• iii@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Their argument would, in your opinion, hold more value if they suggested (and did themselves) buy, for example, korean weaponry?

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        23 hours ago

        Their argument would hold if they recognized national defense as a public good rather than a profit center. As it stands, a continent fixated on juicing sales figures is not going to formulate an optimal security strategy. Its just going to become a new ballooning budget hole that feeds into the pockets of middlemen.

        There’s a huge difference between addressing a security concern and following a perverse incentive. And when politicians can profit from a crisis, you’re going to see new existential threats to Europe springing up as fast as business leadership can engineer it.

        • iii@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          23 hours ago

          I’m unsure how this comment answers my question?

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            23 hours ago

            Because you’re phrasing the problem as “Who do I buy my guns from?” rather than “How do I efficiently secure the borders and deter foreign aggression?”

            • iii@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 hours ago

              Ah, you changed my question, substituted an easier one, and responded to that. Thanks for explaining.