Comments by "Harry Mills" (@harrymills2770) on "" video.

  1. It would be better if they were employed in a profit-making venture that actually provided a product for civilian use. I always sort of bridle at weapons manufacturing being held up as a jobs issue. Weapons production steals resources from more constructive activities of more benefit to the people as a whole. But I agree with your sentiment, here, to a large extent. From cars to weapons of war, the USA has gone down a fascist path similar to Nazi Germany's, where they think building every possible thing into every unit produced is a good thing. Politicians and bureaucrats micro-manage so incompetently that government is the only place they've found where they can fail upward, and there they are and there they stay. It's only a good thing if you're looking to make the maximum profit from the fewest number of items actually produced, and that's not even taking into account practical use of it in the field, let alone repairing it. The Russians have always been limited by their top-down method of operating, but unlike the USA, their leaders are very practical, for instance, the T34 tank versus the Tiger tank. "A tank that sprouts wings and flies is obviously better than one that is stuck on the ground! And THIS one comes with a coffee-maker!" LOL! The thing takes on a life of its own, mission creep sets in, and then all the eggheads put in their 2-cents'-worth. You've gotta have guys at the top with common sense in those top-down command structures. No. Ya gotta understand their mission, and make lots of them and make them easy to repair in the field. Using a football analogy
    1