
U.S. Army: “How has serving impacted you?” - rahuldottech
https://twitter.com/USArmy/status/1131704927963766785
======
pgrote
Once I realized that the United States has to involve itself in armed
conflicts on a regular basis, it was eye opening.

The United States spends more money on the military than any other country.
You have to take the military out to stretch its legs every decade or so. If
not to prepare for war, but to keep feeding the military expenditure process.

President Eisenhower's farewell address concerning the military industrial
complex nailed the course for the United States since concerning conflicts.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyBNmecVtdU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyBNmecVtdU)

~~~
rayiner
The U.S. also spends more money on education and healthcare than any other
country. How is that at all surprising? The U.S. spends 3.1% of GDP on the
military, more than the EU average, but less than Russia. Given the state of
the world, where we've made an express commitment to protect the EU from
Russia, that should not be surprising.

Comparing military spending as one big lump $600 billion for the U.S. versus
$225 billion for the EU versus $60 billion for Russia ignores several really
important things.

First, a dollar buys you much more in Russia than in the U.S.[1] Adjusted for
purchasing power, Russia's defense budget is more equivalent to $180 billion:
[https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2019/05/03/ru...](https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2019/05/03/russian-
defense-spending-is-much-larger-and-more-sustainable-than-it-seems). (The same
is actually true for Europe too. Europe's PPP GDP is 20% higher than its
nominal GDP, making the EU 28 defense budget more like $270 billion U.S.)

Second, it's not unreasonable for the U.S. to want to not merely achieve
parity, but have a decisive advantage. Having a decisive technological edge
costs you exponentially more money. The 747 cost about $7.5 billion (in
today's money) to develop. The 787 cost $32 billion. The more advanced
technology cost a lot more to develop even in inflation-adjusted dollars. The
same is true for all sorts of high-tech industrial equipment. The cost of a
new fab tripled from 1998 to 2010:
[https://www.technologyreview.com/s/418576/the-high-cost-
of-u...](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/418576/the-high-cost-of-upholding-
moores-law).

Third, going back to Eisenhower, the cost to society of having a military
scales with population. We can afford to spend $600 billion on the military
more than Russia can afford to spend $60 billion. That's why it makes sense to
look at it as a percentage of GDP--how much of our economic output are we
devoting to the military, versus other things?

3% of GDP is higher than Europe now, but about the same as what France was
spending as recently as the early 1990s:
[https://tradingeconomics.com/france/military-expenditure-
per...](https://tradingeconomics.com/france/military-expenditure-percent-of-
gdp-wb-data.html). Were we talking about how French military expenditures were
a mark of crazy imperialism back then?

[1] To give a concrete example, sources report that Russian subway lines cost
10-15 billion rubles per kilometer: [https://www.metro-report.com/news/single-
view/view/the-winne...](https://www.metro-report.com/news/single-
view/view/the-winners-and-losers-of-russian-metros.html). That’s $150-230
million by exchange rate. In the US, subway lines in SF and LA have ranged
from $375-562 million per km. In New York, the Second Avenue subway was $1.6
billion per mile. You’d never compare New York’s or SF’s subway budget with
Russia’s without accounting for that.

~~~
whearyou
Well said, I’ll refer back to this.

Also, the U.S. underpins the existing economic system. That costs

------
austincheney
That twitter thread is a complete disaster. The thread asks how has serving in
the US Army impacted you, and instead they get a bunch of attention seeking
people who have never served.

This is a perfect example of why social media increases depression and
isolation.

~~~
diggan
I'm sure the original tweet didn't intend it, but effectively it did ask
everyone how it impacted them, direct or indirect.

> instead they get a bunch of attention seeking people who have never served

That's a bit harsh. Seems many of the people writing in that thread have
relatives that did serve, but now are unable to tell their own story, for one
reason or another.

I'm glad people are telling their stories about it, but you're probably right
as well that social media might not be the best area to drum that up, as it's
hard to have real conversations about whatever subject.

~~~
evrydayhustling
I think you are highlighting a more fundamental issue with social media: it's
impossible to separate signal from noise.

On one hand, OP is almost certainly right about attention seeking, and I'd go
as far as to expect that many of the stories are outright fabricated. There is
a well known (and growing) phenomena of military imposters that falsely claim
service [1], and the secondhand stories here are even harder to verify and
present a clear motivation for falsehood.

On the other hand, there is also plenty of evidence that growing PTSD rates
[2], and overall worse outcomes [3] for service members, is a real phenomenon.
The true stories here that deserve analysis will have to compete with other
stories that angle towards particular or personal ends.

End result: every viewer sees plenty in this thread to confirm their own
expectations.

[1]
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/aug/21/usa.internatio...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/aug/21/usa.internationaleducationnews)
[2]
[https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwij...](https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwij8dre_7biAhVnk-
AKHcOBADsQzPwBegQIARAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk%2Fhome-
news%2Fptsd-post-traumatic-stress-disorder-armed-forces-increases-study-
research-a8573091.html) [3]
[https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwic...](https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwictpiBgLfiAhUSm-
AKHVMjAK4QzPwBegQIARAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcnews.com%2Fbetter%2Fmoney%2Fsurvey-
military-families-carry-more-debt-have-fewer-assets-
civilians-n390046&psig=AOvVaw3UTAxX7ou5eRlDtjX08fPw&ust=1558884653047495)

------
croo
I hope no new generation will grow up without realizing how horrible war is.

~~~
rayiner
You know what's more horrible than war? Not being able to wage war. I'm from a
country (Bangladesh) that fought a war, in which about half a million people
died, to free itself from Pakistan, which was treating us like second-class
citizens. In doing so, we were able to separate ourselves and plot our own
course. And lucky for us--as theocracy has overtaken Pakistan, Bangladesh went
from being significantly poorer than Pakistan (40% lower GDP per capita) to
catching up and on a path to overtake. Not to mention, being a (relatively)
freer society. War is a fundamental tool in the exercise of self
determination.

Most people who talk about how "horrible war is" have never been in a context
where killing or being killed is preferable to the status quo.

~~~
srean
I always wonder why did they go ahead with the idea of being a part of
Pakistan in the first place, especially when their ties to the language was
stronger and older than ties to a religion/politics. Was autonomy out of
question ?

~~~
rayiner
At the time, East Bengal was almost completely agrarian, and highly dependent
on the industrial centers in West Bengal (which went to India), and Pakistan.

~~~
srean
I see, that does make sense. Best wishes for Bangladesh want to visit
sometime.

------
thomaswang
Plenty of countries manage to conspript pretty much everyone at a certain age.
Train them and let them home without having a special problem with them. Now
what is the US army doing during training/stateside service?

~~~
new4thaccount
I think it is two things. The first is that everyone goes into the military
for four years or something like that (Ex: Israel), so it is a shared cultural
experience that everyone understands. Second, while some of those soldiers see
conflict, the scale is much less than something like Vietnam where entire
graduating highschool classes of boys were wiped out and the war wasn't
popular and it wasn't a defending our country in the normal sense, but a
proactive war to help curb Soviet expansion. Afghanistan and Iraq have
Veterans in a similar (if less extreme) circumstances. The war is a
geopolitical policing act and extension of US foreign policy at this point
more than an actual defend the nation type situation. I've never served, but
to go through all that and then have issues and have to jump through hoops at
the VA would be crushing.

~~~
austincheney
> four years or something like that (Ex: Israel)

Israeli conscription is mandatory for adult citizens on or about their 18th
birthday with a service obligation of 3 years for males and 2 years for
females, but you can defer service until after completion of undergraduate
education for 6 years as an officer.

~~~
new4thaccount
Thanks for clarifying! I knew I wasn't very far off.

------
srean
If violent conflict or the threat of such is one of the unspoken means of
creating artificial demand that props up parts of ones economy this should not
come as a surprise.

'Soldiers' are low level resources to be turned over into a different kind of
wealth. Sooner the realization dawns the better for those who are left behind
with the shorter end of the stick, with or without some shiny pieces of metal.

~~~
roenxi
When thinking about the benefits of the military it is appropriate to ponder
the broken window fallacy [0]. Economically speaking, building a rocket and
blowing up a foreigner is strictly worse than paying everyone in the economic
chain the same amount of money and using the raw physical resources of the
rocket to do something else.

So for military action to be rational the troops need to be securing access to
foreign wealth/raw resources, or dealing with a somewhat imminent threat from
people who want to break and steal stuff from the military's sponsor.

The opportunity cost of the military is huge. Artificial violent
conflict/threat thereof doesn't prop up anything on its own, the military
doesn't generate wealth in and of itself.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window)

~~~
rayiner
> So for military action to be rational the troops need to be securing access
> to foreign wealth/raw resources, or dealing with a somewhat imminent threat
> from people who want to break and steal stuff from the military's sponsor.

That's not a complete list. For example, one of the key functions of the U.S.
Navy for a long time was suppressing piracy, which hindered overseas trade.
It's basically a policing function--keeping things stable to enable commerce
to happen. The function of the U.S. military today can be seen as an outgrowth
of that.

We don't care about terrorism because we want their resources or because we
think they'll take our resources. It's because terrorism is a threat to a
world order that is very beneficial for us. The cumulative economic cost of
9/11 globally was estimated at up to $2 trillion:
[https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-world-
after-911-part-...](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-world-
after-911-part-i).

~~~
srean
Then why are you calling it 'policing' when you seem to be quite aware that it
is imperialism by violence. I dont think the distinction is subtle.

~~~
rayiner
Calling U.S. military efforts "imperialism" is a rhetorical technique that
does more to obfuscate than illuminate. Policing is more accurate than
imperialism. Imperialism historically refers to directly taking control over
other countries, often for purposes of diverting resources from the vassal
states to the empire. What the U.S. does is materially different. We didn't go
into Iraq and make it a province of the U.S., shipping oil back to the U.S.
(Note that I was against the Iraq war. I think it was a waste of U.S. money.
But calling it "imperialism" is lazy rhetoric.)

~~~
srean
That seems an overly narrow definition that conflates the 'thing' with the
means of achieving the 'thing'. The British empire was softer than most that
came before it or where its contemporaries (Belgium say). It would not have
been very hard to define 'imperialism' in a way to exclude the British but
apply to the others. US is not an empire in the same mould as that of the
British but essence remains the same.

As for policing goes the subjects signed up for it even if that wasnt
individually.

~~~
reccanti
> No, you're the one conflating the two. The end result is different. For
> imperialism, the result is a country under the political control of a
> different country, or giving up its resources to another country. The end
> result with U.S. policy is that maybe you end up with a different (often
> more democratic) regime. The means is similar: foreign military excursions
> and direct interventions into other countries.

The end result with U.S. policy is that you end up with a different regime
that's more likely to trade with and have friendly relations with the U.S.
There's definitely an economic reason for U.S. intervention

~~~
rayiner
Historically, the goal has not been to ensure that you have a regime that's
more likely to trade with the U.S., but to ensure that your regime doesn't
interfere with neighbors who are trading with the U.S.

------
RickJWagner
I served in the Air Force, not the Army.

My service is what paid for college, and led to a satisfying life. I had a
large family, and without the USAF I'm not sure I would've been able to afford
school. It also gave me time to mature between high school and college.

It worked very well for me.

------
Markoff
not US, but EU country before military changed to fully professional (now it
may be different):

1\. I value my personal freedom much more than before serving being wheel in
this whole mechanism

2\. I became expert in faking/pretending to work

3\. I had problem to say sentence without swear word, but this disappeared
after few weeks/months when you need to be conscious about it

4\. it took also few weeks to so picking up phone or even home telephone with
Private XY receiving

5\. and I lost any ideals about military, it's (was) bunch of drunks, every
single office you came open bottle

6\. I enjoyed using catch 22 logic as clerk when reasoning about some issues,
that book really accurately describe military

------
geofft
The United States is perfectly willing to have a program that pays unskilled
high school graduates with no family resources a good salary, houses them,
sends them to college, and gives them physical and mental training—as long as
there's an elevated chance of the youth in this program being killed or
injured. My church recently had a young homeless guy come by and join the
community for a bit before deciding that his only chance in life to get out of
his situation was joining the army. I don't know if we'll see him again.

We have the money for all sorts of "socialist" programs like free college and
a safety net for youth. But how, politically, do we make the decision to
decouple it from inflicting violence on those youth?

~~~
aiyodev
The US makes living difficult for the poor so that they think joining the
military is a good choice. If homes were affordable, if college was
affordable, if healthcare was affordable, nobody would want to join.

We force poor people to join so that we'll have a military. We have wars to
justify having a large military. We have a large military so that we'll
purchase a lot of military equipment. We purchase a lot of military equipment
to fuel the economy in specific congressional districts. We prop up those
districts so that the people there have jobs and will reelect their
representatives. Even the politicians who seem to support the "socialist"
programs have no intention of following through with their promises.

~~~
srean
Not just poor people there are those who are trying to obtain citizenship.
Poverty draft and selective service is real

------
jasonhansel
From Twitter's rules: "You also may not affiliate with organizations that —
whether by their own statements or activity both on and off the platform — use
or promote violence against civilians to further their causes."

~~~
rayiner
Twitter's rule is poorly worded. Violence is one of the most basic
interactions between organisms on the planet. Not only between societies (so
that an Uber driver earning $30,000 can be in the top 1% globally), but within
societies (the threat of violence is what makes everything from paying taxes
to policing work).

What Twitter really means to address in its rule isn't "violence" but rather
"violence outside the accepted rules for when violence can be used." But fuzzy
thinking has caused it to bury the concept in a nonsensical universalism.

~~~
jasonhansel
I actually agree that @USArmy shouldn't be banned from Twitter--I have nothing
but respect for those who serve. But I also think that a literal, objective
interpretation of Twitter's rules would result in a ban. Really this just
shows how subjective Twitter's enforcement of the rules is.

