[atty]

To be fair, defense is an existential risk for the US and its allies. NATO can’t really afford to not have a reasonably up-to-date combat jet. They also need to continually feed money into the military industrial complex so that suppliers don’t go under/downsize too much/etc.

Not disagreeing with your sentiment, just think that certain fields like defense, healthcare, etc have slightly different priority lists.

[tehjoker]

> defense is an existential risk for the US

this is not a true statement for a huge country with oceans on 2 sides and nukes. it is a true statement about people relying on the us military to make money tho

[FredPret]

Oceans are only a defense if you can float a navy on them. The British Islands got invaded a couple of times... until they built a big navy.

Having two oceans is great, but now you need at least two fleets.

Nukes are only worth something if you have a lot of them and can credibly delivery them in multiple ways. Now you need subs, long-range bombers and the fighters to protect them, and missile silos.

Now add in reliance on a global supply chain (many types of oil and minerals, grades of steel not made in the US, TSMC), and all of a sudden you need to be able to help protect your partners on the other side of the world.

Now sprinkle in a couple of crazy dictators with nuclear arsenals and huge armies of their own, and it's starting to make sense why the US military needs constant re-investment.

[peterfirefly]

Don't forget satellites and SIGINT (which just might involve crazy submarines and big "scientific" radio astronomy dishes). Or cover stories about ships and manganese extraction worthy of James Bond.

[lupusreal]

> Glomar Explorer

That was the CIA's plot, which the Navy vehemently objected to. The Navy said it was farcically complicated, too large of a plot to keep secret and likely to fail. Both proved true. The Navy offered to recover Intel from the Soviet submarine using DSVs and ROVs, low risk operations they could have easily kept secret. But the CIA won this dispute and fumbled the submarine and got putted by the press.

[krisoft]

> Now you need subs, long-range bombers and the fighters to protect them, and missile silos.

The role of the long-range bombers in the nuclear triad is heavily questioned. It is not quite certain that you "need" them.

[FredPret]

You need them anyway because almost 100% of the time you’ll be dropping conventional ordnance / paratroopers / perhaps drones in future.

[tehjoker]

this is hyperbolic. there are various coastal defenses and naval deployments that are not nearly as intensive as you describe.

the "crazy dictator" theory is a conjuring of the govt and media in service of empire. they are acquiring nukes because they are afraid of being invaded by us!

[FredPret]

Not all crazy dictators are dangerous purely because they have nukes.

Some sponsor anti-US terrorism.

Some are chomping at the bit to invade Europe (Russia) or Taiwan (China).

Some are just nuts (North Korea).

But now that these nutjobs have nukes, they’re all the more dangerous.