It's called the "Military Industrial Legislative" Iron Triangle. It works like this: Military retirees go into cushy industrial lobbying positions then lobby to the congressperson to build weapons and "create jobs", this is an easy win for the congressperson and helps with reelection. The congressperson then passes laws that give huge military contracts to the industry.

I think it's the abrams tank where each of the 50 states makes at least one part for the tank and then it is assembled somewhere else. It's not just a complex any more, it's much worse than that.

sooooo yes you’re not wrong, but i’d argue (as not an american mind you) that also it’s a little more complicated than just national defence

overseas military bases aren’t just for intimidating other countries into doing what the US wants: they also contribute significantly to global stability… having THE world super power kinda everywhere means it’s probably much less likely that some random country is going to start shit… sure, the US gets to pick and choose to benefit itself, but it certainly contributes

and that’s not just good for the world: AS the worlds leading superpower, the US benefits enormously from global stability: from cheap trade, financing, more global budget being spent on STEM/R&D (which because of trade and financing the US almost always capitalises on somehow!)

We have >750 military bases around the world so that we can intimidate other countries into doing what we want, which is both wasteful and evil.

The US military is the most efficient global logistical operation ever. Open up flghtradar sometime and just look at how many military planes are moving tons of equipment and resources every hour of every day. You don't achieve a global logistics network without those bases. To claim it's just for intimidation and wasted is laughably naive.

The existence of those bases means we can negotiate with soft power where instead we might need to make a show of force. Intimidation, aka diplomacy, is superior to actual fights.

Yes, but also no, imo. We absolutely need to accomplish those objectives.

But ..... Do we need to have a system that requires us to buy Tomahawk missiles at whatever cost Raytheon decides to charge? All the weapons we use are supplied by a single company, and the military does not own the IP for their weapons, even the ones initially invented by military research bases (e.g., sidewinder).

Our system of military contractors has, imo, failed us utterly while making a handful of companies incredibly rich

This is a particularly low effort comment, provides no value, and is therefore unwelcome here. It’s also demonstrably nonsense, as others have shown you.

Please consider engaging intelligently, and in good faith.

L take, this guy has been on more committees than most (if not all) of the current Senators. He understands well. If you have ever written him a letter and asked him direct questions you would know. Dude is a literal power house that nobody has heard of because he does his job unlike many other “popular” ones.

You're disagreeing with that then:

much of this additional military spending will go to line the pockets of hugely profitable defense contractors – it is corporate welfare by a different name. Almost half of the Pentagon budget goes to private contractors, some of whom are exploiting their monopoly positions and the trust granted them by the United States to line their pockets. Repeated investigations by the DOD inspector general, the GAO and CBS News have uncovered numerous instances of contractors massively overcharging DOD, helping boost these companies’ profits to nearly 40% – and sometimes as high as 4,451% – while costing US taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. TransDigm, Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Raytheon are among the offenders, dramatically overcharging the taxpayer while reaping enormous profits, seeing their stock prices soar and handing out massive executive compensation packages. Last year, Lockheed Martin received $46bn in unclassified federal contracts, returned $11bn to shareholders through dividends and stock buybacks, and paid its CEO $25m a year. TransDigm, the company behind the 4,451% markup, touted $3.1bn in profits on $5.4bn of net sales, almost boasting to investors about just how fully it was fleecing the taxpayer. The fact that a share of the profits from these lucrative contracts will flow back to the congressional backers of higher defense budgets in the form of campaign contributions – America’s unique system of legalized bribery – makes the whole situation even more unconscionable.

Remember when liberals weren’t huge warmongers?

Me neither.

Do you have any sources to back up your claim that useful and wasteful spending decreases equally?

If that is the case, it sounds like the issue is with management which can also be replaced.

The military is unbelievably wasteful and I have a very hard time buying your argument. You're framing makes it sound like he's proposing getting rid of the budget all together.

Also, I didn't realize the world was at peace...

spending less reduces both useful spending and wasteful spending equally.

I also would like a source or 2 supporting "equally" wasteful, although that's a good point that both types of spending are likely to be reduced.