We Should Rally Behind the MIC

a reply to: ancientlight

Not quite.

To expand upon our export (and sure, national too) of arms but include a wider margin of public involvement.

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Klassified

Exactly.


The thought experiment though is does it scale globally?

Generally speaking, I think it would be the same for all humans if "all things are equal", but all things aren't equal and there's no doubt culture and history would play a role, so the right to bear arms is likely to have a vastly different outcome depending on the aforementioned culture and history.

Imagine the people in China suddenly having a second amendment.

How about Taiwan?

How about Ukraine?

Would China and Russia be so quick to rattle those sabers if those smaller nations populace was armed?

a reply to: VulcanWerks

That doesn’t matter at all though - we win either way.

I see your point but I don't think you're seeing mine.

Where is your ROI for all those weapons left in Afghanistan and Ukraine?


It's easy to handwave away and demonize the MIC, which is completely justified, but at the end of the day what does that do?

It simply allows for their propagation because what are we going to do to stop it?

a reply to: JinMI

Are you suddenly in support for population control?
Or did you make an investment? or both?

originally posted by: datguy
a reply to: JinMI

Are you suddenly in support for population control?
Or did you make an investment? or both?

Neither. Hell, I'm not even married to the idea.


I thought it would be a fun thought experiment and conversation as the MIC and our 2nd amendment are similar.


Yet the MIC is allowed unchecked power globally backed by American taxpayers yet those profits aren't.

originally posted by: JinMI

Yet the MIC is allowed unchecked power globally backed by American taxpayers yet those profits aren't.

I think right here is the crux of any conversation in this manner, Are they really backed by the American taxpayer
I guess we would have to investigate that. I would say the American taxpayer is more likely to be held hostage in a sense, and even thought they don't act to stop their support, what choice would they have if they did.

So are we left to the choice between civil war/revolution or indentured servitude? or are there more options
Then we have to ask, what the actual results of a popular uprising be? Would the MIC turn on its only source of financial backing?
And what if we did proliferate mass amount of firearms as suggested, wouldn't that lead to less global population and in turn less financing/profits? Though at first thought that may just solve the problem...

Or do you honestly think that an "armed society is a polite society"?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: VulcanWerks

That doesn’t matter at all though - we win either way.

I see your point but I don't think you're seeing mine.

Where is your ROI for all those weapons left in Afghanistan and Ukraine?


It's easy to handwave away and demonize the MIC, which is completely justified, but at the end of the day what does that do?

It simply allows for their propagation because what are we going to do to stop it?

There’s a lot of ROI for our defense industry.

The ROI for the taxpayer is more indirect, however.

For instance, that “investment” stabilizes/destabilizes regions of the world, promotes NATO agendas, keeps trade deals intact, protects areas of commerce, and generally helps to sustain the economic environment such that NATO stays ahead (and the US, more specifically).

The subsequent investments that can be made in said secured environment turn out ROI, and contribute to GDP, massively outweigh being directly compensated for weapons.

So, the ROI significant.

Kind of like the classic Gillette razor model - lose or break even on the razors, make a killing on refill blades. The razor is the upfront cost to longer-term revenue stream. A stream that over time is massively profitable.

Very interesting thread - love seeing a question posed that I frankly hadn’t considered from that angle. Now I get why the MIC exists and is crucially important.

a reply to: datguy

I think right here is the crux of any conversation in this manner, Are they really backed by the American taxpayer
I guess we would have to investigate that. I would say the American taxpayer is more likely to be held hostage in a sense, and even thought they don't act to stop their support, what choice would they have if they did.

We could go into what percentage of the defense budget is allocated toward the industries or the black budget at that. Or we can look at the billions spent in ukraine directly benefitting these companies if one wishes.

However I'm more interested in the latter part of the above. A path of least resistance that is backed by our Constitutional ideology. That being part and parcel of protection of your own property. Would it be so malaligned if we had a wider range of defense contractors nationally and used taxpayer funds to aid in that growth?

Conversely, we could keep blaming them like the boogeyman they are and leave it at that.

So are we left to the choice between civil war/revolution or indentured servitude? or are there more options

Allowing people more profitable employment opportunities would go a long way to quelling the national strife we face.

Then we have to ask, what the actual results of a popular uprising be? Would the MIC turn on its only source of financial backing?

I don't think it would go that far even in the face of a hypothetical national uprising. However, they would feel the sting if there was a worker shortage like they did when there were supply chain issues.

And what if we did proliferate mass amount of firearms as suggested, wouldn't that lead to less global population and in turn less financing/profits? Though at first thought that may just solve the problem...

I'd wager it would be a y.o.y spike for abit then a massive drop, yes. I'm of the same opinion if all of our gov't infringements upon our 2nd amendment were to happen overnight.

Or do you honestly think that an "armed society is a polite society"?

I absolutely do, would you like to toss out a counter point?

a reply to: VulcanWerks

There’s a lot of ROI for our defense industry.

The ROI for the taxpayer is more indirect, however.

For instance, that “investment” stabilizes/destabilizes regions of the world, promotes NATO agendas, keeps trade deals intact, protects areas of commerce, and generally helps to sustain the economic environment such that NATO stays ahead (and the US, more specifically).

That's a good point. Yet we are starting to see the endgame of this ideological process. BRICS consolidating and adding more nations. Reliance to a fault on other countries for tech and energy. In short, its simply not sustainable unless we in effect own the globe.

The subsequent investments that can be made in said secured environment turn out ROI, and contribute to GDP, massively outweigh being directly compensated for weapons.

So, the ROI significant.

All the anti war folks, like me, would disagree. I don't find it a fair tradeoff that our elected official act in a capacity to benefit their donors and their portfolios. Say perhaps the argument existed that our debt is falling year over year, you may have a point.

Very interesting thread - love seeing a question posed that I frankly hadn’t considered from that angle. Now I get why the MIC exists and is crucially important.

Glad you like it, I thought it an interesting thought experiment and it's very much outside of my usual positions.



There's lots of holes in my OP. I'm leaving it up to the community to find them....

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: datguy
a reply to: JinMI

Are you suddenly in support for population control?
Or did you make an investment? or both?

Neither. Hell, I'm not even married to the idea.


I thought it would be a fun thought experiment and conversation as the MIC and our 2nd amendment are similar.


Yet the MIC is allowed unchecked power globally backed by American taxpayers yet those profits aren't.

I agree it’s an interesting thought experiment.

What it shows me is the importance of keeping the MIC humming.

I personally and not a fan of war. I don’t see the need to resolve differences with bloodshed. But, sadly, the world at scale hasn’t quite evolved to that point yet - you can blame that on a lot of factors, but, it’s where we are.

Given that is reality, if you want +1bn of the world’s population to be able to live in relative stability to be able to generate economic activity and therefore wealth - in a world where lots of people prefer violence/death/war/murder/hate/etc. - you need defense.

You’ll also play some offense.

And, you’ll support various armed uprisings - with arms!

If you couldn’t arm those people, your influence would be dramatically reduced - either directly or indirectly.

So, we keep pumping out the goods from our MIC, pumping more money into defense firms, who get more contracts, who make better stuff, and the cycle continues.

Lastly, our MIC sucks a LOT of money out of NATO partner nations - that “2% of GDP on defense” or whatever it was effectively represented a US MIC/Industrial base tax. Why? They’d buy most of it from us!

Basically, without the MIC, a lot of what goes on doesn’t happen - that includes some of the bad stuff and all of the good stuff. For me, that makes the MIC crucial since I’d prefer not to live somewhere that more closely resembles a war torn African nation.

Interesting rabbit hole.

a reply to: VulcanWerks

What it shows me is the importance of keeping the MIC humming.

I personally and not a fan of war. I don’t see the need to resolve differences with bloodshed. But, sadly, the world at scale hasn’t quite evolved to that point yet - you can blame that on a lot of factors, but, it’s where we are.

The MIC is not simply for static defense. It's also offense as you've eluded to. Arguing that you view the MIC as important and not being a fan of war are two completely opposite statements.

So, we keep pumping out the goods from our MIC, pumping more money into defense firms, who get more contracts, who make better stuff, and the cycle continues.

Agreed, and to your point it's probably the most well oiled machine this world has ever known. So why is our country in such dire straits as it relates to debt, health and happiness?

However, if you're ok with it, why not capitalize on it as a nation and allow for less restrictions here at home to supply the world with arms?

a reply to: JinMI

don't get the wrong idea I am in support of the MIC I do not think they are the boogeyman some make them out to be, they have a job to do that many do not understand or care to, I was simply spit balling theoretical ideas
Are there "bad apples" with in, I'm sure of it.

I don't think anything in our constitutional ideology can have a path of least resistance, the whole thing was create by, for and within resistance, that IS the ideology, is it not?
I feel like any popular uprising would need to be directed at the political structure not the military structure, we the people would require the assistance of the military structure to have any kind of lasting achievements in that endeavor. After all, they are also our brothers and sisters and father and mothers.

In regards to the pool of national defense contractors, I feel like the field has been narrowed over the years by a sort of "natural selection" those who are up the task, get the task. could more be beneficial? absolutely competition would breed new inventions and concepts, rather than the current format of the MIC using taxpayer funds to support a very narrow scope of what they find viable.

In line with your concept of widespread proliferation, there might not even be a need for taxpayer supported funding except to ensure public oversight (even though that thought is contradictory to the current format). This would also address the concerns of employment, or lack of.

I don't really have a counter point to the idea that an armed society is a polite society other than, there are arguments that could be made on both sides of the coin.

a reply to: datguy

don't get the wrong idea I am in support of the MIC I do not think they are the boogeyman some make them out to be, they have a job to do that many do not understand or care to, I was simply spit balling theoretical ideas
Are there "bad apples" with in, I'm sure of it.

That's pretty funny. I'm not typically supportive of the MIC due to the mechanics behind nation building and privatized gains with socialized losses. We are positioned on the opposite ends of our natural positions.

I don't think anything in our constitutional ideology can have a path of least resistance, the whole thing was create by, for and within resistance, that IS the ideology, is it not?

Yes, against the government. The Constitution is what the gov't cannot do. Which scratches at the massive hole in my OP.

I feel like any popular uprising would need to be directed at the political structure not the military structure, we the people would require the assistance of the military structure to have any kind of lasting achievements in that endeavor. After all, they are also our brothers and sisters and father and mothers.

Now you're over target. Where does the govt end and the military begin, exactly? The overlap is astounding and I can't even estimate what the fallout would look like from within that structure as I've never been there myself. However the mobile forces are largely typical everyday Americans from blue collar backgrounds and notions. I could be wrong however.

In regards to the pool of national defense contractors, I feel like the field has been narrowed over the years by a sort of "natural selection" those who are up the task, get the task. could more be beneficial? absolutely competition would breed new inventions and concepts, rather than the current format of the MIC using taxpayer funds to support a very narrow scope of what they find viable.

Now here is something I actually can speak to. I can tell you that it is not natural selection. It is the govt choosing winners and losers and those winners have direct personal or financial ties to elected offices and officials. For analog, look at traditional infrastructure projects that get deigned to specific companies exclusively.

Also there's the matter of overhead, employee classification, workload, and even capacity potential.

In line with your concept of widespread proliferation, there might not even be a need for taxpayer supported funding except to ensure public oversight (even though that thought is contradictory to the current format). This would also address the concerns of employment, or lack of.

I refer you back to the first response in this post of socialized losses and privatized gains. Where it matters on the topic of oversight, there is another hole in my OP. If we can't trust them to build a public park, why in the hell are we trusting them to something so imperative to security?

I don't really have a counter point to the idea that an armed society is a polite society other than, there are arguments that could be made on both sides of the coin.

That's fine, I haven't heard a good counterpoint either.

a reply to: JinMI

I do love me some good irony! I feel like being able to constructively play devils advocate has many advantages
Socrates would agree but I digress

Where does the govt end and the military begin, exactly?

There was a time when I would try to answer that...
I certainly don't think you are wrong in your assuming a mobile force embedded within civilian and government cross sections of society, this is to me seems like it would be a necessity.
A different way to view that though would be, how much of the government has infiltrated the MIC, this is the distinction to be made. The military has a very narrow scope and mission. lately I find that line is blurred, Elon musk is a fine example of this. Is he government or military?
Its like a deep rooted infection, sometimes you just have to amputate.

Perhaps the constitutional hole you refer to can be closed by assessing the government ties to foreign nations and organization, I can list many that are detrimental to both the MIC and the American people. The U.N., the Federal Reserve (which we both know is not a federal organization), the WHO
How would weapon proliferation impact those ties?
Interestingly enough, in some early drafts of the 2024 NDAA, there major spending cuts to many of these same organization including the WEF and the WHO.
Clearly the MIC thinks doesn't want to continue funding them, you have to wonder why...

If we can't trust them to build a public park, why in the hell are we trusting them to something so imperative to security?

Its not their job to build parks, that would be local government, which I would refer back to the idea of popular uprising.
With respect to National Security, the MIC has done an astounding job considering the amount and type of threats the American people face and are completey unaware of.

This was the part of the concept of the "nuclear family"
Little Johnny playing with his puppy in the yard surrounded by a white picket fence while mom baked apples pies and planted flowers. Where was dad, in his blue collar working to protect and provide for his family, and country.

a reply to: datguy

I do love me some good irony! I feel like being able to constructively play devils advocate has many advantages
Socrates would agree but I digress

Following the logic to completion used to be an understood norm. Happy to see it alive and well and especially for the purposes of this thread.

There was a time when I would try to answer that...
I certainly don't think you are wrong in your assuming a mobile force embedded within civilian and government cross sections of society, this is to me seems like it would be a necessity.
A different way to view that though would be, how much of the government has infiltrated the MIC, this is the distinction to be made. The military has a very narrow scope and mission. lately I find that line is blurred, Elon musk is a fine example of this. Is he government or military?
Its like a deep rooted infection, sometimes you just have to amputate.

Starting with the joint chiefs, down to the pentagon and command of all branches would be a good start. Now what percentage does that make up of the entire military? Not very much I would wager. Yet going back as far as Obama, that structure likely changed. Again, I can't really know or even speak to experience as I'm not a veteran nor involved with anything defense related. Although it did expand under Trump with the Space Force. Which as you ascribe, perhaps brings Musk into the fold.

SpaceX notwithstanding, the Twitter files highlighted some very nefarious behavior and violation of Constitutional rights where the intel agencies were enjoined. Do we classify the intel agencies as military? Should we?

Perhaps the constitutional hole you refer to can be closed by assessing the government ties to foreign nations and organization, I can list many that are detrimental to both the MIC and the American people. The U.N., the Federal Reserve (which we both know is not a federal organization), the WHO
How would weapon proliferation impact those ties?
Interestingly enough, in some early drafts of the 2024 NDAA, there major spending cuts to many of these same organization including the WEF and the WHO.
Clearly the MIC thinks doesn't want to continue funding them, you have to wonder why...

Would you include NATO among those orgs? Talk about a double edged sword. Perhaps instead of a deterrent we would essentially be funding mercenaries for hire for such toothless entities. I take your point here.

Its not their job to build parks, that would be local government, which I would refer back to the idea of popular uprising.
With respect to National Security, the MIC has done an astounding job considering the amount and type of threats the American people face and are completey unaware of.

National Forests.....

I'll agree with you of them doing a good job, like I told Vulcan, probably the most well oiled machine to ever have existed. Yet, our debt is astronomical, health and healthcare are in the toilet. So what do we have to show for it?

This was the part of the concept of the "nuclear family"
Little Johnny playing with his puppy in the yard surrounded by a white picket fence while mom baked apples pies and planted flowers. Where was dad, in his blue collar working to protect and provide for his family, and country.

The optics really don't matter to me. Does the father have access to arms to protect what is his? Does the mother?

Do we want to get into the "threats the American people face and are completely unaware of" where our government is the cause of such?

a reply to: JinMI

Yes, I would include NATO.
While I have respect for abiding a promise and holding to agreements. The failure comes when you have unilateral agreements like the Bucharest Mandates. Again, respect for abiding the agreements made but there is an obvious conflict of interest there.
Again we are at the line in the sand of government(Bucharest mandate) vs military(NATO)
Perhaps in the 90's the Bucharest mandate seemed like a good idea, who could have known that it would have drawn us into the current war, who could have known that Russia and Ukraine would violate the accord, in that light why is the US upholding its end of the bargain?

Perhaps I am starting to see a little more benefit in the concept you have presented
Would there have been difference in outcome if we had armed Ukraine sooner? or Moldova or Kuwait.
Its hard to say in hindsight, we can only speculate.
Are there any examples of nations that we have armed that could be used as example
Taiwan? South Korea? Afghanistan?
WE didnt arm Kuwait but we moved in miltary assets, same for Bahrain but we also support their own military similar to how we fund Isreal

Do we want to get into the "threats the American people face and are completely unaware of" where our government is the cause of such?

I think it is very important to the discussion, the first example I though of is Immigration
do we arm the immigrants? or do we arm the citizens, which is the bigger threat?
Yes i think largely that people are unaware of the dangers of immigration, or that our government is responsible for destabilizing the nations that the immigrants are coming from, not the military.
Should the military have armed those people before they became immigrants, why didnt they?

All this government vs military talk has me asking, are we not already in the midst of a civil war?

a reply to: datguy

Yes, I would include NATO.
While I have respect for abiding a promise and holding to agreements. The failure comes when you have unilateral agreements like the Bucharest Mandates. Again, respect for abiding the agreements made but there is an obvious conflict of interest there.
Again we are at the line in the sand of government(Bucharest mandate) vs military(NATO)
Perhaps in the 90's the Bucharest mandate seemed like a good idea, who could have known that it would have drawn us into the current war, who could have known that Russia and Ukraine would violate the accord, in that light why is the US upholding its end of the bargain?

Yes, all the agreements in eastern Europe share some wide ven diagram of conflict of interests, and hypocrisy here at home.

There was ample warning and buildup leading to Russias invasion. Our leaders and their MIC ties ensured that war was inevitable and continue to do so.

So lets round this back to the topic. Where would Ukraine be if instead of pushing NATO we were pushing a 2nd amendment and access to our small arms manufactures?

Perhaps I am starting to see a little more benefit in the concept you have presented
Would there have been difference in outcome if we had armed Ukraine sooner? or Moldova or Kuwait.
Its hard to say in hindsight, we can only speculate.
Are there any examples of nations that we have armed that could be used as example
Taiwan? South Korea? Afghanistan?
WE didnt arm Kuwait but we moved in miltary assets, same for Bahrain but we also support their own military similar to how we fund Isreal

Ah, you answered my question here. Trying to go point by point.

Nothing comes to mind to your question. Plenty of the opposite though where the gov't removes arms and then does horrid things. Nor have we offered it. Although when Russia invaded, the very first thing we did was drop tons of small arms into Ukraine for anyone who would hold one.

I think it is very important to the discussion, the first example I though of is Immigration
do we arm the immigrants? or do we arm the citizens, which is the bigger threat?
Yes i think largely that people are unaware of the dangers of immigration, or that our government is responsible for destabilizing the nations that the immigrants are coming from, not the military.
Should the military have armed those people before they became immigrants, why didnt they?

You bring up an interesting point with a painful truth.

Illinois House Bill 3751 states:

Provides that an individual who is not a citizen but is legally authorized to work in the United States under federal law is authorized to apply for the position of police officer, subject to all requirements and limitations, other than citizenship, to which other applicants are subject."

Link

How long until the military says that you can earn your citizenship after say 2 years of service? How would that change our discussion here?

All this government vs military talk has me asking, are we not already in the midst of a civil war?

Rather subjective question.

We have political prisoners.
We have jailing of attorneys.
We have multi tiers of justice.

I'd argue we are in a cold civil war currently.

a reply to: Mantiss2021

If someone else decides not to be polite, it would be better if they did not have a weapon of any sort in their hand, either.

But , they will as they are not "polite".
Geez , I wish I could make and live in my own reality .

a reply to: JinMI

Nukes for everyone?

Being polite only trough the lingering thread of violence, is not politeness just cowardice.

The MIC is no better than big Pharma their products are just more efficient.
When we let economy that has no value system for human well being invade politics, the structure we choose to represent us the people, we sealed our own downfall. There will be a point when humans are the only profitable resources left and it's approach is already notable...

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes...

a reply to: Terpene

Being polite only trough the lingering thread of violence, is not politeness just cowardice.

It's the way of humans. You can dislike it, but to deny its existence wouldn't be very prudent.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes...

The irony....