• @li10@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      118 months ago

      Losing more than winning?

      Not saying it’s right or worth the disproportionate investment, but the true value is the threat they pose keeps other countries in line (to a degree), winning the battle before it starts.

    • e_t_
      link
      fedilink
      58 months ago

      If you win a conflict decisively, then the conflict is over and weapon sales dry up. Continuous, low-level, indecisive battles are what keep the weapon dealers in business.

    • @BB69@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      48 months ago

      Ah yes, the epic fail of Ukraine being able to not collapse due to American equipment propping up the armed forces against Russia.

      Situations like this is why the budget is so high.

      • @Perfide@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        38 months ago

        Funding to Ukraine has all been additional funding approved by congress, it didn’t come from our defense budget…

        • @BB69@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          18 months ago

          Aid given to Ukraine has mainly been material the US already has. We aren’t building new weapons for them. The dollars on the aid packages is the value of the equipment.

        • @papertowels
          link
          18 months ago

          I’d argue that the additional funding has allowed the US to leverage the investments they’ve previously paid for in their regular budget to help Ukraine.

          You cannot throw the money congress has budgeted for Ukraine at a vacuum to get nearly as much support - you need the logistics of a ready to go military industrial complex that everyone loves to hate.