in the weapons market.
"how does the US spend $800 billion on the military, and have equipment that breaks down so much". They have something like 750 forward bases in 80 countries that all need to be funded. Also, the MIC doesn't make enough money from weapons that are rugged, effective, simple and cheap. No. You make money from building insanely complex "platforms" that require an overhaul if anyone so much as sneezes on them. The primary objective for US military hardware is that it cost umpty-squillions of dollars to develop and maintain. Who cares if they work?
No one in the Beltway cares but potential buyers from the Gulf to Latin America do. A lot of the narrative management over Ukraine is about the reputation of Brand America in the weapons market.