• AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Taxes don’t pay for anything at the federal level. They are deleted. We used to literally burn them back when we collected physical money. We can afford both our current military spending, and every single progressive policy that AOC or Bernie can dream up just fine. (Not saying we should, just that we can. I think we should scale back on certain aspects of the military, but that’s a whole other discussion) The government just “prints” more money and deposits it in the appropriate accounts via the Federal Reserve. Taxes are merely an anti-inflationary device to ensure that inflation stays stable. Running deficits doesn’t cause inflation. If it did, Japan would have been thoroughly fucked in the last 30 years of running the highest deficit by percentage of any country in the world. In reality they are running the largest deficit economy, and barely fighting off deflation.

        Edit: this only applies to a sovereign fiat currency.

  • zephyreks@lemmy.mlOPM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Europe shouldn’t let it’s home-grown defence industries languish in the name of strategic cohesion. Europe has no domestic competition to the F-35, no cohesive military procurement strategy that rewards European businesses, and no mechanism to avoid the shitshow of being entirely dependent on US defence contractors for maintenance of key defence infrastructure.

    • Donjuanme@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      It also doesn’t have access to nearly as many raw materials as the United States does.

      I wish we’d all just calm down with the military spending, but I also understand when dealing with the USA it’s probably safer to not rely on then(us) to keep their(our) word

    • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      I hope they have no competition to the F-35 because everyone’s been saying it’s a piece of shit for the last fifteen years.

      • Cynoid@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I think the situation is more nuanced than that.

        Of course, the F-35 program was an incredibly expensive mess (litterally the most expensive weapon program of all time), because of conflicting specs, data leaks, political infighting, cost overruns which are the stuff of legend, etc… At some moments, there were certainly reasons to think the whole program would collapse on itself like wet tissue paper.

        But there are operational F35 now. 900+ as of 2023, which is 4 time more than the rest of Gen 5 fighters combined. And performance-wise, it is good, especially on the stealth & avionics parts. On the other side, the J-20 is largely unproven (probably a decent design, but not as good), and the Su-57 is a bunch of glorified prototypes.

        Now sure, cost is high, maintenance is time-consuming, availability somewhat below target, but it’s not particularly surprising for high-performance equipment. It may fall short of the ambition of the program on the cost part, but by itself it’s a dangerous and fully operational fighter.

      • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        We didn’t even roll it out for testing at VX squadrons until like 2018, and it’s biggest claim to infamy is just being on the R&D line for like 25 years.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          25 years that’s for chumps. FCAS is probably going to take at least 2040 to be ready. Airbus got the contract in 2017, that’s 23 years to 2040, and no of course it won’t be on schedule.

          Regarding the relative tech levels, though, Europe as a whole is simply not at the same schedule as the US. The F35 is replacing F16, F18, Harriers, from the 70s-80s, (which of course got upgrades), while the first Typhoon entered service in 2006.

      • gmtom@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        What? No. The only people saying that shit are Russian or Chinese talking heads, for obvious reasons.

        Anyone else is singing the praises of the f-35. Literally it’s biggest issue was with the alignment of its guns being fucky. But these things should never be in position to use guns in the first place.

      • force@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Anyone that says that has no idea what they’re talking about lol, the F-35 is completely unmatched in terms of multirole aircraft (along with the F-22 for a more fighter-focused role) and likely will only be surpassed with gen 6 aircraft.

        The SU-57 and practically any “modern” Russian aircraft are complete jokes that will fall apart with 2 seconds of airtime, and the J-20 and a majority of Chinese aircraft are cheap imitations of western (mainly American) technology which although much more capable than Russian aircraft, still fall behind a lot due to the corruption/authoritarianism in the Chinese military & government absolutely crumpling any hope of having actually competitive engineering & building.

        European aircraft aren’t even worth considering as competition either (although are far superior to the previous 2 nations’ mentioned, in most cases). Eurofighters are just another one of the projects European nations had that was plagued by issues from the fact that it was multiple parties with differing requirements/interests/goals trying to develop something. Gripens are less effective budget alternatives to American gen 4 fighters. Etc. Etc.

        The combined capabilities in technology, resources/wealth, and pool of experienced/intelligent engineers that the US has at its disposal makes it extremely hard to even dream of touching their capabilities when it comes to aircraft. Even with ground vehicles, the only real competition is Germany… but German armed forces are kind of in a state of disrepair right now, they’ve really neglected their military. It’s really only the defense companies like Rheinmetall and KNDS which can be pointed to as successful currently.

        Europe has a long way to go to compete with American military aircraft. Right now the US just has so much more experience and knowledge when it comes to fighter jets & more modern technologies present in said jets. It’d require a lot more investment in aerospace engineering and technology as a whole really, not just when it comes to aerospace. And Europe is currently even more desperate for tech workers than the US atm afaik.

        • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          SAAB can’t go toe to toe with American jets, that’s true, and not what they were designed for. They’ll shoot an SU out of the sky before the SU knows they exist. They’re also still the only people to ever get a lock on a SR-71. As an American, I think they make some impressive jets. I even like their cars, but that’s a can of heartbreak.

  • Zimmy@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Lots of euro leaders have said the same over the years. The question as always is, what will you do about it?

  • t�m@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m supposed no one is actively adding the us into the EU

  • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Take your bets now everyone, we’ve got:

    • “stupidly tries to deepen ties with the cyberpunk oligarchy of China”,

    • “stupidly try to deepen ties with the impotent Mafia state in Russia”,

    • “stupidly try to deepen ties with petro-dictatorships/monarchies in MENA”,

    • “immediately double back because they realized that reducing reliance on the US means having to actually uphold their NATO spending requirements at a minimum to replace the US subsidizing their national defenses”,

    and least likely of all,

    • “actually do anything even remotely productive towards genuinely achieving strategic autonomy as a democratic superpower in the world independent of the US’ trajectory.”
    • zephyreks@lemmy.mlOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      How can China be an oligarchy if the CCP holds all the power? Billionaires ain’t got shit in China, even fucking Jack Ma was forced to step in line.

    • marsokod@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Defense money is not lost, it pays people within your country. And you can even decide whether it goes to big corps or small companies.

  • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    1 year ago

    Europe should have left NATO 30 years ago, when the first cold war ended, and forged its own path, instead of continuing to get its marching orders from the USA. Now Europe is getting lead into a second cold war by them.