Missiles or food, which is more important?

[Jannabear]

We could practically end world hunger if we spent a portion of what we spend on our military helping those who are starving.
A small portion.
Around 30 billion a year.
We spend 570 billion+ on our military per year.
Is anyone else disgusted by this?

[pr126]

Not at all.

You would have to change human nature which is predatory and always uses force to get what it wants, if it can get away with it.
It is the nature of the beast.

[Jannabear]

Not at all.

You would have to change human nature which is predatory and always uses force to get what it wants, if it can get away with it.
It is the nature of the beast.

All because it's human nature doesn't make it right.
I don't even think it's human nature, I think it's more ignorance if anything from most people, you're told that the boogeyman is gonna getcha, and if you hand over some money we'll take care of it.
Even though we have a military budget near the size of the rest of the world combined.

[pr126]

Try some reality.

Do you see what is going on around the world? 

Do you think that by reducing US military spending it will eliminate world hunger?

Billions in aid has been given to Africa in the last 50 years. Did that change anything?

[Shiranu]

I'm actually prone to agree with pr's basic premise... believe it or not...

[Jannabear]

Try some reality.

Do you see what is going on around the world? 

Do you think that by reducing US military spending it will eliminate world hunger?

Billions in aid has been given to Africa in the last 50 years. Did that change anything?

We spend 570 billion+ On our military per year, the un estimated it would take 30 billion per year to end world hunger.

[Shiranu]

We spend 570 billion+ On our military per year, the un estimated it would take 30 billion per year to end world hunger.

That estimate is quite generous. If we were to throw 30 billion dollars worth of food at the rest of the world... do you think it would fix a thing? No... because there are still evil people who would make sure that never reaches the mouth of the person actually starving. There are evil people who would (and have) turned it into propaganda against us... that it's poisoned or in some way tainted and a conspiracy to destroy their power. So... so many of the world's needy live in countries that have issues that won't be solved with throwing money at it.

This is where pr and I differ I believe; I believe that change should come from inside and can come from inside whereas he tends to believe such changes are impossible or unwanted and can only be forced upon a society. And dare I say it... I think pr's point (if I interpret it correctly) is occasionally correct... I just choose to want to believe the world is fundamentally a good place and we should avoid any sort of conflict until the last possible moment to give the good people a chance.

[Jannabear]

That estimate is quite generous. If we were to throw 30 billion dollars worth of food at the rest of the world... do you think it would fix a thing? No... because there are still evil people who would make sure that never reaches the mouth of the person actually starving. There are evil people who would (and have) turned it into propaganda against us... that it's poisoned or in some way tainted and a conspiracy to destroy their power. So... so many of the world's needy live in countries that have issues that won't be solved with throwing money at it.

This is where pr and I differ I believe; I believe that change should come from inside and can come from inside whereas he tends to believe such changes are impossible or unwanted and can only be forced upon a society. And dare I say it... I think pr's point (if I interpret it correctly) is occasionally correct... I just choose to want to believe the world is fundamentally a good place and we should avoid any sort of conflict until the last possible moment to give the good people a chance.

The Notion that everyone who's starving is under some dictatorship is silly.
I agree we couldn't end all of world hunger due to political reasons but we can definitely make a MASSIVE difference if we take a small amount out of our military budget.

[pr126]

The Notion that everyone who's starving is under some dictatorship is silly.
I agree we couldn't end all of world hunger due to political reasons but we can definitely make a MASSIVE difference if we take a small amount out of our military budget.

Would you expect Iran, North Korea, or other countries to do the same?

[Shiranu]

The Notion that everyone who's starving is under some dictatorship is silly.
I agree we couldn't end all of world hunger due to political reasons but we can definitely make a MASSIVE difference if we take a small amount out of our military budget.

I'm not arguing against that. However dictatorship is not accurate; there are plenty of democracies that would block their people from having food as well. We tend to view dictatorships as the 'ultimate evil' but really democracies and more 'good' forms of government are just as susceptible to evil and corruption as the evil and corruption being centred on one guy and his cronies.

When we take into account the number of corrupt non-dictatorships... the number of people affected sky rockets.

This is not a statement against doing good... rather just a statement that doing good is not as easy as just throwing money at the problem and hoping it goes away.

I do disagree with Pr's last post though; we could vastly cut the military budget to spend on more productive internal and external affairs without crippling our ability to deal with developing-world "bad guys".

[pr126]

There are the oil producing countries who are awash with money, and the kings and princes are buying ridiculously expensive items like solid silver and diamond encrusted cars, yachts, private 747's and palaces with gold toilets. (see YouTube).

Why are they exempt from alleviating world hunger? Or even helping the poor in their own countries?

How about Dubai, the 'Las Vegas of the desert' (still empty as few can afford the price) built with virtually slave labor?

And as for the USA in the Middle East, please stop "helping" people. Done enough damage already.

[Shiranu]

There are the oil producing countries who are awash with money, and the kings and princes are buying ridiculously expensive items like solid silver and diamond encrusted cars, yachts, private 747's and palaces with gold toilets. (see YouTube).

Why are they exempt from alleviating world hunger? Or even helping the poor in their own countries?

How about Dubai, the 'Las Vegas of the desert' (still empty as few can afford the price) built with virtually slave labor?

And as for the USA in the Middle East, please stop "helping" people. Done enough damage already.

I actually more or less agree with this as well. When I say we should spend our money on something better... I do mostly mean internal spending on helping our poor and middle class as well as our infrastructure and manufacturing or educational and science programs. Global poverty and hunger should be a global issue and not left up to one or two countries.

[stromboli]

We spend 570 billion+ On our military per year, the un estimated it would take 30 billion per year to end world hunger.

World poverty is in decline

http://www.cato.org/blog/dramatic-decline-world-poverty

Using updated methodology, the World Bank recalculated poverty figures back to 1990. The new data track closely with previous Bank figures, which I use in the graph to show the fall in poverty since the early 1980s when 43 percent of the world’s population was extremely poor. The record on poverty reduction is consistent with the unprecedented progress that humanity has made around the world in the whole range of indicators of well-being, and which researchers and others can explore at HumanProgress.org.

The drop in poverty also coincides with a significant increase in global economic freedom, beginning with China’s reforms some 35 years ago and the globalization that followed the collapse of central planning in the late 1980s and early 1990s. As we celebrate this achievement and strive for further progress, we should not lose sight of the central role that voluntary exchange, freedom of choice, competition and protection of property play in ending privation.

The starving kid in Africa was a thing in the 1990s, but now mostly not true. There is enough food to feed everyone, the only problems are political ones largely fueled by global warming and conservative religions disrupting distribution of food.


Military spending world wide is currently less than it was. Historically in the U. S., the Republicans spend more for defense that Democrats. Under Clinton the U. S. Military was downsized and under Obama, the last couple of years has seen a down turn in military spending.

Nonetheless we still spend more for the military than most countries- The U. S. spends about 35% of all the money versus the rest of the world at 65%. Part of the downward trend in spending is focus on higher tech, more effective weapons that cost less. A guided bomb dropped from a B-52 or B-2 cost a fraction of a cruise missile, and is just as accurate. Similarly a round from a rail gun or high energy launch weapon is much cheaper than a "smart" round like what was used in the Gulf War. Bush spent more money on war than any president since WW2 and that is saying something, considering that Reagan sunk billions into Star Wars initiatives in the 80s.

Military spending is also linked to the economy because new weapons create new jobs, but that link is less so than before. More jobs currently are being created in new tech like solar than in petroleum and industry. Our focus should be on new tech and energy independence from petroleum.

I worked for the military for 28 of my 32 years in government. The "Golden toilet seat" is less true than before, but that had more to do with how materials are purchased than anything. The reason the golden toilet seat happened was because companies build their specific products to military spec, and everything was done by a bidding process. so a specific company that happened to build the right unit, or be able to conform to the spec became essentially a monopoly and could claim that meeting the specific specifications cost them money and was passed on to the military.

By changing the policies and allowing individual depots to opt for local purchase over Milspec, contract built products, costs were cut dramatically. Depots like Hill AFB where I worked have to account for their budgets. It actually does them no good to spend more. Depots bid against each other for repair of current or future equipment. Hill got the F-16 and now the F-35 as prime both for stationing the aircraft and Depot repair. They got the contracts because overall costs are less in Utah than in other states.

[Jannabear]

Would you expect Iran, North Korea, or other countries to do the same?

I don't really see why this is relevant?
Are they supposed to lead by example, or is this that we need to have a massive military argument
I'm confused about what you mean.

[Jannabear]

There are the oil producing countries who are awash with money, and the kings and princes are buying ridiculously expensive items like solid silver and diamond encrusted cars, yachts, private 747's and palaces with gold toilets. (see YouTube).

Why are they exempt from alleviating world hunger? Or even helping the poor in their own countries?

How about Dubai, the 'Las Vegas of the desert' (still empty as few can afford the price) built with virtually slave labor?

And as for the USA in the Middle East, please stop "helping" people. Done enough damage already.

Again, why the fuck does it matter if other countries don't want to help their people, we should do as much as possible regardless of what some psychopaths want to do.