Nope. I see you have no answers for those questions.
It's been answered ad nauseum in these 15 threads, but since I have nothing to do this sunday morning, let's pretend you're not being intentionally obtuse.
- What the US is sending is old stock, almost obsolete stuff for american standards.
- That hardware that has been stored for years cost a lot to maintain and then decomission. US is probably saving money lending-leasing the weapons away instead of dismantling them in a few years.
- The replacement for the equipment sent to Ukraine is already scheduled and budgeted for. The US armed forces don't settle for anything that isn't cutting edge tech and won't go to war in outdated Bradleys and Abrahams.
- The money spent in those updates and replacements wouldn't be spent in healthcare, civil infrastructure, education, welfare etc. The insane defense budget that US has won't be transfered to better uses just because the chuds didn't like the current commander-in-chief.
- There are things that the US will have to take from current use stockpiles, mostly artillery ammo and AA missiles if I remember correctly. It's still a small price to pay to remain the de facto leader in the western world, geopolitical power has its costs. Show that you can't be relied on in those times of crisis and countries will gravitate outside your sphere of influence in the long run.
- Everything the US government spends in the war, it spends with american companies. Actually this war has been a sinister showcase for the superiority of american military tech and in an increasingly unstable world, equipment purchases are skyrocketing. It's a win-win for the United States. Even if you question the morality of supporting Ukraine, the practical and economical net results are a no-brainer.
I hope that helped.
www.theguardian.com
