« To The Bank | Main | Where Facts are Made-Up »

A Surge of Robots

01 Jun 2008 11:22 am

The defense department is recruiting thousands of new machines for a surge of robots (really). Robert Farley notes that these measures mostly seem "shift the cost of war from the blood side of the ledger to the treasure side." In the short run, this makes questionable military ventures much more sustainable in the United States since we're a rich country and the public's aversion to taxes doesn't extend to an aversion to spending, and the national elite's aversion to deficit spending doesn't extend to defense spending.

If Blue Dogs and Concord Coalition types started applying normal budgetary scrutiny to military stuff, it's hard to see this working. But they don't, so it does. It makes me sad to think how much better off we'd be today if the past five years' worth of $100-$200 billion emergency appropriations had been spent on building a clean, economically productive 21st century transportation infrastructure rather than on Iraq. One important political question going forward is whether we'll continue to treat war spending in Iraq as some "doesn't count" black hole or whether the costs of an indefinite engagement there will actually get weighed against alternative uses of our resources.

:: Comments (16) ::

Share This

Comments (16)

And BushCo ensures a long life beyond this administration for his base, the war profiteers.

Posted by Karen | June 1, 2008 11:59 AM

Does this mean that the army is building a Robo-Cheney with laser eyes? Cuz I hate that shit.

Posted by amos | June 1, 2008 12:07 PM

The robot conquest is inevitable, but why do we have to make it so easy?

Posted by asl | June 1, 2008 12:22 PM

I have a few comments on wishing that money that went into Iraq was used for something else. There is a lot of "something else" in this world that could soak up the same amount of money as Iraq.

Also, the political landscape was such that Congress was only too happy to spend $50B on Iraq (Rumsfeld estimate). The fact they have actually spent 10 times that amount has made it no less likely for Congress to keep shoveling money in the future. That same political landscape does not allow for spending on something that would have been better or cheaper.

Posted by CarlP | June 1, 2008 12:29 PM

"It makes me sad to think how much better off we'd be today if the past five years' worth of $100-$200 billion emergency..."

"Republican" Congress 2003 - 2006 = full funding of BushCo wars.

"Democratic" Congress 2007 - 2008 = full funding of BushCo wars.

Remember the fundamental equation:

GOPers = Dems = Republicrats = AIPAC whores.

Posted by kafka | June 1, 2008 12:40 PM

War spending is psychologically indispensable to the American people, or at least, to a tremendous majority of same. It is the Linus blanket to a nation that is mostly white, mostly old, and mostly not poor in a world we known damn well is none of those things.

Posted by JMG | June 1, 2008 12:56 PM

Some fair points, Matt, but this "robot surge" is a strange fact to pivot off of. These are robots that track and find IED's rather than risking soldiers to do it. And the cost of the program is, let's be honest, peanuts by Pentagon standards. It's really hard to see the basis for opposing it, period; and it's really hard for me to see why you'd go after this program instead of some of the really massive wastes of money that the Pentagon engages in. Weird.

Posted by Glenn | June 1, 2008 12:58 PM

The robot conquest is inevitable, but why do we have to make it so easy?

Psssht, everyone knows the revolution will be born in the network.

Posted by nerdlinger | June 1, 2008 1:15 PM

Good post.

Posted by Korha | June 1, 2008 1:42 PM

This is a fair point. It used to be that itwas worth it to spend anything on defense, because without it you'd be invaded by a nasty foreign power and your way of life woulg be destroyed (though French Canada offers a clear counter-argument to that).

But today, that's not even on the table. Our odds of being invaded and conquered by a foreign power are nil.

So, why exactly is it OK to treat defense spending different from, say, healthcare spending? It's unarguable that our society faces much greater threat from multidrug resistant infectious disease than from any foreign power--so why is one "national defense" and off the books, while the other is not?

It's just machismo that keeps it off the books. Nothing more than idiot machismo.

Posted by anonymiss | June 1, 2008 5:21 PM

Someone send the DOD a copy of Arthur C. Clarke's short story "Strategy".

Posted by grumpy realist | June 1, 2008 5:35 PM

The strengths of the "Reaver Drop" rush strategy are well-known, but it is famously difficult to pull off. Our air support is unquestionably solid, but a slow rate of fire leaves our units vulnerable to being swarmed by Zerglings.

Posted by Angry Sam | June 1, 2008 8:12 PM

I would have preferred tax cuts for the rich.

Posted by Cheerful Iconoclast | June 1, 2008 11:48 PM

The strengths of the "Reaver Drop" rush strategy are well-known, but it is famously difficult to pull off.

OT: In terms of expensive military hardware that's of limited effectiveness, the Protoss really are up there with the present-day Pentagon. (I always rely on swarms of fully-augmented Zealots--in my opinion, the most cost-effective approach.)

Posted by James Gary | June 2, 2008 12:24 AM

And I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.

Posted by Dilan Esper | June 2, 2008 2:11 PM


Comments closed June 15, 2008.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.