Tinfoil hat time?
The Iraq war cost about $2T over a decade.
You could have about 10% subsidized healthcare, which I would obviously argue is better than pointless war killing tons of people.
But you couldn't just "have healthcare".
The United States military budget is now 1.5 trillion dollars per year.
We wouldn't need healthcare.
We'd just be dead.
You could get similar costs in the US for a similar system.
Doctors in the US aren't going to just accept making way less money.
Good luck getting it done.
This is not true.
Universal healthcare is the norm in all of west / central europe, it's good quality, accessible for EVERYBODY (including the poors), and doctors still have great quality of life and are rich.
You guys are just getting f** by a mafia in the US and defending it for no factual reasons. Both by the military industrial complex AND the medical field btw.
See also: not having daily mass shootings.
To take just one example out of dozens, the US fired somewhere from 100 to 150 THAAD interceptors - about ¼ of the stockpile - during the 12 days war in 2025. We produce just under 100 per year. There are plans to raise that number to 400 per year.
The Ukrainians were expending somewhere around 10,000 drones per day in mid 2025. Russian numbers are likely broadly similar.
Many historical conflicts have featured a substantial bottleneck on multiple munitions during ramp up. World War 1 had artillery shell crises across Britain, France, Russia, and Germany. World War II had similar, especially for the Russians and Germans. The US was short on ammo early in the Korean war.
Modern mechanized combat demands an insane manufacturing and logistics chain. It can burn through stockpiles incredibly fast, especially of high capability expensive munitions. War production levels are utterly unsustainable during peace time.
This is why peer and near-peer conflict is as much an economic and productive game as it is a military one. Shock and awe takes a tremendous amount of resources to accomplish at all, let alone sustain.
That seems unlikely.
SilverElfin•3h ago
lumost•2h ago
If the US lacks the munitions to fight all of these conflicts, and is unreliable to allies or foes leads to a high likelihood of conflict.
koolala•2h ago
tim-tday•2h ago
CyanLite2•2h ago
Eddy_Viscosity2•1h ago
Ajakks•2h ago
If we do it right, we publicly announce that we have been cornered, bc of Ukraine and how nice we are, and then we get a bunch of global investment into our military armamemts/munitions (none soon enough to shoot back tho) so we make a huge threat that looks like we are totally bluffing an All In, which of course gets called -> but we are not bluffing tho, hence the little nuke(s).
Russia wont do MAD for the whole world, just bc we took out a third of Shanghai, as a dangerous example, very likely its like a Tehran as our example. Putin might even follow suit with Kiev. Nobody is going to shoot at us with one.
China only has enough nukes to assure their own complete and total destruction. (We would lose cities and enormous population but we would still exist) We have enough nukes to hit every city above a certain size.
We will mention that the "little tactical nuke" we were just "forced to use" (ideally we do this to "save another country", like Taiwan for example) are 1000 times less powerful than a "real nuke" - of which we have thousands and thousands.
Then we do pirate America to shut down international trade for any countries who sanction us - and that should do it.
Obviously we would be doing a lot of very heavy handed propagandizing across the west and demanding our allies do too, - we would also go full 1984 for awhile (with AI tho, not people) bc of stuff like suit case nukes (that will conveniently get used outside of America somewhere 1st)...
I'm actually not kidding all that much at all tbh.
If we were truly out of bullets and it looked like China was about to corner the global economy and take away all our power-> we just won't allow that while we have the ability to prevent it.
The truth is there are many more scenarios where we would use those weapons than we want to admit. I hope we never have to demonstrate.
markus_zhang•1h ago
nebula8804•1h ago
nathanlied•1h ago
So yes, China did give (note: sell) Iran some hardware, but it's not the most cutting edge tech China has, and it's not in sufficient quantity to make much of a difference.
The US is still ahead of China in a lot of military tech, even if the gap keeps getting narrower.
fma•1h ago