Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries

theconversation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 243 posts

Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries

#51

Post by louhike »

rat9988 wrote: post #43
mc32 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you can’t think of what would happen if we just let things happen out there? Yes we’re made monumental mistakes like Arab spring and gulf war II. But those would pale compared to what would happen if we just let things go. All those repressed military desires by dictators everywhere suddenly given a green light.

I'm pretty sure countries' citizen as Lybia, Afghanistan, Syria, Irak would be way better without the US.

Let's not forget what has been done in South America.

Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries

#52

Post by dashundchen »

ThomPete wrote: post #27

One thing that is always missing from these discussions is the whole picture. You have to factor the pros and the cons in any situation. This kind of headlines and focus only focuses on the negatives with regards but forget to ask why we have a military, to begin with and what the cost would be if we didn't. A much healthier approach IMO is to look at how we can improve energy production in general as that's at the h…

> Our relatively wealthy, safe, modern lives with all the bells and whistles and freedoms we in the west take for granted, only is possible because it ultimately sits on top of military dominance that allows us to secure acccess to the proper resources and gives us negotiation power.

This belief astounds me. Do you really think your material condition requires the constant death, destruction and turmoil inflicted by the US military around the globe?

We should ask the 1 million dead Iraqis and Afghanis what the pros and cons of the past 20 years of American military policy. How about asking the average Libyan, Syrian or Yemini if our actions were worth it for "access to the proper resources"?

Or ask your children, who will be saddled with tens of trillions of dollars of debt spent on the military industrial complex for decades to come - money that could have been spent on improving health and welfare domestically for them.

Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries

#53

Post by mms1973 »

antoineMoPa wrote: post #6
ecmascript wrote: post #3

I always have wondered how people calculate pollution from countries. I mean, that must be from data gathered from the government? For countries/governments that doesn't even have or have a very limited garbage disposal, that must mean they pollute very little on paper when in reality people just throw stuff into the ground / ocean etc. I don't really believe this article. It seems like a typical clickbait shit artic…

Dirty rivers suck, but humanity's big problem right now is global warming.

No. Humanity's big problem is not global warming. It is uncontrolled demographic explosion in Africa and Asia.

More mouths to feed only will make ecologic problems worse.

Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries

#55

Post by tim333 »

ssijak wrote: post #35
mc32 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you have to balance that against not preventing instability around the world. What would it look like if China, Russia, Iran and many others were unchecked and we let them do whatever they wanted... Now, the current admin is cutting back on involvement. Some candidates call for more interventionism. That we’re retreating from “our duty” to be international police, essentially. So what is it?

I think you are living inside a big bubble. When was the last time China showed military aggresion outside its borders, especialy on the other side of the world? US doing the “checking” around the world left countless people dead for nothing, and a lot of countries ruined. Not to mention trillions od dollars spent on financing that. US complain about Russia meddling with US elections (through 150k worth of Facebook a…

Spring / summer 2019 I'd say:

>In March, Hanoi lodged a protest with Beijing after a Vietnamese fishing vessel crashed and sank after it was chased by a Chinese maritime surveillance vessel in disputed waters. https://www.inkstonenews.com/politics/once-bitter-rivals-us-...

Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries

#56

Post by mc32 »

brlewis wrote: post #45
mc32 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you have to balance that against not preventing instability around the world. What would it look like if China, Russia, Iran and many others were unchecked and we let them do whatever they wanted... Now, the current admin is cutting back on involvement. Some candidates call for more interventionism. That we’re retreating from “our duty” to be international police, essentially. So what is it?

>you have to balance that against not preventing instability around the world You are absolutely right. This statement is as true as saying you have to balance eating lavish restaurant meals 7 nights a week against letting your children starve. Completely true. However, if you're currently eating lavish restaurant meals 7 nights a week, the direction you need to go in toward balance is obvious. Would you support redu…

If it were me, I think we need to be able to fend off the largest rivals convincingly.

If Russia and China were to enter the fold and be good world citizens and share a common vision and cooperate, then yeah. We only need to be as strong as the combined strength of our nearest rivals.

Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries

#57

Post by brlewis »

bkohlmann wrote: post #9
leaveyou wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When was the last time the "people" were asked if they agree with the size of their country's army ? EDIT: we agree to disagree but my impression is that when it comes to army and security services the tail is wagging the dog almost everywhere - not only in US. Any congressman can be presented with classified information which with the right interpretation can justify basically anything and the said congressman will…

At least in the US, every 2 years. Congress funds the military and determines its size.

Just to close the loop on this and connect back to "the people":

Congress funds the military. The military funds large corporations. Large corporations fund congressional election campaigns. And "the people" base their votes off of campaigns.

Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries

#58

Post by godzilla82 »

mms1973 wrote: post #53
antoineMoPa wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dirty rivers suck, but humanity's big problem right now is global warming.

No. Humanity's big problem is not global warming. It is uncontrolled demographic explosion in Africa and Asia. More mouths to feed only will make ecologic problems worse.

US mouths eat more than asian and african. Source : https://ourworldindata.org/food-per-person

Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries

#59

Post by Fjolsvith »

easymodex wrote: post #54

How about the USA rather starts a military intervention in whichever country is destroying the environment the most. Fighting for a habitable planet for all mankind sounds like a better idea than fighting for oil, no?

By the looks of it, it would probably be in India or China. [1]

1. https://waqi.info/

Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries

#60

Post by martin_a »

readme wrote: post #21
Roxo wrote: post #2

Surprise, surprise, the military-industrial complex is destroying our planet. How people can still support this is beyond me.

I'm sure Russia and China would love if we dialed it back a bit! Of course, then our pollution will just be displaced by theirs. Then, if we all do it, aliens will arrive and they'll pollute the planet when they destroy us. I know a lot of people think aliens would have sufficiently advanced technology, that we'd be defenseless. I'm not so sure about that. We have nuclear weapons...

You really need to get yourself checked.
Post reply on HN