this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
484 points (95.5% liked)

World News

32311 readers
917 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Silverseren@kbin.social 39 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Is this actual money in this case or is this more designated monetary amounts of goods, ie the worth of the guns and tanks and other things we've been giving them that were just collecting dust over here?

Because that's what most of the past monetary support was. No actual money was involved and so didn't really cost us anything.

[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

the worth of the guns and tanks and other things we’ve been giving them that were just collecting dust over here?

Use of reserves motivates replacement. Just because you're giving them weapons that were produced in the past, and therefore whose (production) cost has already been incurred, doesn't mean that occurs in a vacuum. With stock running low, contemporary money goes in to replenishing that stock. In effect, there's no difference whether you send old or new equipment, because both incur costs in the present.

No actual money was involved and so didn’t really cost us anything.

It cost you exactly the amount it cost to produce them. Just because it was produced in the past, doesn't mean it was free. You paid for it X years ago, and are only now seeing it used. You paid for it. Moreover, you're now going to pay to replace it.

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 37 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Except a bunch is old stock or overstock. The US was sitting on stockpiles of 203mm artillery rounds from the m110 that they would've had to pay someone to decommission, but it turns out that there's a soviet arty piece that can use them, and guess what? Ukraine has em. Not to mention they chronically overproduced M1A1 Abrams to the point that generals were begging for it to stop, simply because it would be more expensive to shut down and restart production than simply keep making tanks nobody wanted or needed. Plus, a significant portion of the old inventory was DESIGNED to blow up russian equipment. So the US is clearing out old shit, crippling the Russian military, and aiding a new democracy. The only downside is the fresh money that is probably going to be dumped into the MIC to fill those clean shelves, but (and this is basically NCDposting but here we go) the fact that the US can almost singlehandedly provide Ukraine the resources to hold out against fucking Russia for over a year and that equioment still being only a tiny fraction of their total might? Holy shit. Grab the money shovels boys.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

How about 40 billion to support getting some bitches..... on a Single Payer Healthcare program.

[–] Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 1 year ago

Y’all bitches deserve hella healthcare but like… gotta do war and stuff I guess

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HurlingDurling@lemm.ee 20 points 1 year ago

Can we go ahead and just declare a state of emergency on the climate crisis? Or do we need the rest of the states to burn down as well? Shit's getting me frustrated

[–] jcit878@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (12 children)

aid is good, but we need to stop dancing around and allow provided arms to be used cross border. or maybe itll take the deaths of another 250000 russian conscripts

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›