Hacker News Reader

Comment by dmarlow | Hacker News Reader

Before each war, leaders should sit down, write down hypothetical outcomes and see if they still feel it makes sense. Then, after the conflict, come back and see how their estimates were. I'm hopeful that people would be more prudent if they could foresee the impact of their decisions.

View on HN

They do that, it happens that

"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket

It reminds me of a recent quote I saw in the news:

"The top people in the Pentagon probably aren’t [in love with me], because they want to do nothing but fight wars so that all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make everything else stay happy, but we're getting out of the endless wars."

That same person boasts about an increased pentagon budget. Where does he think that money goes?

It doesn’t seem like either leading candidate has taken a position on the military-industrial complex.

The fetishization (despite the massive reduction in the percentage of the population who have served) of the military in the US makes it really hard to take a strong stance against the MIC as a politician (aiming for the presidency, representatives and some senate seats have more freedom here).

Congress less so: Rockwell was the pioneer in making sure every congressional district had a contractor or manufacturer making a part of the B-1 bomber to keep congress from cancelling it.

>“We’ve totally rebuilt the military — $2.5 trillion,” he said, going on to talk about a contract awarded to that shipbuilding company, Fincantieri Marinette Marine, “to build the next generation of guided missile frigates for the United States Navy.”

>He then mentioned missiles, rockets and tanks, saying: “What we had were great people in the military, but they weren’t given the right equipment, so now they are. Two and a half trillion dollars. … We’ve invested the $2.5 trillion

Quote from whom? Non USA person here.

Someone is sneaking in pro-Trump commentary/politics.

Of course Trump is like the infinite monkey matrix. Wait a bit and he'll adopt your political position.

Seems like you're presuming too much strategic thinking on the part of our political leadership.

I think it's presumptive to assume that the people who are paraded around for the circus that is politics are the strategic leadership.

If they made their projections public that might cut down on the racket aspect.

But they did make their projections public.

"VICE PRES. DICK CHENEY: My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators."

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3080244/ns/meet_the_press/t/transc...

I agree. One of the problems that arises, however, is that wars get passed down from administration to administration, and once that happens, nobody wants to be the one to pull out and have that on their legacy.

It happened in Vietnam, and it's happening today in the Middle East. In both cases, the government knew early on that "total victory" was not possible, yet administrations kept pressing on. As long as leaders fear the political fallout of such major decisions, they will act in their best interest, even if it costs thousands of young lives.

Would it ever make sense? This is not how greed and hatred work

Reply on news.ycombinator.com