[HN Gopher] U.S. military-run slot machines earn $100M a year fr...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       U.S. military-run slot machines earn $100M a year from service
       members
        
       Author : geox
       Score  : 334 points
       Date   : 2023-01-18 17:10 UTC (5 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.npr.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.npr.org)
        
       | glandium wrote:
       | Tangentially, I recently learned that Sega (of games, consoles,
       | Sonic fame), started as a slot/amusement machines selling
       | business for the US military bases in Hawaii and later Japan, and
       | that the name, Sega, is derived from its original name: "Service
       | Games".
        
         | johnwalkr wrote:
         | I was surprised by this article for this very reason. Sega's
         | predecessor started as an American company that had business in
         | slot machines on military bases in Hawaii, and when slot
         | machines were banned in the US, it bought them up and moved to
         | Japan to American bases in Japan. "Moved" is really simplifying
         | things, there were mergers and split-ups and re-mergers along
         | the way. But in short it became a Japanese company run by
         | Americans in the military sphere and in the 2000s was merged
         | with Sammy, a pachinko machine company.[1]
         | 
         | So Sega started with, and ended up back as a slot machine
         | company.
         | 
         | [1] https://www.ign.com/articles/2009/04/21/ign-presents-the-
         | his...
        
         | mouse_ wrote:
         | That's amazing, I never knew.
        
       | partiallypro wrote:
       | I can understand troops wanting to have something to do and the
       | military providing it...but maybe just go with games that have
       | odds that are more even and put the money collected into military
       | pensions? I can see the argument that troops will maybe go stir-
       | crazy or grow homesick without some activities, and you can't
       | have games that remove all possibility to lose (that's not fun)
       | so there has to be a happy medium. Even if they invest in video
       | games, or table games that have less house favoritism. Then
       | putting the money into a pension fund or similar so, even though
       | you -can- lose, you will benefit everyone when you do.
        
       | AlbertCory wrote:
       | From reading WW II and earlier books: service members' time-
       | honored custom is playing poker. Richard Nixon was reputedly an
       | excellent poker player.
       | 
       | I think I read that the Roman legions played dice games, using
       | knuckle bones from animals.
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | green-salt wrote:
       | At least in ancient times back in 2004, while I was on Nellis AFB
       | (North Las Vegas, NV) a large part of people stationed there
       | would just go down to the strip or downtown. I remember a number
       | of orientation briefings about addiction counseling but they took
       | on a different tone being in Las Vegas.
        
       | pessimizer wrote:
       | _Congress barely dents scourge of hunger in military_
       | 
       | > Fully 24 percent of active-duty servicemembers recently
       | experienced "low food security," meaning they sometimes lacked
       | quality meals, according to the latest Pentagon survey of troops
       | in late 2020 and early 2021 -- before the recent inflation surge.
       | Of those, 10 percent periodically experienced "very low food
       | security," meaning they sometimes ate less at mealtime, missed
       | meals entirely or lost weight due to inadequate food intake in
       | the previous year.
       | 
       | > Those percentages suggest that 286,800 active-duty
       | servicemembers have had some level of food insecurity of late,
       | and nearly 120,000 of them have sometimes gone hungry recently
       | due to a lack of food, according to senators on the Armed
       | Services Committee. The figures do not count family members of
       | those active-duty personnel. Nor are reservists and their family
       | members included in the tally.
       | 
       | https://rollcall.com/2023/01/13/congress-barely-dents-scourg...
        
         | [deleted]
        
       | benlower wrote:
       | that's enough money to give everyone in the USA a million
       | dollars!
        
       | Uninen wrote:
       | Here in Finland slot machines (and most types of legalized
       | gambling) are controller by a government-owned nonprofit that
       | distributes the revenue to various charities. I think that's the
       | best way to run these kind of things if they need to exist.
        
         | umvi wrote:
         | > Here in Finland slot machines (and most types of legalized
         | gambling) are controller by a government-owned nonprofit that
         | distributes the revenue to various charities. I think that's
         | the best way to run these kind of things if they need to exist.
         | 
         | US state governments use the "it's for a good cause"
         | justification all the time as well. But... it's still addictive
         | and exploitive of vulnerable populations (especially lotto)
        
         | vintermann wrote:
         | For a short while, Norway had extremely liberal slot machine
         | laws. They were in every supermarket, post office, anywhere.
         | There was (and is) a state-run gambling monopoly, but slot
         | machines weren't covered by it - they were considered a
         | continuation of Payazzo games, a form of very-low stakes skill-
         | based gambling machines that charities had long been allowed to
         | operate. So charities got to operate slot machines.
         | 
         | Some may say the charities got just as addicted as the
         | gamblers. I remember in particular in a TV debate, where
         | Thorvald Stoltenberg, respected former minister and president
         | of the Norwegian Red Cross, declared that although he realized
         | the harm they caused, he had decided to defend slot machines
         | "no matter what" because they were such an important income
         | source for his organization. He said it as if it was some
         | selfless commitment.
         | 
         | Eventually, though, gambling addiction became a too big and
         | obvious problem to ignore, and the gambling monopoly took over,
         | sharply reducing the numbers of machines and (supposedly)
         | making them less aggressive. There were some concessions to the
         | charities that lost income as a result of it (which, as I
         | recall, screwed over the few charities that had taken a
         | principled stand against slot machines).
        
         | hsbauauvhabzb wrote:
         | What's the thought process as to why they exist? What would
         | actually happen if the government mandated that they were
         | illegal to operate?
         | 
         | In australia, slot machines are controlled by organisations
         | which are effectively white collar gangsters. The NSW
         | organisation is currently suing an ex-employee who worked in
         | anti-corruption and subsequently whistle-blew on unactioned
         | corruption reports, while he's on his deathbed with terminal
         | cancer.
        
         | muti wrote:
         | In New Zealand you will find slot machines in many pubs and
         | hotels, they are very accessible to the public. They are also
         | operated by charitable foundations and claim they do a net good
         | by donating the profits to the community.
         | 
         | I despise the model just like lotteries, it's a regressive tax
         | and the lions share of profit comes from those with addictions.
        
         | mauvehaus wrote:
         | In a lot of US states, lottery proceeds go to education. The
         | problem, of course, is that dollars and euros are fungible, and
         | governments can and do reduce the tax contributions to
         | education commensurately.
        
           | kube-system wrote:
           | Sort of. It really depends. Education funding in the US often
           | comes from several entirely independent sources, with
           | differing constituents, differing motivations, and various
           | rules on allocations. It's not like it's one big bucket with
           | one entity that has the ultimate ability to reallocate.
        
             | filoleg wrote:
             | Yeah, it is pretty complex and differs heavily by state. I
             | know that in GA, for example, lottery proceeds go towards
             | HOPE/Zell Miller scholarship fund for college students
             | (which I am immensely grateful for, as it funded most of my
             | own college education). Though, sadly, I've been reading
             | over the past few years that it is on its way to drying out
             | :(
        
         | abadger9 wrote:
         | I've been to finland a few times, it's crazy to see people play
         | slots at the front/back of the grocery story at 1 pm.
        
       | bena wrote:
       | This is a complicated problem. I'm sure there are plenty of
       | service members who occasion the slot rooms and fully understand
       | what they're getting into.
       | 
       | And why shouldn't our service members enjoy some of the things
       | they'd be able to at home when possible?
       | 
       | But yeah, it's very bad optics to essentially take their paycheck
       | back. But one of the reasons they are playing the slots are to
       | win money. So if you make it cash neutral, it's really pointless.
       | 
       | And you could instead just set up a free-play arcade. Or even a
       | quarter to help with maintenance costs. But people look at video
       | games and gambling differently. One is for children and one is
       | for adults.
       | 
       | But then again, these people signed up to be told what to do,
       | what to eat, etc. I would say it's fair that the military could
       | say that gambling while enlisted is not allowed and shut down the
       | slot rooms.
        
         | DonHopkins wrote:
         | >I would say it's fair that the military could say that
         | gambling while enlisted is not allowed and shut down the slot
         | rooms.
         | 
         | Then you'd have the right wing whining about how "woke" the
         | military is with their cancel culture, shutting down gambling
         | the same way they shut down homophobia and sexism and racism by
         | integrating and ordering enlisted people to suck it up and
         | follow the military orders and regulations they signed up to
         | follow.
        
           | Pigalowda wrote:
           | Right wing typically doesn't support gambling, so getting rid
           | of it would be a good thing to them.
        
             | scarface74 wrote:
             | Of course they do. They are as much proponents of state
             | funded lotteries as anyone else.
        
               | Pigalowda wrote:
               | Ok.
        
       | LinuxBender wrote:
       | Well that's a change. When I served the military would actively
       | fight addiction problems, sometimes to an extreme. As an example
       | one of the people I served with had a drinking problem. He was
       | put in the brig and had to crawl on all fours pushing a beer can
       | around the complex with his nose all day, every day. This was
       | extreme but so was his BAC. The alternate option I heard a couple
       | colonels arguing for was a court-martial and dishonorable
       | discharge.
       | 
       | I can see the benefit to keeping the gambling addiction losses
       | in-house but encouraging money problems and then punishing people
       | for said money problems seems a bit like an artificially created
       | circular problem.
       | 
       | MWR programs are supposed to be beneficial, not detrimental. Get
       | them some video game consoles. Buy them all VR setups and require
       | {n} hours of physically demanding games and game scores. It's
       | probably less cost than the fallout from gambling addiction. VR
       | combat training rigs, like ARMA on steroids but actually causes
       | pain when you get hit. Surely someone here in the HN world could
       | fund such a thing. Provide time-off and money to the top tier
       | contestants of the VR simulators.
       | 
       | Oh and don't limit this to combat simulation. Implement medical
       | training, surgical training, electrical training, construction,
       | military vehicle repair, flight training like X-plane on
       | steroids, space flight training like Avorion on steroids, recce
       | training, weapon repair training, etc... Let them explore skill-
       | sets they and the military were unaware they had.
        
         | ericmay wrote:
         | My favorite was if you got put in the drunk tank our 1SG would
         | go pick you up and make you run back to the barracks (assuming
         | you didn't do anything besides just be drunk).
         | 
         | It would be cool to see makerspaces or something similar on
         | bases. I recall there were mechanic shops (I could be
         | misremembering) where you could bring your car to work on it
         | and borrow tools. With tools now you could create some hiking
         | clubs and stuff too.
         | 
         | Doing this stuff isn't easy though and I know when I was
         | finished with duty and finished working out for the second time
         | that day I really didn't have energy to do much except play
         | video games and knock back a few beers. Creating new programs,
         | clubs, initiatives are hard. And in the military often times
         | you have turnover on the bases so it's hard to maintain
         | continuity even when someone creates something. If it were up
         | to me I'd have a cadre of 3-10 individuals who ran, funded,
         | maintained clubs and programs for soldiers. I'll not be
         | surprised if I find out that this already exists either lol.
        
           | CobaltFire wrote:
           | Bases are getting makerspaces; I discovered that Miramar has
           | one in the base library a couple of months ago! They are
           | rolling them out as they get funding.
        
             | ericmay wrote:
             | That's really cool and good to hear. Thank you
        
         | LAC-Tech wrote:
         | _He was put in the brig and had to crawl on all fours pushing a
         | beer can around the complex with his nose all day, every day._
         | 
         | Damn if only I could have done that to my parents.
        
         | maxerickson wrote:
         | It's about 7 cents out of every $1000 of payroll, if I did the
         | math right.
         | 
         | (seems that wages are about $140 billion a year)
         | 
         | Of course the average being tiny doesn't mean it isn't causing
         | problems for people that gamble way more than the average.
        
           | gowld wrote:
           | Did you remember to only count payroll from the the non-
           | domestic bases that have slot machines?
        
         | zyang wrote:
         | Maybe the military doesn't really care about the wellbeing of
         | the troops as long as it doesn't affect their effectiveness...?
        
           | ericmay wrote:
           | Like any large organization, the organization does care but
           | sometimes some of the managers don't care as much or don't do
           | a good job. The military brass definitely cares about and
           | understands this based on my experience. It's just hard to
           | pull off.
        
           | LinuxBender wrote:
           | If so, that's a big change from my time. Perhaps some
           | generals need to be reallocated to Antarctica for an extended
           | tour of duty. Congress ultimately controls purse strings, but
           | Generals can make a phone call and put a stop to anything.
        
           | jabroni_salad wrote:
           | Anyone with a clearance will specifically be looked at for
           | gambling. Gamblers can eventually be leveraged. Considering
           | that the military is one of the fattest pipelines for
           | clearance workers, it'd be a good idea to tamp down on this.
        
             | SV_BubbleTime wrote:
             | Not just gambling. Any debt.
             | 
             | I worked at a place that sold expensive things. Sold a
             | thing to a guy. Had two guys show up a couple days latter
             | to talk about exactly how he financed thing and etc. Turns
             | out he was an just a middling engineer on the F-35 program,
             | but they confirmed everything he told them using us.
        
               | shanebellone wrote:
               | I wanted to confirm that significant debt can preclude
               | someone from acquiring a security clearance. Significant
               | new debt can be reason to rescind an active clearance
               | too.
        
               | red-iron-pine wrote:
               | Bankruptcy & poor finances is the #1 reason for a
               | clearance application to be rejected.
               | 
               | Shows a pattern of poor judgement, and makes the
               | applicant way, way more likely to be bribed or
               | blackmailed.
               | 
               | Bankruptcy also has a court angle, which means you can,
               | with an amount of effort that's trivial for large,
               | nation-state intelligence orgs, find a list of all recent
               | bankruptcy cases in, say, Southern Maryland or Northern
               | Virginia. The CI types lose a lot of sleep over this
               | stuff.
        
             | watwut wrote:
             | Ok, but isn't there a rather large amount of personel who
             | do basic jobs and won't do anything special nor won't move
             | up the ranks? 18-23 years old young men that enter and
             | leave and that is it. As in, there is huge amount of other
             | people too.
        
       | lordfrito wrote:
       | So what? Can someone explain what this article is trying to get
       | me outraged at?
       | 
       | State lotteries collect ~$30 billion in revenue a year. If we're
       | supposed to be outraged that the government profits from
       | gambling, shouldn't we talk about that first?
       | 
       | Or is this just another driveby article taking potshots at the US
       | military?
       | 
       | Someone please explain how a right-thinking person is supposed to
       | read this. There's an axe being ground here, not sure what it is.
        
         | unregistereddev wrote:
         | Some people believe that gambling is immoral, and that hosting
         | slot machines or other gambling games is exploitative.
         | 
         | Some people are not necessarily opposed to gambling, but
         | strongly believe the government should take care of military
         | personnel. To them, this may be an example of the government
         | failing to provide more wholesome (or at the very least, less
         | expensive) activities.
         | 
         | Some people are outraged by the amount of money the government
         | spends on the military. To them, this may be an example of the
         | government collecting yet more money from enlisted personnel
         | rather than using their extensive budget to properly fund the
         | "morale, welfare, and recreation" programs.
         | 
         | I suspect the article's intent is to highlight the latter two
         | points. Personally I'm not sure how to feel about it. While I
         | am not opposed to gambling, I do think we need support for
         | managing addictions (including gambling addictions).
        
         | [deleted]
        
       | risingsubmarine wrote:
       | Reminds me of that line in Band of Brothers "Never put yourself
       | in a position where you can take from these men".
        
       | bastard_op wrote:
       | Talk about government recycling programs, that's almost like
       | money laundering when what they pay servicemen just comes right
       | back in the form of captive gambling addicts.
        
       | giantg2 wrote:
       | Yes, and they mark up exchange prices for MWR (in the name of not
       | competing with off-base businesses).
        
       | josh_fyi wrote:
       | They are military. They signed up to live under military
       | discipline. So how about imposing on them the discipline of not
       | gambling, at least on base? The Navy has strict rules banning
       | alcohol on ship: strict rules are not impossible
        
         | metaphor wrote:
         | > _So how about imposing on them the discipline of not
         | gambling, at least on base?_
         | 
         | When I wore the uniform, it was handled indirectly with
         | constant reminders that failing to satisfy debt obligations is
         | punishable by Article 134 of the UCMJ.
         | 
         | Some places need extra reminders and discipline though, e.g.
         | Nellis AFB (Las Vegas, NV) and Keesler AFB (Biloxi, MS) are two
         | bases I'm familiar with that come to mind.
        
       | mhardcastle wrote:
       | If the goal is providing entertainment, why not just adjust the
       | payout to be 0 profit?
        
       | JasonFruit wrote:
       | Why should we be surprised that the United States military takes
       | advantage of the foolishness of people who gamble? Many of the
       | various states likewise profit from their least wise citizens by
       | running lotteries. It wouldn't be a stretch to argue that
       | government as a whole is just that: gaining power and money at
       | the expense of everyone you can fool into going along with it.
       | 
       | And "services that contribute to resiliency, retention, readiness
       | and quality of life," indeed!
        
       | Invictus0 wrote:
       | The proceeds go right back into paying for other recreational
       | facilities: sounds ok to me. Maybe have a cap of how much you can
       | spend at the casino per period of time?
        
       | peishang wrote:
       | _" Slots are often found on bases where there is precious little
       | to do, like Diego Garcia - a 12-sq.-mile island in the Indian
       | Ocean with a population of just over 4,000 people - where the
       | Navy runs 52 slot machines"_
       | 
       | Talk about a captive audience rife for exploitation.
        
         | pmarreck wrote:
         | I've been to DG for about a month when I was in the USAF. It
         | was the end of 1995 and the Internet had just reached it, which
         | meant I at least had early Internet web access in such a remote
         | location, _for free_ , which was _amazing_.
         | 
         | But most of that month was admittedly spent waiting for work,
         | reading Memnoch the Devil (RIP Anne Rice), drinking really
         | cheap beer, playing pool and surfing the early Internet (there
         | was possibly some Scorched Earth in there, too!)
        
         | JustSomeNobody wrote:
         | The officers need a new golf course!
        
         | jxramos wrote:
         | > studies show these slot machines save $250M a year against
         | alternative more expensive forms of entertainment.
         | 
         | lol
        
           | undersuit wrote:
           | Why are you laughing. That's $250M in entertainment that
           | doesn't need to be shipped to a military base. Assuming it
           | isn't all downloadable media that's a lot of physical goods
           | that doesn't need to be inspected, shipped, and inspected to
           | remote Military bases.
           | 
           | And if you're running the gambling halls it's going to be a
           | lot harder for a soldier to get into a compromising amount of
           | debt.
           | 
           | Besides the $100M a year in "profit" I'd wager these machines
           | generate even more in cost savings.
        
             | jxramos wrote:
             | I mostly posited it as a joke for winking at the fictitious
             | studies, but yah the comparative cost to alternatives may
             | be not too shabby after all. "Compared to what" is often a
             | question left as an afterthought. I try to think of
             | alternatives right off the bat. But once you start diluting
             | a story against reasonable alternatives and see where a
             | decision landed in the valley of options the story loses
             | some of its outrage edge.
        
           | glitchc wrote:
           | Less funny if you think about gambling beating drugs as a go-
           | to form of entertainment.
        
         | sixothree wrote:
         | And they use that money to pay for golf courses somewhere
         | nicer? I'm getting a bit grossed out by that thought.
        
         | kerpotgh wrote:
         | It sounds like heaven. I would read, go for runs and hang out
         | with my buds.
        
           | Oxidation wrote:
           | Sounds like Heaven, indeed: from the _Forever War_.
        
         | kart23 wrote:
         | I mean, its also an atoll in paradise. Theres definitely plenty
         | to do there, the navy for some reason has decided to ban
         | surfing and instead put in slot machines.
        
           | yieldcrv wrote:
           | sounds like someone that's never taken that tropical
           | sabbatical
        
           | ceejayoz wrote:
           | Huh, I had no idea. https://wavelengthmag.com/curious-case-
           | diego-garcia/
           | 
           | I'm guessing surfing risks injuring US military... assets.
        
             | ethbr0 wrote:
             | Military bases, especially in the austere / remote
             | environments where some of them are, have a few differences
             | from most civilian areas.
             | 
             | - Specialized personnel, who are required to fulfill the
             | base's mission
             | 
             | - Substantial logistical costs for additional personnel or
             | materiel
             | 
             | - Limited medical facilities, often lacking in higher
             | standards of care, supplies, and with substantial
             | evacuation distances
             | 
             | Since Diego Garcia is a major airbase, some of these are
             | lessened, but they still all apply.
             | 
             | If someone is injured, they have to be rotated out and
             | someone with the same specialized training rotated in. If
             | something is needed (say, medical supplies), they have to
             | be flown or shipped thousands of miles.
             | 
             | Each doctor/nurse/piece of medical equipment thus has a
             | logistics footprint several times what a mainland one
             | would. Which means a bare minimum medical presence.
             | 
             | Which means if something _really_ bad happens (major trauma
             | from a shark attack), someone is probably dying.
             | 
             | Weighed against that... a ban on surfing for recreational
             | purposes seems fair.
             | 
             | At the end of the day, when you're deployed in a remote
             | environment with the military, you're there to serve the
             | mission. Fun comes secondary, or not at all. :(
        
               | CogitoCogito wrote:
               | > Which means if something really bad happens (major
               | trauma from a shark attack), someone is probably dying.
               | 
               | > Weighed against that... a ban on surfing for
               | recreational purposes seems fair.
               | 
               | > At the end of the day, when you're deployed in a remote
               | environment with the military, you're there to serve the
               | mission. Fun comes secondary, or not at all. :(
               | 
               | I wouldn't be surprised if the risk of shark attack to
               | surfers there is lower than the risk of death due to
               | basically every other activity on the base. There are
               | maybe a dozen deaths (not just including surfers) due to
               | sharks each year in the whole world. Banning surfing due
               | to the risk of shark attack is totally illogical. Surfers
               | are so much more likely to injure themselves or die in
               | any number of other ways surfing. The risk of shark
               | attacks just doesn't even enter the conversation.
               | 
               | I'd be interested to hear the reasoning on the ban. If it
               | really is due to shark attacks, the military might
               | consider getting someone more rational to make those
               | decisions at the base.
        
             | jjulius wrote:
             | I mean, even the article suggests that if the military
             | reversed course and allowed surfing, there may not be as
             | many people jumping at the opportunity as OP suggests. It
             | says that military personnel have smuggled surfboards and
             | failed to get many other folk interested in joining them
             | over the course of a whole year:
             | 
             | >Somehow, he'd managed to smuggle his 8'6 pintail out there
             | (we'd find this tricky to believe were it not for the
             | images featured in the original article above) and he spent
             | his year finding fun down the line tubes to jam it into.
             | _Unfortunately for Tom, he wasn't able to coax many mates
             | out into the lineup to join him, largely due to the
             | abundance of hazards that lurk between the fast-breaking
             | waves and the shallow coral reefs, including an array of
             | hungry sharks, sting-rays, and stonefish. And of course,
             | the the limited medical facilities on land should you come
             | to blows with any of them._
             | 
             | And just because something's "in paradise" doesn't mean
             | there's plenty to do, and simply suggesting a sport that
             | not everyone's into doesn't really support that assertion.
             | Paradise can be quite uneventful, even if it's still
             | paradise.
        
               | hgsgm wrote:
               | That quote smells like BS. There are a lot of people who
               | don't surf, and those reasons aren't why.
        
               | emiliobumachar wrote:
               | What's the punishment for ignoring the ban? Fear of that
               | may dominate the reasoning of those who declined to join
               | him.
        
               | packetslave wrote:
               | Ignoring orders in the military is a good way to end up
               | in prison.
        
               | red-iron-pine wrote:
               | Best case? Non-judicial punishment of some sort, e.g.
               | "captain's mast" or the like. Forfeiture of pay,
               | additional duty, minor imprisonment, changes to your
               | rations, etc.
               | 
               | In a highly secured, remote base it's totally possible
               | you get court-martialed, busted down in rank (aka losing
               | out in monthly pay and bennies), or even catch a bad
               | conduct discharge or something.
        
               | watwut wrote:
               | I never tried surfing, so I would 100% not risked
               | punishment to surf. That just seems dumb.
               | 
               | My point here is that if something is not allowed, you
               | need a lot more to be willing to try it.
        
               | yamtaddle wrote:
               | What percentage of Navy enlisted in the lower E-numbers
               | have _ever_ surfed, at all, in their whole lives? Reads
               | like this would be a pretty shitty place to learn, so I
               | can see why people 'd balk at the notion, even without
               | the risk of punishment.
        
           | Broken_Hippo wrote:
           | You can play slot machines for more hours than you can surf -
           | and not only that, but you can do it in more types of weather
           | with a lower risk of injury.
           | 
           | Plenty to do there if you are there for a week. 6 months in,
           | those things aren't nearly as neat and you will probably need
           | some other entertainment. Slots wouldn't have been my first
           | (or 10th) choice to offer folks, though.
        
           | passwordoops wrote:
           | After getting a dream job on a paradise island, I can tell
           | you how fast it takes to do everything there is to do on that
           | island before the isolation sets in.
           | 
           | I was told the week I landed "there's two type of people:
           | those who immediately fall in love and never leave. Then
           | there's the ones who get island fever after 6 months and
           | never come back... You won't find too many mainlanders who
           | have lived here for very long"
        
             | AlbertCory wrote:
             | I know a guy whose dream was to retire to Maui. He would go
             | on & on about how he just didn't want to come home when he
             | was vacationing there.
             | 
             | A few years after moving there, he's back in the States.
        
             | Eleison23 wrote:
             | [dead]
        
             | hgsgm wrote:
             | Sure, but why don't slot machines get boring?
        
               | paulcole wrote:
               | That's like asking "Why doesn't it hurt when a tick
               | latches onto your leg and starts sucking blood?"
               | 
               | They've been designed (evolved) for a purpose.
               | 
               | Pulling a lever/pushing a button should get boring. Slots
               | are designed to not be boring while they bleed you dry.
        
               | ethbr0 wrote:
               | Because the human brain is bad at probability and
               | susceptible to hacking.
               | 
               | And on the other like-a-fox hand, the military does have
               | a _strong_ incentive to identify individuals susceptible
               | to developing gambling addictions.
               | 
               | It's cold, but putting them in close proximity to
               | available gambling isn't the worst test...
        
               | nekoashide wrote:
               | It's the government, you may as well have another set of
               | people observing the test givers as well.
        
               | Adraghast wrote:
               | "Addiction By Design" by Natasha Dow Schull is a good
               | book to answer this question.
        
               | mickdeek86 wrote:
               | I'm reminded of an anecdote I once heard, which I can't
               | readily find atm, that in the days of yore when Chicago
               | dominated the pinball industry, the same complex also
               | dominated the slot machine industry. This business was
               | later purchased by Bally's and moved to Las Vegas, where
               | it appears the book picks up. Along with the business
               | came the statistician whose job it was to make slot
               | machines addictive. He later came out of retirement to
               | work for Tinder. Don't really know if that last part is
               | true, maybe someone here does.
        
               | jxf wrote:
               | Because slot machines are synthetic dopamine generators
               | and humans have thousands of years of evolution tweaking
               | us to favor dopamine-generating activities.
        
               | ChuckNorris89 wrote:
               | Because they're designed to be addictive.
        
             | grecy wrote:
             | > _I was told the week I landed "there's two type of
             | people_
             | 
             | Same when you live somewhere remote like the Yukon or
             | smaller places in Alaska. People won't even really
             | associate with you until you've been there a full 12 months
             | because they don't want to invest time in someone that is
             | likely to just leave anyway.
             | 
             | -48C (-55F) is a hell of a thing, but the lack of sunlight
             | I personally found much, much harder.
             | 
             | The wonderful part though is that virtually nobody lives
             | there that doesn't love it, because if you don't love it,
             | you leave. That means the people that stay are passionate
             | about it, and do every possible activity all the time -
             | more so in the dead of winter!
             | 
             | (I stayed 4 years, miss the place intensely)
        
               | mickdeek86 wrote:
               | I'm right now sat on a comparably remote island in the
               | Alaska fishery, relatively new here. I've always
               | romanticized the sea, landlubber as I am, and after a few
               | months here, I went to Waikiki for vacation and - hated
               | it. I couldn't leave soon enough. Too much happiness. The
               | people here have mostly been here for many years, and
               | will remember someone they worked on a boat with for a
               | few weeks in the 80s or what-have-you. I have time to
               | read, be left alone when I want to be, grab a beer off-
               | site. I can see why healthy people would go insane, and
               | why insane people would go healthy.
        
             | red-iron-pine wrote:
             | Islands are expensive. It's hard to get stuff, and hard to
             | get places. If I want to jump in a car and go 2 hours in
             | any direction I can, and there is probably something for me
             | to do there. Ain't so in the island. Ditto for job options.
             | 
             | You hit the beaches. Hang out. Get sunburned. Hit a few of
             | the in-town stuff; they're played out after 3 months and
             | you're bored. More folks rotate through so there is the
             | novelty of banging the tourists and new-bloods, but either
             | they (or you) are probably departing soon so it's hard to
             | make any real connections, romantic or otherwise.
        
             | devin wrote:
             | "Island fever" is a very real thing. I once strongly
             | considering moving to a tiny island and after talking to a
             | number of friendly locals I got the sense that _many_
             | people love the idea of moving there, but it's definitely a
             | life that does not work for everyone. The number of stories
             | they had about people moving there and being gone within a
             | year was way more than I suspected.
        
           | jeltz wrote:
           | I love swimming so I am sure I will have some fun but atoll
           | in paradise sounds like a place with not much to do, at least
           | not compared to a major city like where I live. And I can
           | swim here too during the summers.
        
             | yamtaddle wrote:
             | It may have just been his own spin on it but I used to read
             | a lot of this world-traveller Russian blogger's low-
             | commentary (mostly just strings of photos with short
             | captions) posts, and was surprised at how seemingly _every_
             | truly-remote, small, island  "paradise" he visited came off
             | as hellishly dull and absolutely covered in trash (every
             | single one of them seemed to have a severe problem with
             | trash disposal, to the point that there were small de-facto
             | open landfills evidently around every corner and in every
             | cranny when out in the wilder areas... which actually made
             | a lot of sense when I started to think about it, but was
             | just something I'd never considered before)
             | 
             | Dude completely broke me of my childhood desire to go to
             | see every little middle-of-nowhere island I could find on
             | the globe. But did make me way more interested in visiting
             | Ethiopia, so, there's that.
        
         | HideousKojima wrote:
         | Had a co-worker who was stationed there back in his Air Force
         | days. He said one day there was a fire. It was nothing major,
         | but as a safety precaution until it was put out (in case it
         | reached the fuel tanks) they had to evacuate a safe distance
         | from the base, and the only safe distance meant standing out in
         | the shallows on the beach.
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | runnerup wrote:
         | It would be somewhat less objectionable if the "house" didn't
         | take a cut. There's no good reason for the military to profit
         | off this when they could offer the "entertainment" for free.
        
           | lastofthemojito wrote:
           | The way I read it the military isn't taking that money to buy
           | guns or tanks or whatever - it's the relatively piddly MWR
           | (Morale, Welfare, and Recreation) groups that are profiting,
           | and then using the profits for other MWR activities. From the
           | article:
           | 
           | > A Pentagon report in the early 2000s claimed that without
           | the slot machines, the MWR groups would not be able to afford
           | other amenities for military members such as golf courses and
           | family activity centers. DOD spokeswoman Cmdr. Nicole
           | Schwegman echoed that argument, telling NPR the machines
           | "contribute significantly to the non-appropriated fund and
           | many other recreation and entertainment overseas programs."
           | 
           | The military base I've lived near had plenty of such
           | activities - adult sports leagues, an auto skills center,
           | bowling alley, etc. I guess it might not be as ideal as every
           | such activity being self-sustaining in terms of costs, but it
           | doesn't really seem like a scandal for all of the MWR income
           | to go into a big MWR pot to be spent on various activities.
        
             | runnerup wrote:
             | It's the least objectionable place for the money to go but
             | that's actually rather shrewd. I assume that if the
             | military did not pay for those creature comforts that
             | morale would suffer and operational readiness /
             | effectiveness would be reduced.
             | 
             | If foreign bases don't have fun things to do then maybe
             | younger siblings won't enlist without more expensive
             | bonuses. Or maybe the unmotivated soldiers won't go the
             | extra mile while maintaining vehicles. Or the infantry will
             | leave the boring-ass base and fraternize at popular
             | military "companion" bars and come back with STDs and get
             | into fights with locals, losing some of the military's
             | license to operate bases as freely in that nation.
             | 
             | The military would have to spend some of this money anyways
             | if it wasn't coming out of the soldiers own pockets.
        
           | ChuckNorris89 wrote:
           | _> they could offer the  "entertainment" for free_
           | 
           | But free slot machines aren't "entertaining" though. People
           | get addicted to slot machines, and other forms of gambling,
           | because they make you put skin in the game and so your
           | brain's chemistry goes all over the place when you win or
           | loose giving you various highs. You don't get such highs when
           | everything is free and you have no skin in the game. It gets
           | boring instantly. But once you put your hard earned cash in,
           | then it gets interesting.
        
             | jameshart wrote:
             | If the payout rate of the machines could be set to pay out
             | 100% of the take in prize money, the military would not be
             | taking a profit, but the gambling would still be real.
        
               | Y_Y wrote:
               | Why not 105%? Keeps people of of trouble. I bet the
               | military would rather you sat a Skinner Box than broke
               | your leg surfing or leaked military secrets on TikTok.
        
               | eternityforest wrote:
               | Wouldn't that make gambling addiction more likely and
               | cause problems when they return to civilian life, and try
               | to recapture the high?
        
             | runnerup wrote:
             | I'm aware. I hope most other HN'ers are aware.
             | 
             | When I said "free" I meant that every dollar taken in
             | should be paid out to the gamblers. Not that gamblers would
             | use the machines without depositing some money/bet/ante. If
             | the government chooses to offer gambling to the servicemen
             | it shouldn't result in headlines with eye watering profits
             | being skimmed off the top.
             | 
             | At least the old-school rampant gambling in the barracks
             | (poker games, scorpion races, etc) usually don't have a
             | house cut. Every dollar taken in is paid out.
             | 
             | That would be the minimum ethical requirement here for the
             | government.
        
               | giantg2 wrote:
               | If you know you're getting it all back, what's the point?
               | At least the way you word it, it sounds like an equal
               | distribution, which means no payout. Even if it's not an
               | equal distribution like your example, you're still going
               | to have people loose.
               | 
               | The money does go back to the gamblers... and other
               | service members and dependents. It's in the form of MWR
               | programs. That's why you can get a tennis lesson with a
               | pro who has played in the Open for $10, have free access
               | to the rec hall, cheap bowling, cheap pool access, hobby
               | shop access, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if it goes to
               | towards lodging like the Hale Koa, or other services like
               | space-a flights.
        
               | runnerup wrote:
               | > If you know you're getting it all back, what's the
               | point?
               | 
               | I meant to word it like "They could make it so that
               | 99.9999% of gamblers lose all their bets, but one gambler
               | per year wins $100 million". Just as long as the military
               | isn't taking that a % of that money to use lieu of money
               | they should have budgeted properly for creature comforts.
        
             | [deleted]
        
         | markus_zhang wrote:
         | Can I read books and access computers? Can I break open slot
         | machines to learn how to repair them?
         | 
         | If both are yes then that's a pretty interesting place.
        
           | Rebelgecko wrote:
           | You can bring your own computer but if you want internet
           | you'll have to pay obscene amounts of money for dialup
           | speeds. I've heard that the UK customs officers also take
           | great joy in limiting what kinds of literature and files the
           | soldiers are allowed to import. They confiscate anything they
           | deem obscene (eg Playboy magazines or a hard drive with porn
           | on it) or antisocial (apparently "motorcycle gangs" were a
           | hot topic at one point, so be prepared to say goodbye to your
           | copy of Zen And The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance)
        
             | markus_zhang wrote:
             | Lack of Internet is even better! it's like a prison without
             | the hassle of it. A dream. Well the customs officers are a
             | bit of annoying but it's OK.
             | 
             | Oh well, only for soldiers anyway.
        
         | rsj_hn wrote:
         | Or an audience desperate for some diversion, especially a risk-
         | seeking audience.
         | 
         | But no reason the machines can't just pay out 100% and so offer
         | risk to people who want to buy it in small doses without making
         | money off the troops in aggregate.
         | 
         | Anyways, much better than state run lotteries (which have way
         | worse payout odds than slots).
        
         | Justsignedup wrote:
         | People really desperately need table top rpgs! If they
         | introduce some pathfinder or Warhammer in there oh man the fun
         | these members can have. But then it is an _expense_ not a
         | _income_.
        
           | oogali wrote:
           | Like this? I guess it depends on the base and someone
           | stepping up to organize the game.
           | 
           | https://jblm.armymwr.com/calendar/event/75270
           | 
           | https://www.jbmdl.jb.mil/Quick-Links/Get-Connected-Clubs/
        
           | reef84_ wrote:
           | Cheaper to go to slot machines!
        
           | red-iron-pine wrote:
           | I've been to Diego Garcia. It is boring as hell; about all
           | there is to say. We got in trouble for trying to organize an
           | expedition to secretly catch and eat some of the coconut
           | crabs (which is verboten).
           | 
           | Also played D&D in the service. Most active tabletop gaming
           | group I've ever been in too.
           | 
           | Didn't D&D in DG tho.
        
             | poulsbohemian wrote:
             | > secretly catch and eat some of the coconut crabs (which
             | is verboten).
             | 
             | Was this out of environmental concerns / the crabs going
             | extinct or was there something more to it?
        
             | rkuykendall-com wrote:
             | There's no way organizing a secret group to capture and eat
             | some sacred monsters doesn't count as D&D.
        
           | isk517 wrote:
           | According to my buddy the Canadian Navy is absolutely
           | crawling with Warhammer players, apparently being a player
           | has been pretty good for their career.
        
             | yamtaddle wrote:
             | Yikes, probably cheaper just to bribe superior officers for
             | promotions :-)
        
               | isk517 wrote:
               | True, but if you've already spent the money might as well
               | choose a career that will at least allow you to tell your
               | parents 'See, I told you these plastic models will pay
               | off one day.'
        
               | yamtaddle wrote:
               | Fair point. That would indeed be priceless.
        
           | runjake wrote:
           | These games, along with D&D, were alive and well when I was
           | in the military.
        
           | LegitShady wrote:
           | or you can get them into 40k and take the rest of their money
        
             | pmarreck wrote:
             | this man Warhammers
        
           | orwin wrote:
           | In my country, barracks have "open days" (basically a
           | weekend, once a year i think) where they would present all
           | their clubs and invite external personnel to check out and
           | participate (long-term, not only on those two days). I wanted
           | to try fencing, so i went, and i finished joining the
           | tabletop club (and fencing too). This is what brought me back
           | to tabletops.
           | 
           | Then covid, moved to a city without any barracks close by, so
           | i couldn't continue, but military definitely have tabletop
           | rpgs (and they are very partial with those where battlemaps
           | are easy to set up)
        
             | CoastalCoder wrote:
             | That sounds awesome! Which country?
        
           | nacho_weekend wrote:
           | Anecdotally, my brother in the Air Force had a pretty regular
           | and frequent D&D group in the past 3 years. But I don't know
           | how widespread that is.
        
             | JamesSwift wrote:
             | Very common in all branches, it just differs based on what
             | the job is. Mechanics? Probably less likely. Intel? Way
             | more likely.
        
               | Wohlf wrote:
               | Can confirm it was fairly common in the Marine Corps,
               | even some of the grunts and motor transport guys would
               | get interested on ship duty. When you're bored as hell
               | you'll take anything you can get.
        
               | wyldberry wrote:
               | Boredom and creativity go hand in hand. Not necessarily
               | good creativity. On my first deployment i chugged a
               | bottle of syrup for $50 bucks and gave the corpsman heart
               | attacks. It is not fun throwing up syrup for an hour
               | after.
        
               | poulsbohemian wrote:
               | >Mechanics? Probably less likely.
               | 
               | Coincidentally, my partner's father was an airplane
               | mechanic stationed in Okinawa in the 1980s... and
               | apparently played _a lot_ of D &D.
        
           | hangonhn wrote:
           | Didn't the Prussian general staff basically invent the idea
           | of table top gaming/simulations?
        
             | radicalbyte wrote:
             | The Chinese were doing it >2000 years ago - I expect that
             | such games were a common tool.
        
         | shanebellone wrote:
         | It's almost literally death, jail, or slots.
        
           | realo wrote:
           | Presented that way, jail does not look so bad ...
        
         | shmde wrote:
         | US has a naval base so near to Indian peninsula?? Damn never
         | knew about it. Guess big brother likes to be everywhere.
        
           | yamtaddle wrote:
           | So near? Might want to double-check that. Indian ocean's big,
           | this isn't terribly close to India.
        
           | treis wrote:
           | It's not really near anything. It's in the middle of the
           | Indian Ocean ~1,000 miles from any other significant land
           | mass.
        
           | pphysch wrote:
           | Don't stop there. Diego Garcia and the surrounding Chagos
           | islands were ethnically-cleansed by a joint American-British
           | operation just 50 years ago [1], to make living-space for
           | this military base.
           | 
           | [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealing_a_Nation
        
             | lostlogin wrote:
             | Do you mean ethnically cleansed?
             | 
             | Ethical ethnic cleansing is hopefully not a thing.
        
               | pphysch wrote:
               | Yes, fixed.
        
             | Y_Y wrote:
             | To be fair the just scooped the Chagossians out, whereas
             | ethnic cleansing usually refers to extermination. Those who
             | ended up in the UK have been fighting a legal battle since
             | and seem to be making slow progress. From the British point
             | of view it was a slam dunk, since they didn't care about
             | the "man Fridays" and they got trident missiles in return.
        
               | pphysch wrote:
               | You may want to check your definitions. This is a clear
               | example of ethnic cleansing and should not be minimized
               | just because it isn't literal genocide.
               | 
               | https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ethnic_cleansing
        
               | Y_Y wrote:
               | Oh shit you caught me
        
             | pseudolus wrote:
             | The issue of the Chagos Islands was the subject of an
             | International Court of Justice advisory opinion which
             | concluded that 'the United Kingdom's continued
             | administration of the Chagos Archipelago "constitutes a
             | wrongful act entailing the international responsibility of
             | that State", that the United Kingdom "has an obligation to
             | bring to an end its administration of the Chagos
             | Archipelago as rapidly as possible, and that all Member
             | States must co-operate with the United Nations to complete
             | the decolonization of Mauritius' [0].
             | 
             | [0] https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/169
        
             | ethbr0 wrote:
             | Don't forget that people are supporting part of this
             | whenever they buy an .io tld.
             | 
             | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.io#History
        
               | Y_Y wrote:
               | You mean github.io isn't for projects relating to the
               | Indian Ocean!?
        
           | aosmith wrote:
           | Ever heard of the .io TLD? Dig deeper...
        
           | kornhole wrote:
           | 800 to a 1000 bases around the world
        
           | IncRnd wrote:
           | The proximity to India is why there is a US base on a British
           | owned Island.
        
             | yamtaddle wrote:
             | This one probably had more to do with protecting shipping
             | lanes from French interdiction, given the location and
             | which other countries had colonies and other operations
             | semi-nearby (spoiler alert: France). As far as why the
             | British cared to hold it in the last century, I mean, not
             | for why it's still a base now. Leave all the islands in
             | that area to France and it'd have been a dagger pointed at
             | shipping crossing the Indian ocean via the canal. Seize a
             | couple of the islands yourself, and at least you can keep
             | an eye on things and mount a plausible threat if a hot war
             | breaks out, to keep France from getting too bold with their
             | use of the nearby islands.
             | 
             | Britain had a bunch of other islands much closer to India.
             | Not even counting Sri Lanka.
             | 
             | Though, yes, protecting shipping lanes _to and from India_
             | would have been part of the purpose, but not just to India.
             | British Malaysia, various Pacific territories, and the
             | commonwealth states of Australia and New Zealand, would
             | have shared those same shipping routes, largely.
             | 
             | I'd guess that as a US base it's more likely to support US
             | or NATO operations, real or hypothetical, in or around the
             | Horn of Africa than it is to have much to do with the
             | subcontinent.
        
       | renewiltord wrote:
       | This is so little money that one can only assume that this is
       | done for morale reasons. The whole damn U.S. military makes only
       | $100 M off this? It isn't worth the revenue at all.
        
       | bluSCALE4 wrote:
       | They'll feel right at home once they're done with active duty
       | since they're basically 2 slot machine shops at every
       | neighborhood intersection.
        
       | rbanffy wrote:
       | I don't think my English vocabulary extends enough to properly
       | describe the surreal mix of stupefaction and disgust this very
       | concept creates on me.
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | Overtonwindow wrote:
         | May I Suggest "cluster fuck".
        
           | jslql wrote:
           | Is this a reference to that one movie?
        
           | rbanffy wrote:
           | No. Doesn't begin to describe it. Need something much
           | stronger.
        
           | thedaly wrote:
           | "Fucked" is another option. The US wastes so much money on
           | the military, but that all gets funneled to contractors and
           | the enlisted soldiers get fucked.
        
           | alex_suzuki wrote:
           | or SNAFU? Situation normal - all f**ed up
        
             | grecy wrote:
             | Just off the Alaska Highway in BC there are two lakes right
             | next to each other, officially named "SNAFU" and "TARFU" by
             | the military back in the day when they built the road.
             | They're great places to camp and canoe.
        
         | loser777 wrote:
         | "now ain't that some shit"
        
         | dokem wrote:
         | [flagged]
        
         | sneak wrote:
         | Consider the fact that the US military fleeces taxpayers to the
         | tune of Elon Musk's entire net worth every 10 weeks; I'm fine
         | with _consensually_ subsidizing that a bit from the incomes of
         | those who explicitly opted in to participating in it.
         | 
         | They've actually double opted in: first to join up, and second
         | to put money in the slot machine. Let them pay for it.
        
       | Justsignedup wrote:
       | Next up: U.S. Military cocaine dealers earn $100M a year from
       | service members.
       | 
       | I was gonna write more, but I fear I might be giving readers
       | ideas and honestly no military needs any more ideas on how to
       | monetize their soldiers.
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | boomboomsubban wrote:
         | The military has traditionally been kind enough to give
         | stimulants to servicemen for free. Cocaine until between the
         | World Wars, amphetamines got phased out in the past few
         | decades, and now mostly modafinil.
        
           | watwut wrote:
           | A lot of alcohol before.
        
           | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
           | As a serviceman I've never heard of this. Do Rip Its count?
        
             | red-iron-pine wrote:
             | NO-Explode & Rip Fuel.
             | 
             | Not provided by the service, though.
        
             | boomboomsubban wrote:
             | Stimulants are often given to pilots or people on Special
             | Forces missions to prevent fatigue. It's not a hidden
             | thing, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_psychoacti
             | ve_drugs_use... for some details. Historically, the use was
             | far more common.
        
               | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
               | Traditional [?] special forces
        
               | boomboomsubban wrote:
               | I don't have any idea what you're trying to say here. The
               | US military still gives out stimulants to servicemen,
               | though far fewer of them receive safer drugs than in the
               | past.
        
               | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
               | I'm only at odds with the words "traditional" and
               | "often". I'm a serviceman and I haven't heard of it. Were
               | you a pilot?
               | 
               | I'm also saying that special forces aren't exactly
               | traditional. Would you say that the military
               | traditionally sports beards and ballcaps because SF do?
        
               | boomboomsubban wrote:
               | The practice is traditional, and it's still done with
               | pilots and special forces. I don't know why you haven't
               | heard about it, the use is well documented.
        
             | potta_coffee wrote:
             | I almost died from a RipIt overdose.
        
         | shanebellone wrote:
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_involvement_in_Contra_coca...
        
         | hooverd wrote:
         | That's just Fort Bragg.
        
       | pengaru wrote:
       | I'm surprised this isn't outcompeted into failure by domestic
       | civilian competition base-adjacent where they can offer far more,
       | ahem, "services", to complement the gambling.
        
         | watwut wrote:
         | I am sure prostitution does well too.
        
           | red-iron-pine wrote:
           | Outside of every base there is inevitably a row of pawn
           | shops, tattoo parlors, asian "massage" joints, and one
           | 24-hour pizza place.
           | 
           | Every base has a standing order to avoid all of those under
           | penalty, except the pizza place, where it is discouraged
           | mostly because it's not great pizza.
           | 
           | Diego Garcia, however, is an island in the middle of nowhere
           | with nothing on it, so none of those exist.
        
       | sandworm101 wrote:
       | Question: Would you rather than service members gamble on
       | military facilities or at the local casino/bar?
       | 
       | I'm not talking about harm reduction per se, ie reducing
       | gambling. I mean would you rather have soldiers gambling/drinking
       | in the controlled environment of a base or out on the town? I've
       | been in situations/deployments where the CO has closed the base,
       | restricted our movements off base to operational only. It really
       | isn't much fun. So I am hesitant to criticize any on-base
       | activity that at least some people enjoy responsibly.
        
         | Pigalowda wrote:
         | I think they should gamble at the local casino (because there
         | aren't a lot of those locally forcing service members to have
         | intermittent gambling habits rather than continuous exposure).
         | The ready availability of having it on base at the NEX or
         | whatever creates an easily accessible temptation. For
         | destructive isolating behaviors like gambling I believe there
         | should be no accessibility to it on base and definitely not DoD
         | sponsored.
        
         | vkou wrote:
         | > Question: Would you rather than service members gamble on
         | military facilities or at the local casino/bar?
         | 
         | 1. The argument that soldiers are going to do drugs anyways
         | isn't a good reason to provide a weekly cocaine ration.
         | 
         | 2. I don't think all of these bases have a nearby casino.
         | 
         | 3. Lowering the activation energy for going to the slots will
         | increase use of the slots. If I had a magic tap that soda and
         | beer came out of at my house, I'd be drinking more soda and
         | beer. Despite having a corner store on the other side of the
         | street.
         | 
         | The military should be lowering the activation energy for less
         | destructive past-times, instead.
        
           | sandworm101 wrote:
           | >> 1. The argument that soldiers are going to do drugs
           | anyways isn't a good reason to provide a weekly cocaine
           | ration.
           | 
           | That happened in Canada. When Canada made pot legal, their
           | military went through a debate about whether it should be
           | sold on bases. They already provide alcohol on bases, even on
           | ships. Why not pot? But I have not heard of any slot machines
           | on Canadian bases.
        
       | _trampeltier wrote:
       | "overseas", does it mean tax free? Usually there are very high
       | taxes on such machines.
        
         | cperciva wrote:
         | Isn't the Federal government exempt from taxes imposed by the
         | States anyway?
        
       | twiddling wrote:
       | They have been running them a long time. I remember playing them
       | on post in the '80s in (West) Germany
        
       | kneebonian wrote:
       | Here's the thing, a military that isn't regularly exercised
       | quickly falls prey to the iron law of bureaucracy, as Dr. Hugh
       | Nibley once said "Leaders are those who surprise and discomfort
       | the enemy in war time, and rock the boat and upset HQ in peace"
       | 
       | If war isn't regularly and actively being prosecuted the military
       | turns to infighting, the officers that are promoted are promoted
       | because of their ability to suck up and kiss ass, meanwhile the
       | people that get things done, that bruise egos, and deal with
       | things directly end up phased out and pulled down.
       | 
       | Part of the reason WW1 was so horrible wasn't just because of the
       | technological advances, or the environments they fought in but
       | because of how many worthless brass were involved and f**ing
       | things up regularly. Hell France was only saved from falling
       | within a month because their top general went on a spree of
       | firing over half the commanders and replacing them with people
       | that produced results.
       | 
       | In the next substantial military conflict the US faces we will
       | spend a long time losing until we fire most of the people
       | currently in charge and the thinking changes.
       | 
       | As evidence let me point to the continual massive investment into
       | the fighter program. Those advocating the fighter program are the
       | cavalry commanders of the 1910, thinking in an outdated and
       | outmoded way of thinking that they are wedded to, and will
       | continue to rely on and push for despite the fact it is a clearly
       | outdated and obsolete way of thinking.
       | 
       | EDIT:
       | 
       | As noted below Dr. Hugh Nibley was Professor of Ancient Scripture
       | at BYU if you feel that substantially impacts your opinion of
       | this quote.
        
         | wl wrote:
         | For context, Hugh Nibley was a prolific apologist for the
         | mainstream Mormon church.
        
           | [deleted]
        
           | PakG1 wrote:
           | Attack the argument, not the person.
        
             | wl wrote:
             | I'm not attacking anything. If anything, I mostly agree
             | with the argument being made. I just think Nibley's
             | prolific work as an apologist is interesting context to his
             | words.
        
               | [deleted]
        
               | adolph wrote:
               | The description is oddly context-free, as if a reader is
               | supposed to know if this other work about a religion was
               | related to the observation about garrison vs field
               | soldiers.                 apologist       noun
               | SYNONYMS: defender, supporter, upholder, advocate,
               | proponent, exponent, propagandist, apostle, champion,
               | backer, promoter, campaigner, spokesman, spokeswoman,
               | spokesperson, speaker, arguer, enthusiast.
               | ANTONYMS critic
        
             | [deleted]
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | Invictus0 wrote:
         | The irony of criticizing the F-35 while complaining about
         | armchair generals.
        
           | [deleted]
        
         | swagasaurus-rex wrote:
         | Whats a better alternative to the fighter program?
        
           | kneebonian wrote:
           | Drones. Sure you can buy a $22 mil next gen stealth fighter
           | to secure air superiority but I can buy 200 drones that cost
           | $2k for 1/100th of the price, launch them from much closer to
           | the battlefield and good luck shooting all of them down to
           | establish your air superiority. Or even better you send in
           | your fancy fighter/bomber combo, I'm going to blanket the
           | effected air with drones programed to move in an erratic and
           | choatic manner and suddenly I just cost you $22 million for
           | something that I paid $100 for.
           | 
           | Remember the Panzer was a better tank than the Sherman, but
           | it didn't matter because the Sherman was cheaper to build and
           | faster to make.
        
             | supergeek wrote:
             | It's about a 1-2 ratio. F-35 costs around $80m and a single
             | predator drone costs around $40m.
        
               | pnpnp wrote:
               | That's not even accounting for the fact that Predators
               | aren't able to realistically be used with S-300/S-400
               | SAMs sitting everywhere. There's a reason you aren't
               | seeing aircraft near the front unless you're talking
               | about helicopters at or below treetop level. Neither side
               | in this conflict has stealth fighters capable of fighting
               | on the front lines.
        
             | pnpnp wrote:
             | You should check out the NGAD program. It's exactly what
             | you're talking about.
             | 
             | The problem with drones is that they're easily jammed.
             | Ukraine is lucky that Russia has been so incompetent, but I
             | bet the next major conflict has large scale jamming on just
             | about every frequency.
             | 
             | NGAD strikes a balance between drones and manned aircraft.
             | 
             | I don't really like the WWI cavalry analogy, either. The
             | fighters being used in Ukraine are a far cry from what
             | 5th/6th generation technology can achieve. The gulf war is
             | a better example of what happens when you achieve air
             | superiority. It turns out that's _really_ important in
             | modern warfare.
        
         | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
         | If experience is exercise, name a more exercised force than the
         | US military.
        
           | kneebonian wrote:
           | A fair point, and this is one thing we may have on any other
           | country of similar size and standing, but as we've seen with
           | Russia, that only counts if it's been what you've been
           | working for.
           | 
           | Our military is exercised to an extant, but it's also been
           | exercising for fighting asymmetric warfare, and irregular
           | combat, not conventional combat on a battlefield against a
           | comparable enemy. It's like running 3 miles every day in
           | preparation for a marathon, it's something and helps you work
           | out some things, but its going to be very different once the
           | gun fires to start the race.
        
             | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
             | One of Russia's big issues I've heard is that they command
             | down from above. They do not have a strong force of
             | decision-making NCOs. This seems plausible given their poor
             | and reactive performance in Ukraine.
        
           | danans wrote:
           | Any number of war-torn countries' militaries would meet that
           | criterion, from Afghanistan to parts of Africa.
        
           | potta_coffee wrote:
           | How many of those experienced personnel stick around to pass
           | on their knowledge? Not nearly enough to have an effective
           | military. We'll find out our true readiness when we face a
           | competent enemy.
        
             | mschuster91 wrote:
             | And who should that be? Certainly not Russia, they're
             | getting their asses handed to them in Ukraine and won't be
             | a threat for decades to come - Germany post 1945 had an
             | immense amount of industry and other production to help us
             | getting back on our feet rather quickly, but Russia doesn't
             | have _anything_ beyond exporting oil and gas.
             | 
             | And not China either, because no matter how unexperienced
             | the US Army is, the Chinese have virtually no experience
             | other than trading shots and fist fights on the Indian
             | border or acting like a school bully in their neighborhood
             | - and most Chinese stuff is based on old Soviet shit (whose
             | "quality" is currently being shown in Ukraine) or stolen
             | Western tech.
        
             | ryanwaggoner wrote:
             | That's the point: there are no other competent enemies,
             | either in the sense of funding, or in terms of wartime
             | experience. No one else even comes close. It's possible
             | that China will get there someday, but that's likely
             | decades and multiple conflicts away.
        
         | djmips wrote:
         | I could see this happening in the Russia / Ukraine conflict.
         | Perhaps Russia will improve over time because of this.
        
       | Y_Y wrote:
       | This is how Sega got their start.
        
       | mensetmanusman wrote:
       | Slot machines are basically a dopamine hit machine. This would be
       | analogous to government supplied recreational drugs.
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | structure7 wrote:
       | I won $25 in nickels from a slot machine in Giesen (1998). Turns
       | out it's hard to find a German bank that wants to accept and
       | exchange that. Spent two years feeding it into vending machines
       | on post.
        
       | klyrs wrote:
       | Horrible idea: require a military id to log in to the slot
       | machine; each person's jackpot is equal to the amount they've
       | sunk into the machines, and they're guaranteed to pay out every
       | 1000 pulls.
        
         | DonHopkins wrote:
         | At the Brainwash laundromat / cafe in San Francisco (RIP) they
         | had a bill changer that took $20 bills and returned quarters,
         | which was quite fun and entertaining to use, sounded
         | spectacularly jingly, earned you lots of attention and
         | accolades from everyone in the room, and gave reliable 1:1
         | payouts every time. Plus you could have food and coffee and
         | beer and play video games while waiting for your clothes to
         | clean and dry. That should be implemented at every military
         | base.
        
           | vikingerik wrote:
           | Reminds me of a probably-apocryphal story I read somewhere
           | years ago.
           | 
           | "I was in a casino, and saw a doddering old man sitting not
           | at a slot machine but at the change machine. He fed in dollar
           | after dollar, and would cheer and call out 'I won again!'
           | every time it dispensed his quarters. It was harmless, and
           | better he 'play' that than lose at a real slot machine, so I
           | left him alone with his fantasy.
           | 
           | I saw him again the next day. I pointed at the change machine
           | and asked why he wasn't playing that one since it was his
           | favorite yesterday. His reply: 'It was dispensing six
           | quarters for every dollar until they fixed it.' "
        
           | nerdponx wrote:
           | Almost every laundromat bill changer I've used accepts 20s. I
           | always felt very self-conscious getting so much change at
           | once, but maybe it'd be more fun if it had lights and bells
           | on it.
        
         | Buttons840 wrote:
         | That's like my fair slot machine idea, a slot machine that
         | spreads the winnings out evenly. You put in a dollar and then
         | win 95 cents, every time; fun!
        
           | LanceH wrote:
           | I'm offering lottery tickets for half off. They are used, but
           | have a higher expected value than the new ones.
        
           | klyrs wrote:
           | I was kinda aiming for "the methadone of gambling" but I
           | think your idea fits that better than mine.
        
           | jacobolus wrote:
           | For practical implementation (less change to manage), the
           | machine should probably take $1.01 or $1.05 and return $1.
           | 
           | The military base version could just take in $1 and return
           | $1.
        
             | moduspol wrote:
             | Military base version already for sale here:
             | https://www.gameroomguys.com/American-Changer-AC500-Bill-
             | Cha...
        
           | kube-system wrote:
           | That's entirely unrealistic.
           | 
           | No slot machine pays out 95%.
        
             | jaywalk wrote:
             | 95% every pull, no. But over long periods of time, that's
             | about what most machines pay out.
        
               | kube-system wrote:
               | I'm mostly joking, but it's closer to 90%
               | 
               | https://www.americancasinoguidebook.com/slot-machine-
               | payback...
        
         | peishang wrote:
         | Even more horrible idea: Adjust the payout probability in
         | proportion to the number of enemy combatants that an
         | infantryman has killed.
        
         | [deleted]
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-01-18 23:00 UTC)