Is this actual money in this case or is this more designated monetary amounts of goods, ie the worth of the guns and tanks and other things we've been giving them that were just collecting dust over here?

Because that's what most of the past monetary support was. No actual money was involved and so didn't really cost us anything.

[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago

the worth of the guns and tanks and other things we’ve been giving them that were just collecting dust over here?

Use of reserves motivates replacement. Just because you're giving them weapons that were produced in the past, and therefore whose (production) cost has already been incurred, doesn't mean that occurs in a vacuum. With stock running low, contemporary money goes in to replenishing that stock. In effect, there's no difference whether you send old or new equipment, because both incur costs in the present.

No actual money was involved and so didn’t really cost us anything.

It cost you exactly the amount it cost to produce them. Just because it was produced in the past, doesn't mean it was free. You paid for it X years ago, and are only now seeing it used. You paid for it. Moreover, you're now going to pay to replace it.

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yea we just have billions of dollars of military equipment that popped out of thin air and of course will not be replenished in the next trillion dollar military budget.

[–] Silverseren@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago

We have billions of dollars of military equipment that was made 10+ years ago and has been sitting around since then because we have no reason to use any of it.

To the point where military commanders are begging Congress to not make the military budget so big because it's being wasted on building more assets that aren't seeing any use.