Opinion: Time to reinvest in defense

[SunsetBengal]

The old economics phrase "guns or butter" in 2023 gets revised to "guns or virtue signaling". Can't really say that I disagree with the author's sentiments.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/it-s-no-longer-guns-or-butter-now-it-s-guns-or-virtue-signaling/ar-AA1jtYxw?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=5998a422b0f94246a622b600c6d0c12a&ei=40

Quote:Basic economics courses usually refer to a trade-off of “guns or butter,” the tension between spending on defense or domestic welfare. There is no question that the United States has vastly expanded its welfare state in recent years, particularly under cover of the pandemic. Programs now completely out of date are kept on life support because nobody likes losing “goodies.” America’s national debt has soared, exceeding $33 trillion for the first time in September.

On the “guns” side of the ledger, the “peace dividend” that supposedly justified a pullback of U.S. defense spending in the 1990s following the end of the Cold War is long gone. International tension and threats abound today, including ambitious China, bellicose Russia, unpredictable North Korea, the tumultuous Middle East, and the fear of a nuclear Iran.

But “guns versus butter” is no longer the most important trade-off we face. Arguably, it is now guns versus virtue signaling. We are squandering trillions of dollars on virtue signaling that produces little or no benefit. These monies should be redirected into defense immediately.

What is “virtue signaling”? The quintessential example is the Green New Deal, more aptly titled the “Green New Scam.” We don’t question that human endeavors are causing climate change, but instead of responding with effective programs, we are throwing money onto a giant bonfire. That might warm the hearts of politicians, but few, if any, of our very expensive programs and policies will make any material difference to Earth’s climate.

At the nation-to-nation level, we are spending our way into excessive dependence on our enemies while giving them a pass on climate action. The U.S. is accountable for under 15% (and shrinking) of world carbon emissions, while China’s share is 27% and growing. Asia is at 53% compared with 35% for the Americas and Europe. Our dependence comes from two sources: the importation of energy, mainly oil, when we could be producing it ourselves, and the total Chinese dominance of the market for minerals necessary for our suicidal electrification plans.

More specifically, our leaders have adopted two major policy directions that will have a limited to minimal effect on greenhouse gas emissions. The first is reliance on “renewables,” wind and solar power, to displace fossil fuels. This will help up to the point that their intermittency becomes unaffordable because of the cost of backup power, either through subsidizing idle fossil fuel plants or purchasing ever more batteries, thereby driving their cost through the roof due to limited mineral availability. Texas has already proposed subsidies for gas-fired electrical plants to back up their also-subsidized wind power.

In fact, in only a few settings have renewables been cost-competitive with fossil fuel-based electricity. Most projects would collapse, as many have already done, without massive subsidies for construction and operation. All the while, the glaringly obvious route to lowering greenhouse gas emissions, small-scale nuclear power plants, is being ignored despite needing only modest financial support to accelerate the design and deployment of new and scalable approaches to nuclear. Over 150 U.S. naval ships have operated on nuclear power for many decades without incident, real-world examples of the feasibility of reducing carbon emissions using this approach.

The other relevant government policy direction is so nonsensical that it defies explanation beyond virtue signaling — namely, electric vehicles. Trillions of dollars have been or will be spent for subsidies in the short term, attempting to force EVs onto largely unwilling consumers. But this strategy is utterly misguided because the push for more EVs is actually accelerating greenhouse gas emissions in the short term due to the process of mining the minerals necessary for EV batteries.

It will require driving an EV for 10-15 years for the tailpipe emissions savings to offset those from manufacturing, even assuming the batteries and the cars in which they sit last that long. And that does not take into account any battery recycling, the emissions and financial cost to create an adequate charging infrastructure that we are decades and trillions of dollars from achieving, or the leverage China will have over the automotive industry. EVs are the very definition of a “boondoggle.”

The bottom line is simple. Stop arguing about “butter.” Instead, stop all the useless subsidies for renewables and EVs, redirect a small portion toward accelerating small-scale nuclear, and give the substantial remainder to “guns” to cope with an increasingly dangerous world. How can this not be utterly obvious?

Andrew I. Fillat spent his career in technology venture capital and information technology companies. He is also the co-inventor of relational databases. Henry I. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is the Glenn Swogger distinguished fellow at the American Council on Science and Health. They were undergraduates together at M.I.T.

Tags: Opinion, Beltway Confidential, Blog Contributors, virtue signaling, Energy, National Security, Opinion

Original Author: Andrew I. Fillat, Henry Miller

[GMDino]

The 80's were a crazy time.  Glad some people still think we should go back there. 



All seriousness aside I 've been hearing "it's not affordable" or "we can't invest right now" for so long I'm starting to think that if we had invested all those years ago we'd be somewhere ahead of where we are now.

But then that defense budget isn't going to feed itself.

[*pally*]

so they want the DOD to NOT invest in new technologies because the dividends might not be realized for 10-15 years. Doesn't logic dictate that you invest early so that by the time the new technology is needed, it is ready to go? Yeah Gen-1 of any product might not be the best or most efficient but what they learn from that Beta group will set up the future generations to be far better and less expensive

[Dill]

(11-06-2023, 06:42 PM)pally Wrote: so they want the DOD to NOT invest in new technologies because the dividends might not be realized for 10-15 years.  Doesn't logic dictate that you invest early so that by the time the new technology is needed, it is ready to go?  Yeah Gen-1 of any product might not be the best or most efficient but what they learn from that Beta group will set up the future generations to be far better and less expensive

If investing in EVs is such bad strategy, why is China investing so much in the idea?

[Belsnickel]

I thought we were trying to balance the budget?

[*Nately120*]

(11-07-2023, 09:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I thought we were trying to balance the budget?

This country couldn't even balance a breakfast.

[grampahol]

(11-07-2023, 12:13 PM)Dill Wrote: If investing in EVs is such bad strategy, why is China investing so much in the idea?

Everything China does is for show. ..period. They develop nothing and make bad copies of everything..

[Dill]

(11-08-2023, 02:20 PM)grampahol Wrote: Everything China does is for show. ..period. They develop nothing and make bad copies of everything..

And yet, they have become our #1 competitor in the world economy, 

the second largest economy in the world. Somehow.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(11-07-2023, 12:13 PM)Dill Wrote: If investing in EVs is such bad strategy, why is China investing so much in the idea?

China is also investing in producing SIX TIMES more coal power plants than the rest of the world combined right now. They approved 4x more new coal plants in 2022 than they did in 2021 and it's just skyrocketing upwards.

They're looking for more energy in whatever form they can get it. 

- - - - - - - -

As for the OP, I have long been banging on the drum for making new modern-designed nuclear power plants. It seems like the only realistic way we currently have to power this country without coal or oil. All of our current nuclear power were built 50-60 years ago, and designed before that. There has to be advancements in both efficiency and safety since then that we could implement.

As for investing in defense specifically, the biggest difference maker there would probably be to have schools put a bit more focus on PE. Make it like a 1.5 period long class, every semester and actually focus on it making it more of a workout than a gym hangout. That alone would be the biggest boost to our defense by expanding the pool of capable recruits.

[grampahol]

(11-08-2023, 03:06 PM)Dill Wrote: And yet, they have become our #1 competitor in the world economy, 

the second largest economy in the world. Somehow.

There's one and only one reason China became a competitor to US domination and it had to do with globalization and the services of the US Navy keeping the high seas available for global shipping. They owe nearly all of their newfound wealth to that single fact and it all happened in about 20 years. China's good fortune is drying up really fast. They have no friends in any of the island chains surrounding their coast line and they import or steal nearly all of their industrial inputs, energy, steel, technology and on and on. They import the vast majority of their food to feed their population. In comparison the US is self sufficient in nearly all of the above. It would only take a couple of destroyers sitting in the Malacca Straights to send China into all out famine in a matter of months.. China is FAR MORE dependent on us than we'll ever be of them.. In the grand scheme of geopolitics geography still matters A LOT and China was blessed with terrible geography. The United States was blessed with the greatest geography in all the world.. Two vast oceans and coastlines, massive navigable rivers right through the heartland, some of the best farmland in the world, more than abundant resources and a very diverse population from all over the globe.. Should I go on? 

[Dill]

(11-09-2023, 02:01 PM)grampahol Wrote: There's one and only one reason China became a competitor to US domination and it had to do with globalization and the services of the US Navy keeping the high seas available for global shipping. They owe nearly all of their newfound wealth to that single fact and it all happened in about 20 years. China's good fortune is drying up really fast. They have no friends in any of the island chains surrounding their coast line and they import or steal nearly all of their industrial inputs, energy, steel, technology and on and on. They import the vast majority of their food to feed their population. In comparison the US is self sufficient in nearly all of the above. It would only take a couple of destroyers sitting in the Malacca Straights to send China into all out famine in a matter of months.. China is FAR MORE dependent on us than we'll ever be of them.. In the grand scheme of geopolitics geography still matters A LOT and China was blessed with terrible geography. The United States was blessed with the greatest geography in all the world.. Two vast oceans and coastlines, massive navigable rivers right through the heartland, some of the best farmland in the world, more than abundant resources and a very diverse population from all over the globe.. Should I go on? 

"Go on" to . . . ?

What are you arguing here? Are you saying that China is not, at this moment, the US' most serious adversary/competitor on the global stage?

Or are you allowing that it is, but telling me not to worry because "terrible geography"? 

I don't think they import the majority of their food, and would hardly fall into famine if the US blocked the Malacca Straits. You've read perhaps that they are the world's largest importer of food, but according to the world bank that's 9% of their consumption, compared to 7% for the US.
 https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/TM.VAL.FOOD.ZS.UN?end=2022&start=2019

They still produce a quarter of the world's grain, ahead of the US. Their percentage of imported food has risen, but some say that is in part due to increased demand for luxury items like wine.

Oil is their most serious dependency; lucky they get along with Russia and Iran.  

I hypothesize that at the moment, the social consequences of modernization are requiring the CCP to exert more control of the economy and civil society, and that this is braking their growth, making them more, not less dangerous. Aside from that their main problem is too much saving (a consequence of bad policy--cutting their social safety net back in the '90s). But it is not an economy I could dismiss by attributing its astonishing growth since 1980--10% a year for many decades--simply to "globalization," any more than I would do that for the US.